Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Battlegrounds has destroyed MMORPG PvP.
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Sorry, didn't feel like taking the time to read all the replies.
@ the OP: if you don't like Battlegroupd PvP there are some other options.
First, I submit to you a few games like Eve and Darkfall. World PvP doesn't really get more intense than in those games.
Second, maybe GW2's "world vs world" PvP will be on a large enough scale to keep it more dynamic and suit you better.
Also, as somoene else pointed out, if you have levels that actually mean something, it's usually a good idea to have at least some of your PvP instanced, and/or have players be able to opt out of world PvP. I used to play on a PvP server in WoW, and I really enjoyed it. But if I reminisce for a bit, it really WAS extremely frustrating to level my first character to 60 back in the day. No way to defend yourself, no way to retaliate (or at least feel like you might be able to). Once you have that high level, leveling up additional alts becomes a lot more bearable, even on a different server. The psychological impact is amazing. Bottom line though, the reason BGs exist is because most people prefer to have their game less frustrating. There will always be a niche for hardcore PvP games like Eve because some players do like them, but in the end that is what they are: a niche. Because most people DON'T like them. Twelve million WoW subscribers could fill you in on the details.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
[Mod Edit]
You know the reason I quit my favorite game, DAoC? It wasn't because of any changes to the game. It was because after a 12 hour session, I had only encountered 2 fair fights which lasted about 5 minutes each. 10 hours were spent looking for people to fight, and 1 hour and 50 minutes were taking bathroom breaks, getting groups together, and rolling over (without stopping) people so weak or groups so small they didnt even put up a fight, and I was lucky to get a single spell off.
I had a lot of fun-- for those 10 minutes. Yet I realized "Wow... 12 hours and only 1 hour was spent playing... and only 10 minutes were actually that "amazing" fun experience I can't get anywhere else."
Yet in WoW, the PvP battlegrounds were a BLAST! There was DEFINITELY the feeling of "the chase" and "The escape" especially in warsong gulch. There was strategy and player skill-- and it was soo fun beating lvl 19 twinks at level 16 because I was "that good". At level 19, I felt I could take down the entire enemy side by myself.
In WAR, I had the same feeling. Only reason to play that game was the BG's. Unfortunately PvE was weak, crafting was horrid, and there weren't enough maps. (Warsong Gulch and Arathi Basin were actually more fun than the three Tier1 maps of WAR, although I enjoyed those. Just not in repetition like WoW's BG's).
I'm sorry, but PvP has actually become quite awesome-- much more so than the time sinks, boring roaming, and unfair battles of old. I know I am in the minority in FPS, MMO PvP, and RTS games, but...
I actually DON'T have fun fighting against easy opponents or opponents so good I lose in a matter of minutes. I quit the competitive RTS genre because 90% of matches would end in minutes, with absolutely no fun and no chance of victory/defeat, because the skill gap was so wide. 60% of opponents were players who had played so much longer than me, they beat me no matter how hard I tried. 30% were players so easy, even if I went afk and tried to lose, I'd still win.
It was only a rare 10% chance that I'd face off an opponent close to my skill level, and about only 1% that I'd play an opponent who is the EXACT same skill level. And in RTS games, skill level is almost entirely experience and game mechanic knowledge. It has little to do with actual strategy.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Since it seems were talking about wow style bg's I just hate the fact that it is really not PvP. They all have PvE objectives that often deter player interaction with eachother. The only BG that really forces you to go find and kill someone is WSG type. The others you can sit and camp a node or just kill the main boss. As for arena the only problem there is the lack of variety, its basically wait, attack, kite, game over but it is more fun than a BG. The main problem with bg's as they are now is you are rewarded for not engaging people in pvp but finding the pve content and beating it.
The reason why people stopped doing the world pvp objectives was because they did not have no end-game value like bg's. The world objective rewards were static and quickly replaced unlike bg rewards. It's simply the fact that Blizzard refused to support world-pvp making it pointless and people gave up on it.
When TBC was new there were swarming people around the world-objectives because the rewards were good, now why the heck a max level player would go back to them when instead they can do actual end-game and have awesome rewards instead of just completing objectives for warm feeling?
Take rewards/honorpoints/whatevertheyarecalledthesedays away from WSG and you'll notice everyone goes AB and the other BG's instead, really that simple. WSG is then "rejected by the playerbase".
Not exactly sure what BC you were playing but no many of the servers I was in played 'world pvp' in BC.
Remember the Eastern Plaguelands tower objective before BC? Exact same participation for that was in the BC world pvp objectives; IE virtually none.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Its not battlegrounds but instances in general. Instancing... taking the Massively multiplayer out of MMO since WOW 06'
Asherons Call was the last game I played where PvP was both FFA but also fair in the sense that if you were alert, you could escape a gank and if you were skillfull enough you could take on people higher than you and still win.
Todays MMORPGs is all about levels and gear and class imbalances. There is little actual skill involved.
My gaming blog
Or you could make a character who specialized in running and jumping, and be ridiculously fast and run away from everything...
(... at the cost of not being as good at what people would consider more traditional skills, like combat. :P )
Not read the whole thread.
But I like BG's. I like them a lot. Why? Because they always seem to be different and they change in tactics acoording to the avatars you play.
Playing a rogue in AB is a complete different experience as playing a priest in AB.
It depends on the design too: a BG has to be open, must rely on many tactial possibilities and not result in a zerg fest.
I like the casual aspect of it - hate premades and competition BG's.
World PvP is a big inflated word that never holds its promise. Best of both worlds was Wintergrasp, a pity it is no longer much played.
BG's never destroyed "world pvp". World PvP games simply destroy themselves.
So what, about EPL, same principle stands, and Silithus. No reward no game. Take away rewards from random BG and no one goes in there anymore. Wintergrasp was world pvp objects WITH GOOD REWARDS and a lot better mechanics than some half assed we've seen before, and it was so badly swarmed by players that Blizzard made it yet another instanced BG.
My main complain from blizard concerning wow is that after 6+ years game hasnt evolved much.It's pretty much the same.
Concerning combat instead of keep giving depth they started cutting things from classes,they actually made all classes doing almost same things in order to keep them easier balanced.They failed cause still there are balance issues and even worst they made battles look like chess: u do that,i do this, if i do this the oither willl do that..thats boring and making combat predictable.
By now there should be alot more talents per tree but instead they cut them off making players choise about his character build not exisat anymore.
And yes,since blizzard choosed auto-combat system with spamming skills,with spells going like guided missles on target ? yes..most fair thng is bg's and arenas..forget about open world pvp and fair..these 2 will never walk together in wow..it will be just bg's and arenas the way they made wow's combat
While I don't really enjoy Battle Grounds all that much. I think the emerging e-sports is an important part of the genre however. Also I find it somewhat entertaining to watch sometimes.
My theme song.
1. Is that really a bad thing?
2. I understand that chaotic or random encounters are way better in your opinion? Does "Gank or be Ganked" suits you better? Well, at least it doesn't suit me, because THAT is boring. Not to mention camping or roaming for the opponent, when no one is around (check Aion so called open PvP zone, which is desolate place)
3. Well, that is the point, but there's no easy way to get out of that. Perhaps random zones creator, but it would be very limited because good BG's need rules (as any game does)
4. That is very subjective argument. I was always traying to win and do my best, and it was satisfactory for me.
P.S. I wouldn't mind something new. Any ideas?
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone elses opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation
BG's are fine for when you want a quick fix of pvp, but in games which try and incorporate world pvp and BG's the latter often has a detrimental effect on the former. I'm all for BG's but it is clear as crystal that the majority will flock to easy access BG's for their shinies if that is offered to them.
As for those pointing to BG's being more 'skill' orientated...lol no. 99% of the people you encounter in BG's are random pug groups who have fuck all idea as to what they are doing. Good pvp groups on the other hand will run as a coherent unit regardless of what you put in front of them, beit in open world pvp or a BG.
In fact 'farming' is alot worse in BG's than in open world if you take into consideration the top few percentage of teams mullering all the pugs.
Whilst open world may provide less 'consistent' pvp it certainly has more scope for challenging a good team then BG's which are just the same shit, different day ad nauseum.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The arbitrary wait time for conflict is what I dislike about instanced battlegrounds the most. I like the way Planetside did it. You log on, and you can look on your map and see where the action is. There was constant conflict over different territories and you could be in the thick of it within miniutes any time of day, all day long, if you so choose. Sort of like a FPS, but it was a "persistant" world.
Also, I would love to see more randomized terrain in instanced battlegrounds (similar to Diablo 2's random dungeon generator). In this way they could actually offer more variety than open world PvP where everyone already knows the terrain. Random terrain, random starting areas, random power up spawns, etc. Bring back the fog of war and the need for recon and communication, like in a real battle.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
"Battlegrounds has destroyed MMORPG PvP"
Well, if you look at WOW, you can still get world pvp on pvp servers and even on PvE servers, you can do raids on other side's cities.
Now ask yourself this, why do WOW turn from a lot of open world pvp to mostly BG/arena oriented PvP?
The answer is simple. Players prefer it that way. So if you look at most players perspective (NOT yours), BG is making pvp better. If people really like world pvp that much, all of them would be on pvp servers, would they?
I would wager that if world PvP offered the best rewards in the game, arenas and BGs would be very empty. The reasons Blizzard funnels players into Arena/BGs with shiny items are because of servers stability and PvE quest hub security.
I'm not saying that nobody enjoys instanced PvP. It definitely has it's advantages and its place in the genre, but one should not judge it's popularity based on arbitrary statistics.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Honestly, my love of hockey gave me a bit of insight onto all this. When i was younger, I played in junior hockey. Nowhere near ever good enough to pursue any kind of career, but I still love to play NHL'11 online. But once in a while I still play actual hockey with actual skates on a frozen lake with little to no organization. but even for adults, there's still OHL/minor leage/NHL, but also more casual leagues for my skill level. They follow a very organized style and people are generally to a degree on the same level. This is what battleground represent - like sports, "leagues" wherein something like combat becomes fair sport with rules and generally even sides. It's a great way to have the challenge of another human and just have another W/L/OT in the column and get back to your average pace that you like.
"bloodsport" is still sport. It's just the entire context of what world versus BG PvP is are two very different things, and have different meanings on what each game wants to present it as. They're all perfectly valid mechanics and ways to play in a game, but it's pretty obvious on how many people want bloodsport and not warfare.
You base this opinion on what exactly? I'm not saying you are wrong, but if you are going by what is available, rather than what most players may actually want, I belive your consensus may be highly skewed.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Battlegrounds have nothing to do with the minimal World PvP that is floating around. It's all game design. Players seek rewards, and if world pvp doesnt offer any, but battleground pvp does, its quite simple.
I was trying to state people like those things for the same reason I play NHL 11, orWarcraft 3/starcraft etc. I do believe sandbox games versus themepark and open PvP versus instanced sport style in terms of accessibility and implementation is at its peak. We will definatly see "better" in some shape or form in the future, that's obvious. But I absolutely don't think the reason WoW Killers have failed were because they were bad games - It's because people still have WoW, and they cast their choice already.
No amount of new great gaming experiences will sway them completely. It's like a food topping, and while lots of people like Open PvP on their dish, I do feel many more like the taste of WoW and its battlegrounds. They'll certainly try new games like I do, (and love to do, honestly I've had more fun trying games out of my element than I have while in it) but we are rapidly nearing the point where everyone who can play an MMO does already.
People enjoy all kinds of different games, Sports, simulation, racing, business/city builders, RTS, RPG, action, shooters third person and FPS, it just goes on, including MMOs. Within those genres there are further subdivisions. I've put in more than 2000 hours into POKEMON games, but despite loving games like planescape torment and Baldur's gate II, I won't touch morrowind after playing quite a bit of it. I'm trying not to say X is greater than Y, but between all the number of open PvP games versus instanced PvP games, I do think with even basic information the number of people on one side of it is absolutely one-sided. It is also a very conscious choice, not simply because WoW has hot PvE and needs a distraction for lots from the grind, it's that rather plenty play it FOR the battleground PvP, as much as people play sandbox games/open PvP to explore, some play it to fight, some just play to "hang out" (see SWG in spades)
I would say battlegrounds are fun PVP in and of themselves, but it is not consistent with the spirit of MMOs (and neither are Raid instances for the same reason). The whole point of MMO is the "Massive" aspect, and battleground and instances are not massive by any stretch. Hell I was playing multiplayer on that scale in games like Doom/Quake/etc before MMOs even existed.
Battlegrounds are just CoD matchmaking, but with a much crappier interface and more sluggish performance (and lack of twitch skill requirement which I guess is a positive to some).
The issue with PVP being partitioned off into battlegrounds in MMO's is that it gets to the point of, why bother? FPS games quite simply are better for this structured type of PVP. MMOs really shine in open world and if the focus in MMOs moves away from open world, then PVP oriented gamers will just migrate more to FPS matchmaking. Luckily the FPS developers are taking over where the MMOs are failing and are pushing the FPS genre into the MMO space. Bungie is working on one right now for instance.
Despite the relative stagnation in the FPS genre (as compared to say 15 years ago), it is still light years more innovative than the MMO genre is right now...
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
You are, obviously, not very familiar with WOW history. Back in the BG days, there are substantial world pvp rewards (for example, the central part of Nagrand is a pvp zone with rewards there) and also the world pvp objectives in Hellfire Peninsula, which are tied to rewards.
People are complaining that is interfering with travel (if u cannot fly) and other stuff.
That is why Blizz backed away from the same idea in WOTLK & CATA.