I don't understand why people who don't like FFA PVP play the FFA PVP games, and then cry on forums about it.Sounds pretty retarded to me. Maybe you should have to take some sort of psychological test before playing an MMO.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
I think that games that come out now have meaninless pvp. Go to a BG or WF and then port back out and stand around in the same city with the "enimies". Only reason to pvp in these games is the gear grind. Don't know how many times I've been standing in Stormwind and see horde running through and no body reacts.
In DAOC if your keep was under attack, everyone came, no matter the level. True they had reards, but it was abilities or stat increases, not the gear grind you have now.
If I kill a horde/alliance or a defiant/guardian, what does it mean besides honor/favor for me to get gear. They are suppose to be at war, yet I feel the developers get lazy and make the same npc give quest to both factions. I don't feel it really needs three factions (but are nice), just make pvp meaningful.
Jjust want pvp to have some meaning besides trying to get that next chest piece. If we are at war with the other faction, then stop the instance pvp, stop the neutral city/town locations. Hate to think that Mythic was the only one that could do it right.....once.
I'm gonna go with a hybrid answer, that's what I do lol. Gankers never help a game out period, no question about that. Just think about it you go to the store buy the game run home all excited plug it in, go through all the downloads, make your character, then log in. You run out and run over to start killing that first bunny or rat, just to have some jerk come over and kill you in one shot. Then you get done with whatever death penalty there is just to have it happen, over and over and over, then you stop playing.
At the same time if you ever get past that point where you don't get constantly ganked and there is no meaning behind the PvP? What's the point in participating in it? There needs to be a sense of accomplishment when you win at PvP and if that's not there you will lose interest, or at least I will. Cause if all you want to do is just fight why not play an FPS game, or LoL?
An average player in a PvE game almost always win, defeat the boss, get the loot etc. In a PvP game the success rate is only 50%. If he/she is more skilled that a normal player but nothing special, maybe win rate increases to 60-70% or so, but its far from the PvE numbers.
Only a few very skilled ppl can get the same fun from PvP, but in PvE almost all noob is a winner, a hero, so there will be always more PvE gamer then PvP.
Because only a small number of devs ever did PvP right? Mythic, Aventurine, CCP.
And none of those models proved to be wildly popular.
I'm assuming the OP is bemoaning the lack of PVP centric MMO's (probably FFA, Full loot or some other serious consequences) vs the horde of MMO's which all offer PVP right now. (when was the last time you saw a MMO released w/o PVP?)
True, most of these games aren't designed around it, but that's because people enjoy doing PVE content. I enjoy PVE more than PVP, because most times there's just nothing that interesting about PVP. Run out, press some keys, kill or be killed (be killed in my case is more common) and then rinse and repeat. In most cases, there are no real rewards and I don't enjoy it.
I did love DAOC and EVE however, I like my PVP to have a purpose, primarily taking control of an area in game and denying others access to it. (our turf sort of mentality).
In an average game, such as Rift, I never go out of my way to kill another player even though I'm on a PVP server. Just not how I'm wired, why would I want to screw up their fun if they're busy doing their PVE activities? Just because they are there doesn't mean they want me to gank them.
So I don't think there's really a problem here, unless of course you're a fan of a more open PVP experience. its true, few games are catering to that play style and its not likely to change any time soon.
What exactly is interesting about pve? Do you not press some keys, kill or be killed and rinse and repeat in that as well? At least in pvp your opponent actually adapts.
Or are the shinies from pve interesting?
Well, the truth is, I'm not finding PVE all that interesting either, but you are right, the rewards from killing another player in most cases do not equal those of PVE. (unless its a full loot game, but then players aren't interested in having their own stuff drop).
But mostly PVE is a matter of control. In general the PVE player is completely in control of his or her agenda, and can accomplish the goals they set out to achieve with little interaction or interferance from another player.
Trouble with PVP is the other player refuses to cooperate and just lay down and die, which means a disruption to their plans/fun and that's not to be tolerated for many players.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think you missed a big one; "Because consequence-less PvP has come to dominate the market and many non-persistant games offer better "match" style PvP than any MMO ever will"
This makes no sense.
In other words:
PvP is dying because PvP with out consequences is thriving.
I agree with the second part. That non-mmos have better consequenceless PvP.
Longer version:
The point of a persistant world is that you develop over time and the things you do define your character. A "good" PvP system has meaningful consequences to winning and losing. To continue using the examples here, in DAoC if your side was "winning" in the realm war you gained access to Darkness Falls and other minor benefits - nothing forced you to participate and the rewards were not game breaking, but they were there. When they added the ability to "flag" castles and towers for your guild, controlling them became a point of pride and notoriety. In EVE, the risk/reward of PvP is often more direct and clearly financial. However again you are not really forced to participate and while gains are significant you can recover purely by doing PvE.
The prevalent model for PvP in the current generation of games is to make it completely optional and non-persistant via battlegrounds or similar mechanics. There is no real downside to losing, the rewards are at best equivalent to things you can get doing PvE and because there is no permance to any of it there is no sense of real accopmplishment. If all you are playing for is a position on a stats board, then why bother paying for and devoting the time to an MMO? There are a LOT of games out there with online multi-player servers/match play now; many with hundreds if not thousands of opponents, stat tracking, guilds and social support.
So why play an MMO for consequence-less PvP when I can play many different builds/strategies even genres on match-based games with much less time investment, lower costs and easy transition to another game?
On the flip side, the majority of MMOs out there presently with any kind of persistant PvP have significant other issues making them less popular; either they are open-world gankfest games which will just turn many potential players off or they are underfunded/badly developed (or both!).
It's because PvP runs contrary to the design of MMORPGs.
A Good MMORPG requires meaningful character development (levels, stats, equipment, etc), which inherently unbalances the power between players.
Good PvP requires balance between those fighting each other.
When you mix the two together, you get an unbalanced mess.
So now you have a completely skewed PvP system where some people have no chance to defend themselves because of their level, gear, or they're simply outnumbered. And conversely you have people who are max level, ave amazing gear, and have a lot of friends who like to all go around and beat on those who can't defend themselves.
Fun? Not for everyone.
So how do developers try to balance out PvP fights? They shove people into instances and onto restricted teams to try to 'balance' things out evenly. Of course, instanced PvP is pretty meaningless. It's detatched from the game, and winning or losing only impacts how much "reward" tokens you get... to buy yourself more PvP gear -- and imbalance things even more.
PvP really doesn't mesh well in an MMORPG environment. That's not to say you couldn't have an MMO that does PvP well... just not an MMORPG.
one word: daoc
four words: dark age of camelot
DAOC was balanced around RvR, not PvP. Big difference between the two, even though one contains the other.
Because eventually people figure out that a system where whichever side is higher level/has better gear/has more players in the area wins is not an interesting game mechanic.
Not all games are moving toward PVE, however. Had a look at League of Legends lately?
Wow. You just blew my mind. I thought the question would be “Why is PvE dying”.
Mmorpg’s that launched over 6-years ago still sustain millions of subscribers offering their own mix or emphasis of heavy pve, heavy pvp or sandboxy nature (WoW, Lineage, Runescape).
Yet not one theme-parkish heavy-pve mmorpg since them has been able to sustain more than 200k-300k subscribers 6-months to a year-out following a mass exodus from million(s) of box sales.
Perhaps FFXI and Aion are the exceptions but again, pve and pvp heavy games with a large Asian audience.
I think the original question needs to be re-evaluated, but that’s me.
You missed another big one - Developers don't develop for it.
Many games "offer" it, but in half ass'd ways and it basically is what it is. PvP seems to be an afterthought these days, not a major gameplay mechanic. Until that changes, games like CoD and HALO will continue to be the games of choice for PvPers. The market is undoubtedly there - the will to develop and market to it in an MMO isn't.
You missed another big one - Developers don't develop for it.
Many games "offer" it, but in half ass'd ways and it basically is what it is. PvP seems to be an afterthought these days, not a major gameplay mechanic. Until that changes, games like CoD and HALO will continue to be the games of choice for PvPers. The market is undoubtedly there - the will to develop and market to it in an MMO isn't.
I think the problem is you can't market and sell another great pvp mmo once you make the first one. Right now developers make so much more money selling millions of copies of a game every 6-12 months than scrounging up 15 a month from a fickle playerbase. I think back to the 150+ dollars I spent on EQ1 expansions alone not even counting monthly, and think that to compete in teh market today a company would have to havea similar business model. I hate cash shop pay to win model that has developed and hope it tanks quickly.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
You missed another big one - Developers don't develop for it.
Many games "offer" it, but in half ass'd ways and it basically is what it is. PvP seems to be an afterthought these days, not a major gameplay mechanic. Until that changes, games like CoD and HALO will continue to be the games of choice for PvPers. The market is undoubtedly there - the will to develop and market to it in an MMO isn't.
I think the problem is you can't market and sell another great pvp mmo once you make the first one. Right now developers make so much more money selling millions of copies of a game every 6-12 months than scrounging up 15 a month from a fickle playerbase. I think back to the 150+ dollars I spent on EQ1 expansions alone not even counting monthly, and think that to compete in teh market today a company would have to havea similar business model. I hate cash shop pay to win model that has developed and hope it tanks quickly.
Geezus...COD sells a new freaking game like every 2-3 months. I see your point and I kinda worry you're right...I just don't understand the short term mentality of developers these days. Is it really cheaper to just develop and sell a new game than it is to offer a great one?
Also 100% with you on Cash Shops (and DLC). They're pure GREED! I'm VERY worried about SW:ToR for this very reason...BiowarEA is the king of DLC that SHOULD have been in the f'n game.
Why pay a sub, grind levels and skills, grind gear, and then pvp when you can pay your $50 and have a great pvp game out of the box with millions of people to play?
Well someone could disagree with me and tell me that "pvp isn't dying" but we all see how pvp is always an afterthought in the majority of mmorpg companies.Every game that comes out or any older one that tries to maintain its player base focuses mainly on PVE aspects.Even games that were created mainly for PvP eventually do that.
So for the ones that agree with me pls answer the poll. Anyone who doesn't feel that PVP is second rated by developers pls disagree in another post.
Are we pretending it hasn't always been an afterthought in 95% of MMORPGs that've ever been released?
The reason it happens is:
MMORPGs are not good PVP vehicles. Fundamentally.
PVE is more popular.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Because most PvP has little to no consequences which end up in nothing more than a gank/grief fest. The people are told to police themselves which only works so well, gankers and griefers generally don't care about being killed and just come back later to harass someone else depending on the in game mechanics of the game. Also PvP in most games has little to no objective .... "Hey guys lets jump in this PvP minigame and kill some random guys for some points to buy gear. There are plenty more reasons but those are a couple that just make me pass on a lot of the PvP these days and just roll a Pve server, it's less of a headache.
Why pay a sub, grind levels and skills, grind gear, and then pvp when you can pay your $50 and have a great pvp game out of the box with millions of people to play?
because they don't and they aren't... any fps game you get on a console will be a watered down version.. and.. they're not able to compete with PC players. im sure i don't have to repeat the fact that in all cases, the PC user had a distinct advantage over the console player due to game pad limitations in FPS.. and .. the biggest problem with pvp on consoles is.. their crap... what is the best they can handle .. 8 v 8.. boooring.. why do you think after all these years, Counter Strike is still the biggest FPS PVP game in existance.. because its not limited to a small player environment..for just a couple of players. and. Counterstrike.. no sub.. no grind.. no problem... and the other huge problem with console games.. is that their sooooo freakin expensive.. why do they cost twice as much as the PC versions ? and still manage to have less content ?
Comments
I don't understand why people who don't like FFA PVP play the FFA PVP games, and then cry on forums about it.Sounds pretty retarded to me. Maybe you should have to take some sort of psychological test before playing an MMO.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
10M WoW players and countless millions of other PvE gamers and single player gamers say: Yes...
I think that games that come out now have meaninless pvp. Go to a BG or WF and then port back out and stand around in the same city with the "enimies". Only reason to pvp in these games is the gear grind. Don't know how many times I've been standing in Stormwind and see horde running through and no body reacts.
In DAOC if your keep was under attack, everyone came, no matter the level. True they had reards, but it was abilities or stat increases, not the gear grind you have now.
If I kill a horde/alliance or a defiant/guardian, what does it mean besides honor/favor for me to get gear. They are suppose to be at war, yet I feel the developers get lazy and make the same npc give quest to both factions. I don't feel it really needs three factions (but are nice), just make pvp meaningful.
Jjust want pvp to have some meaning besides trying to get that next chest piece. If we are at war with the other faction, then stop the instance pvp, stop the neutral city/town locations. Hate to think that Mythic was the only one that could do it right.....once.
This is just my opinion.
The majority of the earth's population are morons...You know that right?
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Who cares...?
...and the rest are delusional.
_______
|___
\_______/
=
|X| \*........*/ |X|
|X|_________|X|
You wouldn't understand
Obviously not morons.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
actually you dont need 10 million players to run a successfull game.
and the hope for a real pvp mmo is still alive, and it will never die, only respawn
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
I'm gonna go with a hybrid answer, that's what I do lol. Gankers never help a game out period, no question about that. Just think about it you go to the store buy the game run home all excited plug it in, go through all the downloads, make your character, then log in. You run out and run over to start killing that first bunny or rat, just to have some jerk come over and kill you in one shot. Then you get done with whatever death penalty there is just to have it happen, over and over and over, then you stop playing.
At the same time if you ever get past that point where you don't get constantly ganked and there is no meaning behind the PvP? What's the point in participating in it? There needs to be a sense of accomplishment when you win at PvP and if that's not there you will lose interest, or at least I will. Cause if all you want to do is just fight why not play an FPS game, or LoL?
Pretty much this:
An average player in a PvE game almost always win, defeat the boss, get the loot etc. In a PvP game the success rate is only 50%. If he/she is more skilled that a normal player but nothing special, maybe win rate increases to 60-70% or so, but its far from the PvE numbers.
Only a few very skilled ppl can get the same fun from PvP, but in PvE almost all noob is a winner, a hero, so there will be always more PvE gamer then PvP.
Well, the truth is, I'm not finding PVE all that interesting either, but you are right, the rewards from killing another player in most cases do not equal those of PVE. (unless its a full loot game, but then players aren't interested in having their own stuff drop).
But mostly PVE is a matter of control. In general the PVE player is completely in control of his or her agenda, and can accomplish the goals they set out to achieve with little interaction or interferance from another player.
Trouble with PVP is the other player refuses to cooperate and just lay down and die, which means a disruption to their plans/fun and that's not to be tolerated for many players.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Longer version:
The point of a persistant world is that you develop over time and the things you do define your character. A "good" PvP system has meaningful consequences to winning and losing. To continue using the examples here, in DAoC if your side was "winning" in the realm war you gained access to Darkness Falls and other minor benefits - nothing forced you to participate and the rewards were not game breaking, but they were there. When they added the ability to "flag" castles and towers for your guild, controlling them became a point of pride and notoriety. In EVE, the risk/reward of PvP is often more direct and clearly financial. However again you are not really forced to participate and while gains are significant you can recover purely by doing PvE.
The prevalent model for PvP in the current generation of games is to make it completely optional and non-persistant via battlegrounds or similar mechanics. There is no real downside to losing, the rewards are at best equivalent to things you can get doing PvE and because there is no permance to any of it there is no sense of real accopmplishment. If all you are playing for is a position on a stats board, then why bother paying for and devoting the time to an MMO? There are a LOT of games out there with online multi-player servers/match play now; many with hundreds if not thousands of opponents, stat tracking, guilds and social support.
So why play an MMO for consequence-less PvP when I can play many different builds/strategies even genres on match-based games with much less time investment, lower costs and easy transition to another game?
On the flip side, the majority of MMOs out there presently with any kind of persistant PvP have significant other issues making them less popular; either they are open-world gankfest games which will just turn many potential players off or they are underfunded/badly developed (or both!).
DAOC was balanced around RvR, not PvP. Big difference between the two, even though one contains the other.
Because eventually people figure out that a system where whichever side is higher level/has better gear/has more players in the area wins is not an interesting game mechanic.
Not all games are moving toward PVE, however. Had a look at League of Legends lately?
Wow. You just blew my mind. I thought the question would be “Why is PvE dying”.
Mmorpg’s that launched over 6-years ago still sustain millions of subscribers offering their own mix or emphasis of heavy pve, heavy pvp or sandboxy nature (WoW, Lineage, Runescape).
Yet not one theme-parkish heavy-pve mmorpg since them has been able to sustain more than 200k-300k subscribers 6-months to a year-out following a mass exodus from million(s) of box sales.
Perhaps FFXI and Aion are the exceptions but again, pve and pvp heavy games with a large Asian audience.
I think the original question needs to be re-evaluated, but that’s me.
PvP isn't dying.
You missed another big one - Developers don't develop for it.
Many games "offer" it, but in half ass'd ways and it basically is what it is. PvP seems to be an afterthought these days, not a major gameplay mechanic. Until that changes, games like CoD and HALO will continue to be the games of choice for PvPers. The market is undoubtedly there - the will to develop and market to it in an MMO isn't.
Because everyone complains about dying...
I think the problem is you can't market and sell another great pvp mmo once you make the first one. Right now developers make so much more money selling millions of copies of a game every 6-12 months than scrounging up 15 a month from a fickle playerbase. I think back to the 150+ dollars I spent on EQ1 expansions alone not even counting monthly, and think that to compete in teh market today a company would have to havea similar business model. I hate cash shop pay to win model that has developed and hope it tanks quickly.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Because no ones ever really made a pvp game that people want to play.
1) Take the open skill learning system of EvE (no classes) - full, deep character customization
2) Destructible assets of Shadowbane.
3) Have meaningful and decent pve.
4) Take out the grind.
5) No full loot - maybe drop half your gold and a couple of random items in inventory (not equipped).
6) Decent graphics and customizable UI.
That's the "pvp" game I'm waiting for.
Geezus...COD sells a new freaking game like every 2-3 months. I see your point and I kinda worry you're right...I just don't understand the short term mentality of developers these days. Is it really cheaper to just develop and sell a new game than it is to offer a great one?
Also 100% with you on Cash Shops (and DLC). They're pure GREED! I'm VERY worried about SW:ToR for this very reason...BiowarEA is the king of DLC that SHOULD have been in the f'n game.
Because console games do pvp better.
Why pay a sub, grind levels and skills, grind gear, and then pvp when you can pay your $50 and have a great pvp game out of the box with millions of people to play?
Are we pretending it hasn't always been an afterthought in 95% of MMORPGs that've ever been released?
The reason it happens is:
MMORPGs are not good PVP vehicles. Fundamentally.
PVE is more popular.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Because most PvP has little to no consequences which end up in nothing more than a gank/grief fest. The people are told to police themselves which only works so well, gankers and griefers generally don't care about being killed and just come back later to harass someone else depending on the in game mechanics of the game. Also PvP in most games has little to no objective .... "Hey guys lets jump in this PvP minigame and kill some random guys for some points to buy gear. There are plenty more reasons but those are a couple that just make me pass on a lot of the PvP these days and just roll a Pve server, it's less of a headache.
because they don't and they aren't... any fps game you get on a console will be a watered down version.. and.. they're not able to compete with PC players. im sure i don't have to repeat the fact that in all cases, the PC user had a distinct advantage over the console player due to game pad limitations in FPS.. and .. the biggest problem with pvp on consoles is.. their crap... what is the best they can handle .. 8 v 8.. boooring.. why do you think after all these years, Counter Strike is still the biggest FPS PVP game in existance.. because its not limited to a small player environment..for just a couple of players. and. Counterstrike.. no sub.. no grind.. no problem... and the other huge problem with console games.. is that their sooooo freakin expensive.. why do they cost twice as much as the PC versions ? and still manage to have less content ?