True. There's gonna be games that cater to every appetite I suppose. And while the bullk of the playing audience will probably continue to opt for what you have now, that's not necessarily a bad thing I guess. Bigger audience of gamers means some portion of that money/players will take a liking to more "niche" games with other varieties of combat mechanics involved.
I'll be honest, I'm on the fence.
There is a part of me that wants to put in a lot of time and sculpt my character to be better than others. then there is a part of me who wants to be able to be minding my own business and when attacked by others I can use my superior skills (lol, well assuming that I HAVE superior skills) to overcome my opponents regardless of how much more time they have spent gearing up.
again, it goes back to the idea that I don't believe gear should be end all be all and that amazing gear should only be marginally better than good gear which is marginally better than bad gear.
Heck, even if the level dispartiy between top lvl and lvl 1 is 100 levels I think the benefits of good gear should be exactly the same for either player.
I'm really more interested in the character developement than gear developement. Still, one would then argue that gear has become intrinsically entwined with character development.
Gear has become instrinsically intertwined in the process because we clamored for it I think. Well the long time community of RPG players have the expectation that, like the loot from good old PnP D&D, the quest for better gear never stops and better gear means more powerful than what you have at hand.
As you level your character you're looking for better tools to kill or keep from being killed.
Which is all fine and well if your world is only inhabited by you and NPCs or you and a small party of friends. But that's not the case in MMOs. There's no GM following you around tweaking things to suit you and your party. It's just the game. So I see that as a factor that hasn't really been acknowledged.
But really each part needs to be addressed seperately as well as synergistically.
I mean there's really no reason at all that a max level toon should have anything like a hundred or a thousand times more health than when he started right? I mean we get stronger or faster and what not as we grow from children to adulthood but not nearly tot he extent that's typically experienced in games now. So maybe we can scale that back a bit. Maybe, depending on attributes being used, the most you can hope for would be to increase a single stat or two maybe something like 25 percent over what you started with. To reflect the training and practice gained over years. Or if you spread those points around an overall increase in health and abilities making them pretty well above average but nothing spectacular in any one thing.
The same might be said for weapons and armor. Sure there's better quality but even that should have it's limits because getting walloped alongside the head with a 15 pound maul is gonna hurt no matter what. Maybe make weapons useable not upon level but rather possessing the skill set to actually use the armor and weapon you find. Un-tie the weapons and armor from classes and tie it to whether the player took the skill to use them.
We have been led to focus entirely on the idea that character progression must come in the form of increased stats as well as skills (character skills that is).
If stats can be scaled back why not the multiplyer effect of skills too? Sure, learning to better handle your sword or war hammer means you can inflict more damage but really it shouldn't be THAT much more considering in the end it's still a sword or hammer.
Make the skill trees maybe more horizontal rather than vertical. Giving a wider number of skills to choose from but each will only take you so far. A master swordsman can perfect his sword thrust but so much. He does it really really well but in the end it's still just a sword he's using after all.
I did like the combat system of AoC when it rolled out. I heard it's been dumbed down a bit because folks found it too hard to master.
Achievements is another alternative way of showing progress too which doesn't necessarily have to carry over into making character levels so disparate.
"Heart grow stronger, Will becomes firm, the Mind more calm, as our Strength lessens..." Battle of Maldon 991 AD
Tough choice... I voted fps because i havent pvpd in mmorpgs for a long time lol. Last one i tried Pvp in was eve and i enjoyed it except for the fact that 1 good fight = tryin to find ppl for 2 hours.
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
Depends on which MMO you are referring to. Instanced PvP like WoW/Rift is pretty boring to me after one or two matches. They actually feel very similar to FPS games where you are just playing for a score and can't really win or lose anything.
I love MMO PvP in EVE because winning or losing actually matters...it has an impact on the virtual world.
Yea I much prefer FPS PvP, everybody been on a level playing field. It always sucks on a MMORPG when you go up against 1v5 and you dont really stand a chance, because there's simply no way you can DPS through their heals, break that many stun locks or kill somebody with 5 people beating on you, its not happening.
In an FPS, as 1 person you can take down 5 people or more, given enough of a skill gap, and if you cant, you can at least kill afew of them.
I'm more in favor of FPS/TPS PvP. Two reasons not mentioned:Victory is much sweeter even if your death count may be more in FPSs. Losing to a class in a FPS is more acceptable(becauses the player's skill of playing it) than losing to a class in a MMORPG (could be because is OP).
If its AC-darktide first years or Darkfall i prefer those over carebear themepark pvp.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
Anyone who thinks gear is the reason others win in MMO PvP (even in a gear based game, such as WoW) is quite naive at how much they must suck at PvP or gaming in general, lol...
No offense to anyone, but as a player who is almost always at the top 3 on any server of any game they play (whether it is FPS or MMO) I have never been beaten by another player because they had higher gear, even in gear-based games. If I was beaten by someone with better gear, it's because they were also not a horrible player (irrelevant if they were better than me or not, they were close enough).
I actually like that. If games do not allow some sort of handicap, I find myself easily bored because of how easy the game becomes. Why would I want to play a game where I win 100% of the time? Boring!! I'm not like all these weirdo's who get their jollies off winning. I actually like a challenge, and find that to be the fun part.
I remember when I played Medal of Honor: Allied Assault when it first released. Never again have I ever been so good at a video game than in that game. I would come into a losing server and singlehandedly flop it around to win by a large margin. I had kill to death ratio's of, no lie, 60 to 1 on some maps, 30:1 on others. I've never even come close to that in any other game (I usually just get 2:1 or 1:1). The result? I got a god-mode-complex where if I died, I'd get really upset (which I rarely do any other time) and think "I died? I CANT DIE!! I ALWAYS WIN!!!" The first time I thought that, I quit, because I realized how bored I was.
At least in WoW I can have adequate green gear at level 16 and kick the butt of a level 19 all-blue-twink gnome. It isn't easy, and although I often win (unless it's a good player, which then it becomes VERY fun, although if a great player it becomes utterly pointless as I cant win at all, but then can come back later to kick his butt at lvl 19!)
My point is this: I am a good player, and gear has almost NEVER caused me to lose. Level, yes, especially in some games. Gear? No. Anyone who whines about "gear based games" being why others beat them, those players just aren't very good period. I don't believe them.
So it's just funny to me that others think gear is why they are losing in "gear-based" MMO's which still require a lot of skill, lol...
With the exception of wide level gaps in power (such as a level 10 vs a level 19, or a MMO where 1 level is a HUGE power gap) MMORPG PvP, even in gear-based games, requires Skill just the same as any FPS game. Those who don't believe this just don't have said skill, so they don't realize it.
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.
I like FPS PvP more but I like all the things that go along with MMO PvP, such as guilds and territory control and the persistent world more than anything, hence my wanting to play an MMO and not just play Battlefield all day.
No offense to anyone, but as a player who is almost always at the top 3 on any server of any game they play (whether it is FPS or MMO) I have never been beaten by another player because they had higher gear, even in gear-based games.
I dunno if I'd use that line to pick up chicks...
But for the rest of your topics... I agree.
Look if you run across a player with better gear, it can happen in FPS now, but tactics > stats. Unless you're playing in a rock'em sock'em type of duel set-up, and it's team based combat, tactics can win over gear, individual player skill, and even numbers if you think it through.
The same for FPS games. I'm a big Battlefield fan, it's a game where there's a lot of firepower and if you stick to it longer than other players you gain a lot of perks that can make your time on the field easier.
But it by no means replaces player skills.
Some macro style mmo combat, eehhh yeah there's a gray line there.
In the end MMORPG PVP is fun, like in the case of Shadowbane where you can open combat with player made cities that could be designed with defense in mind, and truly massive scale combat. Tactics mattered.
DAoC, you were given goals, tactics mattered.
Open world pvp in any game from Ultima to WoW (and yeah RIFT and the other WoW-lite games) tactics can win the day.
People who blame gear are just sore losers and have no business playing games with a rating higher than T for Teen.
However, if I had to do it over again, I'd actually want any potential suitor to run away whenever I say that. The ones which stay would be the ones I'd want to hang around, as they can see a prize winner when he comes around :P LOL!
Unfortunately, my wife could care less if I am great or horrible at video games, unless I'm playing with her, which is only the Wii, and rarely if ever.
Great point on how FPS games are now becoming (and have already been for awhile) gear-centric. Especially with Call of Duty where the unlocks actually give you more power, as opposed to Battlefield where unlocks gave you different weapons but didn't make as much of a difference in power.
My favorite FPS game, by far, is BF2142. No other game has ever captured me like that game. Although I am a big fan of Battlefield 1942, but I never got the chance to play that, as when it released my graphics card couldn't handle it
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.
I must admit though... some games are quite unbalanced with PvP. This is true in both FPS games as well as MMO games, but usually a bigger problem for me because in FPS games I tend to stay away from horrible weapons unless I like them, and even so it's usually not a big power gap even if it gimps you significantly (a gunshot is still a gunshot, even if the enemy can get off 10 more than you with 500% more accuracy, you still only need to be the first to shoot off successfully)
In WARHAMMER and especially in Champions Online shortly after release (Beta PvP was insanely amazing!) the powers (or in WAR's case Classes) were incredibly unbalanced.
So to add to this...
1) Not Gear. Gear doesn't make a big difference, even in gear-centric games.
2) Levels do make a difference, especially in some games where 1 level is a HUGE power gap.
3) Classes/Powers can make a difference, especially in some horribly balanced games.
I have played the gimped classes, and honestly...didn't for very long. Some classes (Shadow Warrior anyone?) were so gimped, even a great player becomes a crappy one, unable to do much of anything really.
Then there is a 4th aspect to bring bad PvP into MMORPG's...
4) Archetypes. The importance of one archetype (Healer) over any other. Whenever I played a Witchhunter in WAR, I would kill everyone I saw, could pick out any target and defeat them, and if I did die, I would have brought at least 3 down with me before my arrogance and overly aggressive behavior got me killed.
However, the moment I would switch over to a Healer, even though I didn't like it as much, the battle would be decided in our favor. One good healer can turn the tide of the entire battlefield. Being #1 in damage, even when you did x2 the damage and x2 the kills as anyone else, gives a slight advantage to your team. Being #1 in healer, especially when you outheal anyone else by x2 to x10 the amount...gives a game-ending advantage to your team. Being #1 in protecting others as a tank and guarding objectives gives your team little to no advantage, especially if you would otherwise carry the team to victory.
In PvP, in relation to the balance of Winning / Losing for your team and giving your side an advantage, it always seems to be...
Healer > DPS > Tank
I have never played a class-based MMORPG where being the Healer didn't give my team the win, yet I have played plenty where even if I were the best DPS, it is irrelevant, ESPECIALLY if the enemy team had a good healer. I have been in plenty of battles where there was another exceptional player, sometimes players (or groups) which were better than me by a large amount, but because I was a Healer archetype and they were only DPS or DPS/Tank mix, my side won.
This is how I'd rank MMO PvP, almost universally...
Level Power Gap > Population > Archetype Importance > Teamwork > Class Imbalances > Player Skill > Gear
This is how I think it SHOULD rank...
Teamwork > Player Skill > Gear > Archetype Population > Level
There should be no major advantage for Level (FPS games), no major advantage for how many more players are on your side than the other (FPS games), no vital healer requirements (FPS games), and balanced classes/roles (rarely occurs even in ANY genre), and Teamwork should be most important, followed by player skill, followed by Character Skill (Level, Gear, etc.) and that's it.
A game where 5 skill players who work in a great team, with great gear, and expert characters, can beat 50 scattered, average players, with mediocre gear, and average character skill-- without the requirement of a Healer (or perhaps healing not even existing, only light regen or out of combat recovery)
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.
1) Not Gear. Gear doesn't make a big difference, even in gear-centric games.
2) Levels do make a difference, especially in some games where 1 level is a HUGE power gap.
3) Classes/Powers can make a difference, especially in some horribly balanced games.
4) Archetypes. The importance of one archetype (Healer) over any other.
Gear is most definitely a major factor in most MMO's. Sure, with high skill an un-geared opponent can beat a low-skilled geared opponent, but that's not the point. If you take two equally skilled players, one geared and one not, the geared player will win 8 times out of 10.
You are right on all other accounts, specially healers. Most MMOs are WAAAY too dependent on healers, mainly due to the fact that healing is WAAAY too powerful in PvP. This is due to the fact that healing is designed to keep people alive against PvE bosses that do huge amounts of damage.
Now, before people say "Well you gotta attack the healers" don't you realize how unbalanced a game is when the outcome of a fight is decided almost solely on who's healer goes down first?
I do not care about FPS fast action combat, thus I don't like FPS PvP. I play games for immersion and not for e-sports and bragging rights.
At some time, during DAoC, I liked MMORPG PvP. Sadly that type of MMORPG PvP (open world, group based, large armies where tactics and strategy matters) doesn't exist anymore. It seems current games are hell-bent to introduce the frantic FPS type of PvP with all its button-mashing and bunny-hopping into the MMORPG genre. No thanks, I'm not interested in that.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
PvP either needs to be in its own seperate game or the abilitys that make up classes that need to work dynamically for pvp, meaming the same skill should work different in a pvp environment so the balance doesn't hinder or change the PVE one. Its a polarity issue, and its much more simpler as a game designer to just exclude the add on that is pvp. Unless your MMO IP is extremely focused on pvp, just stop slapping it on as an after thought.
You really have to define what type of PVP you are talking about. While I enjoy FPS's, I abhor battleground PVP in MMOs, preferring the open world guild-based PVP encounters.
Same for me. I can play in either and have some fun. For MMORPGs, I prefer the open world PvP. It adds spice to the game world and an opportunity to jump into the fun if I came across the fight while doing something else.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
I don't think mmorpg PvP has really transcended the PvP paradigm.
Huh?
What I mean is, mmorpg pvp has an opportunity to play out massive battles with legions of players (just like in the fancy cinematic trailers for the games), but that requires proper objectives and good organization. Currently, 50 people run into a battle ground and they play it like an fps, largely alone, without direction and quickly respawn if they die. As mentioned, DAoC has probably come closest to transcending this solo player FPS pvp paradigm when going and attacking various relic keeps (or the towers that protect them, at least).
PvP either needs to be in its own seperate game or the abilitys that make up classes that need to work dynamically for pvp, meaming the same skill should work different in a pvp environment so the balance doesn't hinder or change the PVE one. Its a polarity issue, and its much more simpler as a game designer to just exclude the add on that is pvp. Unless your MMO IP is extremely focused on pvp, just stop slapping it on as an after thought.
Ultima Online went that route since the stats and design of a powerful mob are very different from that of a powerful PVP opponent, the way certain spells, skills and defense stats are calculated are entirely based on whether the opponent is human or NPC. AC ages ago started making PVP specific gear and in recent years it seems that a lot of the mainstream MMOs have picked up on that as well. They haven't, though, offered too many ideal ways to manage all your armor sets.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I am not a huge fps fan. To me its boring and repetitive. Twitch, ping, knowing the map are all things that make for a good fps player. The fights are too short imo.
I like pvp in MMOs because I like to use my knowledge of my class and of theirs to win. Group vs Group pvp is a blast too.
I don't think mmorpg PvP has really transcended the PvP paradigm.
Huh?
What I mean is, mmorpg pvp has an opportunity to play out massive battles with legions of players (just like in the fancy cinematic trailers for the games), but that requires proper objectives and good organization. Currently, 50 people run into a battle ground and they play it like an fps, largely alone, without direction and quickly respawn if they die. As mentioned, DAoC has probably come closest to transcending this solo player FPS pvp paradigm when going and attacking various relic keeps (or the towers that protect them, at least).
There is a limiting factor to this: Today's technology. Gather alot of players in one place and you'll get lag. I'm talking about even slow-traffic stuff like player hubs / cities. But imagine the amount of stuff going on if combat is involved.
It'd be nice to be able to see large groups fighting, but a battle would bring the game (and I'd imagine even today's computers) to its knees.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
There is a limiting factor to this: Today's technology. Gather alot of players in one place and you'll get lag. I'm talking about even slow-traffic stuff like player hubs / cities. But imagine the amount of stuff going on if combat is involved.
It'd be nice to be able to see large groups fighting, but a battle would bring the game (and I'd imagine even today's computers) to its knees.
And yet somehow DAoC, 10 years ago, managed PvP battles with 50 to 60 people just fine.
Even relic raids with several hundred players worked. Yes, you would get graphic lag, your FPS would go down, but most players just notched down the graphics a bit and turned off most of the screen effects and enjoyed the raid instead.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
Comments
Gear has become instrinsically intertwined in the process because we clamored for it I think. Well the long time community of RPG players have the expectation that, like the loot from good old PnP D&D, the quest for better gear never stops and better gear means more powerful than what you have at hand.
As you level your character you're looking for better tools to kill or keep from being killed.
Which is all fine and well if your world is only inhabited by you and NPCs or you and a small party of friends. But that's not the case in MMOs. There's no GM following you around tweaking things to suit you and your party. It's just the game. So I see that as a factor that hasn't really been acknowledged.
But really each part needs to be addressed seperately as well as synergistically.
I mean there's really no reason at all that a max level toon should have anything like a hundred or a thousand times more health than when he started right? I mean we get stronger or faster and what not as we grow from children to adulthood but not nearly tot he extent that's typically experienced in games now. So maybe we can scale that back a bit. Maybe, depending on attributes being used, the most you can hope for would be to increase a single stat or two maybe something like 25 percent over what you started with. To reflect the training and practice gained over years. Or if you spread those points around an overall increase in health and abilities making them pretty well above average but nothing spectacular in any one thing.
The same might be said for weapons and armor. Sure there's better quality but even that should have it's limits because getting walloped alongside the head with a 15 pound maul is gonna hurt no matter what. Maybe make weapons useable not upon level but rather possessing the skill set to actually use the armor and weapon you find. Un-tie the weapons and armor from classes and tie it to whether the player took the skill to use them.
We have been led to focus entirely on the idea that character progression must come in the form of increased stats as well as skills (character skills that is).
If stats can be scaled back why not the multiplyer effect of skills too? Sure, learning to better handle your sword or war hammer means you can inflict more damage but really it shouldn't be THAT much more considering in the end it's still a sword or hammer.
Make the skill trees maybe more horizontal rather than vertical. Giving a wider number of skills to choose from but each will only take you so far. A master swordsman can perfect his sword thrust but so much. He does it really really well but in the end it's still just a sword he's using after all.
I did like the combat system of AoC when it rolled out. I heard it's been dumbed down a bit because folks found it too hard to master.
Achievements is another alternative way of showing progress too which doesn't necessarily have to carry over into making character levels so disparate.
"Heart grow stronger, Will becomes firm, the Mind more calm, as our Strength lessens..." Battle of Maldon 991 AD
Really tho' I like both.
Give me tactics, give me variables, give me a goal, and a reason to achieve victory and I'm satisfied.
It's really not very different.
I enjoy Fps games far more then mmo when it comes to pvp, in fps games skills play a bigger factor then mmo.
MMo pvp require lots of stuff while fps you can jump in and stand pretty much on the same page as everyone else.
I have a hugh list of negative things to say about mmo pvp, from world pvp to battlegrounds.
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
Depends on which MMO you are referring to. Instanced PvP like WoW/Rift is pretty boring to me after one or two matches. They actually feel very similar to FPS games where you are just playing for a score and can't really win or lose anything.
I love MMO PvP in EVE because winning or losing actually matters...it has an impact on the virtual world.
Yea I much prefer FPS PvP, everybody been on a level playing field. It always sucks on a MMORPG when you go up against 1v5 and you dont really stand a chance, because there's simply no way you can DPS through their heals, break that many stun locks or kill somebody with 5 people beating on you, its not happening.
In an FPS, as 1 person you can take down 5 people or more, given enough of a skill gap, and if you cant, you can at least kill afew of them.
SKYeXile
TRF - GM - GW2, PS2, WAR, AION, Rift, WoW, WOT....etc...
Future Crew - High Council. Planetside 1 & 2.
I chose 'other', because I enjoy them both fairly equally. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. A well-done hybrid could be a big hit.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I'm more in favor of FPS/TPS PvP. Two reasons not mentioned:Victory is much sweeter even if your death count may be more in FPSs. Losing to a class in a FPS is more acceptable(becauses the player's skill of playing it) than losing to a class in a MMORPG (could be because is OP).
Simple....faction vs faction conflict. Best example DAOC (Dark Age of Camelot)
If its AC-darktide first years or Darkfall i prefer those over carebear themepark pvp.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
Massive. Massive Face Palm.
Anyone who thinks gear is the reason others win in MMO PvP (even in a gear based game, such as WoW) is quite naive at how much they must suck at PvP or gaming in general, lol...
No offense to anyone, but as a player who is almost always at the top 3 on any server of any game they play (whether it is FPS or MMO) I have never been beaten by another player because they had higher gear, even in gear-based games. If I was beaten by someone with better gear, it's because they were also not a horrible player (irrelevant if they were better than me or not, they were close enough).
I actually like that. If games do not allow some sort of handicap, I find myself easily bored because of how easy the game becomes. Why would I want to play a game where I win 100% of the time? Boring!! I'm not like all these weirdo's who get their jollies off winning. I actually like a challenge, and find that to be the fun part.
I remember when I played Medal of Honor: Allied Assault when it first released. Never again have I ever been so good at a video game than in that game. I would come into a losing server and singlehandedly flop it around to win by a large margin. I had kill to death ratio's of, no lie, 60 to 1 on some maps, 30:1 on others. I've never even come close to that in any other game (I usually just get 2:1 or 1:1). The result? I got a god-mode-complex where if I died, I'd get really upset (which I rarely do any other time) and think "I died? I CANT DIE!! I ALWAYS WIN!!!" The first time I thought that, I quit, because I realized how bored I was.
At least in WoW I can have adequate green gear at level 16 and kick the butt of a level 19 all-blue-twink gnome. It isn't easy, and although I often win (unless it's a good player, which then it becomes VERY fun, although if a great player it becomes utterly pointless as I cant win at all, but then can come back later to kick his butt at lvl 19!)
My point is this: I am a good player, and gear has almost NEVER caused me to lose. Level, yes, especially in some games. Gear? No. Anyone who whines about "gear based games" being why others beat them, those players just aren't very good period. I don't believe them.
So it's just funny to me that others think gear is why they are losing in "gear-based" MMO's which still require a lot of skill, lol...
With the exception of wide level gaps in power (such as a level 10 vs a level 19, or a MMO where 1 level is a HUGE power gap) MMORPG PvP, even in gear-based games, requires Skill just the same as any FPS game. Those who don't believe this just don't have said skill, so they don't realize it.
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.
I like FPS PvP more but I like all the things that go along with MMO PvP, such as guilds and territory control and the persistent world more than anything, hence my wanting to play an MMO and not just play Battlefield all day.
I dunno if I'd use that line to pick up chicks...
But for the rest of your topics... I agree.
Look if you run across a player with better gear, it can happen in FPS now, but tactics > stats. Unless you're playing in a rock'em sock'em type of duel set-up, and it's team based combat, tactics can win over gear, individual player skill, and even numbers if you think it through.
The same for FPS games. I'm a big Battlefield fan, it's a game where there's a lot of firepower and if you stick to it longer than other players you gain a lot of perks that can make your time on the field easier.
But it by no means replaces player skills.
Some macro style mmo combat, eehhh yeah there's a gray line there.
In the end MMORPG PVP is fun, like in the case of Shadowbane where you can open combat with player made cities that could be designed with defense in mind, and truly massive scale combat. Tactics mattered.
DAoC, you were given goals, tactics mattered.
Open world pvp in any game from Ultima to WoW (and yeah RIFT and the other WoW-lite games) tactics can win the day.
People who blame gear are just sore losers and have no business playing games with a rating higher than T for Teen.
LoL, thankfully I've already got a girl :P
However, if I had to do it over again, I'd actually want any potential suitor to run away whenever I say that. The ones which stay would be the ones I'd want to hang around, as they can see a prize winner when he comes around :P LOL!
Unfortunately, my wife could care less if I am great or horrible at video games, unless I'm playing with her, which is only the Wii, and rarely if ever.
Great point on how FPS games are now becoming (and have already been for awhile) gear-centric. Especially with Call of Duty where the unlocks actually give you more power, as opposed to Battlefield where unlocks gave you different weapons but didn't make as much of a difference in power.
My favorite FPS game, by far, is BF2142. No other game has ever captured me like that game. Although I am a big fan of Battlefield 1942, but I never got the chance to play that, as when it released my graphics card couldn't handle it
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.
I forgot something.
I must admit though... some games are quite unbalanced with PvP. This is true in both FPS games as well as MMO games, but usually a bigger problem for me because in FPS games I tend to stay away from horrible weapons unless I like them, and even so it's usually not a big power gap even if it gimps you significantly (a gunshot is still a gunshot, even if the enemy can get off 10 more than you with 500% more accuracy, you still only need to be the first to shoot off successfully)
In WARHAMMER and especially in Champions Online shortly after release (Beta PvP was insanely amazing!) the powers (or in WAR's case Classes) were incredibly unbalanced.
So to add to this...
1) Not Gear. Gear doesn't make a big difference, even in gear-centric games.
2) Levels do make a difference, especially in some games where 1 level is a HUGE power gap.
3) Classes/Powers can make a difference, especially in some horribly balanced games.
I have played the gimped classes, and honestly...didn't for very long. Some classes (Shadow Warrior anyone?) were so gimped, even a great player becomes a crappy one, unable to do much of anything really.
Then there is a 4th aspect to bring bad PvP into MMORPG's...
4) Archetypes. The importance of one archetype (Healer) over any other. Whenever I played a Witchhunter in WAR, I would kill everyone I saw, could pick out any target and defeat them, and if I did die, I would have brought at least 3 down with me before my arrogance and overly aggressive behavior got me killed.
However, the moment I would switch over to a Healer, even though I didn't like it as much, the battle would be decided in our favor. One good healer can turn the tide of the entire battlefield. Being #1 in damage, even when you did x2 the damage and x2 the kills as anyone else, gives a slight advantage to your team. Being #1 in healer, especially when you outheal anyone else by x2 to x10 the amount...gives a game-ending advantage to your team. Being #1 in protecting others as a tank and guarding objectives gives your team little to no advantage, especially if you would otherwise carry the team to victory.
In PvP, in relation to the balance of Winning / Losing for your team and giving your side an advantage, it always seems to be...
Healer > DPS > Tank
I have never played a class-based MMORPG where being the Healer didn't give my team the win, yet I have played plenty where even if I were the best DPS, it is irrelevant, ESPECIALLY if the enemy team had a good healer. I have been in plenty of battles where there was another exceptional player, sometimes players (or groups) which were better than me by a large amount, but because I was a Healer archetype and they were only DPS or DPS/Tank mix, my side won.
This is how I'd rank MMO PvP, almost universally...
Level Power Gap > Population > Archetype Importance > Teamwork > Class Imbalances > Player Skill > Gear
This is how I think it SHOULD rank...
Teamwork > Player Skill > Gear > Archetype Population > Level
There should be no major advantage for Level (FPS games), no major advantage for how many more players are on your side than the other (FPS games), no vital healer requirements (FPS games), and balanced classes/roles (rarely occurs even in ANY genre), and Teamwork should be most important, followed by player skill, followed by Character Skill (Level, Gear, etc.) and that's it.
A game where 5 skill players who work in a great team, with great gear, and expert characters, can beat 50 scattered, average players, with mediocre gear, and average character skill-- without the requirement of a Healer (or perhaps healing not even existing, only light regen or out of combat recovery)
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.
Gear is most definitely a major factor in most MMO's. Sure, with high skill an un-geared opponent can beat a low-skilled geared opponent, but that's not the point. If you take two equally skilled players, one geared and one not, the geared player will win 8 times out of 10.
You are right on all other accounts, specially healers. Most MMOs are WAAAY too dependent on healers, mainly due to the fact that healing is WAAAY too powerful in PvP. This is due to the fact that healing is designed to keep people alive against PvE bosses that do huge amounts of damage.
Now, before people say "Well you gotta attack the healers" don't you realize how unbalanced a game is when the outcome of a fight is decided almost solely on who's healer goes down first?
Didn't vote.
I do not care about FPS fast action combat, thus I don't like FPS PvP. I play games for immersion and not for e-sports and bragging rights.
At some time, during DAoC, I liked MMORPG PvP. Sadly that type of MMORPG PvP (open world, group based, large armies where tactics and strategy matters) doesn't exist anymore. It seems current games are hell-bent to introduce the frantic FPS type of PvP with all its button-mashing and bunny-hopping into the MMORPG genre. No thanks, I'm not interested in that.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
PvP either needs to be in its own seperate game or the abilitys that make up classes that need to work dynamically for pvp, meaming the same skill should work different in a pvp environment so the balance doesn't hinder or change the PVE one. Its a polarity issue, and its much more simpler as a game designer to just exclude the add on that is pvp. Unless your MMO IP is extremely focused on pvp, just stop slapping it on as an after thought.
Same for me. I can play in either and have some fun. For MMORPGs, I prefer the open world PvP. It adds spice to the game world and an opportunity to jump into the fun if I came across the fight while doing something else.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
I don't think mmorpg PvP has really transcended the PvP paradigm.
Huh?
What I mean is, mmorpg pvp has an opportunity to play out massive battles with legions of players (just like in the fancy cinematic trailers for the games), but that requires proper objectives and good organization. Currently, 50 people run into a battle ground and they play it like an fps, largely alone, without direction and quickly respawn if they die. As mentioned, DAoC has probably come closest to transcending this solo player FPS pvp paradigm when going and attacking various relic keeps (or the towers that protect them, at least).
Ultima Online went that route since the stats and design of a powerful mob are very different from that of a powerful PVP opponent, the way certain spells, skills and defense stats are calculated are entirely based on whether the opponent is human or NPC. AC ages ago started making PVP specific gear and in recent years it seems that a lot of the mainstream MMOs have picked up on that as well. They haven't, though, offered too many ideal ways to manage all your armor sets.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I am not a huge fps fan. To me its boring and repetitive. Twitch, ping, knowing the map are all things that make for a good fps player. The fights are too short imo.
I like pvp in MMOs because I like to use my knowledge of my class and of theirs to win. Group vs Group pvp is a blast too.
It would be interesting to see the poll split up into more sub-categories. Such as:
MMORPG or FPS PvP for 1 on 1 battles
MMORPG or FPS PvP for group vs group battles
MMORPG or FPS PvP for 40+ on 40+ battles
MMORPG or FPS PvP for random open world PvP encounters solo
MMORPG or FPS PvP for random open world PvP encounters as a group
MMORPG or FPS PvP for random open world PvP encounters as a large group/raid
The results may not vary a lot but ... polls!
There is a limiting factor to this: Today's technology. Gather alot of players in one place and you'll get lag. I'm talking about even slow-traffic stuff like player hubs / cities. But imagine the amount of stuff going on if combat is involved.
It'd be nice to be able to see large groups fighting, but a battle would bring the game (and I'd imagine even today's computers) to its knees.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
And yet somehow DAoC, 10 years ago, managed PvP battles with 50 to 60 people just fine.
Even relic raids with several hundred players worked. Yes, you would get graphic lag, your FPS would go down, but most players just notched down the graphics a bit and turned off most of the screen effects and enjoyed the raid instead.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.