Meaningful pvp is basically pvp with some type of risk.
You come at pvp with a different mind set when you know you can lose quite a bit if you die.
Also your motivation to pvp is much more because you know you will seriously fuck up someones day by killing them.
First time I ever Pvp'd in Eve I almost had a freaking heart attack. I can't get that rush in a game like WoW with its instanced pvp and 30 second respawn shit.
Nothing more worthless than killing a piece of shit alliance player in WoW thats defending a flag to see him almost instantly rejoin the fight. Its lame.
You must have never exp Old AV (Which also had the same current Spawning system)
Question for you: Have you ever tried Lake Wintergrasp?
AV was great back when a battle could last 6+ hours. I would log off at night and then back in the morning and that same fight was still going on. That one particular pvp map was very good until Blizzard gutted it into a Npc race and then a meaningless turtle.
Yes I have played WG.
Wintergrasp is Blizzards version of world pvp/siege mechanics and sadly it blows because it feels artificial. Having open pvp is good, having to wait for a set time is really shitty. Add that on top of the spawn every 30 seconds shit and WG along with everyother form of pvp in WoW is meaningless.
Once you pvp with something to lose and feel that rush you can't go back to something like WoW and pvp.
What makes PvP good to me is the controls, the ability to effectly play the way I want, and the ability to employ group tactics, especially capture points and different seige weapons.
What gives it meaning is fighting for something other than material gain, for example looting people, fighting to win money, taking land just to get better resources, these to me are pretty lame and shallow reasons to fight, my care cup is pretty low in these situations and I can't build any motivation to actually go fight, when it is just going to be about money and items in the end of the day, it is like a job to that point.
But if you give it a story and make a good reason why I would want to fight people, I don't know maybe they are trying to enslave the people in our country, also present it in a good way, not through text in a back story no one is going to read but actively show people in the game the actions and motivations of the different sides, think LOTR Conquest or SW Battlefront campaigns but multiplayer, that would be much like what I am talking about.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
You described a one-dimensional competition base. A sliding scale that goes up when you win, down when you lose. This is the definition of a grind: when the result (not reward) is nothing. You win a title, which does nothing. It gives you gear, epeen or whatever, but it is void of 'meaning'. Unless gear and epeen *is* the meaning you attempt to define.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
@ Zorndorf You described a one-dimensional competition base. A sliding scale that goes up when you win, down when you lose. This is the definition of a grind: when the result (not reward) is nothing. You win a title, which does nothing. It gives you gear, epeen or whatever, but it is void of 'meaning'. Unless gear and epeen *is* the meaning you attempt to define.
Apparently, a ladder based competition has NOTHING to do with grind.
A ladder based competition - like the ELO rating in Chess - is ALL about winning the competition and get the titles and the championships. You loose a fight: you go DOWN, you win a fight you go UP.
Like I said a Furious Gladiator title is spread uniquely over 17 different Realms on our Blackout Battlegroup.
Those few players (ONE team) that got that unique title are the REAL PvP champs among us.
You do it for the competition, for the title, for the very very rare Gladiator flying mount.
---- > That's the way our own society is ticking my friend.
Winning in sports and games and have a rating vs à vs other people ...is THE way people want to game and do sports for ... and WATCH sports for.
That's the name of the game. That's the name of ANY "meanigful" competition.
Not owning some pixeled ground for 24 hours.
I guess thats where people differ in how they want to pvp. Soem consider it a sport, some consider it war and want to play it as a war. Personally Im not here for sport ...Im here to play a game. Territorial control, destroying real player controled bases or seiging castles is what im interested in.
Apparently, a ladder based competition has NOTHING to do with grind.
You repeat an action over a set amount of time, with the result being directly related to the efforts at hand. That's a grind. There are better disguised grinds than others, but it doesn't change what it is.
A ladder based competition - like the ELO rating in Chess - is ALL about winning the competition and get the titles and the championships. You loose a fight: you go DOWN, you win a fight you go UP.
Exactly. It's a 1 dimensional sliding scale. There's no sideways results (PvE, crafting, roleplay etc).
Like I said a Furious Gladiator title is spread uniquely over 17 different Realms on our Blackout Battlegroup.
The title isn't unique. It's a percentage. And active members, whether part of the main body or not of the team, still are awarded.
Those few players (ONE team) that got that unique title are the REAL PvP champs among us.
Ok... and? Good for them? It's like being the champion putt-putt golfer in a world that's crazy about basketball. It's *meaningless* to those who aren't interested in the system. When you take the system, and have it influence other systems, *everyone* is involved. You've just given *meaning* to it, because it affects all.
You do it for the competition, for the title, for the very very rare Gladiator flying mount.
If these things provide 'meaning' to you, then sure.
---- > That's the way our own society is ticking my friend.
Winning in sports and games and have a rating is THE way people want to game and do sports for ... and WATCH sports for.
That's the name of the game. That's the name of ANY "meanigful" competition.
You're confusing PvP with competition. PvP is, or can be, much more. The two aren't mutually inclusive.
Not owning some pixeled ground for 24 hours.
I PvP, I achieve a certain status as a direct result of my efforts within this aspect of play. Great. A grind. The result is influenced by others. Great. A competition. But what I do influences the world at large, to include other players *outside of the PvP aspect of play*.... great. A larger purpose. Meaning.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
The issue is a bit more complicated, as you basically have two groups of players:
Those who feel the "meaning" of PVP is in capturing territory, resources, or items. Those who feel "meaning" is making decisions that matter during the fight.
They're separate groups because thus far few games have mixed the elements well. The Resource Capture guys tend to want games where the playfield is virtually never even -- bring more guys to the fight, or better gear, or higher levels/skills, and you steamroll your helpless opponent. This results in player decisions having little to no value during a fight (no value for the losing team, which cannot under any circumstance achieve victory; and little value for the steamrolling side, which merely has to be awake at the keyboard to capitalize on their advantage.) And then you have games where decisions made during battle are extremely meaningful and determine the success or failure of a battle. In such games, non-skill factors like population are significantly minimized if not eliminated entirely. WOW's Arena and Battlegrounds, and Guild Wars are examples of such games, and "true" PVP genres like FPS and RTS games are the purest form of player decisions being meaningful. Just because we haven't seen a lot of mix between the two doesn't mean mixing them is impossible. Although there is a little tension between the two (because Resource Capture infers permanent bonuses are gained, which infers combat bonuses are gained from those resources somehow, which infers a non-skill element to fighting.) Hopefully games like Global Agenda end up testing out the middle waters between the two, as I think there's a sweet spot there.
We're of like mind that a nice middle ground would be good. Dont get me wrong, although I'm obviously all for land control, I still played more than my fair share of wow bgs and really had a blast with them. At least a quarter of my 2-year wow subscription was based purely on bgs, particularly wsg.
I think you're a bit off the mark on your description of those who like the battle for best land. Admittedly, sometimes you do have steamroll fights. However, many other times you have spectacular battles. In a game that's always on 24 hours, it's near impossible to leave a resource outpost vulnerable 24-hours, so by the game setting up some kind of time schedule where that type of structure is vulnerable, pvp is channeled so that the more even fights happen. Player choice definitely makes a difference, but more important would be teamwork skills. In the end, I see your analysis as a bit unfair to the playstyle and not correct.
Hrmm. Interesting point. How could it be resolved though?
A timer on land control does result in more spectacular battle, but linearizes PvP. You 'schedule' PvP. Is there a way to provide constant access with spectacular battles at *random* times?
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
See EVE. PVP that permits players to control territory in a game, even to the point of letting them rent it to others who aren't strong enough to take/hold it on their own. (a feudal system if you will) PVP should also drive and be driven by the economy.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Hrmm. Interesting point. How could it be resolved though? A timer on land control does result in more spectacular battle, but linearizes PvP. You 'schedule' PvP. Is there a way to provide constant access with spectacular battles at *random* times?
Yes there is. Age of Conan tries to do just that.
You own a keep ... you can set the time frame that its open for attack. The wider window you set the better the bonuses for control you get. The narrower the window gives reduced bonuses.
In this way you funnel PvP into a time slot determined by the players .. the other players know the time slot that its open and can make attack plans accordingly.
Of course some guilds will set a pure say, 2hour window, and for those 2 hours go "defend" incase someone attacks. Other guilds will set wider windows and set "scouts" to watch for attackers. Its an interesting system although I really did'ent get much exposure to it (Seiges crashed hardcore when I played) it does seem to address some of the issues your bringing up.
It allows for funneled battles within given time frames .. but gives the players the ability to determine and alter these timeframes in order to gain larger rewards. A great risk Vs Reward system.
Of course there are other issues with AoCs seige warfare that I did'ent care for (Attack and defender population caps) etc .. but its kinda what your looking for I think.
Holding world structures/objectives, or territorial warfare. If you have to earn the best land by fighting for it, it has meaning.
This or something like this. It has to change the game world. For example in DaoC you control enough keeps your faction gets access to a particular Dungeon, Darkness falls that has good xp and loot.
Stuff like that.
Taking items is meaningless, mostly just ads fun for griefers.
Yes there is. Age of Conan tries to do just that. You own a keep ... you can set the time frame that its open for attack. The wider window you set the better the bonuses for control you get. The narrower the window gives reduced bonuses. In this way you funnel PvP into a time slot determined by the players .. the other players know the time slot that its open and can make attack plans accordingly. Of course some guilds will set a pure say, 2hour window, and for those 2 hours go "defend" incase someone attacks. Other guilds will set wider windows and set "scouts" to watch for attackers. Its an interesting system although I really did'ent get much exposure to it (Seiges crashed hardcore when I played) it does seem to address some of the issues your bringing up. It allows for funneled battles within given time frames .. but gives the players the ability to determine and alter these timeframes in order to gain larger rewards. A great risk Vs Reward system.
Well, that DOES sound like a very interesting system. It would be far better than what Warhammer is using.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
This or something like this. It has to change the game world. For example in DaoC you control enough keeps your faction gets access to a particular Dungeon, Darkness falls that has good xp and loot.
I don't like that system, though. The only ones who will participate eagerly are those who want to do both PvP and PvE content. PvPers aren't going to want to fight for access to PvE content, and PvEers aren't going to want their preferred content gated by PvP performance.
Lots of players will fight (particularly if the dungoen drops good loot), but their hearts won't be in it.
Fighting for tradable crafting resources is a better method in my eyes. Crafters who don't want to PvP can buy or trade for the materials. PvPers who don't want to craft can supply the crafters.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
But yet, it's still scheduling. You've painted it red isntead of a native blue.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
But yet, it's still scheduling. You've painted it red isntead of a native blue.
Yeah. I don't like scheduling in principle. In practice, though, players have shown that they are not wiling or able to provide fair fights at all hours of the day.
It's taking a bad option over a far worse one. What's the alternative - instancing, which most seem to hate (I don't).
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
But yet, it's still scheduling. You've painted it red isntead of a native blue.
Yeah. I don't like scheduling in principle. In practice, though, players have shown that they are not wiling or able to provide fair fights at all hours of the day.
It's taking a bad option over a far worse one. What's the alternative - instancing, which most seem to hate (I don't).
It's a serious conundrum. Scheduling sucks, and is very immersion breaking. We are going to kick your ass! On Thursday, between the hours of 7 and 9 pm. And dont' attack us before then, because you know, we didn't schedule that.
But, without it you get the dedicated guild that will raid your keep at 3 a.m. cause they know you're sleeping.
I think I prefer the 3 a.m. raid. The trick is to make it so the other side isn't devastated enough to quit when this happens, like it has to go in stages and you can't just take out everything at once.
But yet, it's still scheduling. You've painted it red isntead of a native blue.
Yeah. I don't like scheduling in principle. In practice, though, players have shown that they are not wiling or able to provide fair fights at all hours of the day.
It's taking a bad option over a far worse one. What's the alternative - instancing, which most seem to hate (I don't).
It's a serious conundrum. Scheduling sucks, and is very immersion breaking. We are going to kick your ass! On Thursday, between the hours of 7 and 9 pm. And dont' attack us before then, because you know, we didn't schedule that.
But, without it you get the dedicated guild that will raid your keep at 3 a.m. cause they know you're sleeping.
I think I prefer the 3 a.m. raid. The trick is to make it so the other side isn't devastated enough to quit when this happens, like it has to go in stages and you can't just take out everything at once.
Sort of like how EVE does it. You can attack player owned stations at any time, but if they've made the proper arrangements you will only be able to put it into reinforced mode which then makes station invunerable for a set period of time.
Gives the enemy about a day to prepare their defenses, however they are not allowed to beef up the station during this time other than to repair the shield.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The only thing I can think of is a 'stage based' concept where territorial targets are only accessible provided others are owned or not. You attack locations in stages.
Keep_B's and Keep_C's vulnerability hinges on Keep_A being contested. If Keep_A is owned, the owning faction runs no risk of losing Keep_B or Keep_C (and the crafting/questing/etc benefits from owning said keep). The issue here is that you now have instituted a 'front line' to your overall war, which prevents a 'drop behind enemy lines' (a la Airborne WWII tactics) strategic approach. There's strategy involved, and you can know at a glance where the action will be taking place, but the 'when' is in flux.
I don't know. You make locality, geography, the contraint in this system, rather than time. It brings us back to a simple equation of time vs. space. How the 2 are interconnected.
Perhaps this system would have merits? Would need a way to make the 'front lines' not the only way of waging war.
Edit: Instanced war? Oh hell no. While there is a place for it, it's clearly 'put into a box'. I'm discussing more along the lines of world PvP (being meaningful). While there are ways to establish meaning to isntanced PvP (and I love me some AB long time), it's lacking a macro-dynamic nature.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
pojung the system you describe was used in Planetside.
It worked quite well, though some players are searching for a game where exciting things happen on a more rare basis (ie where the territory you claimed in your 2-3 hours of play can't be reclaimed 2-3 hours after you log off; which is a slightly unreasonable demand.)
Ironically Planetside also had "instanced war". The instances were 200 players a side (potentially 600 players) but it was that very cap which made player decisions important (because you were winning/losing because of skill and strategy rather than because you outnumbered or outgeared the enemy.) You might split your forces, and your 40 guys attacking base A might be outnumbered in that particular battle, but that was because you had 160 players at Base B where you almost certainly outnumbered the enemy .
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Taking items is meaningless, mostly just ads fun for griefers.
In general I agree. However, I did like the idea of item drops in pvp (not from the player) in WAR. It shouldn't happen all the time, but if you kill a badass I think that having a one in a million shot of "looting" a super rare item (again, not from the inventory of the player you killed) could add good value to the pvp scene.
Hrmm. Interesting point. How could it be resolved though? A timer on land control does result in more spectacular battle, but linearizes PvP. You 'schedule' PvP. Is there a way to provide constant access with spectacular battles at *random* times?
Yes there is. Age of Conan tries to do just that.
You own a keep ... you can set the time frame that its open for attack. The wider window you set the better the bonuses for control you get. The narrower the window gives reduced bonuses.
In this way you funnel PvP into a time slot determined by the players .. the other players know the time slot that its open and can make attack plans accordingly.
Of course some guilds will set a pure say, 2hour window, and for those 2 hours go "defend" incase someone attacks. Other guilds will set wider windows and set "scouts" to watch for attackers. Its an interesting system although I really did'ent get much exposure to it (Seiges crashed hardcore when I played) it does seem to address some of the issues your bringing up.
It allows for funneled battles within given time frames .. but gives the players the ability to determine and alter these timeframes in order to gain larger rewards. A great risk Vs Reward system.
Of course there are other issues with AoCs seige warfare that I did'ent care for (Attack and defender population caps) etc .. but its kinda what your looking for I think.
The thing that turned me off about AOC was that it was just a battle for a guild hall. I want to see battles for resources. E.g. you scan for resources, find a good concentration, test out the resource, find it has great stats, and start the process of controlling the resource. First you setup mining operations, then you setup your fort. From there you enhance the fort's defensive capabilities (depending on how really great or not so great that resource is), and defend the resource until the resource cycle is complete. During that cycle, other guilds would want that same resource, and they would have to fight your guild for control of the resource. As others have discussed there are a lot of different ways to do this, so I won't get into that.
Anyways, the point is that resources make it dynamic, which greatly increases the player economy (particularly as far as structures are concerned). You don't just buy one guild keep. You have to keep buying fort structures to protect the resources you want to control. The better the resources, the more you want to invest in protection structures. Then you'd make enough from the resource to get even better defensive structures and wait for the next resource to control. All together this adds up to dynamic gameplay with depth, and keeps the economy rolling. (economy to me is really what makes a mmo a mmo)
I'm not much of a pvp'er but the important part of PvP for me is the contribution it makes to the community dynamic. A game where ALL the players are on the same side? Bleah! If you're making a game in a persistent world context that has combat but you don't let the players fight, is just too artificially contrived for me to feel right. PvP adds a thrill, sense of danger and meaning just by existing. It doesn't necessarily have to have a need beyond that though nice if it does and implemented properly.
I'd say #1 would be PvP that helps all characters within one's faction. Such as a boost to stats or something, when a given PvP-based objective is accomplished - and lost when another side takes that objective for themselves. i.e. community rewards.
Second to that, just a PvP based individual progression system, where players make some sort of progress via PvP. Like leveling, or skill points, only in much smaller steps than what levels usually indicate. i.e. individual rewards.
Both of these work best in a PvP system that's more about territory and group-based objectives, rather than just running around ganking people.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Comments
Of course test of strength. It's probably the number 1 reason on why PVP was developed.
You must have never exp Old AV (Which also had the same current Spawning system)
Question for you: Have you ever tried Lake Wintergrasp?
AV was great back when a battle could last 6+ hours. I would log off at night and then back in the morning and that same fight was still going on. That one particular pvp map was very good until Blizzard gutted it into a Npc race and then a meaningless turtle.
Yes I have played WG.
Wintergrasp is Blizzards version of world pvp/siege mechanics and sadly it blows because it feels artificial. Having open pvp is good, having to wait for a set time is really shitty. Add that on top of the spawn every 30 seconds shit and WG along with everyother form of pvp in WoW is meaningless.
Once you pvp with something to lose and feel that rush you can't go back to something like WoW and pvp.
PLaying: EvE, Ryzom
Waiting For: Earthrise, Perpetuum
What makes PvP good to me is the controls, the ability to effectly play the way I want, and the ability to employ group tactics, especially capture points and different seige weapons.
What gives it meaning is fighting for something other than material gain, for example looting people, fighting to win money, taking land just to get better resources, these to me are pretty lame and shallow reasons to fight, my care cup is pretty low in these situations and I can't build any motivation to actually go fight, when it is just going to be about money and items in the end of the day, it is like a job to that point.
But if you give it a story and make a good reason why I would want to fight people, I don't know maybe they are trying to enslave the people in our country, also present it in a good way, not through text in a back story no one is going to read but actively show people in the game the actions and motivations of the different sides, think LOTR Conquest or SW Battlefront campaigns but multiplayer, that would be much like what I am talking about.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
@ Zorndorf
You described a one-dimensional competition base. A sliding scale that goes up when you win, down when you lose. This is the definition of a grind: when the result (not reward) is nothing. You win a title, which does nothing. It gives you gear, epeen or whatever, but it is void of 'meaning'. Unless gear and epeen *is* the meaning you attempt to define.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Apparently, a ladder based competition has NOTHING to do with grind.
A ladder based competition - like the ELO rating in Chess - is ALL about winning the competition and get the titles and the championships. You loose a fight: you go DOWN, you win a fight you go UP.
Like I said a Furious Gladiator title is spread uniquely over 17 different Realms on our Blackout Battlegroup.
Those few players (ONE team) that got that unique title are the REAL PvP champs among us.
You do it for the competition, for the title, for the very very rare Gladiator flying mount.
---- > That's the way our own society is ticking my friend.
Winning in sports and games and have a rating vs à vs other people ...is THE way people want to game and do sports for ... and WATCH sports for.
That's the name of the game. That's the name of ANY "meanigful" competition.
Not owning some pixeled ground for 24 hours.
I guess thats where people differ in how they want to pvp. Soem consider it a sport, some consider it war and want to play it as a war. Personally Im not here for sport ...Im here to play a game. Territorial control, destroying real player controled bases or seiging castles is what im interested in.
@ Zorndorf
Apparently, a ladder based competition has NOTHING to do with grind.
You repeat an action over a set amount of time, with the result being directly related to the efforts at hand. That's a grind. There are better disguised grinds than others, but it doesn't change what it is.
A ladder based competition - like the ELO rating in Chess - is ALL about winning the competition and get the titles and the championships. You loose a fight: you go DOWN, you win a fight you go UP.
Exactly. It's a 1 dimensional sliding scale. There's no sideways results (PvE, crafting, roleplay etc).
Like I said a Furious Gladiator title is spread uniquely over 17 different Realms on our Blackout Battlegroup.
The title isn't unique. It's a percentage. And active members, whether part of the main body or not of the team, still are awarded.
Those few players (ONE team) that got that unique title are the REAL PvP champs among us.
Ok... and? Good for them? It's like being the champion putt-putt golfer in a world that's crazy about basketball. It's *meaningless* to those who aren't interested in the system. When you take the system, and have it influence other systems, *everyone* is involved. You've just given *meaning* to it, because it affects all.
You do it for the competition, for the title, for the very very rare Gladiator flying mount.
If these things provide 'meaning' to you, then sure.
---- > That's the way our own society is ticking my friend.
Winning in sports and games and have a rating is THE way people want to game and do sports for ... and WATCH sports for.
That's the name of the game. That's the name of ANY "meanigful" competition.
You're confusing PvP with competition. PvP is, or can be, much more. The two aren't mutually inclusive.
Not owning some pixeled ground for 24 hours.
I PvP, I achieve a certain status as a direct result of my efforts within this aspect of play. Great. A grind. The result is influenced by others. Great. A competition. But what I do influences the world at large, to include other players *outside of the PvP aspect of play*.... great. A larger purpose. Meaning.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
This.
Fighting for resources and territory. Having team or faction gameplay perks due to success in PvP.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
We're of like mind that a nice middle ground would be good. Dont get me wrong, although I'm obviously all for land control, I still played more than my fair share of wow bgs and really had a blast with them. At least a quarter of my 2-year wow subscription was based purely on bgs, particularly wsg.
I think you're a bit off the mark on your description of those who like the battle for best land. Admittedly, sometimes you do have steamroll fights. However, many other times you have spectacular battles. In a game that's always on 24 hours, it's near impossible to leave a resource outpost vulnerable 24-hours, so by the game setting up some kind of time schedule where that type of structure is vulnerable, pvp is channeled so that the more even fights happen. Player choice definitely makes a difference, but more important would be teamwork skills. In the end, I see your analysis as a bit unfair to the playstyle and not correct.
Hrmm. Interesting point. How could it be resolved though?
A timer on land control does result in more spectacular battle, but linearizes PvP. You 'schedule' PvP. Is there a way to provide constant access with spectacular battles at *random* times?
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
See EVE. PVP that permits players to control territory in a game, even to the point of letting them rent it to others who aren't strong enough to take/hold it on their own. (a feudal system if you will) PVP should also drive and be driven by the economy.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Yes there is. Age of Conan tries to do just that.
You own a keep ... you can set the time frame that its open for attack. The wider window you set the better the bonuses for control you get. The narrower the window gives reduced bonuses.
In this way you funnel PvP into a time slot determined by the players .. the other players know the time slot that its open and can make attack plans accordingly.
Of course some guilds will set a pure say, 2hour window, and for those 2 hours go "defend" incase someone attacks. Other guilds will set wider windows and set "scouts" to watch for attackers. Its an interesting system although I really did'ent get much exposure to it (Seiges crashed hardcore when I played) it does seem to address some of the issues your bringing up.
It allows for funneled battles within given time frames .. but gives the players the ability to determine and alter these timeframes in order to gain larger rewards. A great risk Vs Reward system.
Of course there are other issues with AoCs seige warfare that I did'ent care for (Attack and defender population caps) etc .. but its kinda what your looking for I think.
This or something like this. It has to change the game world. For example in DaoC you control enough keeps your faction gets access to a particular Dungeon, Darkness falls that has good xp and loot.
Stuff like that.
Taking items is meaningless, mostly just ads fun for griefers.
Well, that DOES sound like a very interesting system. It would be far better than what Warhammer is using.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I don't like that system, though. The only ones who will participate eagerly are those who want to do both PvP and PvE content. PvPers aren't going to want to fight for access to PvE content, and PvEers aren't going to want their preferred content gated by PvP performance.
Lots of players will fight (particularly if the dungoen drops good loot), but their hearts won't be in it.
Fighting for tradable crafting resources is a better method in my eyes. Crafters who don't want to PvP can buy or trade for the materials. PvPers who don't want to craft can supply the crafters.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
But yet, it's still scheduling. You've painted it red isntead of a native blue.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Yeah. I don't like scheduling in principle. In practice, though, players have shown that they are not wiling or able to provide fair fights at all hours of the day.
It's taking a bad option over a far worse one. What's the alternative - instancing, which most seem to hate (I don't).
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Yeah. I don't like scheduling in principle. In practice, though, players have shown that they are not wiling or able to provide fair fights at all hours of the day.
It's taking a bad option over a far worse one. What's the alternative - instancing, which most seem to hate (I don't).
It's a serious conundrum. Scheduling sucks, and is very immersion breaking. We are going to kick your ass! On Thursday, between the hours of 7 and 9 pm. And dont' attack us before then, because you know, we didn't schedule that.
But, without it you get the dedicated guild that will raid your keep at 3 a.m. cause they know you're sleeping.
I think I prefer the 3 a.m. raid. The trick is to make it so the other side isn't devastated enough to quit when this happens, like it has to go in stages and you can't just take out everything at once.
Yeah. I don't like scheduling in principle. In practice, though, players have shown that they are not wiling or able to provide fair fights at all hours of the day.
It's taking a bad option over a far worse one. What's the alternative - instancing, which most seem to hate (I don't).
It's a serious conundrum. Scheduling sucks, and is very immersion breaking. We are going to kick your ass! On Thursday, between the hours of 7 and 9 pm. And dont' attack us before then, because you know, we didn't schedule that.
But, without it you get the dedicated guild that will raid your keep at 3 a.m. cause they know you're sleeping.
I think I prefer the 3 a.m. raid. The trick is to make it so the other side isn't devastated enough to quit when this happens, like it has to go in stages and you can't just take out everything at once.
Sort of like how EVE does it. You can attack player owned stations at any time, but if they've made the proper arrangements you will only be able to put it into reinforced mode which then makes station invunerable for a set period of time.
Gives the enemy about a day to prepare their defenses, however they are not allowed to beef up the station during this time other than to repair the shield.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The only thing I can think of is a 'stage based' concept where territorial targets are only accessible provided others are owned or not. You attack locations in stages.
Keep_B's and Keep_C's vulnerability hinges on Keep_A being contested. If Keep_A is owned, the owning faction runs no risk of losing Keep_B or Keep_C (and the crafting/questing/etc benefits from owning said keep). The issue here is that you now have instituted a 'front line' to your overall war, which prevents a 'drop behind enemy lines' (a la Airborne WWII tactics) strategic approach. There's strategy involved, and you can know at a glance where the action will be taking place, but the 'when' is in flux.
I don't know. You make locality, geography, the contraint in this system, rather than time. It brings us back to a simple equation of time vs. space. How the 2 are interconnected.
Perhaps this system would have merits? Would need a way to make the 'front lines' not the only way of waging war.
Edit: Instanced war? Oh hell no. While there is a place for it, it's clearly 'put into a box'. I'm discussing more along the lines of world PvP (being meaningful). While there are ways to establish meaning to isntanced PvP (and I love me some AB long time), it's lacking a macro-dynamic nature.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
pojung the system you describe was used in Planetside.
It worked quite well, though some players are searching for a game where exciting things happen on a more rare basis (ie where the territory you claimed in your 2-3 hours of play can't be reclaimed 2-3 hours after you log off; which is a slightly unreasonable demand.)
Ironically Planetside also had "instanced war". The instances were 200 players a side (potentially 600 players) but it was that very cap which made player decisions important (because you were winning/losing because of skill and strategy rather than because you outnumbered or outgeared the enemy.) You might split your forces, and your 40 guys attacking base A might be outnumbered in that particular battle, but that was because you had 160 players at Base B where you almost certainly outnumbered the enemy .
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Taking items is meaningless, mostly just ads fun for griefers.
In general I agree. However, I did like the idea of item drops in pvp (not from the player) in WAR. It shouldn't happen all the time, but if you kill a badass I think that having a one in a million shot of "looting" a super rare item (again, not from the inventory of the player you killed) could add good value to the pvp scene.
Yes there is. Age of Conan tries to do just that.
You own a keep ... you can set the time frame that its open for attack. The wider window you set the better the bonuses for control you get. The narrower the window gives reduced bonuses.
In this way you funnel PvP into a time slot determined by the players .. the other players know the time slot that its open and can make attack plans accordingly.
Of course some guilds will set a pure say, 2hour window, and for those 2 hours go "defend" incase someone attacks. Other guilds will set wider windows and set "scouts" to watch for attackers. Its an interesting system although I really did'ent get much exposure to it (Seiges crashed hardcore when I played) it does seem to address some of the issues your bringing up.
It allows for funneled battles within given time frames .. but gives the players the ability to determine and alter these timeframes in order to gain larger rewards. A great risk Vs Reward system.
Of course there are other issues with AoCs seige warfare that I did'ent care for (Attack and defender population caps) etc .. but its kinda what your looking for I think.
The thing that turned me off about AOC was that it was just a battle for a guild hall. I want to see battles for resources. E.g. you scan for resources, find a good concentration, test out the resource, find it has great stats, and start the process of controlling the resource. First you setup mining operations, then you setup your fort. From there you enhance the fort's defensive capabilities (depending on how really great or not so great that resource is), and defend the resource until the resource cycle is complete. During that cycle, other guilds would want that same resource, and they would have to fight your guild for control of the resource. As others have discussed there are a lot of different ways to do this, so I won't get into that.
Anyways, the point is that resources make it dynamic, which greatly increases the player economy (particularly as far as structures are concerned). You don't just buy one guild keep. You have to keep buying fort structures to protect the resources you want to control. The better the resources, the more you want to invest in protection structures. Then you'd make enough from the resource to get even better defensive structures and wait for the next resource to control. All together this adds up to dynamic gameplay with depth, and keeps the economy rolling. (economy to me is really what makes a mmo a mmo)
I'm not much of a pvp'er but the important part of PvP for me is the contribution it makes to the community dynamic. A game where ALL the players are on the same side? Bleah! If you're making a game in a persistent world context that has combat but you don't let the players fight, is just too artificially contrived for me to feel right. PvP adds a thrill, sense of danger and meaning just by existing. It doesn't necessarily have to have a need beyond that though nice if it does and implemented properly.
I'd say #1 would be PvP that helps all characters within one's faction. Such as a boost to stats or something, when a given PvP-based objective is accomplished - and lost when another side takes that objective for themselves. i.e. community rewards.
Second to that, just a PvP based individual progression system, where players make some sort of progress via PvP. Like leveling, or skill points, only in much smaller steps than what levels usually indicate. i.e. individual rewards.
Both of these work best in a PvP system that's more about territory and group-based objectives, rather than just running around ganking people.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
That's how it was in the beginning <cue veterans nostalgic for old-time UO and EQ pre-Trammel>. They stopped doing it because it doesn't work.
Actually, yes, it would be. It was. We've already been there and that's what happens.