^ I like what this guy Rabenwolf above me said. Lets just face the facts that this game is going to rock. We all know by watching the videos that this is going to be the best made mmo in the genre's history. The game oozes craftsmanship. Knowing that the first guild wars was a very pvp heavy game gives me faith that this game will have no shortage of targets for me to nuke and kids to kill until they run to their kitchens and cry in their cheerios.
People often forget that PvP is player created content to a certain degree. This is important as it is the catalyst in which keeps players engaged between the time it takes to develop new content. I honestly do not understand why some have an aversion to PvP, but I believe quite firmly that the majority of players prefer a bit of both. Its never just pvp or pve, but rather pvp AND pve.
PvP is no different than PvE really, other than the fact that the PLAYER cannot predict the opponents actions, where as a simple computer controlled enemy is predictable, actual player controlled opponents are not. It raises the challenge level and some people are just not happy with facing difficult challenges, in part, due to the fact they take it personally, which is sad.
That said, World PvP doesnt necessarily mean all people have to adhere to world pvp mechanics, yet the haters out there still want to oppose it as though they are still effected. Talk about being illogically selfish.
One of the keys to good game design involves triggering emotional responses from the player, this keeps the immersion factor high. If you are in a world, exploring, and you know danger can be around any corner (not just some dumb mob who only knows how to charge at you), then the immersion is heightened. One has to pay more attention, even hunt for the opposition.
Part of WoW's success is that it is able to cater to all play styles. It allows each type to play how they want, that they are not limited to one mode of play. I would hope GW2 is able to do such a thing, or else, the game will merely be mediocre in my eyes.
Games are made to be played for the challenges they present, and if thats not present in your play style...then the fundamental definition of a game has been lost and the player is merely finding pleasure in something that cannot be described as game play.
PvP is not a weakness just as challenges in a game are never a weakness. This is an objective statement when linking it to what defines the game. If a target audience is scared off by a form of gameplay they do not have to partake in, then the only weakness is found in that audience, not the game design itself.
That said, even if no World PvP is present in the first GW2 box, it doesnt mean that content will NOT be added later through expansions. Remember, this is ArenaNets business model. New features and content through expansions released more regularly over subscription fees.
People also often forget that sustainable PvP is entirely dependent on having willing participants. It's not merely player generated content; players ARE the content.
And PvP is *considerably* different than PvE. Computer generated mobs don't get frustrated when they lose 99 out of 100 battles. They don't complain when they're vastly outnumbered, out-classed, spawn-camped, or corpse looted. They don't log into the game's forums to demand for balance and/or nerfs.
Shooting fish in a barrel is NOT a challenge, but it's often what Open/FFA PvP fosters. While goading another player to rage-quit is arguably an (amusing) emotional response, it's ultimately undesireable and self-defeating. It's one thing to hunt for the opposition; it's another thing entirely to find yourself having to hunt for *any* opposition.
You're welcome to lecture others over the semantics of what "game play" or "challenge" should mean, but it's meaningless if they're not interested in logging in to play with you.
People often forget that PvP is player created content to a certain degree. This is important as it is the catalyst in which keeps players engaged between the time it takes to develop new content. I honestly do not understand why some have an aversion to PvP, but I believe quite firmly that the majority of players prefer a bit of both. Its never just pvp or pve, but rather pvp AND pve.
PvP is no different than PvE really, other than the fact that the PLAYER cannot predict the opponents actions, where as a simple computer controlled enemy is predictable, actual player controlled opponents are not. It raises the challenge level and some people are just not happy with facing difficult challenges, in part, due to the fact they take it personally, which is sad.
That said, World PvP doesnt necessarily mean all people have to adhere to world pvp mechanics, yet the haters out there still want to oppose it as though they are still effected. Talk about being illogically selfish.
One of the keys to good game design involves triggering emotional responses from the player, this keeps the immersion factor high. If you are in a world, exploring, and you know danger can be around any corner (not just some dumb mob who only knows how to charge at you), then the immersion is heightened. One has to pay more attention, even hunt for the opposition.
Part of WoW's success is that it is able to cater to all play styles. It allows each type to play how they want, that they are not limited to one mode of play. I would hope GW2 is able to do such a thing, or else, the game will merely be mediocre in my eyes.
Games are made to be played for the challenges they present, and if thats not present in your play style...then the fundamental definition of a game has been lost and the player is merely finding pleasure in something that cannot be described as game play.
PvP is not a weakness just as challenges in a game are never a weakness. This is an objective statement when linking it to what defines the game. If a target audience is scared off by a form of gameplay they do not have to partake in, then the only weakness is found in that audience, not the game design itself.
That said, even if no World PvP is present in the first GW2 box, it doesnt mean that content will NOT be added later through expansions. Remember, this is ArenaNets business model. New features and content through expansions released more regularly over subscription fees.
People also often forget that sustainable PvP is entirely dependent on having willing participants. It's not merely player generated content; players ARE the content.
And PvP is *considerably* different than PvE. Computer generated mobs don't get frustrated when they lose 99 out of 100 battles. They don't complain when they're vastly outnumbered, out-classed, spawn-camped, or corpse looted. They don't log into the game's forums to demand for balance and/or nerfs.
Shooting fish in a barrel is NOT a challenge, but it's often what Open/FFA PvP fosters. While goading another player to rage-quit is arguably an (amusing) emotional response, it's ultimately undesireable and self-defeating. It's one thing to hunt for the opposition; it's another thing entirely to find yourself having to hunt for *any* opposition.
You're welcome to lecture others over the semantics of what "game play" or "challenge" should mean, but it's meaningless if they're not interested in logging in to play with you.
And what is your counter argument again? That people just dont want to log in to play when pvp is taking place? Point me to where I stated there should be unwanted pvp encounters throughout the entirety of the game for players who hate pvp? I never suggested such a thing. You really didnt read and understand what my post was saying.
"And PvP is *considerably* different than PvE. Computer generated mobs don't get frustrated when they lose 99 out of 100 battles. They don't complain when they're vastly outnumbered, out-classed, spawn-camped, or corpse looted. They don't log into the game's forums to demand for balance and/or nerfs."
1. Players do complain about PvE. Why do you think WoW's elite end game dungeons kept getting nerfed? Because the computer is way too hard, or that it requires too much teamwork. I mean seriously? Some people will complain regardless, why? They either love to be the victim of something, or find a need for self importance. They hate the thought of tactics and strategies, of micromanagement and other challenges associated with the genre. Guess what? The moment you cave in and remove those challenges, those very same complainers eventually get bored and move on to something else. You cant please everyone. Its up for the designers to create a playing field where the player base can play, but not have all the game cater to them.
2. You make it sound like its insanely common for people to whine about getting killed in a pvp senario. If you go onto a battle field, and you KNOW its a battle field, why be surprised when someone in the opposite faction for example kills you? Its not the end of the world. In fact, the same people who will complain about it will then get all egotistical once some of their friends show up. Thats the whole point. Whiners are a vocal minority, nothing more. Its not mutually exclusive to pvp, but anything that makes that person feel like whining for attention.
3. If a player is upset because they are out classed, then logically, they should assume if they play the role of a support class, they shouldnt be able to kill everything that moves. Players are not expected to beat all computer controlled enemies right off the bat, so why would this be different for human controlled characters and their classes?
Finally in regards to my previous post and your thoughts on it...i recommend learning what defines a game, not just in academia and its theory, but also in creation. There is no such thing as a game without a ruleset, which then results in limitations, which results in challenges. Game design is the act of using those tools to create challenges which all fall into categories with their own sets of rules and definitions. It is scientific fact that emotional responses create immersion and attachment to the medium. Films, books, games... if theres no emotional response (subconcious or otherwise, even slight) there is just boredom. PvP is great at triggering the emotional response, and in fact, it heightens a gameplay experience for those who can find themselves to enjoy it. Predicting computer generated movements of npcs usually tends to be low on the list of triggering any response, especially since AI results a universal "charge at the player" attack.
Reread my previous post again without the bias if possible.
Sustainable PvP requires consensual participation. Do you disagree?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
That people just dont want to log in to play when pvp is taking place?
An oversimplification, but for some players, yes. Again, do you disagree?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
Point me to where I stated there should be unwanted pvp encounters throughout the entirety of the game for players who hate pvp? I never suggested such a thing. You really didnt read and understand what my post was saying.
Point to me where I said you did. Better still, would you agree with the following statement?
Imposing unwanted pvp encounters upon players who not only dislike pvp, but are actively seeking to avoid it is seldom (if ever) in a game's best interest.
If you disagree, could you clarify under what conditions it would be beneficial?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
1. Players do complain about PvE...
Players complaining about PvE doesn't contradict in the slightest what I said. Computer generated mobs don't complain. Period.
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
2. You make it sound like its insanely common for people to whine about getting killed in a pvp senario...
Are you arguing it's uncommon for people to QQ about defeat in PvP? Seriously??
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
3. If a player is upset because they are out classed...
I meant "out-classed" in the broadest sense, aka: of higher rank, greater skill, superior gear, etc.. I'm not certain what (if anything) the distinction of "support" classes has to do with this, or how an expectation to "beat all computer controlled enemies right off the bat" is even relevant to my point.
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
Finally in regards to my previous post and your thoughts on it...i recommend learning...
...Reread my previous post again without the bias if possible.
Your previous post is throughly biased (not to mention, quite condescending). How much of it would you like me to disregard?
People often forget that PvP is player created content to a certain degree. This is important as it is the catalyst in which keeps players engaged between the time it takes to develop new content. I honestly do not understand why some have an aversion to PvP, but I believe quite firmly that the majority of players prefer a bit of both. Its never just pvp or pve, but rather pvp AND pve.
PvP is no different than PvE really, other than the fact that the PLAYER cannot predict the opponents actions, where as a simple computer controlled enemy is predictable, actual player controlled opponents are not. It raises the challenge level and some people are just not happy with facing difficult challenges, in part, due to the fact they take it personally, which is sad.
That said, World PvP doesnt necessarily mean all people have to adhere to world pvp mechanics, yet the haters out there still want to oppose it as though they are still effected. Talk about being illogically selfish.
One of the keys to good game design involves triggering emotional responses from the player, this keeps the immersion factor high. If you are in a world, exploring, and you know danger can be around any corner (not just some dumb mob who only knows how to charge at you), then the immersion is heightened. One has to pay more attention, even hunt for the opposition.
Part of WoW's success is that it is able to cater to all play styles. It allows each type to play how they want, that they are not limited to one mode of play. I would hope GW2 is able to do such a thing, or else, the game will merely be mediocre in my eyes.
Games are made to be played for the challenges they present, and if thats not present in your play style...then the fundamental definition of a game has been lost and the player is merely finding pleasure in something that cannot be described as game play.
PvP is not a weakness just as challenges in a game are never a weakness. This is an objective statement when linking it to what defines the game. If a target audience is scared off by a form of gameplay they do not have to partake in, then the only weakness is found in that audience, not the game design itself.
That said, even if no World PvP is present in the first GW2 box, it doesnt mean that content will NOT be added later through expansions. Remember, this is ArenaNets business model. New features and content through expansions released more regularly over subscription fees.
I think this is a more or less damn fine post. I know nothing about WoW (personal choice) so won't comment on that but I agree, GW2 seems to try to cater for more playstyles than anything especially PvP.
@ Plinkplonl, Izzy mentioned in a recent interview that he was trying to go for 3 types of PvP so think that 3rd one is till on the cards at this stage.
GW2 will not be ffa pvp world. Its designed that way and by the looks of it it will be alot of fun.
This doesnt make the game in lack of pvp. It will just lack the ffa part.
those things aside;
Not everyone who likes ffa pvp is a ganker/griefer/zerger. True, a ffa pvp environment sets the stage for those kind of people but that environment also sets a stage for better friendships, danger sense (i do have a cat, its not the same) and excitements. Guilds mean alot more there, reputation means alot more there. Getting from point A to point B means alot more there.
Sustainable PvP requires consensual participation. Do you disagree?
Originally posted
by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
And why would you try to make that argument when my original post contained this "That said, World PvP doesnt necessarily mean all people have to adhere to world pvp mechanics, yet the haters out there still want to oppose it as though they are still effected." There is your answer.
You should read more carefully before commenting on another persons post. It is only fair that you give me the same level of reading comprehension as I give you.
Originally posted by hanshotfirst
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
That people just dont want to log in to play when pvp is taking place?
An oversimplification, but for some players, yes. Again, do you disagree?
Originally posted
by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Oversimplifcation? You just admitted that was the basis of your argument. If a person hates pvp so much, (based on the exaggerated reasons given) and you assume they are being forced to partake in pvp at all times throughout the game then and I quote " it's meaningless if they're not interested in logging in to play with you."
Is a player forced to go into a PVP lake in WAR online for example? No. Is a player forced to play on a PVP server as opposed to a partial pvp server? No. What I get from you is that you think players who hate pvp are so irrational that they would just not even log into a game in which PVP is part of the design even though the rule set in place also provides options for them not to partake in PvP.
Originally posted by hanshotfirst
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
Point me to where I stated there should be unwanted pvp encounters throughout the entirety of the game for players who hate pvp? I never suggested such a thing. You really didnt read and understand what my post was saying.
Point to me where I said you did. Better still, would you agree with the following statement?
Imposing unwanted pvp encounters upon players who not only dislike pvp, but are actively seeking to avoid it is seldom (if ever) in a game's best interest.
If you disagree, could you clarify under what conditions it would be beneficial?
Originally posted
by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
The fact that you respond to my post with "People also often forget that sustainable PvP is entirely dependent on having willing participants" connotes that I am saying something contrary to this. In other words, you are saying I am wrong and thus assume I am saying counter to what your whole post was about. Do you understand that your response to my post is completely out of place due to the fact you seem to be assigning a stance on my part without actually reading my post, and then turn it into a black and white statement which you argue against. Its like me saying "I like cookies" and you turning into "oh you want people to get fat and have cavities." It just doesnt make any sense given my post.
Furthermore the fallacy of the statement you provide is that you assume such extremely biased pvp hating players who cannot stand to be in a game that has an ounce of it is some how a majority or large contributing factor, in which case the games interest is at stake.
As per my original post, the majority of players prefer a healthy dose of both modes of play. PvP players do partake in PvE and vice versa, meaning, they are just NORMAL players not an extreme that only allows for one or the other. The question is then, does this small niche of pvp hating players feel entitled to ALL content of the game even though some of it has been clearly set aside for those who enjoy the option of pvp in a world setting? Are they so offended by multiple modes of play and the options to choose? Do they let their illogical bias towards PvP (which is merely a player controlled character), which abide by the same ruleset as everyone else, turn into activism to remove that said player and mechanic from a game they deem is theirs? Do they dislike the fact that the developer clearly has a target audience that can enjoy ALL parts of the game neutrally without falling into this silly idea of sides.
I dont know of any pvp player that doesnt also partake in PvE actively, as opposed to the PvE player who refuses to partake in any form of PvP. That said, the problem is with that gamer who placed limitations upon themselves. The target audience is wide enough and vast enough that a good developer leaves multiple modes of play open for each play style. The only way to get 100% of the content is to partake in all forms of gameplay. The bad apples are the ones who demand that all content be available to them while refusing to partake in all forms of gameplay. Its completely one sided.
They are the ultra minority.
My original post states PvP is good when players want to partake of it and that it doesnt need to be isolated in little cages and or instances to be feasible, rather its beneficial to allow for all modes of play in the world and in instances. However your argument comes down to "these minority groups will refuse to play a game in which they are exposed to pvp, even if it doesnt directly effect them", which is utterly sad. These are not gamers who bring along any benefits.
In fact, my original post points towards the fact that creating content takes time and the importance of keeping players engaged between content creation is through player generated content, which is a form of PvP. It is dynamic with goals created by the players themselves.
Originally posted by hanshotfirst
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
1. Players do complain about PvE...
Players complaining about PvE doesn't contradict in the slightest what I said. Computer generated mobs don't complain. Period.
Originally posted
by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Of course it does. In fact, it completely invalidates what you gave me as a reason why pvp is "bad". Your reasoning is that in PvP someone complains because they got killed, even if both parties knew they were getting into PvP. Because you think one person complains, then PvP is bad. So lets use facts. People complain about PvE. If a boss is too hard and kills them, they complain. If they cannot defeat something after the first few tries, they complain. Instead of getting better, they complain. Again, Vanilla WoW end game 40 man raids was nerfed so that the complainers could actually beat it. This completely destroyed the strategies and tactics, the practice and smart party building that other players accomplished to defeat the raids.
If it only requires one person to complain in a situation which results in character "dying" and respawning somewhere, then that covers both PvE and PvP. Honestly, i think its even worse to lose to a basic AI controlled mob than it is to another player. That said, try not to provide any hypocritical excuses as to why pvp is bad. If complaining is the result, well then it happens across the board for all modes of play.
Originally posted by hanshotfirst
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
2. You make it sound like its insanely common for people to whine about getting killed in a pvp senario...
Are you arguing it's uncommon for people to QQ about defeat in PvP? Seriously??
Originally posted
by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
So you are saying its insanely common? Lets say there are 500,000 active subscribers playing a PVP game, and on the forum there is anywhere from 2-3 whine posts a day, usually from the same people. Does this make it common? No especially if you consider the total sum of players and the fact that a large sum dont even actively participate on the forums at all. In fact, forums are usually the small minority of a community and hardly reflect on the sum total of the whole.
So fail to see how this is a commonality in all pvp games given that fact.
Originally posted by hanshotfirst
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
3. If a player is upset because they are out classed...
I meant "out-classed" in the broadest sense, aka: of higher rank, greater skill, superior gear, etc.. I'm not certain what (if anything) the distinction of "support" classes has to do with this, or how an expectation to "beat all computer controlled enemies right off the bat" is even relevant to my point.
Originally posted
by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Ok so you are saying its unfair for a better player or a character who (yes class included) is further developed, to have the upper hand over a player who is not? Well then why dont we just remove all the aspects that make RPGS what they are including levels. I'm being sarcastic, but I am sure you get my point. Furthermore the reason for bringing up the support class is because it says that even in a PvE setting, the choice of the player to pick a character with certain limitations (specialties and differences in levels of challenge) is that the difficulty will not be equal for everyone. Its up to the player to know that no matter what, they will not win every time, they will not have it easy all the time, and that it takes character growth and or alternate classes to over come obstacles. If this is acceptable, then it is hypocritical to not give the same acceptableness to PvP challenges.
Thus, completely relevant. Out classed means better than the other in that moment of time, it includes actual character class (limitations and expectations through the ruleset) and the response of the player, whether they accept this or not.
Originally posted by hanshotfirst
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
Finally in regards to my previous post and your thoughts on it...i recommend learning...
...Reread my previous post again without the bias if possible.
Your previous post is throughly biased (not to mention, quite condescending). How much of it would you like me to disregard?
Originally posted
by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Just because you try to paint my post as condescending doesnt actually make it so, especially in light of your own responses. There is in essence a bit of hypocrisy in your reply. I am merely asking you to read my original post without putting words and intent where none existed, but I suppose its too late for that now. It seems as though you were immediately on the defensive, attacking my post and calling it a lecture. Thats not healthy for any dialog.
Furthermore, according to the behavioral sciences, bias is the interference with rational thought. I dont see where I have been irrational in the objective statements, and if you wish to make your argument based around my subjective ones, then thats your choice though I may disagree. I have yet though to see a rational and relevant counter argument to my original post.
That said, PVP regardless of what we talk about will be in Guild Wars 2. There will be a large area for PVP as well, and there is always the option for adding a larger world pvp like feature in coming expansions. The only debate we can have following these facts is if its a good or bad thing. The numbers in video game success however prove that PvP is good in terms of active players both on the console and PC, and that WoW's initial + ongoing success is that for the most part, it caters to all play styles. That players who partake in both pvp and pve selectively are the greatest majority .
Originally posted by hanshotfirst
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
That people just dont want to log in to play when pvp is taking place?
An oversimplification, but for some players, yes. Again, do you disagree?
Originally posted
by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by hanshotfirst
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
That people just dont want to log in to play when pvp is taking place?
An oversimplification, but for some players, yes. Again, do you disagree?
That said, World PvP doesnt necessarily mean all people have to adhere to world pvp mechanics, yet the haters out there still want to oppose it as though they are still effected. Talk about being illogically selfish.
Let's say we are in a room. You want to listen to music while I want to read a book in silence. By turning the stereo on you are oppressing my freedom to read my book and because we share the same room, you are not free to listen to music. There's an easy fix to this in real life: headphones - but can you say the same about open world PvP?
I am not an advocate of open world PvP. By my account, competitive, instanced PvP is consistently far more entertaining than anything in open world PvP. I played Eve Online for over a year and I don't have to resort to my toes to count all the "good fights" I had. You may or may not even get a fight in Eve if you play whole night.
But good fights or even proper PvP is subjective, I suppose. I for one, don't consider ganking, camping, griefing, zerging or such anywhere near proper PvP. It simply lacks entertainment value when you know what's going to happen. Sure the time and place may vary but when you get ganked, you will lose. It stops being about combat and more about a hunting - a cat and mouse game if you will. I have no interest in such. Praying on those who cannot or do not want to defend themselves. I despise the people who enjoy it. Like burning ants with a magnifying glass. It lacks any kind of challenge I specifically seek from PvP: Challenging human opponents.
GW2 offers different playstyles like they were food on a tray. I am glad that my mashed potatoes and my peas don't touch. You may very well like your ice cream with ketchup or your hamburger with chocolate sauce, I don't care. Open world PvP is not in harmony with this style of PvE experience.
GW1 had its focus in competitive PvP and cooperative, story-based PvE. GW2 was meant to build on that. I don't think they want to alienate their already-established player base by breaking something they did well in the past. Who do you think their new player base will consist of? In my book, doing something well is better than doing everything OK. If that something is exactly what you want, no WoW will replace that.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
That said, World PvP doesnt necessarily mean all people have to adhere to world pvp mechanics, yet the haters out there still want to oppose it as though they are still effected. Talk about being illogically selfish.
Let's say we are in a room. You want to listen to music while want to read a book in silence. By turning the stereo on you are oppressing my freedom to read my book and because we share the same room, you are not free to listen to music. There's an easy fix to this in real life: headphones - but can you say the same about open world PvP?
I am not an advocate of open world PvP. By my account, competitive, instanced PvP is consistently far more entertaining than anything in open world PvP. I played Eve Online for over a year and I don't have to resort to my toes to count all the "good fights" I had. You may or may not get even a fight in Eve if you play whole night.
But good fights or even proper PvP is subjective, I suppose. I for one, don't consider ganking, camping, griefing, zerging or such anywhere near proper PvP. It simply lacks entertainment value when you know what's going to happen. Sure the time and place may vary but when you get ganked, you will lose. It stops being about combat and more about a hunting - a cat and mouse game if you will. I have no interest in such. Praying on those who cannot or do not want to defend themselves. I despise the people who enjoy it. Like burning ants with a magnifying glass. It lacks any kind of challenge I specifically seek from PvP: Challenging human opponents.
GW2 offers different playstyles like they were food on a tray. I am glad that my mashed potatoes and my peas don't touch. You may very well like your ice cream with ketchup or your hamburger with chocolate sauce, I don't care. Open world PvP is not in harmony with this style of PvE experience.
GW1 had its focus in competitive PvP and cooperative, story-based PvE. GW2 was meant to build on that. I don't think they want to alienate their already-established player base by breaking something they did well in the past. Who do you think their new player base will consist of? In my book, doing something well is better than doing everything OK. If that something is exactly what you want, no WoW will replace that.
To be fair, I find it irrational to suggest that a video game which features a sand box layout to be comparable to a library.
By interacting with a video game, you made the active choice to play by the ruleset of the world. A player cannot control the computer and more than they can control another player. Thus to suggest one person is reading a book, and another person is actively doing something to interfere with that book reading seems wrong, especially considering both fall under the same rule sets and one is not mutually exclusive to the other. This means, in a PvE environment, a player is still not protected from other players being disruptive. Kill stealing is a good example, jumping up and down around the person for hours on end another. To associate PVP with noise is wrong. If a player in a PvE environment is making the same SFX killing their mobs as two other ppl having a pvp match, who is then disrupting who?
The real answer is none, because mmorpgs are not isolated experiences but rather shared space, players then have to willingly accept there will be compromise, thus adapting to the multiplayer experience over what would normally be a single player experience.
Think about the idea of a static environment as opposed to elements that go counter to the static. I dont know about you, but generally the static environments tend to be alienating by nature. The same mob, the same location, the same mindless walk path, the same opening attack, the same respawn. It seems to me it would be more alienating to leave out the factors that contribute to the act of surprise.
Did you know that one of the key ingredients for immersion as stated by academics, designers, directors ..ect is "surprise". Surprise keeps people entertained, with out the element, and what you can break it down to specifically, entertainment takes a huge hit. No one enjoys a predictable movie, the same goes for game play experiences. The opposite of surprise is alienation. In the game design based "flow chart" (google it) boredom is the lack of surprise. Finally the act of surprise itself is tied to the emotional response.
So in a way, I am merely pointing out is that the example you have given doesnt really work from my perspective.
Originally posted by Quirhid
But good fights or even proper PvP is subjective, I suppose. I for one, don't consider ganking, camping, griefing, zerging or such anywhere near proper PvP. It simply lacks entertainment value when you know what's going to happen. Sure the time and place may vary but when you get ganked, you will lose. It stops being about combat and more about a hunting - a cat and mouse game if you will. I have no interest in such. Praying on those who cannot or do not want to defend themselves. I despise the people who enjoy it. Like burning ants with a magnifying glass. It lacks any kind of challenge I specifically seek from PvP: Challenging human opponents.
GW2 offers different playstyles like they were food on a tray. I am glad that my mashed potatoes and my peas don't touch. You may very well like your ice cream with ketchup or your hamburger with chocolate sauce, I don't care. Open world PvP is not in harmony with this style of PvE experience.
GW1 had its focus in competitive PvP and cooperative, story-based PvE. GW2 was meant to build on that. I don't think they want to alienate their already-established player base by breaking something they did well in the past. Who do you think their new player base will consist of? In my book, doing something well is better than doing everything OK. If that something is exactly what you want, no WoW will replace that.
As for Ganking, I suppose that depends on your definition of what ganking is. I tend to see it misused quite a bit. The act of losing to another player is not tied to being ganked, just as beating another player is not the act of ganking. Ganking is a term thats best tied to overpowering another player through huge differences in player progression (level) and or (numbers), especially if there is no actual designed reward for doing so.
PvP at its core is not Ganking. Ganking is merely the by product of less detailed design choices. A good game will be designed to allow for competitive combat while conditioning players, through ruleset and or other design elements, to play on an equal playing field. Finally, the act of survival itself, even when the odds are against you, are considered a positive result.
As for GW1, the design choices were mostly limited in part to the business model. Lets face it, they didnt know if it would work or not. A subscription free game that had to be less risk and more reward resulted in a design that kept players in hubs with channels while "missions" were isolated static instances along a fairly linear progression path. It was all made to cut cost really, and the design was very limited because of it. Hellgate london tried to do the same, but also pushed for a sub free...they didnt do so well. I believe that Arena Net really wanted a more MMORPG like game, especially since they advertised GW1 as a form of MMORPG (even though it wasnt). Now that they know there is success to be had from that business model, AND now working with an established IP, they can get away with going for more of an open world, actual mmorpg like build, along with pvp options.
In short, I am pointing out that the GW1 business model had more to do with their design than the actual pvp design. I believe they really want to push it further than mere team death matches as seen in something like Unreal Tournament and if they can combine pvp with the world, they would. From what I hear, they have one map designed to hold massive armies who fight over castles, so its definitely an area they are trying to push.
The instanced arena gameplay supposedly lets you choose any armor, weapon, and skills for your class in the game before you engage in combat. The mists are supposedly large open-world areas where 3 teams of unlimited numbers of players fight for victory. I wouldn't call that neutered.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I think the music metaphor fits quite well. Open world PvP ruleset oppresses those who want to do their PvE in peace. Whichever way you try to justify open world PvP, you cannot escape the fact that vast majority don't want it. They want to find their surprise from within the game, the content, from their fellow players. They like to have a good time on their own terms. Open world PvP gives other players the a chance to disrupt their experience.
If you are not just arguing for argument's sake, the main fault I find in your logic is that you start with the preconception that open world PvP or PvP in large scale is automatically good - better than tactical, small scale or instanced PvP. -Like it is some sort of pinnacle of PvP evolution or something devs should always strive for. I disagree. Of all the people I met and played with in Eve, a great majority preferred small-scale PvP over big fleet fights. Even if the game had the support for large scale combat, players chose to go for small-scale PvP.
No one has succeeded in making an open world PvP that encourages competitive play style and I have my doubts if it is even possible.
You can make your own conclusions why GW1 was as it was. Who am I to stop you. I formed my opinions through what they wrote and what they told me while they were developing it. These guys really love cooperative gameplay and competitive PvP and they wanted to show the world that they can do it without a subscription fee. I remember Jeff Strain was very much against subscription model from the start. The whole anti-grind mentality throughout the game is warring with the subscription based model. If they'd wanted to make "just another standard MMORPG" they would have stayed in Blizzard. -But they didn't, because they wanted to do something they could enjoy themselves.
It isn't about making MMORPGs and money, it is about making good games. Games that they themselves would like to play. But again, you can form your own opinion.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I think the music metaphor fits quite well. Open world PvP ruleset oppresses those who want to do their PvE in peace. Whichever way you try to justify open world PvP, you cannot escape the fact that vast majority don't want it. They want to find their surprise from within the game, the content, from their fellow players. They like to have a good time on their own terms. Open world PvP gives other players the a chance to disrupt their experience.
If you are not just arguing for argument's sake, the main fault I find in your logic is that you start with the preconception that open world PvP or PvP in large scale is automatically good - better than tactical, small scale or instanced PvP. -Like it is some sort of pinnacle of PvP evolution or something devs should always strive for. I disagree. Of all the people I met and played with in Eve, a great majority preferred small-scale PvP over big fleet fights. Even if the game had the support for large scale combat, players chose to go for small-scale PvP.
No one has succeeded in making an open world PvP that encourages competitive play style and I have my doubts if it is even possible.
You can make your own conclusions why GW1 was as it was. Who am I to stop you. I formed my opinions through what they wrote and what they told me while they were developing it. These guys really love cooperative gameplay and competitive PvP and they wanted to show the world that they can do it without a subscription fee. I remember Jeff Strain was very much against subscription model from the start. The whole anti-grind mentality throughout the game is warring with the subscription based model. If they'd wanted to make "just another standard MMORPG" they would have stayed in Blizzard. -But they didn't, because they wanted to do something they could enjoy themselves.
It isn't about making MMORPGs and money, it is about making good games. Games that they themselves would like to play. But again, you can form your own opinion.
Uh... no. You essentially compare a massive multiplayer online role playing game to an experience at the library. Im sorry but I just cannot logically accept that as a viable comparison, and I already explained why. If you disagree with my explanation, then break it down and argue against it using specifics.
As for the assumption I think all world pvp is good... that makes no sense since any game play mechanic can be BAD if its design BADLY. There are no exceptions to this rule. The opposite also holds true, world pvp designed right is ALWAYS a good thing. Furthermore, you do not inquire as to what world pvp entails. Its almost as if you assume there are no design choices to keep it balanced, or orderly. Do you assume by world pvp you mean every little spot is a pvp zone? Because making that assumption is a no go.
Also, you need to separate casual pvp from tactical/hardcore pvp. You can read some the GW2 Developer comments on how they separate the two as part of the GW2 experience. World PvP falls under the casual category. Both forms of pvp are good when designed right. PvE is bad if designed badly, PvP is no exception and its good to have both. Same with hardcore and casual PvE. Again they are not mutually exclusive of one another.
As for GW1, you can say what you want but the information readily available is against you. Business models often restrict the type of design a game can have. Theres no getting around it. When you have f2p models, the design is based around monetary gain, the actual design and freedom to design based around "fun" takes back seat to the business model. The same went for how Guild Wars 1 was designed.
The devs stated that the technology they had to deal with pretty much limited them to a non persistent world, and thus instancing. Its cheaper. However in all guild wars 2 interviews they state that they are finally able to go with a more persistent world. Their experiment showed that there can be profit in an xpac based business model.
Hey man, its fine and all to disagree with me, but lets keep it logical and as neutral as possible.
Uh... no. You essentially compare a massive multiplayer online role playing game to an experience at the library. Im sorry but I just cannot logically accept that as a viable comparison, and I already explained why. If you disagree with my explanation, then break it down and argue against it using specifics.
As for the assumption I think all world pvp is good... that makes no sense since any game play mechanic can be BAD if its design BADLY. There are no exceptions to this rule. The opposite also holds true, world pvp designed right is ALWAYS a good thing. Furthermore, you do not inquire as to what world pvp entails. Its almost as if you assume there are no design choices to keep it balanced, or orderly. Do you assume by world pvp you mean every little spot is a pvp zone? Because making that assumption is a no go.
Also, you need to separate casual pvp from tactical/hardcore pvp. You can read some the GW2 Developer comments on how they separate the two as part of the GW2 experience. World PvP falls under the casual category. Both forms of pvp are good when designed right. PvE is bad if designed badly, PvP is no exception and its good to have both. Same with hardcore and casual PvE. Again they are not mutually exclusive of one another.
No. The metaphor is not about MMORPGs. It is about one's exercise of their freedom restricting another's freedom (i.e. oppressing another). Open world PvP in its truest form is not a compromise. Allowing open world PvP is a victory to a small minority. Not very desirable. Large, completely separate areas for PvP (like the WvWvW system) is a compromise. This way the majority gets what they want (that is no PvP in rest of the areas) and whoever gets "screwed" belongs to a minority.
Badly designed feature is bad. -Well, thats a no brainer. The point is that there is no open world PvP ruleset, in existence today, that complements as good or popular a PvE experience as MMORPGs that don't have it. Here's where I disagree: Even well designed open world PvP is NOT ALWAYS a good thing. No one has succeeded in making it balanced or orderly. It may never be balanced or orderly because it always has declined into the aforementioned cat 'n' mouse game.
Let me say this again: WvWvW is a good compromise. Allowing PvP in rest of the areas is not a compromise.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I like PvP in FPS games like the Battle-Field Series or in Strategy Titles (Advanced Tactics- WWII, TOAW, HOI, MOO2, Civ, etc) but not generaly in MMO's. In most MMO's success in PvP is largely determined by lag/ping, video card performance, Levels, or the ability to mindlessly mash buttons as quickly as possible. Very often, very little skill or strategy play into it.
Furthermore open world FFA PvP pretty much tends to devolve more into Player vs Victem...where you get groups of 10+ bored max level players with top gear waiting to pounce on level 1 starting players the second they leave their starting town, before they have even had a chance to learn to play....and kill them repeatedly...claiming how "awesome" they are for doing this...only to log or teleport out the instant any serious opposition shows up.
From my perspective, GW2's take on PvP sounds pretty good though..... where you have Team vs Team PvP in instances...or Realm vs Realm PVP in large battlefield type areas sounds pretty good. Open World REALM vs REALM PvP can be ok...as long as it's structured so that there are relatively "safe" areas of the world....where the opposing realm can't effectively project forces without a massive, well orchestrated effort that would take enough time to achieve that it would be pretty clear to everyone that the area was no longer "safe" anymore well before combat occured there. Example, if you are playing a historicaly accurate WWII game.... as a player you really shouldn't have to worry about bumping into German Panzer-Grenadiers while you are roaming around Chicago in 1943. Very few MMO's actualy manage to pull those mechanics off though. More often with Open World PvP games...it's like a Panzer Division just appears in the middle of Illinios out of the blue one afternoon...and is gone as quickly as it came.
I was merely attempting to emphasize a point I felt your post failed to.
And if we're truly of like mind on this issue, then it escapes me why you're taking such umbrage to my comments. I should have been preaching to the choir.
And yes, I still contend that PvP *is* different than PvE. The irony is, despite your protests otherwise, you said as much in the very post I was responding to:
Originally posted by Rabenwolf PvP is no different than PvE really, other than the fact that the PLAYER cannot predict the opponents actions, where as a simple computer controlled enemy is predictable, actual player controlled opponents are not.
We can go back and forth over the significance, but even you alluded to why some might find this objectionable:
Originally posted by Rabenwolf It raises the challenge level and some people are just not happy with facing difficult challenges
Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in your personal assessment as to whether they're sad, meet the 'objective' criteria for what can be described as gameplay, or represent the "majority of players" (logically selfish or otherwise) you're the apparent self-appointed spokesperson for. Instead, I was simply making the observation that if their tolerance for 'challenge' is exceeded beyond reason either by having PvP imposed upon them, or allowing their game to be irrevocably disrupted by it they'll stop playing.
By absolutely no means am I advocating that PvP has no place in Guild Wars (believe it or not, I'm actually quite fond of PvP), nor that ArenaNet should cater to an irrational, "vocal minority". Quite the opposite. Rather I was addressing those who would insist the game will be "neutered" if it doesn't include free-for-all, Open-World (aka: non-consensual) PvP.
I care much more about whether they get the proper PvP modes right in the game then if they do or don't include open world PvP. In fact open world PvP is against the very purpose of the game.
From the very beginning Anet said they want you to be happy when you see another player in the game, they encouraged this with their dynamic event system and not having to tell someone they can't come in your group because you need a healer only. If they had open world pvp then imagine the amount of ganking centered around the dynamic events as factions would camp them to no end. No thanks.
While I mostly agree with all of your actual points and not your counter arguement... your pointless counter arguements. I say that because if you read them from an outside perspective, you are all saying the exact same thing. Almost verbatim.
Anyways, the real ball buster is that while WvWvW is in this arguement considered as contained. It will still be shrugged off by a large majority for being too "Ganky", someone will go out and try to fulfill an objective and random guy and his goonsquad from Server ABC will be waiting to stop him, thus making that person rage and start to feed negative feedback to the rest of the populace instigating a series of responses that say "You went to the area where the PvP was happening... didn't you know?"
So I mean, while you guys argue over the validity of Open World PvP not being a bad thing... you will more than likely see the same problems crop up in the Mists. I for one plan on loving them, regardless. I also hope the goal in the Open World PvP is not "Blow up this, and this, and this". That would suck something seriously. I hope it's a long and drawn out process that feels as much like an actual small scale war as possible.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
While I mostly agree with all of your actual points and not your counter arguement... your pointless counter arguements. I say that because if you read them from an outside perspective, you are all saying the exact same thing. Almost verbatim.
Anyways, the real ball buster is that while WvWvW is in this arguement considered as contained. It will still be shrugged off by a large majority for being too "Ganky", someone will go out and try to fulfill an objective and random guy and his goonsquad from Server ABC will be waiting to stop him, thus making that person rage and start to feed negative feedback to the rest of the populace instigating a series of responses that say "You went to the area where the PvP was happening... didn't you know?"
So I mean, while you guys argue over the validity of Open World PvP not being a bad thing... you will more than likely see the same problems crop up in the Mists. I for one plan on loving them, regardless. I also hope the goal in the Open World PvP is not "Blow up this, and this, and this". That would suck something seriously. I hope it's a long and drawn out process that feels as much like an actual small scale war as possible.
Well I think the key about the Mists is.....
1) It's entirely optional...you can play a full feldged game without ever stepping foot in there (I assume)
2) It IS an area that is designated as PvP....It's a very different arguement saying "You don't want PvP...done enter the Mists" then it is saying "You don't want PvP, play another game" or " don't step foot outside of a city/starter zone".
3) With W vs W vs W, at least theoreticaly you have built-in Allies......making it a little bit less "ganky"...as even going in solo, you can count on other people being around that will want to help you and fight your attackers.
Anyways, the real ball buster is that while WvWvW is in this arguement considered as contained. It will still be shrugged off by a large majority for being too "Ganky", someone will go out and try to fulfill an objective and random guy and his goonsquad from Server ABC will be waiting to stop him, thus making that person rage and start to feed negative feedback to the rest of the populace instigating a series of responses that say "You went to the area where the PvP was happening... didn't you know?"
The real difference being that players can choose to play in the mists where open world PvP exists or they can stick to the straight up PvE content and not have to worry about getting ganked. Add to that fact that you can level within the mists or through normal PvE and you are providing some nice choices to players.
Here's the problems with just making PvE or PvP servers for people to choose from:
1) Locks you into a server from character creation that might suit your needs then, but your needs/wants might change and you wish you had the option to do PvP later.
2) Moving between PvE/PvP servers can be timely and cost real world money to do in some games.
3) In a game where you can pick PvE or PvP servers and the only difference between the world is being able to PvP or not in the open then you cannot tailor make content like Dynamic events that would be absolutely ruined by open world PvP. Basically you can't have a world that is designed specifically for PvE if you have to account for a PvP option on the other server unless you want to give some content to one server type and not the other.
To reply specifically to the quote above about a person raging about getting ganked. It's a lot easier to leave the mists and go do PvE content then it is in other games to get away from open world PvPing when you are trying to complete an objective where you need to be in a certain area to do so.
With forced PvE servers and instanced pvp only is pvp gw2's weak point? Don't get me wrong I think the combat will probably be great but the pvp is shall we say... neutered?
Depending on your point of view, PvP is a weakness for all games that try to include it.
Right. Because, lets be honest; most players want welfare, not competition. Art imitating life.
Let's be realistic, most players don't want asshat gankers popping out of nowhere for the express purpose of being a f******* nuisance. Your open-world gankfest utopia is dream shared by a minority, and thankfully, GW2 won't be catering to you. The Mists will be enough for most of us.
meh open world pvp is over rated, it leads to ganking zergs and pretty much "unfair" pvp (depending on death penalties etc).
most people are right in that WoW open world pvp is dead. However other than obvious examples of vanilla wow and right after expansions there were a lot of scenarios where there was still pretty decent competitive open world pvp.
Examples:
In BC there was that isle (i forget the exact name) where everyone did daily quests. Open pvp there was ongoing and crazy, I remember getting in 5v5 battles which ballooned to 30 v 30.
- They ruined this by making to many daily quest spots in WOTLK, mind you it was still around at first with sons of hodir dailies.
In short there are certain things an mmo can do to make open pvp fun and somewhat fair (assuming factions are balanced).
Making a pve server and pvp servers are essential, people who like to pvp don't want to hear people bitching about getting ganked, and people who don't want to get ganked can do that on a pve server.
GW1 was never about open world pvp and i'm expecting the same from this game, I just don't see them having the resources to accomplish open world pvp.
Comments
WoW caters to all play styles? I lol'd.
^ I like what this guy Rabenwolf above me said. Lets just face the facts that this game is going to rock. We all know by watching the videos that this is going to be the best made mmo in the genre's history. The game oozes craftsmanship. Knowing that the first guild wars was a very pvp heavy game gives me faith that this game will have no shortage of targets for me to nuke and kids to kill until they run to their kitchens and cry in their cheerios.
People also often forget that sustainable PvP is entirely dependent on having willing participants. It's not merely player generated content; players ARE the content.
And PvP is *considerably* different than PvE. Computer generated mobs don't get frustrated when they lose 99 out of 100 battles. They don't complain when they're vastly outnumbered, out-classed, spawn-camped, or corpse looted. They don't log into the game's forums to demand for balance and/or nerfs.
Shooting fish in a barrel is NOT a challenge, but it's often what Open/FFA PvP fosters. While goading another player to rage-quit is arguably an (amusing) emotional response, it's ultimately undesireable and self-defeating. It's one thing to hunt for the opposition; it's another thing entirely to find yourself having to hunt for *any* opposition.
You're welcome to lecture others over the semantics of what "game play" or "challenge" should mean, but it's meaningless if they're not interested in logging in to play with you.
And what is your counter argument again? That people just dont want to log in to play when pvp is taking place? Point me to where I stated there should be unwanted pvp encounters throughout the entirety of the game for players who hate pvp? I never suggested such a thing. You really didnt read and understand what my post was saying.
"And PvP is *considerably* different than PvE. Computer generated mobs don't get frustrated when they lose 99 out of 100 battles. They don't complain when they're vastly outnumbered, out-classed, spawn-camped, or corpse looted. They don't log into the game's forums to demand for balance and/or nerfs."
1. Players do complain about PvE. Why do you think WoW's elite end game dungeons kept getting nerfed? Because the computer is way too hard, or that it requires too much teamwork. I mean seriously? Some people will complain regardless, why? They either love to be the victim of something, or find a need for self importance. They hate the thought of tactics and strategies, of micromanagement and other challenges associated with the genre. Guess what? The moment you cave in and remove those challenges, those very same complainers eventually get bored and move on to something else. You cant please everyone. Its up for the designers to create a playing field where the player base can play, but not have all the game cater to them.
2. You make it sound like its insanely common for people to whine about getting killed in a pvp senario. If you go onto a battle field, and you KNOW its a battle field, why be surprised when someone in the opposite faction for example kills you? Its not the end of the world. In fact, the same people who will complain about it will then get all egotistical once some of their friends show up. Thats the whole point. Whiners are a vocal minority, nothing more. Its not mutually exclusive to pvp, but anything that makes that person feel like whining for attention.
3. If a player is upset because they are out classed, then logically, they should assume if they play the role of a support class, they shouldnt be able to kill everything that moves. Players are not expected to beat all computer controlled enemies right off the bat, so why would this be different for human controlled characters and their classes?
Finally in regards to my previous post and your thoughts on it...i recommend learning what defines a game, not just in academia and its theory, but also in creation. There is no such thing as a game without a ruleset, which then results in limitations, which results in challenges. Game design is the act of using those tools to create challenges which all fall into categories with their own sets of rules and definitions. It is scientific fact that emotional responses create immersion and attachment to the medium. Films, books, games... if theres no emotional response (subconcious or otherwise, even slight) there is just boredom. PvP is great at triggering the emotional response, and in fact, it heightens a gameplay experience for those who can find themselves to enjoy it. Predicting computer generated movements of npcs usually tends to be low on the list of triggering any response, especially since AI results a universal "charge at the player" attack.
Reread my previous post again without the bias if possible.
Sustainable PvP requires consensual participation. Do you disagree?
An oversimplification, but for some players, yes. Again, do you disagree?
Point to me where I said you did. Better still, would you agree with the following statement?
Imposing unwanted pvp encounters upon players who not only dislike pvp, but are actively seeking to avoid it is seldom (if ever) in a game's best interest.
If you disagree, could you clarify under what conditions it would be beneficial?
Players complaining about PvE doesn't contradict in the slightest what I said. Computer generated mobs don't complain. Period.
Are you arguing it's uncommon for people to QQ about defeat in PvP? Seriously??
I meant "out-classed" in the broadest sense, aka: of higher rank, greater skill, superior gear, etc.. I'm not certain what (if anything) the distinction of "support" classes has to do with this, or how an expectation to "beat all computer controlled enemies right off the bat" is even relevant to my point.
Your previous post is throughly biased (not to mention, quite condescending). How much of it would you like me to disregard?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
And what is your counter argument again?
I think this is a more or less damn fine post. I know nothing about WoW (personal choice) so won't comment on that but I agree, GW2 seems to try to cater for more playstyles than anything especially PvP.
@ Plinkplonl, Izzy mentioned in a recent interview that he was trying to go for 3 types of PvP so think that 3rd one is till on the cards at this stage.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
open pvp might be a weakness, but it should be totally shadowed by how balanced pvp will be.
if its gonna be atleast half balanced as gw1... then we gonna look at best pvp ever made.
GW2 will not be ffa pvp world. Its designed that way and by the looks of it it will be alot of fun.
This doesnt make the game in lack of pvp. It will just lack the ffa part.
those things aside;
Not everyone who likes ffa pvp is a ganker/griefer/zerger. True, a ffa pvp environment sets the stage for those kind of people but that environment also sets a stage for better friendships, danger sense (i do have a cat, its not the same) and excitements. Guilds mean alot more there, reputation means alot more there. Getting from point A to point B means alot more there.
I need more vespene gas.
And why would you try to make that argument when my original post contained this "That said, World PvP doesnt necessarily mean all people have to adhere to world pvp mechanics, yet the haters out there still want to oppose it as though they are still effected." There is your answer.
You should read more carefully before commenting on another persons post. It is only fair that you give me the same level of reading comprehension as I give you.
Oversimplifcation? You just admitted that was the basis of your argument. If a person hates pvp so much, (based on the exaggerated reasons given) and you assume they are being forced to partake in pvp at all times throughout the game then and I quote " it's meaningless if they're not interested in logging in to play with you."
Is a player forced to go into a PVP lake in WAR online for example? No. Is a player forced to play on a PVP server as opposed to a partial pvp server? No. What I get from you is that you think players who hate pvp are so irrational that they would just not even log into a game in which PVP is part of the design even though the rule set in place also provides options for them not to partake in PvP.
The fact that you respond to my post with "People also often forget that sustainable PvP is entirely dependent on having willing participants" connotes that I am saying something contrary to this. In other words, you are saying I am wrong and thus assume I am saying counter to what your whole post was about. Do you understand that your response to my post is completely out of place due to the fact you seem to be assigning a stance on my part without actually reading my post, and then turn it into a black and white statement which you argue against. Its like me saying "I like cookies" and you turning into "oh you want people to get fat and have cavities." It just doesnt make any sense given my post.
Furthermore the fallacy of the statement you provide is that you assume such extremely biased pvp hating players who cannot stand to be in a game that has an ounce of it is some how a majority or large contributing factor, in which case the games interest is at stake.
As per my original post, the majority of players prefer a healthy dose of both modes of play. PvP players do partake in PvE and vice versa, meaning, they are just NORMAL players not an extreme that only allows for one or the other. The question is then, does this small niche of pvp hating players feel entitled to ALL content of the game even though some of it has been clearly set aside for those who enjoy the option of pvp in a world setting? Are they so offended by multiple modes of play and the options to choose? Do they let their illogical bias towards PvP (which is merely a player controlled character), which abide by the same ruleset as everyone else, turn into activism to remove that said player and mechanic from a game they deem is theirs? Do they dislike the fact that the developer clearly has a target audience that can enjoy ALL parts of the game neutrally without falling into this silly idea of sides.
I dont know of any pvp player that doesnt also partake in PvE actively, as opposed to the PvE player who refuses to partake in any form of PvP. That said, the problem is with that gamer who placed limitations upon themselves. The target audience is wide enough and vast enough that a good developer leaves multiple modes of play open for each play style. The only way to get 100% of the content is to partake in all forms of gameplay. The bad apples are the ones who demand that all content be available to them while refusing to partake in all forms of gameplay. Its completely one sided.
They are the ultra minority.
My original post states PvP is good when players want to partake of it and that it doesnt need to be isolated in little cages and or instances to be feasible, rather its beneficial to allow for all modes of play in the world and in instances. However your argument comes down to "these minority groups will refuse to play a game in which they are exposed to pvp, even if it doesnt directly effect them", which is utterly sad. These are not gamers who bring along any benefits.
In fact, my original post points towards the fact that creating content takes time and the importance of keeping players engaged between content creation is through player generated content, which is a form of PvP. It is dynamic with goals created by the players themselves.
Of course it does. In fact, it completely invalidates what you gave me as a reason why pvp is "bad". Your reasoning is that in PvP someone complains because they got killed, even if both parties knew they were getting into PvP. Because you think one person complains, then PvP is bad. So lets use facts. People complain about PvE. If a boss is too hard and kills them, they complain. If they cannot defeat something after the first few tries, they complain. Instead of getting better, they complain. Again, Vanilla WoW end game 40 man raids was nerfed so that the complainers could actually beat it. This completely destroyed the strategies and tactics, the practice and smart party building that other players accomplished to defeat the raids.
If it only requires one person to complain in a situation which results in character "dying" and respawning somewhere, then that covers both PvE and PvP. Honestly, i think its even worse to lose to a basic AI controlled mob than it is to another player. That said, try not to provide any hypocritical excuses as to why pvp is bad. If complaining is the result, well then it happens across the board for all modes of play.
So you are saying its insanely common? Lets say there are 500,000 active subscribers playing a PVP game, and on the forum there is anywhere from 2-3 whine posts a day, usually from the same people. Does this make it common? No especially if you consider the total sum of players and the fact that a large sum dont even actively participate on the forums at all. In fact, forums are usually the small minority of a community and hardly reflect on the sum total of the whole.
So fail to see how this is a commonality in all pvp games given that fact.
Ok so you are saying its unfair for a better player or a character who (yes class included) is further developed, to have the upper hand over a player who is not? Well then why dont we just remove all the aspects that make RPGS what they are including levels. I'm being sarcastic, but I am sure you get my point. Furthermore the reason for bringing up the support class is because it says that even in a PvE setting, the choice of the player to pick a character with certain limitations (specialties and differences in levels of challenge) is that the difficulty will not be equal for everyone. Its up to the player to know that no matter what, they will not win every time, they will not have it easy all the time, and that it takes character growth and or alternate classes to over come obstacles. If this is acceptable, then it is hypocritical to not give the same acceptableness to PvP challenges.
Thus, completely relevant. Out classed means better than the other in that moment of time, it includes actual character class (limitations and expectations through the ruleset) and the response of the player, whether they accept this or not.
Just because you try to paint my post as condescending doesnt actually make it so, especially in light of your own responses. There is in essence a bit of hypocrisy in your reply. I am merely asking you to read my original post without putting words and intent where none existed, but I suppose its too late for that now. It seems as though you were immediately on the defensive, attacking my post and calling it a lecture. Thats not healthy for any dialog.
Furthermore, according to the behavioral sciences, bias is the interference with rational thought. I dont see where I have been irrational in the objective statements, and if you wish to make your argument based around my subjective ones, then thats your choice though I may disagree. I have yet though to see a rational and relevant counter argument to my original post.
That said, PVP regardless of what we talk about will be in Guild Wars 2. There will be a large area for PVP as well, and there is always the option for adding a larger world pvp like feature in coming expansions. The only debate we can have following these facts is if its a good or bad thing. The numbers in video game success however prove that PvP is good in terms of active players both on the console and PC, and that WoW's initial + ongoing success is that for the most part, it caters to all play styles. That players who partake in both pvp and pve selectively are the greatest majority .
Let's say we are in a room. You want to listen to music while I want to read a book in silence. By turning the stereo on you are oppressing my freedom to read my book and because we share the same room, you are not free to listen to music. There's an easy fix to this in real life: headphones - but can you say the same about open world PvP?
I am not an advocate of open world PvP. By my account, competitive, instanced PvP is consistently far more entertaining than anything in open world PvP. I played Eve Online for over a year and I don't have to resort to my toes to count all the "good fights" I had. You may or may not even get a fight in Eve if you play whole night.
But good fights or even proper PvP is subjective, I suppose. I for one, don't consider ganking, camping, griefing, zerging or such anywhere near proper PvP. It simply lacks entertainment value when you know what's going to happen. Sure the time and place may vary but when you get ganked, you will lose. It stops being about combat and more about a hunting - a cat and mouse game if you will. I have no interest in such. Praying on those who cannot or do not want to defend themselves. I despise the people who enjoy it. Like burning ants with a magnifying glass. It lacks any kind of challenge I specifically seek from PvP: Challenging human opponents.
GW2 offers different playstyles like they were food on a tray. I am glad that my mashed potatoes and my peas don't touch. You may very well like your ice cream with ketchup or your hamburger with chocolate sauce, I don't care. Open world PvP is not in harmony with this style of PvE experience.
GW1 had its focus in competitive PvP and cooperative, story-based PvE. GW2 was meant to build on that. I don't think they want to alienate their already-established player base by breaking something they did well in the past. Who do you think their new player base will consist of? In my book, doing something well is better than doing everything OK. If that something is exactly what you want, no WoW will replace that.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
To be fair, I find it irrational to suggest that a video game which features a sand box layout to be comparable to a library.
By interacting with a video game, you made the active choice to play by the ruleset of the world. A player cannot control the computer and more than they can control another player. Thus to suggest one person is reading a book, and another person is actively doing something to interfere with that book reading seems wrong, especially considering both fall under the same rule sets and one is not mutually exclusive to the other. This means, in a PvE environment, a player is still not protected from other players being disruptive. Kill stealing is a good example, jumping up and down around the person for hours on end another. To associate PVP with noise is wrong. If a player in a PvE environment is making the same SFX killing their mobs as two other ppl having a pvp match, who is then disrupting who?
The real answer is none, because mmorpgs are not isolated experiences but rather shared space, players then have to willingly accept there will be compromise, thus adapting to the multiplayer experience over what would normally be a single player experience.
Think about the idea of a static environment as opposed to elements that go counter to the static. I dont know about you, but generally the static environments tend to be alienating by nature. The same mob, the same location, the same mindless walk path, the same opening attack, the same respawn. It seems to me it would be more alienating to leave out the factors that contribute to the act of surprise.
Did you know that one of the key ingredients for immersion as stated by academics, designers, directors ..ect is "surprise". Surprise keeps people entertained, with out the element, and what you can break it down to specifically, entertainment takes a huge hit. No one enjoys a predictable movie, the same goes for game play experiences. The opposite of surprise is alienation. In the game design based "flow chart" (google it) boredom is the lack of surprise. Finally the act of surprise itself is tied to the emotional response.
So in a way, I am merely pointing out is that the example you have given doesnt really work from my perspective.
As for Ganking, I suppose that depends on your definition of what ganking is. I tend to see it misused quite a bit. The act of losing to another player is not tied to being ganked, just as beating another player is not the act of ganking. Ganking is a term thats best tied to overpowering another player through huge differences in player progression (level) and or (numbers), especially if there is no actual designed reward for doing so.
PvP at its core is not Ganking. Ganking is merely the by product of less detailed design choices. A good game will be designed to allow for competitive combat while conditioning players, through ruleset and or other design elements, to play on an equal playing field. Finally, the act of survival itself, even when the odds are against you, are considered a positive result.
As for GW1, the design choices were mostly limited in part to the business model. Lets face it, they didnt know if it would work or not. A subscription free game that had to be less risk and more reward resulted in a design that kept players in hubs with channels while "missions" were isolated static instances along a fairly linear progression path. It was all made to cut cost really, and the design was very limited because of it. Hellgate london tried to do the same, but also pushed for a sub free...they didnt do so well. I believe that Arena Net really wanted a more MMORPG like game, especially since they advertised GW1 as a form of MMORPG (even though it wasnt). Now that they know there is success to be had from that business model, AND now working with an established IP, they can get away with going for more of an open world, actual mmorpg like build, along with pvp options.
In short, I am pointing out that the GW1 business model had more to do with their design than the actual pvp design. I believe they really want to push it further than mere team death matches as seen in something like Unreal Tournament and if they can combine pvp with the world, they would. From what I hear, they have one map designed to hold massive armies who fight over castles, so its definitely an area they are trying to push.
The instanced arena gameplay supposedly lets you choose any armor, weapon, and skills for your class in the game before you engage in combat. The mists are supposedly large open-world areas where 3 teams of unlimited numbers of players fight for victory. I wouldn't call that neutered.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I think the music metaphor fits quite well. Open world PvP ruleset oppresses those who want to do their PvE in peace. Whichever way you try to justify open world PvP, you cannot escape the fact that vast majority don't want it. They want to find their surprise from within the game, the content, from their fellow players. They like to have a good time on their own terms. Open world PvP gives other players the a chance to disrupt their experience.
If you are not just arguing for argument's sake, the main fault I find in your logic is that you start with the preconception that open world PvP or PvP in large scale is automatically good - better than tactical, small scale or instanced PvP. -Like it is some sort of pinnacle of PvP evolution or something devs should always strive for. I disagree. Of all the people I met and played with in Eve, a great majority preferred small-scale PvP over big fleet fights. Even if the game had the support for large scale combat, players chose to go for small-scale PvP.
No one has succeeded in making an open world PvP that encourages competitive play style and I have my doubts if it is even possible.
You can make your own conclusions why GW1 was as it was. Who am I to stop you. I formed my opinions through what they wrote and what they told me while they were developing it. These guys really love cooperative gameplay and competitive PvP and they wanted to show the world that they can do it without a subscription fee. I remember Jeff Strain was very much against subscription model from the start. The whole anti-grind mentality throughout the game is warring with the subscription based model. If they'd wanted to make "just another standard MMORPG" they would have stayed in Blizzard. -But they didn't, because they wanted to do something they could enjoy themselves.
It isn't about making MMORPGs and money, it is about making good games. Games that they themselves would like to play. But again, you can form your own opinion.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Uh... no. You essentially compare a massive multiplayer online role playing game to an experience at the library. Im sorry but I just cannot logically accept that as a viable comparison, and I already explained why. If you disagree with my explanation, then break it down and argue against it using specifics.
As for the assumption I think all world pvp is good... that makes no sense since any game play mechanic can be BAD if its design BADLY. There are no exceptions to this rule. The opposite also holds true, world pvp designed right is ALWAYS a good thing. Furthermore, you do not inquire as to what world pvp entails. Its almost as if you assume there are no design choices to keep it balanced, or orderly. Do you assume by world pvp you mean every little spot is a pvp zone? Because making that assumption is a no go.
Also, you need to separate casual pvp from tactical/hardcore pvp. You can read some the GW2 Developer comments on how they separate the two as part of the GW2 experience. World PvP falls under the casual category. Both forms of pvp are good when designed right. PvE is bad if designed badly, PvP is no exception and its good to have both. Same with hardcore and casual PvE. Again they are not mutually exclusive of one another.
As for GW1, you can say what you want but the information readily available is against you. Business models often restrict the type of design a game can have. Theres no getting around it. When you have f2p models, the design is based around monetary gain, the actual design and freedom to design based around "fun" takes back seat to the business model. The same went for how Guild Wars 1 was designed.
The devs stated that the technology they had to deal with pretty much limited them to a non persistent world, and thus instancing. Its cheaper. However in all guild wars 2 interviews they state that they are finally able to go with a more persistent world. Their experiment showed that there can be profit in an xpac based business model.
Hey man, its fine and all to disagree with me, but lets keep it logical and as neutral as possible.
No. The metaphor is not about MMORPGs. It is about one's exercise of their freedom restricting another's freedom (i.e. oppressing another). Open world PvP in its truest form is not a compromise. Allowing open world PvP is a victory to a small minority. Not very desirable. Large, completely separate areas for PvP (like the WvWvW system) is a compromise. This way the majority gets what they want (that is no PvP in rest of the areas) and whoever gets "screwed" belongs to a minority.
Badly designed feature is bad. -Well, thats a no brainer. The point is that there is no open world PvP ruleset, in existence today, that complements as good or popular a PvE experience as MMORPGs that don't have it. Here's where I disagree: Even well designed open world PvP is NOT ALWAYS a good thing. No one has succeeded in making it balanced or orderly. It may never be balanced or orderly because it always has declined into the aforementioned cat 'n' mouse game.
Let me say this again: WvWvW is a good compromise. Allowing PvP in rest of the areas is not a compromise.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I like PvP in FPS games like the Battle-Field Series or in Strategy Titles (Advanced Tactics- WWII, TOAW, HOI, MOO2, Civ, etc) but not generaly in MMO's. In most MMO's success in PvP is largely determined by lag/ping, video card performance, Levels, or the ability to mindlessly mash buttons as quickly as possible. Very often, very little skill or strategy play into it.
Furthermore open world FFA PvP pretty much tends to devolve more into Player vs Victem...where you get groups of 10+ bored max level players with top gear waiting to pounce on level 1 starting players the second they leave their starting town, before they have even had a chance to learn to play....and kill them repeatedly...claiming how "awesome" they are for doing this...only to log or teleport out the instant any serious opposition shows up.
From my perspective, GW2's take on PvP sounds pretty good though..... where you have Team vs Team PvP in instances...or Realm vs Realm PVP in large battlefield type areas sounds pretty good. Open World REALM vs REALM PvP can be ok...as long as it's structured so that there are relatively "safe" areas of the world....where the opposing realm can't effectively project forces without a massive, well orchestrated effort that would take enough time to achieve that it would be pretty clear to everyone that the area was no longer "safe" anymore well before combat occured there. Example, if you are playing a historicaly accurate WWII game.... as a player you really shouldn't have to worry about bumping into German Panzer-Grenadiers while you are roaming around Chicago in 1943. Very few MMO's actualy manage to pull those mechanics off though. More often with Open World PvP games...it's like a Panzer Division just appears in the middle of Illinios out of the blue one afternoon...and is gone as quickly as it came.
You're reading far too much into this.
I was merely attempting to emphasize a point I felt your post failed to.
And if we're truly of like mind on this issue, then it escapes me why you're taking such umbrage to my comments. I should have been preaching to the choir.
And yes, I still contend that PvP *is* different than PvE. The irony is, despite your protests otherwise, you said as much in the very post I was responding to:
We can go back and forth over the significance, but even you alluded to why some might find this objectionable:
Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in your personal assessment as to whether they're sad, meet the 'objective' criteria for what can be described as gameplay, or represent the "majority of players" (logically selfish or otherwise) you're the apparent self-appointed spokesperson for. Instead, I was simply making the observation that if their tolerance for 'challenge' is exceeded beyond reason either by having PvP imposed upon them, or allowing their game to be irrevocably disrupted by it they'll stop playing.
By absolutely no means am I advocating that PvP has no place in Guild Wars (believe it or not, I'm actually quite fond of PvP), nor that ArenaNet should cater to an irrational, "vocal minority". Quite the opposite. Rather I was addressing those who would insist the game will be "neutered" if it doesn't include free-for-all, Open-World (aka: non-consensual) PvP.
Arenanet is one of the few companies that excel in pvp. Guild Wars 2 though this time around will have a much larger pve presence.
I think that GW2's PvP will be one of if not the major selling point in the long term...
No FFA PvP, but then there is only a minorrity that really likes FFA...
For the rest there is open world PvP in the Myst's and competitive PvP which was allready GW1's strong point.
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
I care much more about whether they get the proper PvP modes right in the game then if they do or don't include open world PvP. In fact open world PvP is against the very purpose of the game.
From the very beginning Anet said they want you to be happy when you see another player in the game, they encouraged this with their dynamic event system and not having to tell someone they can't come in your group because you need a healer only. If they had open world pvp then imagine the amount of ganking centered around the dynamic events as factions would camp them to no end. No thanks.
Sign me up for the real PvP though, WvWvW etc.
You want to know a real ball buster?
While I mostly agree with all of your actual points and not your counter arguement... your pointless counter arguements. I say that because if you read them from an outside perspective, you are all saying the exact same thing. Almost verbatim.
Anyways, the real ball buster is that while WvWvW is in this arguement considered as contained. It will still be shrugged off by a large majority for being too "Ganky", someone will go out and try to fulfill an objective and random guy and his goonsquad from Server ABC will be waiting to stop him, thus making that person rage and start to feed negative feedback to the rest of the populace instigating a series of responses that say "You went to the area where the PvP was happening... didn't you know?"
So I mean, while you guys argue over the validity of Open World PvP not being a bad thing... you will more than likely see the same problems crop up in the Mists. I for one plan on loving them, regardless. I also hope the goal in the Open World PvP is not "Blow up this, and this, and this". That would suck something seriously. I hope it's a long and drawn out process that feels as much like an actual small scale war as possible.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
Well I think the key about the Mists is.....
1) It's entirely optional...you can play a full feldged game without ever stepping foot in there (I assume)
2) It IS an area that is designated as PvP....It's a very different arguement saying "You don't want PvP...done enter the Mists" then it is saying "You don't want PvP, play another game" or " don't step foot outside of a city/starter zone".
3) With W vs W vs W, at least theoreticaly you have built-in Allies......making it a little bit less "ganky"...as even going in solo, you can count on other people being around that will want to help you and fight your attackers.
The real difference being that players can choose to play in the mists where open world PvP exists or they can stick to the straight up PvE content and not have to worry about getting ganked. Add to that fact that you can level within the mists or through normal PvE and you are providing some nice choices to players.
Here's the problems with just making PvE or PvP servers for people to choose from:
1) Locks you into a server from character creation that might suit your needs then, but your needs/wants might change and you wish you had the option to do PvP later.
2) Moving between PvE/PvP servers can be timely and cost real world money to do in some games.
3) In a game where you can pick PvE or PvP servers and the only difference between the world is being able to PvP or not in the open then you cannot tailor make content like Dynamic events that would be absolutely ruined by open world PvP. Basically you can't have a world that is designed specifically for PvE if you have to account for a PvP option on the other server unless you want to give some content to one server type and not the other.
To reply specifically to the quote above about a person raging about getting ganked. It's a lot easier to leave the mists and go do PvE content then it is in other games to get away from open world PvPing when you are trying to complete an objective where you need to be in a certain area to do so.
Let's be realistic, most players don't want asshat gankers popping out of nowhere for the express purpose of being a f******* nuisance. Your open-world gankfest utopia is dream shared by a minority, and thankfully, GW2 won't be catering to you. The Mists will be enough for most of us.
meh open world pvp is over rated, it leads to ganking zergs and pretty much "unfair" pvp (depending on death penalties etc).
most people are right in that WoW open world pvp is dead. However other than obvious examples of vanilla wow and right after expansions there were a lot of scenarios where there was still pretty decent competitive open world pvp.
Examples:
In BC there was that isle (i forget the exact name) where everyone did daily quests. Open pvp there was ongoing and crazy, I remember getting in 5v5 battles which ballooned to 30 v 30.
- They ruined this by making to many daily quest spots in WOTLK, mind you it was still around at first with sons of hodir dailies.
In short there are certain things an mmo can do to make open pvp fun and somewhat fair (assuming factions are balanced).
Making a pve server and pvp servers are essential, people who like to pvp don't want to hear people bitching about getting ganked, and people who don't want to get ganked can do that on a pve server.
GW1 was never about open world pvp and i'm expecting the same from this game, I just don't see them having the resources to accomplish open world pvp.