I PvP for various reasons. Here they are in generally descending order of importance or motivation:
1. To experience a different aspect of my character in the MMO
2. To achieve some set criteria that's attractive in the game context (title, special equipment based on PvP rank, etc)
3. For the added dimension of risk (the heart pounding element of victory or defeat
4. The social aspects
The thingsI don't find attractive about PvP are:
1. the application of asymmetric power (ganking or blasting out greatly inferior foes) for the pawnage
2. Griefing (just because you can)
3. Smack talk of both arrogant winners and whinny losers (there is always someone better, quicker, or luckier than you waiting around the corner ... why brag or whine about your win or loss).
The only kind of PVP I've ever found works is FPS style, games like Call of Duty, Medal of Honour etc etc. In the traditional point and click world of MMOs, from UO to Warhammer, regardless of how 'open world' or PVP-focused the game is, it always boils down to a few key elements; the kit used, add-ons and, in a distant third place, the stats skill of the avatar.
The gameplay skill of the player is, at best, minimal and at worst, when allied with timers and macros, almost an irrelevance. It's gameplay on autopilot. There's no use of cover, no use of environment, minimal teamwork and no real goals beyond 'I pwned joo!'. Two players stay very close to one another and spam key combos until one is dead.
The ruptured capillaries in your nose belie the clarity of your wisdom.
The only kind of PVP I've ever found works is FPS style, games like Call of Duty, Medal of Honour etc etc. In the traditional point and click world of MMOs, from UO to Warhammer, regardless of how 'open world' or PVP-focused the game is, it always boils down to a few key elements; the kit used, add-ons and, in a distant third place, the stats skill of the avatar. The gameplay skill of the player is, at best, minimal and at worst, when allied with timers and macros, almost an irrelevance. It's gameplay on autopilot. There's no use of cover, no use of environment, minimal teamwork and no real goals beyond 'I pwned joo!'. Two players stay very close to one another and spam key combos until one is dead.
I keep hearing the FPS people say MMO's are games on autopilot I disagree. Group warfare in daoc applied all the twitch of FPS, use of terrain, kiting etc. To pull off large raids in the OF took lots of teamwork.
When you talk solo pvp I can agree more. Gear+luck usually wins out. That's why I don't like purely solo pvp.
Also, you state something that to this day is a pet peeve of mine. Addons and macros. I play healer classes and I hate squared. It takes all challenges out of being a good healer. I didn't use addons in daoc. I didn't use macros outside of the /assist. Most of the time I played caster or CC class anyways so even that got used almost never.
I love that Aion does not allow addons in there game. I also have read that aion's pvp is similar to daoc in the group aspect of pvp.
FPS's are also reliant on lag, your fps as well. I think what set's them apart is they are almost always geared towards group strategy and that the pvp is always the focus of the game, where MMO's just throw in a dueling mechanism and call it pvp.
> The last form of PvP I’ll cover today is what I call “fighting for something.”
This, pretty much. Raising my character's rank showed a real accomplishment. PvE is okay, but it's often mindless. No matter how long it takes for a mob to spawn or regardless of how many hours a rare item takes to drop, there is simply no challenge. No feeling of accomplishment. It finally just happens and then you move on to the next mind numbing task.
At least in PvP there's a challenge, and when you go up ranks it can feel like your character is accomplishing something. Raising ranks is a goal-oriented focus of PvP for me.
With that said, open world PvP becomes irritating and loses it fun after a relatively short amount of time. Max level characters running the full view distance over to you simply to gank your character in a few hits is dull and tiresome. From my perspective (competitive focused, goal / accomplishment oriented) I have always failed to find the enjoyment of ganking. I suppose it's an ego thing, which, frankly, is a little disturbing.
That's why I enjoyed the battle grounds in WoW back when I played. They still had ranks at the time, and it was fun to watch my character gain PvP ranks. It was fun to receive duel challenges by someone who saw my character's rank and wanted to test themselves against it. Heck, I learned things that way, too. There was a sense of pride in the accomplishment, and I didn't need to put up with kids and their maxed out toons to do it.
I blame the companies that cannot understand what pvp'rs are really looking for and why people who don't pvp won't ever enjoy it with the current systems. It's a very sad state of affairs because I really feel that many anti-pvp'rs given the right setting, mechanics, and reason for it, would see pvp and find at least a little bit of the excitement I, and others like me, find in it.
Now this is an attitude I can understand. I don't consider myself a Pvp'er and really don't miss it if it's not in a game, but when it is and done right the shear sweat factor is awesome.
Pre-CU SWG; Getting a temp flag after hunting Faction NPC's and having to run, hide, watch every moving red radar dot.
Vendetta-Online; Faction based Pvp anywhere and anytime. Pop out of a wormhole / jumphole and immediately zig off and do a radar check. Watching and scanning since you just never know who's out there.
PotBS; Like my first example of a 3 vs 2, or scouting for a group and getting jumped then trying to stay ahead of the death curve til your allies can arrive.
I never had a problem with dieing; and I did it alot, when it was my own fault (out of position, wrong group join click etc...). Only problem was with the gankers - waiting on the pier with you and jumping in and locking you up before you even rez'd in. Camping the spawn in points etc....
When it's done right ....... there's no better feeling, more so when you win.
um this was back in the late/mid 90s doof, not 2007 Things were different back then. Do you rember the late 90s?
Why yes, yes I do. Books and the internet existed back then. Apparently you didn't learn to read until after the year 2000.
You DID mean the 1890's didn't you? LOL
My attitude on PVP is WHY? with over 10,000 monsters in the game WHY would anyone to want to fight another PLAYER? - Just to prove you are better then they are?
I really dont SHIV A GIT whether or not another PLAYER can beat me - All I care about is that I can beat the MONSTERS built into the game.
Just cause i'm 81 years old don't let that make you kids out there get all antzy about kicking my butt - you might just be supprised.
NO - Actually I wasn't born until 1928 - REALLY - LOL
Because almost all 10,000 monsters act the same. Tank pulls, taunts, holds aggro, mob might switch targets upon large dps bursts or heals, tank regains aggro....
1k players now,, I can experience a variety of encounters with that. But again, if you use WoW pvp as an example I'm going to slip a rufie in your geritol mix and you'll wake up in Bolivia. WoW's pvp sucks ballz.
Because almost all 10,000 monsters act the same. Tank pulls, taunts, holds aggro, mob might switch targets upon large dps bursts or heals, tank regains aggro.... 1k players now,, I can experience a variety of encounters with that. But again, if you use WoW pvp as an example I'm going to slip a rufie in your geritol mix and you'll wake up in Bolivia. WoW's pvp sucks ballz.
Sorry to disapoint you but I don't do Geritol - or Viagra either - my GF is all the stimulant I need - and I still spar with my son who is a 4th degree black belt in Tai-Quando - and drop him on his butt pretty regularly. LOL
The only kind of PVP I've ever found works is FPS style, games like Call of Duty, Medal of Honour etc etc. In the traditional point and click world of MMOs, from UO to Warhammer, regardless of how 'open world' or PVP-focused the game is, it always boils down to a few key elements; the kit used, add-ons and, in a distant third place, the stats skill of the avatar. The gameplay skill of the player is, at best, minimal and at worst, when allied with timers and macros, almost an irrelevance. It's gameplay on autopilot. There's no use of cover, no use of environment, minimal teamwork and no real goals beyond 'I pwned joo!'. Two players stay very close to one another and spam key combos until one is dead.
Altough I largely agree with you that todays MMORPG PvP is mostly about equipment, character stats, add-ons and such you are missing one major point that MMORPG PvP can have but FPS PvP cannot and that is politics and territorial conquest in a persistent world.
That is where MMORPG PvP truly shines, however very few MMORPGS have managed to properly implemented in a way that is actually useful. AoC, WAR, WoW all have pointless PvP where it really doesnt matter much who wins or not as it is mostly about gear and exp but games like Asherons Call Darktide and UO, pre trammel, actually had a purpose where a group of people could stake a territory as their own and actually own it, in a sense, and that particular place gave them some major benefits and losing such area was a serious blow to them.
That put purpose and meaning to the fighting instead of meaningless zerging for a keep that means little and will be flipped back and forth several times per day or week (ala WAR and DAoC).
Even so called FFA PvP games like Darkfall failed at that because the areas there are so void if any value so battles are fought just for the sake of fighting rather than actually conquering something worth keeping.
I PvP for the challenge, the thrill. Actually, it's not about Player versus Player, it's about having an opponent that's as powerful as you, but that may also be as smart as you are. They keep you on your toes during PvE (where the AI is always lame), and that makes the game real.
You could say that I value my immersion, and having PvP be arena'ish doestn bring immersion, and total anarchy doesnt either.
Even in a post apocalytic world there would be rules and laws, and dire consequenses for being a random murderer... Until "murder" comes with consequenses, and faction PvP gets meaningfull consequenses..... Well, won't find me fighting.
um this was back in the late/mid 90s doof, not 2007 Things were different back then. Do you rember the late 90s?
Why yes, yes I do. Books and the internet existed back then. Apparently you didn't learn to read until after the year 2000.
lol...good response ...made me laugh
I pvp for the thrill and challange ,I won't fight someone who is clearly weaker than me ..unless attacked
I do think there an elemant in PVP games of people that ,as mentioned ,are bullies with a lowself esteem.To gank and kill anyone gives them a sense a achievement that doesn't exist in there mundane RL .Its sad really
The worse thing for me is games like Grand Theft Auto ,when you are playing a good multiplayer session and someone is cheating .You vote to kick him and the guy crashed the whole session....ending everyones fun .Its rare but it happens
95% of MMORPG PvP sucks massively to the power of huge - it's even worse than raiding This is mostly because the competition brings out the worst side of some people and of those there's plenty whose good side isn't much better.
5% is some of the best fun you can have in an MMORPG.
Tricky.
I don't think standard MMORPG design suits PvP very well and imo for a PvP game to be any good it needs to be designed completely around PvP - compromise games won't ever please both sides.
2. Gear and levels shouldn't be overwhelming - a max level in the best gear in the game should be beatable by a zerg of level ones in newbie gear. No tiers, all levels in together. Also twitch = hacks = sucks. Also PvP = people running in circles bunny hopping = the stupidest thing in the history of the world.
3. Multi-sided RvR with terriotorial control, large battles and the skill based on group tactics, teamwork and knowing your specials.
4. PvE should be entirely secondary and built around the PvP e.g NPCs guarding objectives - gear and levels should all come from PvP battles.
edit: I forgot to mention the most important.
5. A chunk of the game's player base will try fanatically to drive off 90% of the game's potential customers - designers need to take that into account.
I agreed with most of that also. DaoC PvP was the best. Realm Pride, Relics, Keeps, Open field,, solo, duo, 8 man, zerg vs. zerg. Three major problems with PvP nowadays. 1. Gear reliance. - PvE doesn't have to be all about gear. Just because you release an expansion *Cough ToA* doesn't mean you need to add in completely overpowered weapons/ gear. The look of them alone is worth getting sometimes. Think people won't chase a look or an item design? Check out CoH character creator,,, or WOW and their mounts. 2. Group PvP. Games today have not focused on pvp as a group. WoW characters are all able to solo, making the reliance on a group in a boxed in battleground or WAR's scenarios, less dynamic and less team oriented. 3. It's always two faction warfare. DaoC showed that 3 realm warfare worked very well in limiting population imbalances, because two smaller realm when needed could still gang up on the larger realm. It added to the immersion of it all. And who's heart didn't pound a little quicker when Sanaa Lathan told the predator,, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" I hear that Aion is the closet thing to daoc rvr in a long time. I"m hoping so. If not, we'll see if Earthrise's resource and territory control is enough. IF mythic would make a daoc 2 with Old Daoc concepts, the original classes only, with updated skins and a Old frontiers (larger, but not so focused on siege, different keep models that made sense and didnt' take 40 players and 2 hours to take,, they'd have a second masterpiece. Bring back fast-paced dynamic RvR and let go of this slowpaced stationary junk.
Agree with this. I'm not a fan of FFA PVP - every man for himself, it has to be team for me. DAOC was easily my favorite pvp experience. I believe the three-realm system made a huge difference to balance, because the allegiances could change weekly and sometimes mid-battle. Winning was more reliant on gear than skill. People roamed in singles, duos, groups, and zergs - if you were overrun by huge numbers, go back and you might find equal numbers.
A few objectives are fine, but I think Warhammer overanalyzed those objectives. Rather than focal points for a battle, they became 15 minute trades, and rather than attempt to fight, people moved on because the rewards could be equal from a uncontested fight. Some people did want to fight, however the majority were happy to just take unclaimed keeps and bo's; the battlefield was a PVE'rs paradise. I have no issue when people want to PVE, but in this case their desire was destroying the PVP because warband leaders catered to the majority. Give the PVErs equal rewards that suit their PVE style through PVE dungeons; give the PVPers suitable rewards from PVP.
Want to see PVP with: three or more factions; a concentrated PVP area for open fighting and limited objectives; realm pride; skill reliant instead of gear reliant; and not too much too fast - I like the battle where nobody goes down quickly but people have a chance to employ tactics during battle. Spamming two keys to kill somebody in 3 seconds is dull for both sides.
I do enjoy PVP, because I like that the enemy's tactics can change and adapt, and no two fights will be the same. The real trick for the developers is getting these battles as equal as possible with class balance, and also making the battle fun and interesting even for the losing side, so they want to come back and try again.
********************************************************************************** ***4 out of 5 voices in my head agree--I'm ok. It's the fifth one the scares the hell out of me.***
"A few objectives are fine, but I think Warhammer overanalyzed those objectives."
/Agree
I think objectives are a good way to channel players into having big fights but where Warhammer went wrong (imo) is the objectives became worthless as soon as you captured them which, if you'd just spent two hours fighting to capture them, sort of undercut the whole thing. I'd prefer something where there was one main objective and once you captured it you got xp, or reknown or realm points or whatever other points every few minutes your side held it *and* you were within a certain range of the flagpole. Also the number of points racked up the longer it was held e.g
100 xp per level per minute until you'd held the flag for 15 minutes then
200 xp per level per minute until you'd held the flag for 30 minutes then
300 xp per level per minute until you'd held the flag for 45 minutes then
etc
So the objective would encourage players to fight for them *and hold* them because they were the fastest way to level and get better gear.
I'd have just the one objective like this in each zone.
I'd also have smaller objectives like shrines and stuff that gave you buffs. These would have weaker guards and be easy to take with 2-3 players. i think this would lead to the main zerg fighting over the main objective while smaller groups and solos went for the shrines.
I never been a major pvp player because I never found it to be rewarding enough. Warhammer Online had alot of good ideas but because of the imbalance of factions it made it undesireable. I still play Guild Wars after 3+ years and the pvp there is fun but yet not rewarding enough for my efforts.
A very big problem with Warhammer was the way it was advertised. War is everywhere!!
We were told several times that this wasn't going to be a DaoC copy, but Mythic also talked so much about the RvR aspect and city sieges.
A long time ago, their was a public outcry for a realm invasion server. I cannot say how many people wanted this, but enough that Mythic put up a poll on new server/gameplay features and it was included on the Herald.
Mythic made it sound as if War is everwhere and citysieges were going to be a large part of warhammer, which gave the impression of realm invasion.
Standing around a Flag was nothing like the advertisment. An instanced pve city siege was nothing like the advertisement. Despite the obvious map issues of being funneled many places, seperating all levels of players into tiers so higher level players cannot enter lower level zones without chickening was not in the advertisement.
Had winning the tiers and locking zones, locking battle objectives, keeps, led to a realm invasion of the actual capital city the game would have beee much better off.
This would have required a huge undertaking by a realm requiring a ton of teamwork and the desire to not let your realm be the whipping boy would have been there like it was in DaoC.
A very big problem with Warhammer was the way it was advertised. War is everywhere!! We were told several times that this wasn't going to be a DaoC copy, but Mythic also talked so much about the RvR aspect and city sieges. A long time ago, their was a public outcry for a realm invasion server. I cannot say how many people wanted this, but enough that Mythic put up a poll on new server/gameplay features and it was included on the Herald. Mythic made it sound as if War is everwhere and citysieges were going to be a large part of warhammer, which gave the impression of realm invasion. Standing around a Flag was nothing like the advertisment. An instanced pve city siege was nothing like the advertisement. Despite the obvious map issues of being funneled many places, seperating all levels of players into tiers so higher level players cannot enter lower level zones without chickening was not in the advertisement. Had winning the tiers and locking zones, locking battle objectives, keeps, led to a realm invasion of the actual capital city the game would have beee much better off. This would have required a huge undertaking by a realm requiring a ton of teamwork and the desire to not let your realm be the whipping boy would have been there like it was in DaoC.
True enough. I wasn't trying to imply that would fix Warhammer just that the general principle should be: if you have objectives in an RvR game then the reward for holding them needs to be greater than the reward for capturing them.
Nah, I was't directing any of my comments at you specifically. I was just stating the fundamental discrepencies between what WaR was advertised and what was delivered. The fact that they pulled in a million box sales shows that what was advertised was what people wanted.
Actually the best pvp I ever had was in early UO. The sense of danger was always there no matter where you went, but the crafting economy made replacement not that big a deal. Equipment did not determine fight outcomes as much as skill did.
There were also decent consequences for being a killer. Here was a game without town building, without sieges yet it was far better in my opinion than these current pvp games.
A very big problem with Warhammer was the way it was advertised. War is everywhere!! We were told several times that this wasn't going to be a DaoC copy, but Mythic also talked so much about the RvR aspect and city sieges. A long time ago, their was a public outcry for a realm invasion server. I cannot say how many people wanted this, but enough that Mythic put up a poll on new server/gameplay features and it was included on the Herald. Mythic made it sound as if War is everwhere and citysieges were going to be a large part of warhammer, which gave the impression of realm invasion. Standing around a Flag was nothing like the advertisment. An instanced pve city siege was nothing like the advertisement. Despite the obvious map issues of being funneled many places, seperating all levels of players into tiers so higher level players cannot enter lower level zones without chickening was not in the advertisement. Had winning the tiers and locking zones, locking battle objectives, keeps, led to a realm invasion of the actual capital city the game would have beee much better off. This would have required a huge undertaking by a realm requiring a ton of teamwork and the desire to not let your realm be the whipping boy would have been there like it was in DaoC.
True enough. I wasn't trying to imply that would fix Warhammer just that the general principle should be: if you have objectives in an RvR game then the reward for holding them needs to be greater than the reward for capturing them.
Basically true.. this just shows that the WAR devs who designed the overarching wargame that is war had no clue about basic game design mechanics... Anyone who ever attempted to design a war boardgame could have told them that. You ALWAYS have to reward posession rather than mere acquiring. Taking a keep should be rewarding mostly because it gives you an opportunity to hold it. That's game design 101 otherwise you get musical chairs. The irony is that WoW's pathetic open PvP attempts failed exactly because of that... ok, asking Mythic people to study Risk or Axis&Allies dynamics might be asking for too much but I know for a fact that they did play a lot of WoW during the pre-production phase...
Comments
I PvP for various reasons. Here they are in generally descending order of importance or motivation:
1. To experience a different aspect of my character in the MMO
2. To achieve some set criteria that's attractive in the game context (title, special equipment based on PvP rank, etc)
3. For the added dimension of risk (the heart pounding element of victory or defeat
4. The social aspects
The thingsI don't find attractive about PvP are:
1. the application of asymmetric power (ganking or blasting out greatly inferior foes) for the pawnage
2. Griefing (just because you can)
3. Smack talk of both arrogant winners and whinny losers (there is always someone better, quicker, or luckier than you waiting around the corner ... why brag or whine about your win or loss).
4. The antisocial aspects
The only kind of PVP I've ever found works is FPS style, games like Call of Duty, Medal of Honour etc etc. In the traditional point and click world of MMOs, from UO to Warhammer, regardless of how 'open world' or PVP-focused the game is, it always boils down to a few key elements; the kit used, add-ons and, in a distant third place, the stats skill of the avatar.
The gameplay skill of the player is, at best, minimal and at worst, when allied with timers and macros, almost an irrelevance. It's gameplay on autopilot. There's no use of cover, no use of environment, minimal teamwork and no real goals beyond 'I pwned joo!'. Two players stay very close to one another and spam key combos until one is dead.
The ruptured capillaries in your nose belie the clarity of your wisdom.
I keep hearing the FPS people say MMO's are games on autopilot I disagree. Group warfare in daoc applied all the twitch of FPS, use of terrain, kiting etc. To pull off large raids in the OF took lots of teamwork.
When you talk solo pvp I can agree more. Gear+luck usually wins out. That's why I don't like purely solo pvp.
Also, you state something that to this day is a pet peeve of mine. Addons and macros. I play healer classes and I hate squared. It takes all challenges out of being a good healer. I didn't use addons in daoc. I didn't use macros outside of the /assist. Most of the time I played caster or CC class anyways so even that got used almost never.
I love that Aion does not allow addons in there game. I also have read that aion's pvp is similar to daoc in the group aspect of pvp.
FPS's are also reliant on lag, your fps as well. I think what set's them apart is they are almost always geared towards group strategy and that the pvp is always the focus of the game, where MMO's just throw in a dueling mechanism and call it pvp.
> The last form of PvP I’ll cover today is what I call “fighting for something.”
This, pretty much. Raising my character's rank showed a real accomplishment. PvE is okay, but it's often mindless. No matter how long it takes for a mob to spawn or regardless of how many hours a rare item takes to drop, there is simply no challenge. No feeling of accomplishment. It finally just happens and then you move on to the next mind numbing task.
At least in PvP there's a challenge, and when you go up ranks it can feel like your character is accomplishing something. Raising ranks is a goal-oriented focus of PvP for me.
With that said, open world PvP becomes irritating and loses it fun after a relatively short amount of time. Max level characters running the full view distance over to you simply to gank your character in a few hits is dull and tiresome. From my perspective (competitive focused, goal / accomplishment oriented) I have always failed to find the enjoyment of ganking. I suppose it's an ego thing, which, frankly, is a little disturbing.
That's why I enjoyed the battle grounds in WoW back when I played. They still had ranks at the time, and it was fun to watch my character gain PvP ranks. It was fun to receive duel challenges by someone who saw my character's rank and wanted to test themselves against it. Heck, I learned things that way, too. There was a sense of pride in the accomplishment, and I didn't need to put up with kids and their maxed out toons to do it.
Now this is an attitude I can understand. I don't consider myself a Pvp'er and really don't miss it if it's not in a game, but when it is and done right the shear sweat factor is awesome.
Pre-CU SWG; Getting a temp flag after hunting Faction NPC's and having to run, hide, watch every moving red radar dot.
Vendetta-Online; Faction based Pvp anywhere and anytime. Pop out of a wormhole / jumphole and immediately zig off and do a radar check. Watching and scanning since you just never know who's out there.
PotBS; Like my first example of a 3 vs 2, or scouting for a group and getting jumped then trying to stay ahead of the death curve til your allies can arrive.
I never had a problem with dieing; and I did it alot, when it was my own fault (out of position, wrong group join click etc...). Only problem was with the gankers - waiting on the pier with you and jumping in and locking you up before you even rez'd in. Camping the spawn in points etc....
When it's done right ....... there's no better feeling, more so when you win.
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
Why yes, yes I do. Books and the internet existed back then. Apparently you didn't learn to read until after the year 2000.
NO - Actually I wasn't born until 1928 - REALLY - LOL
Why yes, yes I do. Books and the internet existed back then. Apparently you didn't learn to read until after the year 2000.
You DID mean the 1890's didn't you? LOL
My attitude on PVP is WHY? with over 10,000 monsters in the game WHY would anyone to want to fight another PLAYER? - Just to prove you are better then they are?
I really dont SHIV A GIT whether or not another PLAYER can beat me - All I care about is that I can beat the MONSTERS built into the game.
Just cause i'm 81 years old don't let that make you kids out there get all antzy about kicking my butt - you might just be supprised.
NO - Actually I wasn't born until 1928 - REALLY - LOL
Because almost all 10,000 monsters act the same. Tank pulls, taunts, holds aggro, mob might switch targets upon large dps bursts or heals, tank regains aggro....
1k players now,, I can experience a variety of encounters with that. But again, if you use WoW pvp as an example I'm going to slip a rufie in your geritol mix and you'll wake up in Bolivia. WoW's pvp sucks ballz.
I prefer to 'talk-it-out' like a normal, peaceful human being. Besides, killing is egregiously over-rated...
Sorry to disapoint you but I don't do Geritol - or Viagra either - my GF is all the stimulant I need - and I still spar with my son who is a 4th degree black belt in Tai-Quando - and drop him on his butt pretty regularly. LOL
Nice article, but soon, we will have a lot of choice for real pvp games.
We have eve for the players who like to take the command,
Darkfall online for the fps gameplay, large warfare and medieval fantazy players,
Earth rise for the sci fi players
Mortal online for the fpv only, realistic medieval fantazy players.
Right now, is all good for us because even with all the hard time the carebear added to us, we still gonna get good games pvp games.
C:\Users\FF\Desktop\spin move.gif
Altough I largely agree with you that todays MMORPG PvP is mostly about equipment, character stats, add-ons and such you are missing one major point that MMORPG PvP can have but FPS PvP cannot and that is politics and territorial conquest in a persistent world.
That is where MMORPG PvP truly shines, however very few MMORPGS have managed to properly implemented in a way that is actually useful. AoC, WAR, WoW all have pointless PvP where it really doesnt matter much who wins or not as it is mostly about gear and exp but games like Asherons Call Darktide and UO, pre trammel, actually had a purpose where a group of people could stake a territory as their own and actually own it, in a sense, and that particular place gave them some major benefits and losing such area was a serious blow to them.
That put purpose and meaning to the fighting instead of meaningless zerging for a keep that means little and will be flipped back and forth several times per day or week (ala WAR and DAoC).
Even so called FFA PvP games like Darkfall failed at that because the areas there are so void if any value so battles are fought just for the sake of fighting rather than actually conquering something worth keeping.
My gaming blog
I PvP for the challenge, the thrill. Actually, it's not about Player versus Player, it's about having an opponent that's as powerful as you, but that may also be as smart as you are. They keep you on your toes during PvE (where the AI is always lame), and that makes the game real.
I don't PvP.
I'm not much for the "two" choices we have today:
You could say that I value my immersion, and having PvP be arena'ish doestn bring immersion, and total anarchy doesnt either.
Even in a post apocalytic world there would be rules and laws, and dire consequenses for being a random murderer... Until "murder" comes with consequenses, and faction PvP gets meaningfull consequenses..... Well, won't find me fighting.
Why yes, yes I do. Books and the internet existed back then. Apparently you didn't learn to read until after the year 2000.
lol...good response ...made me laugh
I pvp for the thrill and challange ,I won't fight someone who is clearly weaker than me ..unless attacked
I do think there an elemant in PVP games of people that ,as mentioned ,are bullies with a lowself esteem.To gank and kill anyone gives them a sense a achievement that doesn't exist in there mundane RL .Its sad really
The worse thing for me is games like Grand Theft Auto ,when you are playing a good multiplayer session and someone is cheating .You vote to kick him and the guy crashed the whole session....ending everyones fun .Its rare but it happens
"after the time of dice came the day of mice "
95% of MMORPG PvP sucks massively to the power of huge - it's even worse than raiding
This is mostly because the competition brings out the worst side of some people and of those there's plenty whose good side isn't much better.
5% is some of the best fun you can have in an MMORPG.
Tricky.
I don't think standard MMORPG design suits PvP very well and imo for a PvP game to be any good it needs to be designed completely around PvP - compromise games won't ever please both sides.
2. Gear and levels shouldn't be overwhelming - a max level in the best gear in the game should be beatable by a zerg of level ones in newbie gear. No tiers, all levels in together. Also twitch = hacks = sucks. Also PvP = people running in circles bunny hopping = the stupidest thing in the history of the world.
3. Multi-sided RvR with terriotorial control, large battles and the skill based on group tactics, teamwork and knowing your specials.
4. PvE should be entirely secondary and built around the PvP e.g NPCs guarding objectives - gear and levels should all come from PvP battles.
edit: I forgot to mention the most important.
5. A chunk of the game's player base will try fanatically to drive off 90% of the game's potential customers - designers need to take that into account.
Agree with this. I'm not a fan of FFA PVP - every man for himself, it has to be team for me. DAOC was easily my favorite pvp experience. I believe the three-realm system made a huge difference to balance, because the allegiances could change weekly and sometimes mid-battle. Winning was more reliant on gear than skill. People roamed in singles, duos, groups, and zergs - if you were overrun by huge numbers, go back and you might find equal numbers.
A few objectives are fine, but I think Warhammer overanalyzed those objectives. Rather than focal points for a battle, they became 15 minute trades, and rather than attempt to fight, people moved on because the rewards could be equal from a uncontested fight. Some people did want to fight, however the majority were happy to just take unclaimed keeps and bo's; the battlefield was a PVE'rs paradise. I have no issue when people want to PVE, but in this case their desire was destroying the PVP because warband leaders catered to the majority. Give the PVErs equal rewards that suit their PVE style through PVE dungeons; give the PVPers suitable rewards from PVP.
Want to see PVP with: three or more factions; a concentrated PVP area for open fighting and limited objectives; realm pride; skill reliant instead of gear reliant; and not too much too fast - I like the battle where nobody goes down quickly but people have a chance to employ tactics during battle. Spamming two keys to kill somebody in 3 seconds is dull for both sides.
I do enjoy PVP, because I like that the enemy's tactics can change and adapt, and no two fights will be the same. The real trick for the developers is getting these battles as equal as possible with class balance, and also making the battle fun and interesting even for the losing side, so they want to come back and try again.
**********************************************************************************
***4 out of 5 voices in my head agree--I'm ok. It's the fifth one the scares the hell out of me.***
"A few objectives are fine, but I think Warhammer overanalyzed those objectives."
/Agree
I think objectives are a good way to channel players into having big fights but where Warhammer went wrong (imo) is the objectives became worthless as soon as you captured them which, if you'd just spent two hours fighting to capture them, sort of undercut the whole thing. I'd prefer something where there was one main objective and once you captured it you got xp, or reknown or realm points or whatever other points every few minutes your side held it *and* you were within a certain range of the flagpole. Also the number of points racked up the longer it was held e.g
100 xp per level per minute until you'd held the flag for 15 minutes then
200 xp per level per minute until you'd held the flag for 30 minutes then
300 xp per level per minute until you'd held the flag for 45 minutes then
etc
So the objective would encourage players to fight for them *and hold* them because they were the fastest way to level and get better gear.
I'd have just the one objective like this in each zone.
I'd also have smaller objectives like shrines and stuff that gave you buffs. These would have weaker guards and be easy to take with 2-3 players. i think this would lead to the main zerg fighting over the main objective while smaller groups and solos went for the shrines.
I never been a major pvp player because I never found it to be rewarding enough. Warhammer Online had alot of good ideas but because of the imbalance of factions it made it undesireable. I still play Guild Wars after 3+ years and the pvp there is fun but yet not rewarding enough for my efforts.
A very big problem with Warhammer was the way it was advertised. War is everywhere!!
We were told several times that this wasn't going to be a DaoC copy, but Mythic also talked so much about the RvR aspect and city sieges.
A long time ago, their was a public outcry for a realm invasion server. I cannot say how many people wanted this, but enough that Mythic put up a poll on new server/gameplay features and it was included on the Herald.
Mythic made it sound as if War is everwhere and citysieges were going to be a large part of warhammer, which gave the impression of realm invasion.
Standing around a Flag was nothing like the advertisment. An instanced pve city siege was nothing like the advertisement. Despite the obvious map issues of being funneled many places, seperating all levels of players into tiers so higher level players cannot enter lower level zones without chickening was not in the advertisement.
Had winning the tiers and locking zones, locking battle objectives, keeps, led to a realm invasion of the actual capital city the game would have beee much better off.
This would have required a huge undertaking by a realm requiring a ton of teamwork and the desire to not let your realm be the whipping boy would have been there like it was in DaoC.
True enough. I wasn't trying to imply that would fix Warhammer just that the general principle should be: if you have objectives in an RvR game then the reward for holding them needs to be greater than the reward for capturing them.
Nah, I was't directing any of my comments at you specifically. I was just stating the fundamental discrepencies between what WaR was advertised and what was delivered. The fact that they pulled in a million box sales shows that what was advertised was what people wanted.
Actually the best pvp I ever had was in early UO. The sense of danger was always there no matter where you went, but the crafting economy made replacement not that big a deal. Equipment did not determine fight outcomes as much as skill did.
There were also decent consequences for being a killer. Here was a game without town building, without sieges yet it was far better in my opinion than these current pvp games.
I do not see the point of a game without pvp you may as well play offline.
True enough. I wasn't trying to imply that would fix Warhammer just that the general principle should be: if you have objectives in an RvR game then the reward for holding them needs to be greater than the reward for capturing them.
Basically true.. this just shows that the WAR devs who designed the overarching wargame that is war had no clue about basic game design mechanics... Anyone who ever attempted to design a war boardgame could have told them that. You ALWAYS have to reward posession rather than mere acquiring. Taking a keep should be rewarding mostly because it gives you an opportunity to hold it. That's game design 101 otherwise you get musical chairs. The irony is that WoW's pathetic open PvP attempts failed exactly because of that... ok, asking Mythic people to study Risk or Axis&Allies dynamics might be asking for too much but I know for a fact that they did play a lot of WoW during the pre-production phase...