"Why should I get penalized for taking risks in order to further my group's goals?" This is a kind of disingenuous statement... You're not penalized for taking a risk. You're penalized for failing. Taking a risk doesn't guarantee failure - unless it's a poorly devised or executed plan.
The basic flaw with this thinking is as follows: THIS IS A GROUP GAME.
If I manage to steal that objective my group stands a better chance of winning... however it is me who is taking a risk of loosing personally - my PERSONAL loss is greater than the PERSONAL gain i get in case I manage to suceed. Why should it be so? Why shouldn't someone else risk HIS ass for our group's (and therefore mine) sake?
The very best group games, both physical sports and computer games have no personal penalties whatsoever included - and for a very good reason. If you induce excessive individual rewards or penalties you are going against the group goals - you are giving players a very unwelcome dilemma "should I be playing for myself or the group?". That's very simple. AFK leeching is an excellent example of how harmful this can be - players who find, whatsoever slight advantage to them individually will gimp their whole team because of it. If their reward/benefit was tied EXCLUSIVELY to group performance I'd say we'd have no AFK leechers at all.
I'm not arguing for "no risk" play where "everyone is a winner." Far from it. There should be clear winners and clear loosers with substantial rewards (and some penalties) for it. However, group rewards should be CLEARLY superior to individual ones - players who were exploiting heal reward mechanics in WAR scenarios are a clear example how harmful to group play this division of loyalties can be.
Don't even start that carebear crap. I've dodged more bullets and survived more attempts on my life during my time in the army and law enforcement than a good portion of you have years on this planet. Its a game. I get so sick of the hardcore pvp crowd calling people carebears acting like they are billy bad ass. You boys wasnt to be hard core go to the military or take a law enforcement job in one the crime meccas infesting the US. Until then don't act like you are bad because you like to kill people in a game.
DITTO!!
Have to totally agree here!
Some nerds think they are something special because they can sit behind a computer and post stupid threads like this one, not having to face anyone, beating thier small chests, and somehow pretend they are are the only true opinion out there. Some of you really need to get a life.....
People play games because (gasp) they enjoy them!! What a concept. If ppl like easy games more power to them! If you like hardcore Pvp more power to you.
As a casual gamer.....Personally there are days i get on Eve and make some kills, some days i just enjoy getting on WAR and taking a keep wth my guidies! So i say to some of you......Who Fing cares!!!!!
Played : WOW, LOTRO, COH/COV, EQ2, SWG, and WAR. Playing EVE Online and AOC. Wtg for SW:TOR and WOD
"Why should I get penalized for taking risks in order to further my group's goals?" This is a kind of disingenuous statement... You're not penalized for taking a risk. You're penalized for failing. Taking a risk doesn't guarantee failure - unless it's a poorly devised or executed plan.
The basic flaw with this thinking is as follows: THIS IS A GROUP GAME.
If I manage to steal that objective my group stands a better chance of winning... however it is me who is taking a risk of loosing personally - my PERSONAL loss is greater than the PERSONAL gain i get in case I manage to suceed. Why should it be so? Why shouldn't someone else risk HIS ass for our group's (and therefore mine) sake?
The very best group games, both physical sports and computer games have no personal penalties whatsoever included - and for a very good reason. If you induce excessive individual rewards or penalties you are going against the group goals - you are giving players a very unwelcome dilemma "should I be playing for myself or the group?". That's very simple. AFK leeching is an excellent example of how harmful this can be - players who find, whatsoever slight advantage to them individually will gimp their whole team because of it. If their reward/benefit was tied EXCLUSIVELY to group performance I'd say we'd have no AFK leechers at all.
I'm not arguing for "no risk" play where "everyone is a winner." Far from it. There should be clear winners and clear loosers with substantial rewards (and some penalties) for it. However, group rewards should be CLEARLY superior to individual ones - players who were exploiting heal reward mechanics in WAR scenarios are a clear example how harmful to group play this division of loyalties can be.
Nwesflash eevry game is a group game, also this game is more bloody solo orientated than any other jesus, no rvr and if there is nobody gives a fuuck about you, all anyone cares about is of they survive, and dont get me started on the revolutionary solo scenarios. So dont try to make it sound like warhammer is some sort of more group game than any other mmo, if anything its even less gropu orientated. Oh look in pvp you can group up if you want to cooridate winning, NESFLASH its the same in every other mmo if u want to suceed and try to accomplish something.
Sigh... what defines a game, any game, as a "group" game is the presence and importance of group goals and rewards. By group goals I don't mean some nebulous crap but very solid and real stuff...
For example, if you play 100% individualistic you get 20 points... However, if your team wins you get full 100 out of 100 points. That's 100 point direct to YOU, INDIVIDUALLY because your TEAM won. If the individual vs group rewards/penalties are set up this way then the game is a group game - it pays off better FOR THE INDIVIDUAL to play for the betterment of the group. If rewards/penalties for individual play outweigh those for group then it is an individual-oriented game (or "solo" in popular parlance) in a multi-player environment (say like boardgame Risk with temporary alliances etc).
That's why team sports are team sports - if your team wins, you win. And that's why there is so much "heroism" there that makes them so appealing. If a soccer player were heavily punished AS AN INDIVIDUAL for missing that goal he would be much less motivated to even attempt it. He'd be better off not even trying it - "leave it to others, I'll get my group reward if we win... and if we loose at least I won't get some extra punishment for trying." That's all very very basic.
If WAR had no indivdual rewards and goals within scenarios - for example if you got no reward whatsoever if your faction lost - then you would have NO individual exploits in there. You would play for your team to win - plain and simple. If your team wins, you win. What can possibly be unclear about that?
"Why should I get penalized for taking risks in order to further my group's goals?" This is a kind of disingenuous statement... You're not penalized for taking a risk. You're penalized for failing. Taking a risk doesn't guarantee failure - unless it's a poorly devised or executed plan.
No one plays a game planning to fail - or at least I hope not. They plan to succeed and hope they don't fail. The fact that there's a penalty - be it xp loss, item loss, gear deterioration, whatever... makes players less likely to be whimsical or careless. Conversely, it makes them more likely to step back, figure out what went wrong, why.. and then work out an alternative plan. I have *never* seen the amount of reckless and carless behavior in a MMO like FFXI or Lineage 2 that I've seen WoW or WAR or LoTRO. And I've played both types of games at length - sometimes having active subs to WoW and FFXI at the same time, for example. The difference is night and day.
Here's my personal attitude toward death penalties....
If I'm rewarded for my successes, then it seems only fair to be equally penalized for my failures. I gain xp for defeating a mob. I lose xp for being defeated by one. Tit for Tat. Yin and Yang.
For those who say "I don't want to be penalized by losing hours of my life having to get back xp or gear"...
Well, here's how I and, perhaps others who are more pro-penalty, would see that...
The knowledge that you have that time or xp at risk makes the challenge all the more exciting and makes careful planning and execution all the more important. Which, in turn, makes success all the sweeter... especially in situations that look really grim, but the group pulls together and somehow survives.
In FFXI you can lose xp and/or levels. I don't know the exact ratio, but compared to the cumulative amount of xp and levels I've gained in my time playing, the amount of xp and levels lost to dying is a drop in a bucket. It's negligible.
By comparison, I've died far more in WoW, for example, due to careless or reckless party members who would do stupid things 'cause they didn't care if they, or anyone else for that matter, died.
So... we can discuss philosophical differences in penalty versus no penalty all day long. It boils down to the same thing regardless... That's why nothing is for everyone.
As usual a pretty balanced perspective.
I agree with you up to a point. In a pure PvE game I think you should have a death penalty that stings a bit so players don't play like total asshats. It doesn't even have to have to be level loss, however. I've found that in LoTRO just adding dread that's hard to dispel and equipment damage seems to be enough at high levels. When parties wipe, it's generally due to incompetence rather than recklessness ;-)
However in any game focused on PvP, I think death penalties should be pretty light. The group penalties for failure should be substantial, perhaps even more than they are in WAR currently. However, no one individual should have to balance doing their job to the best of their ability and personal loss. In a chaotic PvP environment, the two are often at odds. Particularly if you don't play one of the "lynchpin" classes such as a healer.
On the other hand, in a pure PvE game if everyone is playing well the good of the group and the good of the individual should never be at odds. The encounters are static, if someone has to "take one for the team" that means that without a doubt the team screwed up. That's why I'm more in favor of penalties in PvE than PvP.
As an aside, having "death gating" be the quickest way to go back to your quest giver might not have been such a great idea in WAR . . .
I don't want to write this, and you don't want to read it. But now it's too late for both of us.
just as the title states, this is true with little to no consequence when dieing in the rvr lakes or in the scenarios. Good. Thank god. in some games where there was pvp , most people would not dare compete in the pvp because the pvp was risky, eq , you die the enemy could then loot your corpse , sell it or use the items you took Yeah, I hated that too. Drove me away from pvp. in others not only a looted corpse would happen but you have to start all over again from lvl 1 because the charecter would be worthless, and in others they had it a little more fair , where you kept your armor and items, but the gold you carried would be looted, or item that was on you could be looted. or in others your armor would be damaged and then a need for armor repairs would take place Boy, those games must suck. in warhammer, you dont lose anything when you die, no xp, no renown, no gold, no armor, or need to repair armor Sweet, less down time, more pvp. and the consequences for dieing were not there unless you consider holding your team back from doing its job so that the other forces could be better off in taking control of a certain area. Sounds like you need to be careful, or your death might hold your team back....wait I thought you said there was no incentive to stay alive...... is there really any reason to fear dieing ? no Sounds good. I don't fear death. when i needed to get back to a camp so i could get my reward from pqs influence or to buy armor , i would simply kill myself with a bunch of mobs on me and that was that, bam i was back . Sounds like a fun way to zone. Boy I hate running back to camp. i would never do that in eq or daoc cause then id have to pay for it one way or another. No doubt. That was one of the downsides to those games. I like faster travel too.
You make all sound so good. People may just start playing because of this. Of course, it won't attract assholes and gankers, but that is just another plus.
Hey man, Not all ffa pvp fans are assholes and gankers. Some players just enjoy pvp that isnt a FPS/mmo respawn fest.
Try not to be such a prick.
And some players do.
So, why is it o.k. for the OP to be a prick but not me?
Unless you think that the term 'carebear' doesn't come with a truckload of insulting conotations. In which case, I'd ask, how many people would proudly call themselves a 'carebear' as opposed to 'hardcore'?
The point was of my post was not to be a prick, but rather use satire and irony to illustrate how we all have different opinions. Written respectfully I would not have responded to this at all. Instead I emmulated his tone to illustrate the hypocracy.
"Why should I get penalized for taking risks in order to further my group's goals?" This is a kind of disingenuous statement... You're not penalized for taking a risk. You're penalized for failing. Taking a risk doesn't guarantee failure - unless it's a poorly devised or executed plan.
No one plays a game planning to fail - or at least I hope not. They plan to succeed and hope they don't fail. The fact that there's a penalty - be it xp loss, item loss, gear deterioration, whatever... makes players less likely to be whimsical or careless. Conversely, it makes them more likely to step back, figure out what went wrong, why.. and then work out an alternative plan. I have *never* seen the amount of reckless and carless behavior in a MMO like FFXI or Lineage 2 that I've seen WoW or WAR or LoTRO. And I've played both types of games at length - sometimes having active subs to WoW and FFXI at the same time, for example. The difference is night and day.
Here's my personal attitude toward death penalties....
If I'm rewarded for my successes, then it seems only fair to be equally penalized for my failures. I gain xp for defeating a mob. I lose xp for being defeated by one. Tit for Tat. Yin and Yang.
For those who say "I don't want to be penalized by losing hours of my life having to get back xp or gear"...
Well, here's how I and, perhaps others who are more pro-penalty, would see that...
The knowledge that you have that time or xp at risk makes the challenge all the more exciting and makes careful planning and execution all the more important. Which, in turn, makes success all the sweeter... especially in situations that look really grim, but the group pulls together and somehow survives.
In FFXI you can lose xp and/or levels. I don't know the exact ratio, but compared to the cumulative amount of xp and levels I've gained in my time playing, the amount of xp and levels lost to dying is a drop in a bucket. It's negligible.
By comparison, I've died far more in WoW, for example, due to careless or reckless party members who would do stupid things 'cause they didn't care if they, or anyone else for that matter, died.
So... we can discuss philosophical differences in penalty versus no penalty all day long. It boils down to the same thing regardless... That's why nothing is for everyone.
Wow well said.
This is exactly the way I and many other pro-penalty people feel. I have never taken the time to write it out like you did, and mainly just tried to explain that it adds to immersion and the excitement factor of having something to lose.
the tit for tat explanation is a really good one btw. but especially the one about how people would approach situations with more thought and not just blindlessly run into fights because if they die, who cares? It cheapens the gaming experience and if that wasnt that case then the kiddies and add guys would be weeded out fast. Im not saying if you dont like penalties then you are a kiddie, im simply saying those gamers who we have all experienced wouldnt be able to handle it. The ones that go "lol guys cmon dont be nub just charge lolz cmon noobs".
It definitely makes things more challenging, and without the mechanics in place to actually penalize me for my mistakes while rewarding my accomplishments, then i feel like im just wasting my time in a pointless chat room than actually playing a game.
Reading this argument - again (9 pages? Really?) - kind of reminds me of watching children in the schoolyard arguing, then being interrupted by a teacher or two:
Kid #1: I like my PvP this way! This game sucks because the PvP isn't the way I like it!"
Kid #2: "Well, I like my PvP this way! If you don't like it, you suck!"
Teacher: "Who cares? Games should be fun. If the game isn't fun, go play another one that is fun."
Let's try another argument, equally as ridiculous.
I like the color red. Anyone who doesn't like the color red obviously needs insulted in some manner...oh, just for fun, we'll say that people who don't like the color red all need to grow up and get a life - especially the people who like the color blue. Can't stand those freaks. Those damn people who like the color blue only like it because it's so easy to find and there's no work involved in looking up at the sky. Bums!
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
You guys sound real knowledgeable but you are all really full of it to some degree. The PvP in this game is pretty horrible. Penalties won't work in making that any different though. If you played the games you say you have played, such as EVE and UO, then you know just how many kids dominate that game. We aren't talking about harmless WoW kiddies who go spamming how great something is. No. We are talking about that one guy who thinks he is uber just because he has 12 hours out of his day to spend standing outside of a IDOC. We are talking about the people who use their moms credit card to buy gold so they can avoid the penalties that you say are so fantastic. Then when they are bored they just sit there with nothing better to do but sit at brit or moonglow bank and leetspeak to all the noobs, talking about their meaningless lives in front of everyone, as if they were so spectacular and everyone else was a slab of turd patty.
I really doubt if any of you even played any of these games you say you have. Even if you did why are you HERE? I am here because I just cancelled my account and wanted to read someone else ***** about how they don't like the game because it would make me feel better about not playing it. Why are YOU here? If you are so elite and uber; WHY ARE YOU HERE? There isn't 1 true vet in the world who would waste his time either here on this forum or playing this game.
The problem with this game is what was stated by most true vets at the very beginning; WoW Sucks, and so do you.
When I quit a game I don't come to a forum to read similar posts to feel better about my decision. If I thought I didn't feel better quitting.. I would still be playing.
At least for me personally I come to forums to see different perspectives... As long as someone is presenting a personal point of view.. its nice because I get to see something from another perspective. When people present a point of view as fact.. not so much.
DAoC wasn't exactly heavy on a death penalty either. I personally didn't like the EQ1/FFXI penalty. Mostly because part of the game was you found a nice drop. Died and it doesn't matter how .. losing a level.
If you lose a level what do you put back into the game? Time. And beyond it may stretch out your sub how does this help?
Now in Ultima Online.. risk vs. reward. I kill a guy in pvp I loot his stuff. He kills me he loots my stuff.
No uber loot .. well ok some people were dumb enough to pay for weapons "of vanquishing" that didn't really do anything more than a crafted weapon would have. The penalty? You lost your stuff.
What did it put back into the game? You had to go buy new gear from a crafter.
Oddly enough in that game gear was sold cheap.. I know because I ran a crafter for 4 years.
That type of death penalty was great as it put back into the player based economy...
Most death systems don't do that at all. Which is why I don't agree with them. I wouldn't use the term carebear.. but dying in WAR certainly didn't feel all that negative.
Originally posted by markoraos AFK leeching is an excellent example of how harmful this can be - players who find, whatsoever slight advantage to them individually will gimp their whole team because of it. If their reward/benefit was tied EXCLUSIVELY to group performance I'd say we'd have no AFK leechers at all.Originally posted by WSIMike
Originally posted by markoraos
The basic flaw with this thinking is as follows: THIS IS A GROUP GAME.
WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING? I CAN 'HEAR' YOU JUST FINE.
That said, yes... I'm aware it's a "group game. Thanks for the reminder though
If I manage to steal that objective my group stands a better chance of winning... however it is me who is taking a risk of loosing personally - my PERSONAL loss is greater than the PERSONAL gain i get in case I manage to suceed. Why should it be so? Why shouldn't someone else risk HIS ass for our group's (and therefore mine) sake
... because you're acting as a team player and putting the good of the group before your own?You know... That whole "team spirit" thing?
I would hope you have at least one other team member helping you protect that objective as best they can. If not, and you're a lone wolf out there, your team isn't working very much like a team at all, in my opinion.
The very best group games, both physical sports and computer games have no personal penalties whatsoever included - and for a very good reason. If you induce excessive individual rewards or penalties you are going against the group goals - you are giving players a very unwelcome dilemma "should I be playing for myself or the group?". That's very simple. I'm not arguing for "no risk" play where "everyone is a winner." Far from it. There should be clear winners and clear loosers with substantial rewards (and some penalties) for it. However, group rewards should be CLEARLY superior to individual ones - players who were exploiting heal reward mechanics in WAR scenarios are a clear example how harmful to group play this division of loyalties can be. ... Hey! Where ya goin? I'm over here...
Somehow I think you've veered off on to a separate rant here.
When did I mention anything about group rewards or penalties versus individual rewards or penalties in my previous post? If you'd like to respond to my posts and have a conversation, I'm all for it.. but can we please at least have the same discussion?
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
the tit for tat explanation is a really good one btw. but especially the one about how people would approach situations with more thought and not just blindlessly run into fights because if they die, who cares?
I've got two separate recent experiences to illustrate both sides of this quite well, actually... They each happened within only days of each other.
Was grouped up another player the other day in WoW, out in Stranglethorn Vale. We were doing some quests and so were pretty much all over the place.
When ever we'd come up to an area with a group of mobs that were social the other player would dash into the middle of the group and start smacking away.
Of course, they'd get the aggro from the 3, 4 or 5 surrounding mobs. I'd do my best to heal them, taking aggro myself in the process. I'd end up dying... They'd survive and be laughing about it.
So I suggested, "when we come up to a group like that of social mobs, let me pull them one or two at a time. No point in rushing in like that if it's just going to cause one, or both of us to die."
They agreed.
Next group we came up to, they let me pull one or two and it went smoothly. We dispatched the entire group. No death.. not even close. It worked beautifully.
Well... I guess that was too slow and boring for them because the next 3 groupos after that, they did the same exact thing. Dashed in.. pulled too much aggro... and it ended with either me, or us both dying... sometimes more than once on the same group, until we finally managed to get them all down.
I said "Why do you keep doing that if you know what's going to happen?" They replied "LMAO! Who cares?".
I got aggravated and finally just said I had to go, hearthed and logged out, reminding myself that's one of the reasons why I get sick of those types of MMOs.
...
Now... just last night, I was playing FFXI. Was in a pick-up group out in W. Altepa Desert, leveling on Desert Beetles.
A bit into the party, the puller goofed and pulled a beetle when another was near-by and facing the one he was attacking... Since beetles aggro and link by sight, the other one added on. So he got a link and died before he could make it back to us.
After that, he was much more cautious and made sure that either a nearby beetle wasn't in aggro range, or that it was at least facing the other way before he'd pull. Lesson learned.
A little bit later in the same party... Puller goes out for another beetle and grabs one. In the meantime, another respawns right in the path he has to follow to get back to us... That happens sometimes and there's nothing he could have done to prevent it.
Our party's Black Mage, remembering what happened the last time, ran down and cast sleep on the second beetle...
The tank also ran down and provoked the remaining beetle off the puller.
After the tank had aggro, the White Mage cast a Cure II and then cast Regen to fill up the puller's HP without taking hate from the tank... which would have been easy to do so early in the fight if they over-healed.
Meanwhile, the Black Mage was helping kill the one we were dealing with, while keeping an eye on the one they slept. They'd sleep it again when ever it woke up, 'til we were ready to fight it.
In the middle of fighting that second one, a third one spawned right near us.
The tank quickly unlocked target and ran farther up the slope we were on to drag the one we were fighting out of aggro range.
We defeated the 2nd one and then rested up before dealing with the one that just spawned near us.
Everyone got on the ball and pulled together because we knew if we blew it, it would probably mean a group wipe, with lost xp and, in one person's case, the level they just got a few fights earlier.
Had that situation come up with people like the guy in my WoW example.. forget it. It would have been a wipe, because he wouldn't have cared enough to even try to save the situation.
Now that's not to say all FFXI players are awesome and all WoW players are reckless. There are exceptions on both sides.
However, those two scenarios are typical of the majority of my own experiences in games with a more harsh death penalty, versus those with little to none.
Many players are typically much more on the ball when blowing it has an actual penalty.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Losing all your phat loots, your gold, or getting set back to level 1. Sorry, those days are long gone. MMOs are no longer niche games. Their expenisve to make and maintain. They need a happy playerbase to survive and p1ssing them off will see your game die quicker than you can say "hardcore pro-pvp penalty".
Yeah, WAR is funny, you can basically "death teleport" back to the nearest village/town, which can be handy when you need to hand in a bunch of quests. But all this really does is save time.
The penalty for dieing should NOT be "lose xxx gold" because thats just meaningless and arbitrary.
The penalty should NOT be "I gotta run all the way back to the battle, zzzzzzzzzzzzz"
The penalty should be "oh craps, I gotta run all the way back to the battle, I hope we dont lose the objective before I get there and then it gets locked out for 24 hours!".
That is no longer a meaningless mechanic or timewaster. You dont want to die, and its not some stupid "lose all your phat loots" penalty.
Wow! Really? I never noticed this! Thank you for bringing it to our attention -- we'd all been unaware of it. I mean, it's weird. You'd think a game whose entire success rests on people playing the PVP portion of it would make sure that PVP was incredibly frustrating and difficult and that any loss was extremely painful and would cost you hours of time spent grinding in PVE. Nothing could make people love PVP more than that, righ? I just don't get it. What WAS Mythic thinking? How could easy, fun, low-risk PVP encourage people to PVP more? How would it get people who normally don't like PVP due to bad memories of UO gang-ganks and EQ corpse runs to try PVP again? I don't see how. You ought to tell Mythic this. I don't think they're aware of this fatal flaw. Maybe there's still time for them to add a feature where, if you die in PVP, your character is deleted and you're charged 100 dollars.
Pretty much what I was thinking. I mean come on....you know what this is a level-based RvR game. Do you honestly think PvP is going to be hardcore like Ultima Online use to be or something? It is what it is. I'm enjoying the game though regardless of the carebear feel. I enjoy the guys who play it like it is hardcore PvP though they make me laugh and keep it fun for someone like me who desires hardcore PvP.
It's a light-hearted, fun game that has a very in-depth RvR system. If you like teamwork in your MMORPGs this is a great game to get involved with.
You guys sound real knowledgeable but you are all really full of it to some degree. The PvP in this game is pretty horrible. Penalties won't work in making that any different though. If you played the games you say you have played, such as EVE and UO, then you know just how many kids dominate that game. We aren't talking about harmless WoW kiddies who go spamming how great something is. No. We are talking about that one guy who thinks he is uber just because he has 12 hours out of his day to spend standing outside of a IDOC. We are talking about the people who use their moms credit card to buy gold so they can avoid the penalties that you say are so fantastic. Then when they are bored they just sit there with nothing better to do but sit at brit or moonglow bank and leetspeak to all the noobs, talking about their meaningless lives in front of everyone, as if they were so spectacular and everyone else was a slab of turd patty.
I really doubt if any of you even played any of these games you say you have. Even if you did why are you HERE? I am here because I just cancelled my account and wanted to read someone else ***** about how they don't like the game because it would make me feel better about not playing it. Why are YOU here? If you are so elite and uber; WHY ARE YOU HERE? There isn't 1 true vet in the world who would waste his time either here on this forum or playing this game.
The problem with this game is what was stated by most true vets at the very beginning; WoW Sucks, and so do you.
more until you realize your foolishness
ggkthxbye
Wow, you really said it. You have a lot of nerve talking about other's foolishness.
Coming to a forum to get validation from strangers is a whole lot more pathetic imo than what you are discribing.
As a long time (3 years) Eve-Online player I must admit I am loving the pvp on this game.
Its fast. its fun..I can work with my friends and smack down greenskins for a few hours and not worry about what happens when I die. 2 rl friends of mine are now enjoying the pvp aspects greatly..and these are die hard anti pvpers until this and one is considering moving into pvp on eve where he also plays as a industrialist/miner only.
If it takes a softcore pvp game to get more people into pvp..LONG LIVE WARHAMMER.
Its not for everyone. Neither is Eve. But I am glad to see the variety of options out there.
As a long time (3 years) Eve-Online player I must admit I am loving the pvp on this game. Its fast. its fun..I can work with my friends and smack down greenskins for a few hours and not worry about what happens when I die. 2 rl friends of mine are now enjoying the pvp aspects greatly..and these are die hard anti pvpers until this and one is considering moving into pvp on eve where he also plays as a industrialist/miner only.
If it takes a softcore pvp game to get more people into pvp..LONG LIVE WARHAMMER.
Its not for everyone. Neither is Eve. But I am glad to see the variety of options out there.
And no you can't have my stuff.
I think this illustrates a different point of view in regards to pvp.
Although I agree that penalties in pvp CAN add an element of risk to the game, if the game was designed around a pvp penalty system. WAR is not that game.
If you added penalties to WAR pvp, then you would get an entirely different atmosphere. They designed the game so that the action would be fast and furious. They didn't want two armies staring at each other methodically plotting how they could achieve success without death. They wanted 'people running around like lunatics smashing each other to pieces' (maybe not the exact quote, but close). Which is precisely what sets this games pvp apart from EVE's pvp design choice.
Second, they were completely upfront about this through the entire development process. If you didn't want fast-paced pvp without penalties, why pick this game up? And think of the alternative. What if they had talked up fast-paced pvp with no penalties and then released a game with slow methodic pvp with penalties. This forum would have started smoking from the 'broken promises' post count.
Lastly, and I've said this before. Judge the game on how well they executed their design, on how much fun it is.
The pvp in EVE is good because the design was well executed, not because they chose the 'right' pvp philosophy. Compare to EQ1 pvp. They chose the 'right' pvp philosophy, but it was horribly executed. It encouraged griefing and ganking and frustration for losing that item you camped 12 hours for. Both games have 'penalty' based pvp, one is good - one is bad.
So I believe a more acurate critique of WAR's pvp would be to ask the question, was the non-penalty pvp design choice well executed? Did it achieve people running around like lunatics? Did it eliminate staring contests between two armies? Or beyond that, I see that this design choice added a whole new demension to strategies we hadn't seen before. Now you can have 'sacrifice' groups to draw people out, knowing full well they were toast, to open an opportunity to a sneaky group. Think about Phoenix Gate, T2 scenario, group 1 will rush the bridge, heading full force to the flag. Folly right? Except they rush up and then start to pull back, usually dying one by one. The other side follows, gets cocky, thinks 'what a bunch of newbs'. All the while, group 2 is sneaking around back, waiting for them to be drawn out, rushes in and grabs the flag. Bingo. A new strategy which NEVER would have happened in a game where there were serious consequences to dying.
And just to be clear. There are death penalties in WAR. You get stacking 'battle fatigue' which by lowering 'wounds' makes you very vulnerable. It is remedied with paying a nominal fee to a healer, which is similar to other games 'item repair' penalty. It is certainly not punitive, but it is certainly a penalty. But a greater penalty is the respawn time and run time lost to your Warband. If all healers are targeted and taken out, the the rest of the warband will be dead before they return. So it gives healers incentive not to die, it gives players incentive to protect their healers and so on. In fact, I guess you could say that WAR is carebear pvp, if you don't consider winning the battle to be important. But I ask , why did you pick the game up if you didn't want to win battles?
If you are unhappy with WAR's pvp; if you bought the game expecting harsh penalties for dying; if you expected people to be wary going into pvp battle. If that type of pvp is what gets your blood boiling, then I say the only fault lies with your own purchase decision. By complaining that the developers did something wrong is bullocks. They told you what the pvp would be like, they told you. And you bought the game. It is your fault, not theirs.
It would be one thing if i saw posts saying things like:
"I haven't tried WAR because I don't get a thrill from that type of pvp"
-or-
"I thought I would give WAR's pvp a try, to see if I could like non-penalty pvp, but I guess it really doesn't work for me"
-or-
"I didn't know what to expect from WAR because I didn't keep up with development, so I was disappointed in the type of pvp they used"
-or-
"Their pvp system works well, however, I have found that WAR is not everywhere. When pvp happens, it happens as designed, the problem is I thought it would happen a lot more often".
As a long time (3 years) Eve-Online player I must admit I am loving the pvp on this game. Its fast. its fun..I can work with my friends and smack down greenskins for a few hours and not worry about what happens when I die. 2 rl friends of mine are now enjoying the pvp aspects greatly..and these are die hard anti pvpers until this and one is considering moving into pvp on eve where he also plays as a industrialist/miner only. If it takes a softcore pvp game to get more people into pvp..LONG LIVE WARHAMMER. Its not for everyone. Neither is Eve. But I am glad to see the variety of options out there. And no you can't have my stuff.
I think this illustrates a different point of view in regards to pvp.
Although I agree that penalties in pvp CAN add an element of risk to the game, if the game was designed around a pvp penalty system. WAR is not that game.
If you added penalties to WAR pvp, then you would get an entirely different atmosphere. They designed the game so that the action would be fast and furious. They didn't want two armies staring at each other methodically plotting how they could achieve success without death. They wanted 'people running around like lunatics smashing each other to pieces' (maybe not the exact quote, but close). Which is precisely what sets this games pvp apart from EVE's pvp design choice.
Second, they were completely upfront about this through the entire development process. If you didn't want fast-paced pvp without penalties, why pick this game up? And think of the alternative. What if they had talked up fast-paced pvp with no penalties and then released a game with slow methodic pvp with penalties. This forum would have started smoking from the 'broken promises' post count.
Lastly, and I've said this before. Judge the game on how well they executed their design, on how much fun it is.
The pvp in EVE is good because the design was well executed, not because they chose the 'right' pvp philosophy. Compare to EQ1 pvp. They chose the 'right' pvp philosophy, but it was horribly executed. It encouraged griefing and ganking and frustration for losing that item you camped 12 hours for. Both games have 'penalty' based pvp, one is good - one is bad.
So I believe a more acurate critique of WAR's pvp would be to ask the question, was the non-penalty pvp design choice well executed? Did it achieve people running around like lunatics? Did it eliminate staring contests between two armies? Or beyond that, I see that this design choice added a whole new demension to strategies we hadn't seen before. Now you can have 'sacrifice' groups to draw people out, knowing full well they were toast, to open an opportunity to a sneaky group. Think about Phoenix Gate, T2 scenario, group 1 will rush the bridge, heading full force to the flag. Folly right? Except they rush up and then start to pull back, usually dying one by one. The other side follows, gets cocky, thinks 'what a bunch of newbs'. All the while, group 2 is sneaking around back, waiting for them to be drawn out, rushes in and grabs the flag. Bingo. A new strategy which NEVER would have happened in a game where there were serious consequences to dying.
And just to be clear. There are death penalties in WAR. You get stacking 'battle fatigue' which by lowering 'wounds' makes you very vulnerable. It is remedied with paying a nominal fee to a healer, which is similar to other games 'item repair' penalty. It is certainly not punitive, but it is certainly a penalty. But a greater penalty is the respawn time and run time lost to your Warband. If all healers are targeted and taken out, the the rest of the warband will be dead before they return. So it gives healers incentive not to die, it gives players incentive to protect their healers and so on. In fact, I guess you could say that WAR is carebear pvp, if you don't consider winning the battle to be important. But I ask , why did you pick the game up if you didn't want to win battles?
If you are unhappy with WAR's pvp; if you bought the game expecting harsh penalties for dying; if you expected people to be wary going into pvp battle. If that type of pvp is what gets your blood boiling, then I say the only fault lies with your own purchase decision. By complaining that the developers did something wrong is bullocks. They told you what the pvp would be like, they told you. And you bought the game. It is your fault, not theirs.
It would be one thing if i saw posts saying things like:
"I haven't tried WAR because I don't get a thrill from that type of pvp"
-or-
"I thought I would give WAR's pvp a try, to see if I could like non-penalty pvp, but I guess it really doesn't work for me"
-or-
"I didn't know what to expect from WAR because I didn't keep up with development, so I was disappointed in the type of pvp they used"
-or-
"Their pvp system works well, however, I have found that WAR is not everywhere. When pvp happens, it happens as designed, the problem is I thought it would happen a lot more often".
I don't agree that people should be blamed for not knowing every aspect of a game before release and then understanding how it actually plays out in the game. Even though I disagree with what most of the harsh death penalty players are saying, I think there is some validity to their views. Not to the extremes some are posting and bashing, but just underneath all that hardcore/carebear talk is some very interesting points.
just as the title states, this is true with little to no consequence when dieing in the rvr lakes or in the scenarios. in some games where there was pvp , most people would not dare compete in the pvp because the pvp was risky, eq , you die the enemy could then loot your corpse , sell it or use the items you took in others not only a looted corpse would happen but you have to start all over again from lvl 1 because the charecter would be worthless, and in others they had it a little more fair , where you kept your armor and items, but the gold you carried would be looted, or item that was on you could be looted. or in others your armor would be damaged and then a need for armor repairs would take place in warhammer, you dont lose anything when you die, no xp, no renown, no gold, no armor, or need to repair armor and the consequences for dieing were not there unless you consider holding your team back from doing its job so that the other forces could be better off in taking control of a certain area. is there really any reason to fear dieing ? no when i needed to get back to a camp so i could get my reward from pqs influence or to buy armor , i would simply kill myself with a bunch of mobs on me and that was that, bam i was back . i would never do that in eq or daoc cause then id have to pay for it one way or another.
Why you play this useless carebear pvp then this was already known before launch lol.
If you want real pvp just wait for Darkfall:)
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
Its kinda sad to see threads like this ... people who claim to be such old schoolers and loving FFA pvp but they show their utter lack of understanding to game design by hating on games like WAR or WoW for not having a harsh enough death penalty.
FFA Games with harsh death penalties have their place in the world and its never been a large one which is why smaller game companies like the guys makign Darkfall tend to make those games. They're also fundamentally different in what the game is designed to promote. Games like Eve and Darkfall are not designed around mass combat and constant killing people (though it does happen of course) while its expected to happen on occasion the games are designed as 'worlds' that you populate and take on a roll in as a crafter or a diplomate or a murderer. In order for people to feel they are impacted by the world and impacting the world there needs to be consequences. Hence the death penalties and the right to kill a person for being a jerk right where they stand or just because you feel like it.
Games like WAR are designed around "mass' combat and constant fighting. Its also designed around the idea that people choose a side not just a guild and thats the side they fight for not against. If everyone could kill everyone there would be no point to the central core of the game which is to take out the otherside and capture their city. People wont' flock into PvP constantly on a daily basis if they lose xp, gear, loads of cash, and there's little to no idea of whos' against you or with you. Warhammer PvP is not 'carebear' its designed to promote constant warfare.
The word carebear is being tossed around way to much these days and by people who have little idea about design. Carebear is PvP like WoW has where there's no goal to the PvP at all no purpose other than 'mini games.' While its not happened yet due to some design choices the WAR devs made the PvP does have a purpose and it has a goal.
While I dont think I could ever call every single FFA PvPEr a jerk I do tend to notice that a lot more of them are the PKing jerks that turned alot of people off to the idea to FFA PvP in the beginning. The PK jerks ruined FFA PvP ... if you really love FFA PvP so much you should take your anger out on the Lawless fun killers who basically chased away potential converts to the FFA way of gaming. They ruined it not the people who flock to games with preset rules.
Yep Warhammer pvp is meaningless, and thats why so many people get bored with it after a bit.
Yeah, meaningless and fun. Last night on Ironforge we had several warbands on each side going at it in tier 3, and it was insanely fun. More fun in one night than I've had in a year of WoW.
Originally posted by daquack As a long time (3 years) Eve-Online player I must admit I am loving the pvp on this game. Its fast. its fun..I can work with my friends and we all die to greenskins for a few hours and not worry about what happens when I die. 2 rl friends of mine are now enjoying the pvp aspects greatly..and these are die hard anti pvpers until this and one is considering moving into pvp on eve where he also plays as a industrialist/miner only. And no you can't have my stuff. Damn I am the green skin The PvP with death loots, maybe be somewhat popular, but you have to make sure the end user has a way of getting new gear fast and cheap. This aint the game for that, like UO was. I do not forsee any games that will have a huge exodus to it if they implement corpse loots, but do not provide reasonable replacements fast and cheap. That was one problem shadowbane had, lose all your magical stuff but can only replace with junk, or guild borrowed stuff. Eat Greenskin! rawr
Wow! Really? I never noticed this! Thank you for bringing it to our attention -- we'd all been unaware of it. I mean, it's weird. You'd think a game whose entire success rests on people playing the PVP portion of it would make sure that PVP was incredibly frustrating and difficult and that any loss was extremely painful and would cost you hours of time spent grinding in PVE. Nothing could make people love PVP more than that, righ? I just don't get it. What WAS Mythic thinking? How could easy, fun, low-risk PVP encourage people to PVP more? How would it get people who normally don't like PVP due to bad memories of UO gang-ganks and EQ corpse runs to try PVP again? I don't see how. You ought to tell Mythic this. I don't think they're aware of this fatal flaw. Maybe there's still time for them to add a feature where, if you die in PVP, your character is deleted and you're charged 100 dollars.
If coming across as a moron was your objective, you succeeded.
No Risk No Reward pvp pretty much loses it's flavor after a few months of play. Even in WoW the PvP of mindless suicide runs in the BGs got pretty boring pretty fast.
It's good enough to keep the mouthbreathers on it tho
WoW fanboi: "lolz 11.5 million customers, itz obviously da best"
Comments
The basic flaw with this thinking is as follows: THIS IS A GROUP GAME.
If I manage to steal that objective my group stands a better chance of winning... however it is me who is taking a risk of loosing personally - my PERSONAL loss is greater than the PERSONAL gain i get in case I manage to suceed. Why should it be so? Why shouldn't someone else risk HIS ass for our group's (and therefore mine) sake?
The very best group games, both physical sports and computer games have no personal penalties whatsoever included - and for a very good reason. If you induce excessive individual rewards or penalties you are going against the group goals - you are giving players a very unwelcome dilemma "should I be playing for myself or the group?". That's very simple. AFK leeching is an excellent example of how harmful this can be - players who find, whatsoever slight advantage to them individually will gimp their whole team because of it. If their reward/benefit was tied EXCLUSIVELY to group performance I'd say we'd have no AFK leechers at all.
I'm not arguing for "no risk" play where "everyone is a winner." Far from it. There should be clear winners and clear loosers with substantial rewards (and some penalties) for it. However, group rewards should be CLEARLY superior to individual ones - players who were exploiting heal reward mechanics in WAR scenarios are a clear example how harmful to group play this division of loyalties can be.
DITTO!!
Have to totally agree here!
Some nerds think they are something special because they can sit behind a computer and post stupid threads like this one, not having to face anyone, beating thier small chests, and somehow pretend they are are the only true opinion out there. Some of you really need to get a life.....
People play games because (gasp) they enjoy them!! What a concept. If ppl like easy games more power to them! If you like hardcore Pvp more power to you.
As a casual gamer.....Personally there are days i get on Eve and make some kills, some days i just enjoy getting on WAR and taking a keep wth my guidies! So i say to some of you......Who Fing cares!!!!!
Played : WOW, LOTRO, COH/COV, EQ2, SWG, and WAR.
Playing EVE Online and AOC.
Wtg for SW:TOR and WOD
The basic flaw with this thinking is as follows: THIS IS A GROUP GAME.
If I manage to steal that objective my group stands a better chance of winning... however it is me who is taking a risk of loosing personally - my PERSONAL loss is greater than the PERSONAL gain i get in case I manage to suceed. Why should it be so? Why shouldn't someone else risk HIS ass for our group's (and therefore mine) sake?
The very best group games, both physical sports and computer games have no personal penalties whatsoever included - and for a very good reason. If you induce excessive individual rewards or penalties you are going against the group goals - you are giving players a very unwelcome dilemma "should I be playing for myself or the group?". That's very simple. AFK leeching is an excellent example of how harmful this can be - players who find, whatsoever slight advantage to them individually will gimp their whole team because of it. If their reward/benefit was tied EXCLUSIVELY to group performance I'd say we'd have no AFK leechers at all.
I'm not arguing for "no risk" play where "everyone is a winner." Far from it. There should be clear winners and clear loosers with substantial rewards (and some penalties) for it. However, group rewards should be CLEARLY superior to individual ones - players who were exploiting heal reward mechanics in WAR scenarios are a clear example how harmful to group play this division of loyalties can be.
Nwesflash eevry game is a group game, also this game is more bloody solo orientated than any other jesus, no rvr and if there is nobody gives a fuuck about you, all anyone cares about is of they survive, and dont get me started on the revolutionary solo scenarios. So dont try to make it sound like warhammer is some sort of more group game than any other mmo, if anything its even less gropu orientated. Oh look in pvp you can group up if you want to cooridate winning, NESFLASH its the same in every other mmo if u want to suceed and try to accomplish something.
Sigh... what defines a game, any game, as a "group" game is the presence and importance of group goals and rewards. By group goals I don't mean some nebulous crap but very solid and real stuff...
For example, if you play 100% individualistic you get 20 points... However, if your team wins you get full 100 out of 100 points. That's 100 point direct to YOU, INDIVIDUALLY because your TEAM won. If the individual vs group rewards/penalties are set up this way then the game is a group game - it pays off better FOR THE INDIVIDUAL to play for the betterment of the group. If rewards/penalties for individual play outweigh those for group then it is an individual-oriented game (or "solo" in popular parlance) in a multi-player environment (say like boardgame Risk with temporary alliances etc).
That's why team sports are team sports - if your team wins, you win. And that's why there is so much "heroism" there that makes them so appealing. If a soccer player were heavily punished AS AN INDIVIDUAL for missing that goal he would be much less motivated to even attempt it. He'd be better off not even trying it - "leave it to others, I'll get my group reward if we win... and if we loose at least I won't get some extra punishment for trying." That's all very very basic.
If WAR had no indivdual rewards and goals within scenarios - for example if you got no reward whatsoever if your faction lost - then you would have NO individual exploits in there. You would play for your team to win - plain and simple. If your team wins, you win. What can possibly be unclear about that?
Here's my personal attitude toward death penalties....
If I'm rewarded for my successes, then it seems only fair to be equally penalized for my failures. I gain xp for defeating a mob. I lose xp for being defeated by one. Tit for Tat. Yin and Yang.
For those who say "I don't want to be penalized by losing hours of my life having to get back xp or gear"...
Well, here's how I and, perhaps others who are more pro-penalty, would see that...
The knowledge that you have that time or xp at risk makes the challenge all the more exciting and makes careful planning and execution all the more important. Which, in turn, makes success all the sweeter... especially in situations that look really grim, but the group pulls together and somehow survives.
In FFXI you can lose xp and/or levels. I don't know the exact ratio, but compared to the cumulative amount of xp and levels I've gained in my time playing, the amount of xp and levels lost to dying is a drop in a bucket. It's negligible.
By comparison, I've died far more in WoW, for example, due to careless or reckless party members who would do stupid things 'cause they didn't care if they, or anyone else for that matter, died.
So... we can discuss philosophical differences in penalty versus no penalty all day long. It boils down to the same thing regardless... That's why nothing is for everyone.
As usual a pretty balanced perspective.
I agree with you up to a point. In a pure PvE game I think you should have a death penalty that stings a bit so players don't play like total asshats. It doesn't even have to have to be level loss, however. I've found that in LoTRO just adding dread that's hard to dispel and equipment damage seems to be enough at high levels. When parties wipe, it's generally due to incompetence rather than recklessness ;-)
However in any game focused on PvP, I think death penalties should be pretty light. The group penalties for failure should be substantial, perhaps even more than they are in WAR currently. However, no one individual should have to balance doing their job to the best of their ability and personal loss. In a chaotic PvP environment, the two are often at odds. Particularly if you don't play one of the "lynchpin" classes such as a healer.
On the other hand, in a pure PvE game if everyone is playing well the good of the group and the good of the individual should never be at odds. The encounters are static, if someone has to "take one for the team" that means that without a doubt the team screwed up. That's why I'm more in favor of penalties in PvE than PvP.
As an aside, having "death gating" be the quickest way to go back to your quest giver might not have been such a great idea in WAR . . .
I don't want to write this, and you don't want to read it. But now it's too late for both of us.
You make all sound so good. People may just start playing because of this. Of course, it won't attract assholes and gankers, but that is just another plus.
Hey man, Not all ffa pvp fans are assholes and gankers. Some players just enjoy pvp that isnt a FPS/mmo respawn fest.
Try not to be such a prick.
And some players do.
So, why is it o.k. for the OP to be a prick but not me?
Unless you think that the term 'carebear' doesn't come with a truckload of insulting conotations. In which case, I'd ask, how many people would proudly call themselves a 'carebear' as opposed to 'hardcore'?
The point was of my post was not to be a prick, but rather use satire and irony to illustrate how we all have different opinions. Written respectfully I would not have responded to this at all. Instead I emmulated his tone to illustrate the hypocracy.
Here's my personal attitude toward death penalties....
If I'm rewarded for my successes, then it seems only fair to be equally penalized for my failures. I gain xp for defeating a mob. I lose xp for being defeated by one. Tit for Tat. Yin and Yang.
For those who say "I don't want to be penalized by losing hours of my life having to get back xp or gear"...
Well, here's how I and, perhaps others who are more pro-penalty, would see that...
The knowledge that you have that time or xp at risk makes the challenge all the more exciting and makes careful planning and execution all the more important. Which, in turn, makes success all the sweeter... especially in situations that look really grim, but the group pulls together and somehow survives.
In FFXI you can lose xp and/or levels. I don't know the exact ratio, but compared to the cumulative amount of xp and levels I've gained in my time playing, the amount of xp and levels lost to dying is a drop in a bucket. It's negligible.
By comparison, I've died far more in WoW, for example, due to careless or reckless party members who would do stupid things 'cause they didn't care if they, or anyone else for that matter, died.
So... we can discuss philosophical differences in penalty versus no penalty all day long. It boils down to the same thing regardless... That's why nothing is for everyone.
Wow well said.
This is exactly the way I and many other pro-penalty people feel. I have never taken the time to write it out like you did, and mainly just tried to explain that it adds to immersion and the excitement factor of having something to lose.
the tit for tat explanation is a really good one btw. but especially the one about how people would approach situations with more thought and not just blindlessly run into fights because if they die, who cares? It cheapens the gaming experience and if that wasnt that case then the kiddies and add guys would be weeded out fast. Im not saying if you dont like penalties then you are a kiddie, im simply saying those gamers who we have all experienced wouldnt be able to handle it. The ones that go "lol guys cmon dont be nub just charge lolz cmon noobs".
It definitely makes things more challenging, and without the mechanics in place to actually penalize me for my mistakes while rewarding my accomplishments, then i feel like im just wasting my time in a pointless chat room than actually playing a game.
---sig---
Click this for lulz: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/173737/page/6
Reading this argument - again (9 pages? Really?) - kind of reminds me of watching children in the schoolyard arguing, then being interrupted by a teacher or two:
Kid #1: I like my PvP this way! This game sucks because the PvP isn't the way I like it!"
Kid #2: "Well, I like my PvP this way! If you don't like it, you suck!"
Teacher: "Who cares? Games should be fun. If the game isn't fun, go play another one that is fun."
Let's try another argument, equally as ridiculous.
I like the color red. Anyone who doesn't like the color red obviously needs insulted in some manner...oh, just for fun, we'll say that people who don't like the color red all need to grow up and get a life - especially the people who like the color blue. Can't stand those freaks. Those damn people who like the color blue only like it because it's so easy to find and there's no work involved in looking up at the sky. Bums!
Firebrand Art
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
You guys sound real knowledgeable but you are all really full of it to some degree. The PvP in this game is pretty horrible. Penalties won't work in making that any different though. If you played the games you say you have played, such as EVE and UO, then you know just how many kids dominate that game. We aren't talking about harmless WoW kiddies who go spamming how great something is. No. We are talking about that one guy who thinks he is uber just because he has 12 hours out of his day to spend standing outside of a IDOC. We are talking about the people who use their moms credit card to buy gold so they can avoid the penalties that you say are so fantastic. Then when they are bored they just sit there with nothing better to do but sit at brit or moonglow bank and leetspeak to all the noobs, talking about their meaningless lives in front of everyone, as if they were so spectacular and everyone else was a slab of turd patty.
I really doubt if any of you even played any of these games you say you have. Even if you did why are you HERE? I am here because I just cancelled my account and wanted to read someone else ***** about how they don't like the game because it would make me feel better about not playing it. Why are YOU here? If you are so elite and uber; WHY ARE YOU HERE? There isn't 1 true vet in the world who would waste his time either here on this forum or playing this game.
The problem with this game is what was stated by most true vets at the very beginning; WoW Sucks, and so do you.
ggkthxbye
When I quit a game I don't come to a forum to read similar posts to feel better about my decision. If I thought I didn't feel better quitting.. I would still be playing.
At least for me personally I come to forums to see different perspectives... As long as someone is presenting a personal point of view.. its nice because I get to see something from another perspective. When people present a point of view as fact.. not so much.
DAoC wasn't exactly heavy on a death penalty either. I personally didn't like the EQ1/FFXI penalty. Mostly because part of the game was you found a nice drop. Died and it doesn't matter how .. losing a level.
If you lose a level what do you put back into the game? Time. And beyond it may stretch out your sub how does this help?
Now in Ultima Online.. risk vs. reward. I kill a guy in pvp I loot his stuff. He kills me he loots my stuff.
No uber loot .. well ok some people were dumb enough to pay for weapons "of vanquishing" that didn't really do anything more than a crafted weapon would have. The penalty? You lost your stuff.
What did it put back into the game? You had to go buy new gear from a crafter.
Oddly enough in that game gear was sold cheap.. I know because I ran a crafter for 4 years.
That type of death penalty was great as it put back into the player based economy...
Most death systems don't do that at all. Which is why I don't agree with them. I wouldn't use the term carebear.. but dying in WAR certainly didn't feel all that negative.
The basic flaw with this thinking is as follows: THIS IS A GROUP GAME.
WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING? I CAN 'HEAR' YOU JUST FINE.
... because you're acting as a team player and putting the good of the group before your own? You know... That whole "team spirit" thing?That said, yes... I'm aware it's a "group game. Thanks for the reminder though
If I manage to steal that objective my group stands a better chance of winning... however it is me who is taking a risk of loosing personally - my PERSONAL loss is greater than the PERSONAL gain i get in case I manage to suceed. Why should it be so? Why shouldn't someone else risk HIS ass for our group's (and therefore mine) sake
I would hope you have at least one other team member helping you protect that objective as best they can. If not, and you're a lone wolf out there, your team isn't working very much like a team at all, in my opinion.
The very best group games, both physical sports and computer games have no personal penalties whatsoever included - and for a very good reason. If you induce excessive individual rewards or penalties you are going against the group goals - you are giving players a very unwelcome dilemma "should I be playing for myself or the group?". That's very simple.
I'm not arguing for "no risk" play where "everyone is a winner." Far from it. There should be clear winners and clear loosers with substantial rewards (and some penalties) for it. However, group rewards should be CLEARLY superior to individual ones - players who were exploiting heal reward mechanics in WAR scenarios are a clear example how harmful to group play this division of loyalties can be.
... Hey! Where ya goin? I'm over here...
Somehow I think you've veered off on to a separate rant here.
When did I mention anything about group rewards or penalties versus individual rewards or penalties in my previous post?
If you'd like to respond to my posts and have a conversation, I'm all for it.. but can we please at least have the same discussion?
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
the tit for tat explanation is a really good one btw. but especially the one about how people would approach situations with more thought and not just blindlessly run into fights because if they die, who cares?
I've got two separate recent experiences to illustrate both sides of this quite well, actually... They each happened within only days of each other.
Was grouped up another player the other day in WoW, out in Stranglethorn Vale. We were doing some quests and so were pretty much all over the place.
When ever we'd come up to an area with a group of mobs that were social the other player would dash into the middle of the group and start smacking away.
Of course, they'd get the aggro from the 3, 4 or 5 surrounding mobs. I'd do my best to heal them, taking aggro myself in the process. I'd end up dying... They'd survive and be laughing about it.
So I suggested, "when we come up to a group like that of social mobs, let me pull them one or two at a time. No point in rushing in like that if it's just going to cause one, or both of us to die."
They agreed.
Next group we came up to, they let me pull one or two and it went smoothly. We dispatched the entire group. No death.. not even close. It worked beautifully.
Well... I guess that was too slow and boring for them because the next 3 groupos after that, they did the same exact thing. Dashed in.. pulled too much aggro... and it ended with either me, or us both dying... sometimes more than once on the same group, until we finally managed to get them all down.
I said "Why do you keep doing that if you know what's going to happen?" They replied "LMAO! Who cares?".
I got aggravated and finally just said I had to go, hearthed and logged out, reminding myself that's one of the reasons why I get sick of those types of MMOs.
...
Now... just last night, I was playing FFXI. Was in a pick-up group out in W. Altepa Desert, leveling on Desert Beetles.A bit into the party, the puller goofed and pulled a beetle when another was near-by and facing the one he was attacking... Since beetles aggro and link by sight, the other one added on. So he got a link and died before he could make it back to us.
After that, he was much more cautious and made sure that either a nearby beetle wasn't in aggro range, or that it was at least facing the other way before he'd pull. Lesson learned.
A little bit later in the same party... Puller goes out for another beetle and grabs one. In the meantime, another respawns right in the path he has to follow to get back to us... That happens sometimes and there's nothing he could have done to prevent it.
Our party's Black Mage, remembering what happened the last time, ran down and cast sleep on the second beetle...
The tank also ran down and provoked the remaining beetle off the puller.
After the tank had aggro, the White Mage cast a Cure II and then cast Regen to fill up the puller's HP without taking hate from the tank... which would have been easy to do so early in the fight if they over-healed.
Meanwhile, the Black Mage was helping kill the one we were dealing with, while keeping an eye on the one they slept. They'd sleep it again when ever it woke up, 'til we were ready to fight it.
In the middle of fighting that second one, a third one spawned right near us.
The tank quickly unlocked target and ran farther up the slope we were on to drag the one we were fighting out of aggro range.
We defeated the 2nd one and then rested up before dealing with the one that just spawned near us.
Everyone got on the ball and pulled together because we knew if we blew it, it would probably mean a group wipe, with lost xp and, in one person's case, the level they just got a few fights earlier.
Had that situation come up with people like the guy in my WoW example.. forget it. It would have been a wipe, because he wouldn't have cared enough to even try to save the situation.
Now that's not to say all FFXI players are awesome and all WoW players are reckless. There are exceptions on both sides.
However, those two scenarios are typical of the majority of my own experiences in games with a more harsh death penalty, versus those with little to none.
Many players are typically much more on the ball when blowing it has an actual penalty.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Losing all your phat loots, your gold, or getting set back to level 1. Sorry, those days are long gone. MMOs are no longer niche games. Their expenisve to make and maintain. They need a happy playerbase to survive and p1ssing them off will see your game die quicker than you can say "hardcore pro-pvp penalty".
Yeah, WAR is funny, you can basically "death teleport" back to the nearest village/town, which can be handy when you need to hand in a bunch of quests. But all this really does is save time.
The penalty for dieing should NOT be "lose xxx gold" because thats just meaningless and arbitrary.
The penalty should NOT be "I gotta run all the way back to the battle, zzzzzzzzzzzzz"
The penalty should be "oh craps, I gotta run all the way back to the battle, I hope we dont lose the objective before I get there and then it gets locked out for 24 hours!".
That is no longer a meaningless mechanic or timewaster. You dont want to die, and its not some stupid "lose all your phat loots" penalty.
Pretty much what I was thinking. I mean come on....you know what this is a level-based RvR game. Do you honestly think PvP is going to be hardcore like Ultima Online use to be or something? It is what it is. I'm enjoying the game though regardless of the carebear feel. I enjoy the guys who play it like it is hardcore PvP though
they make me laugh and keep it fun for someone like me who desires hardcore PvP.
It's a light-hearted, fun game that has a very in-depth RvR system. If you like teamwork in your MMORPGs this is a great game to get involved with.
Wow, you really said it. You have a lot of nerve talking about other's foolishness.
Coming to a forum to get validation from strangers is a whole lot more pathetic imo than what you are discribing.
As a long time (3 years) Eve-Online player I must admit I am loving the pvp on this game.
Its fast. its fun..I can work with my friends and smack down greenskins for a few hours and not worry about what happens when I die. 2 rl friends of mine are now enjoying the pvp aspects greatly..and these are die hard anti pvpers until this and one is considering moving into pvp on eve where he also plays as a industrialist/miner only.
If it takes a softcore pvp game to get more people into pvp..LONG LIVE WARHAMMER.
Its not for everyone. Neither is Eve. But I am glad to see the variety of options out there.
And no you can't have my stuff.
I think this illustrates a different point of view in regards to pvp.
Although I agree that penalties in pvp CAN add an element of risk to the game, if the game was designed around a pvp penalty system. WAR is not that game.
If you added penalties to WAR pvp, then you would get an entirely different atmosphere. They designed the game so that the action would be fast and furious. They didn't want two armies staring at each other methodically plotting how they could achieve success without death. They wanted 'people running around like lunatics smashing each other to pieces' (maybe not the exact quote, but close). Which is precisely what sets this games pvp apart from EVE's pvp design choice.
Second, they were completely upfront about this through the entire development process. If you didn't want fast-paced pvp without penalties, why pick this game up? And think of the alternative. What if they had talked up fast-paced pvp with no penalties and then released a game with slow methodic pvp with penalties. This forum would have started smoking from the 'broken promises' post count.
Lastly, and I've said this before. Judge the game on how well they executed their design, on how much fun it is.
The pvp in EVE is good because the design was well executed, not because they chose the 'right' pvp philosophy. Compare to EQ1 pvp. They chose the 'right' pvp philosophy, but it was horribly executed. It encouraged griefing and ganking and frustration for losing that item you camped 12 hours for. Both games have 'penalty' based pvp, one is good - one is bad.
So I believe a more acurate critique of WAR's pvp would be to ask the question, was the non-penalty pvp design choice well executed? Did it achieve people running around like lunatics? Did it eliminate staring contests between two armies? Or beyond that, I see that this design choice added a whole new demension to strategies we hadn't seen before. Now you can have 'sacrifice' groups to draw people out, knowing full well they were toast, to open an opportunity to a sneaky group. Think about Phoenix Gate, T2 scenario, group 1 will rush the bridge, heading full force to the flag. Folly right? Except they rush up and then start to pull back, usually dying one by one. The other side follows, gets cocky, thinks 'what a bunch of newbs'. All the while, group 2 is sneaking around back, waiting for them to be drawn out, rushes in and grabs the flag. Bingo. A new strategy which NEVER would have happened in a game where there were serious consequences to dying.
And just to be clear. There are death penalties in WAR. You get stacking 'battle fatigue' which by lowering 'wounds' makes you very vulnerable. It is remedied with paying a nominal fee to a healer, which is similar to other games 'item repair' penalty. It is certainly not punitive, but it is certainly a penalty. But a greater penalty is the respawn time and run time lost to your Warband. If all healers are targeted and taken out, the the rest of the warband will be dead before they return. So it gives healers incentive not to die, it gives players incentive to protect their healers and so on. In fact, I guess you could say that WAR is carebear pvp, if you don't consider winning the battle to be important. But I ask , why did you pick the game up if you didn't want to win battles?
If you are unhappy with WAR's pvp; if you bought the game expecting harsh penalties for dying; if you expected people to be wary going into pvp battle. If that type of pvp is what gets your blood boiling, then I say the only fault lies with your own purchase decision. By complaining that the developers did something wrong is bullocks. They told you what the pvp would be like, they told you. And you bought the game. It is your fault, not theirs.
It would be one thing if i saw posts saying things like:
"I haven't tried WAR because I don't get a thrill from that type of pvp"
-or-
"I thought I would give WAR's pvp a try, to see if I could like non-penalty pvp, but I guess it really doesn't work for me"
-or-
"I didn't know what to expect from WAR because I didn't keep up with development, so I was disappointed in the type of pvp they used"
-or-
"Their pvp system works well, however, I have found that WAR is not everywhere. When pvp happens, it happens as designed, the problem is I thought it would happen a lot more often".
--------------------------------------------------------------
Those statements are constructive critique.
"WAR has carebear pvp" is not. A statement like that says a lot more about the poster than the game.
I think this illustrates a different point of view in regards to pvp.
Although I agree that penalties in pvp CAN add an element of risk to the game, if the game was designed around a pvp penalty system. WAR is not that game.
If you added penalties to WAR pvp, then you would get an entirely different atmosphere. They designed the game so that the action would be fast and furious. They didn't want two armies staring at each other methodically plotting how they could achieve success without death. They wanted 'people running around like lunatics smashing each other to pieces' (maybe not the exact quote, but close). Which is precisely what sets this games pvp apart from EVE's pvp design choice.
Second, they were completely upfront about this through the entire development process. If you didn't want fast-paced pvp without penalties, why pick this game up? And think of the alternative. What if they had talked up fast-paced pvp with no penalties and then released a game with slow methodic pvp with penalties. This forum would have started smoking from the 'broken promises' post count.
Lastly, and I've said this before. Judge the game on how well they executed their design, on how much fun it is.
The pvp in EVE is good because the design was well executed, not because they chose the 'right' pvp philosophy. Compare to EQ1 pvp. They chose the 'right' pvp philosophy, but it was horribly executed. It encouraged griefing and ganking and frustration for losing that item you camped 12 hours for. Both games have 'penalty' based pvp, one is good - one is bad.
So I believe a more acurate critique of WAR's pvp would be to ask the question, was the non-penalty pvp design choice well executed? Did it achieve people running around like lunatics? Did it eliminate staring contests between two armies? Or beyond that, I see that this design choice added a whole new demension to strategies we hadn't seen before. Now you can have 'sacrifice' groups to draw people out, knowing full well they were toast, to open an opportunity to a sneaky group. Think about Phoenix Gate, T2 scenario, group 1 will rush the bridge, heading full force to the flag. Folly right? Except they rush up and then start to pull back, usually dying one by one. The other side follows, gets cocky, thinks 'what a bunch of newbs'. All the while, group 2 is sneaking around back, waiting for them to be drawn out, rushes in and grabs the flag. Bingo. A new strategy which NEVER would have happened in a game where there were serious consequences to dying.
And just to be clear. There are death penalties in WAR. You get stacking 'battle fatigue' which by lowering 'wounds' makes you very vulnerable. It is remedied with paying a nominal fee to a healer, which is similar to other games 'item repair' penalty. It is certainly not punitive, but it is certainly a penalty. But a greater penalty is the respawn time and run time lost to your Warband. If all healers are targeted and taken out, the the rest of the warband will be dead before they return. So it gives healers incentive not to die, it gives players incentive to protect their healers and so on. In fact, I guess you could say that WAR is carebear pvp, if you don't consider winning the battle to be important. But I ask , why did you pick the game up if you didn't want to win battles?
If you are unhappy with WAR's pvp; if you bought the game expecting harsh penalties for dying; if you expected people to be wary going into pvp battle. If that type of pvp is what gets your blood boiling, then I say the only fault lies with your own purchase decision. By complaining that the developers did something wrong is bullocks. They told you what the pvp would be like, they told you. And you bought the game. It is your fault, not theirs.
It would be one thing if i saw posts saying things like:
"I haven't tried WAR because I don't get a thrill from that type of pvp"
-or-
"I thought I would give WAR's pvp a try, to see if I could like non-penalty pvp, but I guess it really doesn't work for me"
-or-
"I didn't know what to expect from WAR because I didn't keep up with development, so I was disappointed in the type of pvp they used"
-or-
"Their pvp system works well, however, I have found that WAR is not everywhere. When pvp happens, it happens as designed, the problem is I thought it would happen a lot more often".
--------------------------------------------------------------
Those statements are constructive critique.
"WAR has carebear pvp" is not. A statement like that says a lot more about the poster than the game.
Excellent post, very well said indeed!
If you can't "Have your cake & eat it too", then how can "The proof of the pudding be in the eating"?
Take the Hecatomb? TCG What Is Your Doom? quiz.
Great post Zorgo and some very well said points.
I don't agree that people should be blamed for not knowing every aspect of a game before release and then understanding how it actually plays out in the game. Even though I disagree with what most of the harsh death penalty players are saying, I think there is some validity to their views. Not to the extremes some are posting and bashing, but just underneath all that hardcore/carebear talk is some very interesting points.
Yep Warhammer pvp is meaningless, and thats why so many people get bored with it after a bit.
Why you play this useless carebear pvp then this was already known before launch lol.
If you want real pvp just wait for Darkfall:)
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
Its kinda sad to see threads like this ... people who claim to be such old schoolers and loving FFA pvp but they show their utter lack of understanding to game design by hating on games like WAR or WoW for not having a harsh enough death penalty.
FFA Games with harsh death penalties have their place in the world and its never been a large one which is why smaller game companies like the guys makign Darkfall tend to make those games. They're also fundamentally different in what the game is designed to promote. Games like Eve and Darkfall are not designed around mass combat and constant killing people (though it does happen of course) while its expected to happen on occasion the games are designed as 'worlds' that you populate and take on a roll in as a crafter or a diplomate or a murderer. In order for people to feel they are impacted by the world and impacting the world there needs to be consequences. Hence the death penalties and the right to kill a person for being a jerk right where they stand or just because you feel like it.
Games like WAR are designed around "mass' combat and constant fighting. Its also designed around the idea that people choose a side not just a guild and thats the side they fight for not against. If everyone could kill everyone there would be no point to the central core of the game which is to take out the otherside and capture their city. People wont' flock into PvP constantly on a daily basis if they lose xp, gear, loads of cash, and there's little to no idea of whos' against you or with you. Warhammer PvP is not 'carebear' its designed to promote constant warfare.
The word carebear is being tossed around way to much these days and by people who have little idea about design. Carebear is PvP like WoW has where there's no goal to the PvP at all no purpose other than 'mini games.' While its not happened yet due to some design choices the WAR devs made the PvP does have a purpose and it has a goal.
While I dont think I could ever call every single FFA PvPEr a jerk I do tend to notice that a lot more of them are the PKing jerks that turned alot of people off to the idea to FFA PvP in the beginning. The PK jerks ruined FFA PvP ... if you really love FFA PvP so much you should take your anger out on the Lawless fun killers who basically chased away potential converts to the FFA way of gaming. They ruined it not the people who flock to games with preset rules.
Yeah, meaningless and fun. Last night on Ironforge we had several warbands on each side going at it in tier 3, and it was insanely fun. More fun in one night than I've had in a year of WoW.
Lets just call it weak pvp.
Can anyone tell me what game has strong pvp?
If coming across as a moron was your objective, you succeeded.
No Risk No Reward pvp pretty much loses it's flavor after a few months of play. Even in WoW the PvP of mindless suicide runs in the BGs got pretty boring pretty fast.
It's good enough to keep the mouthbreathers on it tho
WoW fanboi: "lolz 11.5 million customers, itz obviously da best"
McDonald's: over 1 billion burgers served