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
Well, the spirit of MMOs has changed over the year. They are now better GAMES.
And multiplayer FPS are all about shooting guns. Fantasy type mechanics are more enjoyable for many, and at least it offers somethign different. I would much rather fight other players by the use of a host of different abilities from magic spells to cc, to invisibility to control of pets, than shoot the same 2 guns (+ may be throw a grenade) in COD.
A more Diablo-like (although Diablo does not have BGs) set up (lobby, matching with groups) is what the trend leads and there is nothing wrong with it.
This is a simple equation; add a significant reason to do world PVP and everything changes. If we use DAOC as an example, with its realm bonuses and "ownership" of a specific dungeon (and vendors) for only the realm in power at that time.
Set up "shrines of power" in a game and award bonuses to melee dmg, magic dmg, healing amount based on controlling the respective shrine, which benefits PVP and PVE. Heck, add another shrine that increases drops from all world creatures (coins and items). This is a silly and quick idea, but it creates a reason, a target, and a clear reward for doing world PVP and not just attacking, but defending an objective as well.
Providing titles and gear just for killing other players makes sense for battlegrounds with their short duration and "immediate gratification". Don't get me wrong, as a player with limited time, I love them, but I see the bigger picture as well.
The spirit of MMOs has changed to be at its core simply Multiplayer, with essentially a Massively Multiplayer Open World Lobby.
PVP Battlegrounds = Do some meaningless Open World Lobby time killer activities while waiting for matchmaking algorithm to join me into a non-massive instance for PVP
PVE Raids = Do some meaningless Open World Lobby time killer activities while waiting for Raid group to form to join me into a non-massive instance for PVE
So basically the spirit of MMOs has transformed into simply MOs, with a Massive Open World lobby. That is the reality with most MMOs unfortunately. Rift is better in this regard at least for their Rift invasions, but just not quite exciting enough to entice me.
I do agree I like the diversity of skills in battlegrounds over say the current FPS genre, which is the reason I say they are fun in their own right. They are just not MMOs so we shouldn't be calling it that.
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
I'll be honest, I'm not very skilled in PVP. I enjoy BG's. I don't have the patience to sit and learn the stratgies of all the different areas. This actually keeps it exciting for me, as a shadow priest I generally kill about 50ppl and die 2 or 3 times.
I did For the Horde once and it was fun but it took a long time to get it all together and execute.
For me it is a time issue. I can queue for 4 minutes and I have a battle ready to go.
I did not enjoy PVP until BG's. Also the achievements drive me to them, without rewards I don't think I would be into PVP much if at all. I'm not looking to flex my muscles over a dead Ally or tea bag anyone.
I agree 3 is probably a better number, but you can make it work with 2 if you are a little creative in how you balance things.
The real issue, as a previous poster said, is a real lack of reason to do it. It is really hard to make compelling world PVP content, but it is relatively simple to create battlegrounds. They just copied what the FPS games did and put it in an MMO battleground: team deathmatch, capture the flag, territories, etc.
I just hope the FPS genre as it moves to MMO comes up with a more innovative way to spur open world PVP. MMOs developers have essentially given up but this is all new to the FPS developers and fresh blood I think will help here, especially since FPS developers are by their nature more PVP minded...
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
Think of every competitive activity. Consider the popularity of activities where unbalanced teams exist (such as world PVP) vs. balanced teams (such as instanced PVP or competitive sports like Football and Soccer.)
To me it seems overwhelmingly obvious that people prefer balanced teams for their competitive activities.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I would take it further that competetive and skilled PVP types prefer FPS for their competetive activities not MMO battlegrounds. There is a much better balance in FPS matchmaking and it takes a much higher player skill (tactical and twitch) than a typical MMO battleground (tactical only). This appeals to the truly competetive gamer.
Problem is no MMO offers true balance even in battlegrounds. The differences in gear and character classes/skills is inherently unbalanced. Even in FPS's people are at different levels (e.g., guns/perks in CoD) and other than Halo's attempt at matchmaking based on skillscores, they often have teams highly outmatched in terms of player skill. But FPS are inherently more balanced than MMO battlegrounds so are where the true competeive PVP happens.
The point I am making is if I want pure balance, I am not playing battlegrounds in MMOs because that is not the essence of balance. I go to MMOs for the "massive" aspect of them, which battlegrounds fail at.
But to each their own, not trying to fight over it. And I agree many don't like open world PVP but to me, that is a very enticing aspect of what MMOs can bring that no other genre can. Until the good MMO shooters come out that is...
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
I play alot of sports and work in a highly competitive industry and the whole e-sport for mmorpg battleground analogy strikes me as total and utter bunkum.
We are not talking fps games or action strategy here, we are talking about, what in general, are player number restricted arenas in games which are inherently about character/item progression.
Where exactly is the competitive 'balance' in an arena which has a pug vs a premade, or people of differing itemization quality? Would football be quite so attractive if Barcelona played Grimsby Town on a weekly basis? Amusing sure, but competitive, I think not.
BG's can allow for a 'fairer' playing field in an ideal world, but the simple fact of the matter is that outside of arena pvp specific games (i.e. not mmorpgs) they simply do not (from my experience) do so for the majority of time.
It's funny, people seem to have this rose tinted view of BG's as some superbowl of mmo pvp in which perfectly matched uber players take each other on in a battle of pure skills. They also seem to think that open world pvp is only ganks perpetrated by poor quality pvpers with little to no inclination to fight a skilled opponent. Both points of view are simply extremes and hold little weight.
BG's offer an easy access to pvp for casuals as well as control numbers. It is clear why this is attractive to many players, and it is patently obvious why this would draw some potential 'world pvpers' away from open pvp in games which offer both types. Above and beyond that analogy alot of the arguments put forward for their pro's and con's are somewhat hazy at best.
BG's appeal to casuals in a way that open world never can. They don't have to worry about numbers, or waiting for backup/organization or any of the other gamut of things going on in world pvp. They can simply queue up and fight, and win or lose have their kicks. Thats great, but the ease of accessibility is the key to BG's success, not some Olympian spirit of fair play. For those true 'e-sport' uber pvp guilds/groups, well what are they doing in mmorpg BG's and not in ranked fps/rts/action strat games?
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
This.
Also, I personally think the title of this post is spot on. Trying to force MMORPG pvp combat into the small box that is "battlegrounds" or "arena" or "match making services" is so completely blasphemous to us that enjoyed MMORPGs for the vast open-endedness of them. I also think it's causing the cookie-cutter mindset in the communities. People seem to all have the same 3 or 4 characters in these battlegrounds and arenas because, of course, whatever the flavor of the month is, everyone eats. Trying to compensate for how even the stakes were in the FPS titles, they simplify their RPG characters into a generic pvp "build" in hopes of being either equal to everyone else, or overpowered. I hate that this is the new direction of MMO gaming. I hate that this demographic of players are the ones being marketted to. I hate that someone didn't come up with an in-between game for those who left consoles and flooded our MMORPGs with the "change this and change that and it'll be more fun, yay!" mentality...
/endrant
This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.
Wonder what some of the feeling on restricted world PvP is. Would you guys play an MMO where only specified zones have PvP?
My theme song.
That's how the original Mythic RvR template worked. It was great too. In fact, most mmo's that have available openworld pvp are set up as such. Safe zones for the low level/new players... contested or war zones/maps where anything goes or structures can be taken over... by just standing there long enough.... *yawn*. Whether that is considered conquering is something I'd question, but anyways... RvR typically was set up as 4 continents, 3 of which belong to individual factions, within them being many maps/zones filled with content, and the 4th continent being PVP area for all three factions to fight over.
It worked very well like that.
Shame that WAR claims it has RvR , but does not feel like DaOC at all, just feels like WoW with less character customization. (yes, i know that you can color your armor differently in WAR, and that's great... but who cares when you only have 4 models of armor to choose from) 2 factions... "good" vs "bad"... shared maps... battleground queues... *yawns again* hardly the RvR that once was.
This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.
I can agree with that. Regardless of what some people may think BGs are an emerging e-sport and there are a lot of people that enjoy it. So why can't we have both? Why does it always have to be one or the other?
My theme song.
It's a weak argument to claim that reducing the number of terribly one-sided matches is a bad goal, simply because it cannot achieve the perfection of every match being a perfectly balanced struggle.
My personal experience with world PVP is that 99% of matches are uninteresting slaughters where one or the other side never had a chance. No compelling conflict arises; it's just a slaughter.
Conversely in balanced play 66% of matches are uninteresting slaughters. You can either view this negatively (most matches are still slaughters, due to player skill imbalances) or positively (it's a 3300% increase in good matches). But either way you view it, it's pretty obvious that the number of compelling, dramatic conflicts has increased.
It's a profound difference in PVP enjoyment when 1 in 3 matches is a nail-biting, up-to-the-last-moment exciting affair vs. 1-in-100 conflicts being exciting in world PVP. Excitement in world PVP is so rare because right at the onset of battle you immediately know the outcome. What's exciting about a known outcome?
World PVP appeals to casuals in a way that BGs never can. Players can worry less about skill because it can be offset with numbers.
(The above paragraph also applies to Progression's influence on PVP in either instanced or world PVP, which is why I seek real PVP in non-MMORPG games. When non-skill factors are kept to a minimum, competition is real.)
As for the "e-sport" PVP guilds (as you term them), they're playing MMORPGs because they like MMORPG combat, obviously. They may also have a slightly casual tilt (preferring the slightly diluted PVP of BG/Arena play to the undiluted PVP found in FPS/RTS/etc.) They just don't have a strong casual tilt (or they'd prefer the strongly diluted PVP of world PVP.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
As to your last sentence, to me World PVP isn't about casual versus non-casual or balanced versus non-balanced. World PVP to me is simply a unique experience that only MMOs can deliver, and literally cannot be found anywhere else. Not FPS and not RTS. So when MMOs dilute it down to simple battleground instances, they have removed the only really unique aspect of MMO PVP that you can't get in FPS and RTS which are inherently better esports anyway.
So as MMOs evolved more to battleground based PVP, my PVP time has skewed back to primarily FPS and hence I've been playing less MMO recently because of it. There are still reasons to play MMOs, but there are just fewer reasons, at least for me.
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
If I want fair and competitive team pvp I don't log onto an mmo. Whilst I'm not adverse to rolling in the odd arena or 500 (lol) should it take my/the groups fancy at the time, I mainly seek the open world pvp possibilites in the open world centric games (see mmos) I play.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I personlly like battlegrounds.
I can PvP when I want.
I dont have to worry about being ganked.
I am automatically put in a group.
But I would like to see just one battleground with rotating objectives ( Like Warzone in Killzone ).. CTF , Kill Count , Search & Destroy.. Would be even better if it were persistent..
I'll take it a step further, INSTANCES have ruined traditional MMORPGs....but thats another story for another thread.
As for battlegrounds, I think its a little deeper than analyzing scripted vs. unscripted combat. Anyone that considers themself a semi-serious PvPer that has played a typical battleground in WOW will tell you that the POOR level of entertainment comes from the players participating in the scenario.....not so much the fact that your working with the same map or strategy.
Your average battleground participant in WOW isn't someone there to be a team player, capture objectives, heal, or even WIN! They are there to grind PvP currency earned for PARTICIPATING (not only Winning) so that they can chase the Gear Monster. They are more concerned with upgrading their gear than they are with effectively PvPing with your team to beat the other guys.
This isn't a direct knock on WOW....other similar MMOs in the image of WOW have also incorporated instanced scripted scenario combat, with some tangible extrensic reward to be gained from currency given for participation.
So long as you have a system set up where your main motivator is an extrensic reward for participating, your going to get players queueing up in a battleground right next to you that have no interest in healing your butt, pealing off someone, or helping in any way other than what they are REQUIRED to do to get the reward. It pollutes the PvP system with people who are not genuinely interested in PvP and it brings down the people who are there for the right reasons.
There is nothing wrong with lobby games. Diablo is the best example. GREAT game.
Now i care less what we call the games .. but MMO is as good a label as any, and particularly when most MMOs are turning to the lobby-ish kind of games. I dont think people are confused.
And this "meaningless" thing is thrown around too much. It is utterly "meaningless" to call a game meaningless. What is the meaning of finishing the single player campaign of COD? What is the meaning of raiding? It is all about if the players find it fun. Given the popularity of raiding/BG .. lots of people find them fun. Your accessment of whether they are "meaningful" is totally useless.
That's a really great point. FPS have been adopting many RPG elements such as XP points and item rewards over the last decade or so. And MMO's have adopted more small scale maps similar to FPS multiplayer games. I see many exciting hybrids in my crystal ball.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I would have to say that this is pretty much exactly how I feel much of the time.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Are we talking about warfare vs. sports or FPS vs. MMO? I'm not sure you can effectively decide which is more popular in either case.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Well, look at the dark side of your argument.
Let's say were going to reward the winning side ONLY.
The quite plausible outcome, especially on servers with 1 faction dominant over other, is that eventually weaker side is not going to show up at all, because they would get bored of losing and having spend their time without being rewarded at all.
Th dominant side wouldn't benefit either, because they would have to wait more for entering battlegrounds, since there wont be opponents on the other side to join in.
I don't see that in any way, shape of form superior over rewarding for participating.
As for the world pvp, as somebody else nicely noticed before, 99% of the fights aren't interesting at all, it's simply "gank or be ganked"
Battlegrounds are like democracy. It might be not the best system out there, but we don't know any better at the moment. at least not yet.
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone elses opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation
First off.....in most faction vs. faction games, there is some sort of faction balancing going on. You might not see it, like in WOW where they do some stuff to pull in players across several servers. Or companies like NCSoft do it more explicitly, like in Aion where they prevent players from creating a character in a faction that already has too many people. With that said, in my 4+ years playing WOW......if a Battleground sucked, it was because of player participation, not the number of people logged in on each side.
What I see in a typical battleground when things aren't going their way is appathy. The moment it looks like things aren't going well, someone starts with the "Give up, we lost" and then its all down hil from there. Its interesting that in Ultima Online, when things weren't going your way....people tended to pick themselves up by the boot straps and tried to fix what they did wrong. Maybe thats the difference between playing a niche game where everyone is on the same page and playing a Big Tent game like WOW where your forced to play with players that don't share the same objecitves as you.
The idea of getting rewarded for winning (kind of like how the rest of the game works) makes people change their behavior if they want to get said reward.
If their behavior in a Battleground is to charge 5 enemies by themself because they like "rolling heads" and he gets ZERO PvP currency for loosing, that player will either critically think about what they are doing wrong and change it to benefit the whole team.......or they can decide to play somewhere else where its more lucrative for what ever it is they are playing for. Either way, the Battleground benefits from not having a liability like that on their team.
If their behavior in a Battleground is to BOT and have an automated program run them into some far off corner of the map, or kill NPCs and they get ZERO PvP currency for loosing, that player will either STOP BOTING or play their toon in an effective manner. Either way, the Battleground benefits from not having a liability like that on their team.
From a PvPer's perspective, I don't have much fun being put into a scenario where a whole team is required to achieve multiple objectives to win (requiring coordination and teamwork) and half my team is chasing some Honor Kill objective or is engaging in play that gives no benefit to winning the match.
It's incredibly fustrating for someone that actually likes playing Capture the Flag can't play Capture the Flag in the ONLY place to do so in the game (Battleground) because over half the team is there to farm Kills, not play the scenario.
When the PvPers have no place to go because people not interested in PvP have taken over your niche of the game....then you have a serious problem. How you cannot see that being worse than some kids picking themselves up after losing instead of crying is crazy to me.
It is really dependant. Some games shines with BG's, some would not.
I will take 2 examples on each end, one that shines with BG's, the other one would not;
World of Warcraft; BG is a great option here.
Darkfall Online; Definately not an option in that game.
Make us care MORE about our faction & world pvp!
Dumbing down so the masses can play has made mmos more about quantity than quality.