I have an issue with PvP as a whole. I hate PvP. I used to play games like that and I was pretty good, but whether I killed someone or got killed, I always felt bad, so I stopped. I only do cooperative multiplayer these days. So when I hear a game has PvP, automatically it makes me think the game has 50% of what it could have had for me. Too much development time towards PvP. That could have gone to more PvE. PvP games are also a penny a dozen. 99% of multiplayer games have PvP, but I'd say only 20% have cooperative play, and even with that, it's a dumbed down coop mode that isn't worth playing anyway.
I played Darkfall, fulling understanding that it was full PvP/loot. I thought I could handle it, but I could not. After about three weeks of getting gang raped outside newb town I quit.
My point here, is that I keep seeing games like Earthrise, Mortal Online, etc that I think would be great games but get completely "kicked in the face" when I realize they're PvP/full loot games like Darkfall. This, of course, completely turns me away from the game.
Which is fine, those types of games are not for you. However, some of us do enjoy the challenge of learning to survive in those types of situations.
The main reason, IMO, that people play games like Eve or Darkfall is because you have complete freedom in what you do and how you develop throughout the game. People who want content spoon-fed to them will never like these types of games.
If you want a good example of what draws us to the sandboxes, watch these Eve Online videos, The Butterfly Effect and Causality.
I played Darkfall for a month or two with my cousin. We got ganked in the beginning sure, but we found a good guild, started to make some money, got our magic skills up high enough to get some of the second tier magic. I thought we were actually starting to get decent at the game.
But then we got attacked by ONE more (character) skilled player and he DESTROYED us. Despite the fact that we both played pretty well, he was just too powerful. It was at that time that I realized it would take months of mindless grinding to get competitive in PvP and we both quit.
I think a major problem with PvP in games is the reason behind it. Why fight? Players kill each other just because they can, not because they have any other reason but to toot their own horns. That will never change.
I think a major problem with PvP in games is the reason behind it. Why fight? Players kill each other just because they can, not because they have any other reason but to toot their own horns. That will never change.
Becouse pve mobs arent chalanging? Are doing same thing over and over agian? So bot can do it?
PVP - you never knwo what other guy will do
PVE - give mob 10x ur hp and damage and call it chalanging ROFLLLLLLL
I think a major problem with PvP in games is the reason behind it. Why fight? Players kill each other just because they can, not because they have any other reason but to toot their own horns. That will never change.
That's reason enough I think. Ppl will always try to compete and compare themselfs to others, to improve and see how far one can go etc. Well, for me it is. But I realize in this generation of MMO's ppl rarely do anything unless there is some kind of reward, sadly.
I think a major problem with PvP in games is the reason behind it. Why fight? Players kill each other just because they can, not because they have any other reason but to toot their own horns. That will never change.
Then perhaps developers need to give players a reason to fight other than for gloating..
Territory, dungeon access, resources as a few examples. I don't have the perfect answer, but chasing gear (for pvp rewards) has run its course in my opinion.
Tooting ones own horn will of course always happen, but it would be nice to try and take it away from the individual to a degree, and give it back to the realm, a la DAoC...
It takes a lot more than just that, i understand, but it sure would be a good start.
A game has to first be setup for PvP for it to succeed. At the same time a game has to also be setup for PvE to the point of making PvE a requirement to unlock a reason to PvP. At the same time you can't force people who don't want to pvp to have to do it.
Only one game so far has got it right and that was Mythic with Dark Age of Camelot. In order to achieve the final goal of capturing relics you had to first beat PvE by obtaining a high level. In doing so it unlocked pvp and the final goal in PvP helped those that do PvE.
People who didn't want to do Pvp were able to help by crafting better armor/weapons for the players who did PvP making it easier on them and gave the crafter a reason to exist. By doing PvP it unlocked abilities that could be used in both genres of play which helped everyone and gave someone who never had a desire to pvp a slight reason to go out and at least attempt to do it. At the same time people could level up in an atmosphere that didn't promote some of the ill traits that come with PvP like perma camping someone.
I think a major problem with PvP in games is the reason behind it. Why fight? Players kill each other just because they can, not because they have any other reason but to toot their own horns. That will never change.
Then perhaps developers need to give players a reason to fight other than for gloating..
Territory, dungeon access, resources as a few examples. I don't have the perfect answer, but chasing gear (for pvp rewards) has run its course in my opinion.
Tooting ones own horn will of course always happen, but it would be nice to try and take it away from the individual to a degree, and give it back to the realm, a la DAoC...
It takes a lot more than just that, i understand, but it sure would be a good start.
All of those reasons are just 'tooting your horn' in a fancier disguise. They are a way to show others that you are better than other players.
Frankly, the best PvP system I can come up with is a 'handicap' system. The better at PvP you are the worse your character gets so you always have to challenge yourself to win the next fight.
Thing is PvP has always been more of an after-thought.
Think about it, MMOs get their roots from D&D paper and pencil games where there was no PvP. Console RPG games had zero PvP.
MUDs is where PvP started getting introduced. I can't think of a single PvP MUD that wasn't full loot (Granted I only played a handful).
Now when people started making MMOs (especially in current times), people realized that the vast majority of people that play MMORPGs are the same console players that played RPGs. These people want to build on their character without having to lose it all. Most of these people don't particularly care about PvP. Most of the 'competitive' type players will usually turn to FPS for "pvp".
Is it right or wrong? I Dunno, but that's my attempt to explain why PvP is where it is.
Territory, dungeon access, resources as a few examples. I don't have the perfect answer, but chasing gear (for pvp rewards) has run its course in my opinion.
Tooting ones own horn will of course always happen, but it would be nice to try and take it away from the individual to a degree, and give it back to the realm, a la DAoC...
Chasing gear is so odd because most PvE games have such a range of possible sets. Even at level cap there are so many possible combos with additional buffs and such, that there is always someone just a bit better than you. Most of it is overkill for what's required in the end-game content anyway. It doesn't seem like there is much point to it except to go around "tooting one's own ho..." -- Oh, wait...
"If I'm not enjoying the game from the beginning then why do I need to torture myself to get to "end cap" to see the "real" game? WTF? Why can't the WHOLE GAME BE THE REAL GAME" - TheExplorer
I think a major problem with PvP in games is the reason behind it. Why fight? Players kill each other just because they can, not because they have any other reason but to toot their own horns. That will never change.
Then perhaps developers need to give players a reason to fight other than for gloating..
Territory, dungeon access, resources as a few examples. I don't have the perfect answer, but chasing gear (for pvp rewards) has run its course in my opinion.
Tooting ones own horn will of course always happen, but it would be nice to try and take it away from the individual to a degree, and give it back to the realm, a la DAoC...
It takes a lot more than just that, i understand, but it sure would be a good start.
All of those reasons are just 'tooting your horn' in a fancier disguise. They are a way to show others that you are better than other players.
Frankly, the best PvP system I can come up with is a 'handicap' system. The better at PvP you are the worse your character gets so you always have to challenge yourself to win the next fight.
As i said, tooting your own horn will always happen...
Thing is PvP has always been more of an after-thought.
Think about it, MMOs get their roots from D&D paper and pencil games where there was no PvP. Console RPG games had zero PvP.
MUDs is where PvP started getting introduced. I can't think of a single PvP MUD that wasn't full loot (Granted I only played a handful).
Now when people started making MMOs (especially in current times), people realized that the vast majority of people that play MMORPGs are the same console players that played RPGs. These people want to build on their character without having to lose it all. Most of these people don't particularly care about PvP. Most of the 'competitive' type players will usually turn to FPS for "pvp".
Is it right or wrong? I Dunno, but that's my attempt to explain why PvP is where it is.
Completely false.
RPGs roots start at table top miniture strategy games that were only pvp.
Now when people started making MMOs (especially in current times), people realized that the vast majority of people that play MMORPGs are the same console players that played RPGs. These people want to build on their character without having to lose it all. Most of these people don't particularly care about PvP. Most of the 'competitive' type players will usually turn to FPS for "pvp".
Is it right or wrong? I Dunno, but that's my attempt to explain why PvP is where it is.
Not sure why you mention console players. PC RPGs have been around longer and have the same PVE, Story, and Progression focuses as Console RPGs have.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I've been searching for a new game lately and I continuously find myself getting kicked in the face by the ridiculous "full loot, open world pvp" garbage.
I can not, for the life of me, figure out why developers make these games. The niche for it is so small, it's impossible to turn a respectable profit. I've run into three games this week alone that I was ready throw money at until I saw they were this BS PvP full loot garbage.
Sad panda indeed ....
They do it because it's a lazy design option no need to develop real challenging content; Just leave it to player AI.
________________________________________________________ Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
I've been searching for a new game lately and I continuously find myself getting kicked in the face by the ridiculous "full loot, open world pvp" garbage.
I can not, for the life of me, figure out why developers make these games. The niche for it is so small, it's impossible to turn a respectable profit. I've run into three games this week alone that I was ready throw money at until I saw they were this BS PvP full loot garbage.
Sad panda indeed ....
There aren't that many full loot pvp games so I find it hard to believe you continuously find yourself getting kicked in the face.
Maybe a few times but that's pretty much it.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Thats the most enjoyable kind of PvP IMO. Dying should have penalties, and they shouldn't be minor.
I only play MMOs which have no instancing nowdays, and I prefer open PK. Preferably full loot too, but not required.
I can totally respect your style of game play, but I whole heartly f'ing hate it.
I am utterly terrible at PvP and it just kills me to work so hard on building up a cool set of gear, then having it taken away by some douche 50 levels higher than me.
I honestly wish I could subscribe to that type of game play, but I just can't ... I'm a carebear.
there are 2 problems one is on your side and 2 is on the game side (both problems highlited in red)
problem 1: work so hard on building up a cool set of gear
in open world pvp you should not be working so hard to get that set of gear, if done right (meaning complete player run economy not dependent on loot gear) you should be able to get armor for a dime a dozen (skill specific of course)
Problem 2: 50 levels higher than me.
levels don't work very well in a full loot FFA pvp system
levels don't work very well in a full loot FFA pvp system
Progression is progression is progression.
Skill = Level
Let's not pretend progression doesn't matter in FFA PVP systems, because it nearly always does.
skill =/= Level
say it takes you 1 month to get swordsmanship to 100 and another month armor to 100
player B will also take 1 month to get swordsmanship and 1 to get armor to 100. but player B also has pikeman 100, bow 99, magic 50 and say woodwork 100. he has been playing for 6 months.
if he attacks you with a sword, he is only using the same skills you have (so technically you are on same par)
he might have pikeman and bow and magic skills but who cares hes using a sword, therefore NOT USING those other 4 months of skill training in bow and pikeman and definitively not woodworking.
so yes, progression doesnt matter as much in in a skill system
lvl 50 vs lvl 20 : 50 always wins no matter what
skills system... well that depends what skills you have, more skills does not mean better, only means you can do more things. so a new players may have a chance to beat a more experienced player depending on the skill set
levels don't work very well in a full loot FFA pvp system
Progression is progression is progression.
Skill = Level
Let's not pretend progression doesn't matter in FFA PVP systems, because it nearly always does.
skill =/= Level
say it takes you 1 month to get swordsmanship to 100 and another month armor to 100
player B will also take 1 month to get swordsmanship and 1 to get armor to 100. but player B also has pikeman 100, bow 99, magic 50 and say woodwork 100. he has been playing for 6 months.
if he attacks you with a sword, he is only using the same skills you have (so technically you are on same par)
he might have pikeman and bow and magic skills but who cares hes using a sword, therefore NOT USING those other 4 months of skill training in bow and pikeman and definitively not woodworking.
so yes, progression doesnt matter as much in in a skill system
lvl 50 vs lvl 20 : 50 always wins no matter what
skills system... well that depends what skills you have, more skills does not mean better, only means you can do more things. so a new players may have a chance to beat a more experienced player depending on the skill set
Your argument is flawed, as in your example you assume both players have capped the same skill and one player has other skills beyond that. There will be a period of time where player A has capped "x" number of skills while player B has not, creating an imbalance in the favor of player A. There is always a case where higher skills = more damage, mitigation, stats, etc, and therefore always the potential for one character to drastically overpower another.
levels don't work very well in a full loot FFA pvp system
Progression is progression is progression.
Skill = Level
Let's not pretend progression doesn't matter in FFA PVP systems, because it nearly always does.
skill =/= Level
say it takes you 1 month to get swordsmanship to 100 and another month armor to 100
player B will also take 1 month to get swordsmanship and 1 to get armor to 100. but player B also has pikeman 100, bow 99, magic 50 and say woodwork 100. he has been playing for 6 months.
if he attacks you with a sword, he is only using the same skills you have (so technically you are on same par)
he might have pikeman and bow and magic skills but who cares hes using a sword, therefore NOT USING those other 4 months of skill training in bow and pikeman and definitively not woodworking.
so yes, progression doesnt matter as much in in a skill system
lvl 50 vs lvl 20 : 50 always wins no matter what
skills system... well that depends what skills you have, more skills does not mean better, only means you can do more things. so a new players may have a chance to beat a more experienced player depending on the skill set
Your argument is flawed, as in your example you assume both players have capped the same skill and one player has other skills beyond that. There will be a period of time where player A has capped "x" number of skills while player B has not, creating an imbalance in the favor of player A. There is always a case where higher skills = more damage, mitigation, stats, etc, and therefore always the potential for one character to drastically overpower another.
agreed, but unless you are starting off from scratch, and have some sort of skill points placed. you may have a CHANCE, while lvl 20 vs 50 there is absolutely no chance, i would say in a lvl system you only begin to have a chance of beating someone within 5-10 levels from him. in skills you always have a chance. (again unless you are a fresh out of the box toon)
I've been searching for a new game lately and continuously find myself getting kicked in the face by these ridiculous cookie cutter "Go here do that" theme parks.
I obviously understand why they would attempt to make these games. The niche for it is so large and not unrealistically able to turn a profit. I've run into 400 games in the last 7 years i threw all my money at until i realized i've been playing the same damn game all this time.
levels don't work very well in a full loot FFA pvp system
Progression is progression is progression.
Skill = Level
Let's not pretend progression doesn't matter in FFA PVP systems, because it nearly always does.
skill =/= Level
say it takes you 1 month to get swordsmanship to 100 and another month armor to 100
player B will also take 1 month to get swordsmanship and 1 to get armor to 100. but player B also has pikeman 100, bow 99, magic 50 and say woodwork 100. he has been playing for 6 months.
if he attacks you with a sword, he is only using the same skills you have (so technically you are on same par)
he might have pikeman and bow and magic skills but who cares hes using a sword, therefore NOT USING those other 4 months of skill training in bow and pikeman and definitively not woodworking.
so yes, progression doesnt matter as much in in a skill system
lvl 50 vs lvl 20 : 50 always wins no matter what
skills system... well that depends what skills you have, more skills does not mean better, only means you can do more things. so a new players may have a chance to beat a more experienced player depending on the skill set
It's a little ironic that your example is about the power difference between 2- and 6-month old players, when in a level-based game the 2-month old player is going to be at level cap with the 6-month player.
It's not like skill systems are the only ones with exclusivity. When I'm an Elemental Shaman, I'm not a Restoration Shaman. When I wield a 2H, I can't wield a shield.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I am generally dissapointed with pvp, yes, though not for the reasons stated in the op.
I just don't think we have a decent interface for mmo pvp yet. The two options seem to be semi-turn-based (interesting enough the first time around, but all games with this system tend to feel the same) and FPs-lite (which so far has always been inferior to actual FPS games).
What I'm waiting for is an MMO that can actually handle melee combat in a satisfying way. I've not seen one yet, even single-player (action) rpgs tend to make a mess of it. Ranged combat tends to work fine with the FPS-lite games, but I've always been a melee player and feel this aspect is sorely lacking in the genre.
I don't expect much, though. Melee combat is massively more intricate than the point-and-click nature of ranged, after all. Finding a way to work melee convincingly without it feeling much more "difficult" than ranged is a tricky task.
Comments
I have an issue with PvP as a whole. I hate PvP. I used to play games like that and I was pretty good, but whether I killed someone or got killed, I always felt bad, so I stopped. I only do cooperative multiplayer these days. So when I hear a game has PvP, automatically it makes me think the game has 50% of what it could have had for me. Too much development time towards PvP. That could have gone to more PvE. PvP games are also a penny a dozen. 99% of multiplayer games have PvP, but I'd say only 20% have cooperative play, and even with that, it's a dumbed down coop mode that isn't worth playing anyway.
I played Darkfall for a month or two with my cousin. We got ganked in the beginning sure, but we found a good guild, started to make some money, got our magic skills up high enough to get some of the second tier magic. I thought we were actually starting to get decent at the game.
But then we got attacked by ONE more (character) skilled player and he DESTROYED us. Despite the fact that we both played pretty well, he was just too powerful. It was at that time that I realized it would take months of mindless grinding to get competitive in PvP and we both quit.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
So far I played 2 half decent PvP games, the others are quite pointless.
Darkfall has the best massive PvP (Sieges, territorial control) but a retarded solo PvP
EvE has the best solo PvP (Best flagging system, Bounty killers vs Pirates)
That would be lovely to see those 2 system blended together in a Fantasy themed MMO
I think a major problem with PvP in games is the reason behind it. Why fight? Players kill each other just because they can, not because they have any other reason but to toot their own horns. That will never change.
Becouse pve mobs arent chalanging? Are doing same thing over and over agian? So bot can do it?
PVP - you never knwo what other guy will do
PVE - give mob 10x ur hp and damage and call it chalanging ROFLLLLLLL
That's reason enough I think. Ppl will always try to compete and compare themselfs to others, to improve and see how far one can go etc. Well, for me it is. But I realize in this generation of MMO's ppl rarely do anything unless there is some kind of reward, sadly.
Then perhaps developers need to give players a reason to fight other than for gloating..
Territory, dungeon access, resources as a few examples. I don't have the perfect answer, but chasing gear (for pvp rewards) has run its course in my opinion.
Tooting ones own horn will of course always happen, but it would be nice to try and take it away from the individual to a degree, and give it back to the realm, a la DAoC...
It takes a lot more than just that, i understand, but it sure would be a good start.
A game has to first be setup for PvP for it to succeed. At the same time a game has to also be setup for PvE to the point of making PvE a requirement to unlock a reason to PvP. At the same time you can't force people who don't want to pvp to have to do it.
Only one game so far has got it right and that was Mythic with Dark Age of Camelot. In order to achieve the final goal of capturing relics you had to first beat PvE by obtaining a high level. In doing so it unlocked pvp and the final goal in PvP helped those that do PvE.
People who didn't want to do Pvp were able to help by crafting better armor/weapons for the players who did PvP making it easier on them and gave the crafter a reason to exist. By doing PvP it unlocked abilities that could be used in both genres of play which helped everyone and gave someone who never had a desire to pvp a slight reason to go out and at least attempt to do it. At the same time people could level up in an atmosphere that didn't promote some of the ill traits that come with PvP like perma camping someone.
All of those reasons are just 'tooting your horn' in a fancier disguise. They are a way to show others that you are better than other players.
Frankly, the best PvP system I can come up with is a 'handicap' system. The better at PvP you are the worse your character gets so you always have to challenge yourself to win the next fight.
Thing is PvP has always been more of an after-thought.
Think about it, MMOs get their roots from D&D paper and pencil games where there was no PvP. Console RPG games had zero PvP.
MUDs is where PvP started getting introduced. I can't think of a single PvP MUD that wasn't full loot (Granted I only played a handful).
Now when people started making MMOs (especially in current times), people realized that the vast majority of people that play MMORPGs are the same console players that played RPGs. These people want to build on their character without having to lose it all. Most of these people don't particularly care about PvP. Most of the 'competitive' type players will usually turn to FPS for "pvp".
Is it right or wrong? I Dunno, but that's my attempt to explain why PvP is where it is.
Chasing gear is so odd because most PvE games have such a range of possible sets. Even at level cap there are so many possible combos with additional buffs and such, that there is always someone just a bit better than you. Most of it is overkill for what's required in the end-game content anyway. It doesn't seem like there is much point to it except to go around "tooting one's own ho..." -- Oh, wait...
As i said, tooting your own horn will always happen...
Wether it be PvP or PvE...
i miss the glory days of Guild Wars. all im waiting for is a game with similar pvp content and no ones delivering.
Completely false.
RPGs roots start at table top miniture strategy games that were only pvp.
Not sure why you mention console players. PC RPGs have been around longer and have the same PVE, Story, and Progression focuses as Console RPGs have.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
They do it because it's a lazy design option no need to develop real challenging content; Just leave it to player AI.
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
There aren't that many full loot pvp games so I find it hard to believe you continuously find yourself getting kicked in the face.
Maybe a few times but that's pretty much it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
there are 2 problems one is on your side and 2 is on the game side (both problems highlited in red)
problem 1: work so hard on building up a cool set of gear
in open world pvp you should not be working so hard to get that set of gear, if done right (meaning complete player run economy not dependent on loot gear) you should be able to get armor for a dime a dozen (skill specific of course)
Problem 2: 50 levels higher than me.
levels don't work very well in a full loot FFA pvp system
Progression is progression is progression.
Skill = Level
Let's not pretend progression doesn't matter in FFA PVP systems, because it nearly always does.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
skill =/= Level
say it takes you 1 month to get swordsmanship to 100 and another month armor to 100
player B will also take 1 month to get swordsmanship and 1 to get armor to 100. but player B also has pikeman 100, bow 99, magic 50 and say woodwork 100. he has been playing for 6 months.
if he attacks you with a sword, he is only using the same skills you have (so technically you are on same par)
he might have pikeman and bow and magic skills but who cares hes using a sword, therefore NOT USING those other 4 months of skill training in bow and pikeman and definitively not woodworking.
so yes, progression doesnt matter as much in in a skill system
lvl 50 vs lvl 20 : 50 always wins no matter what
skills system... well that depends what skills you have, more skills does not mean better, only means you can do more things. so a new players may have a chance to beat a more experienced player depending on the skill set
Your argument is flawed, as in your example you assume both players have capped the same skill and one player has other skills beyond that. There will be a period of time where player A has capped "x" number of skills while player B has not, creating an imbalance in the favor of player A. There is always a case where higher skills = more damage, mitigation, stats, etc, and therefore always the potential for one character to drastically overpower another.
agreed, but unless you are starting off from scratch, and have some sort of skill points placed. you may have a CHANCE, while lvl 20 vs 50 there is absolutely no chance, i would say in a lvl system you only begin to have a chance of beating someone within 5-10 levels from him. in skills you always have a chance. (again unless you are a fresh out of the box toon)
I've been searching for a new game lately and continuously find myself getting kicked in the face by these ridiculous cookie cutter "Go here do that" theme parks.
I obviously understand why they would attempt to make these games. The niche for it is so large and not unrealistically able to turn a profit. I've run into 400 games in the last 7 years i threw all my money at until i realized i've been playing the same damn game all this time.
signed..
Extinct panda...
but yeah i feel you. just couldn't pass that up.
It's a little ironic that your example is about the power difference between 2- and 6-month old players, when in a level-based game the 2-month old player is going to be at level cap with the 6-month player.
It's not like skill systems are the only ones with exclusivity. When I'm an Elemental Shaman, I'm not a Restoration Shaman. When I wield a 2H, I can't wield a shield.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I am generally dissapointed with pvp, yes, though not for the reasons stated in the op.
I just don't think we have a decent interface for mmo pvp yet. The two options seem to be semi-turn-based (interesting enough the first time around, but all games with this system tend to feel the same) and FPs-lite (which so far has always been inferior to actual FPS games).
What I'm waiting for is an MMO that can actually handle melee combat in a satisfying way. I've not seen one yet, even single-player (action) rpgs tend to make a mess of it. Ranged combat tends to work fine with the FPS-lite games, but I've always been a melee player and feel this aspect is sorely lacking in the genre.
I don't expect much, though. Melee combat is massively more intricate than the point-and-click nature of ranged, after all. Finding a way to work melee convincingly without it feeling much more "difficult" than ranged is a tricky task.