I would not say that the differnce of a fully blue to green character will mean win or loss in most games unless the abbility of the character or player is stacked against one or the other. I have on serval occations pk'ed a much higher geared player then i, thru my use of abilitiess as well as possibly his lack of skill. Gear-based pvp is not no-skill pvp but is a less skill focues form of pvp, since even in pvp with fully epic sets a well versed player in blues can still win if they play right. THough in a game which is progression as well as gear based you would of course have this, since otherwise your gear would be worthless in spite of the time it took to obtain it, is it a bad or wrong form of pvp? Not by a long shot since it is one of the more favored styles with themepark as well as progreession/gear centric games being opular. THough i will say that just like those othr games a skill based pvp/pve game (like tsw) has alot of appeal, since your characetr actually feels as though they are personally growing over the items they retrieve empowering them, and so pvping in these games has a different feel since you feel that your character is actually personally better then your target was.
Yeah it doesn't ruin PVP quality, it just harms it. It dilutes -- just slightly -- an otherwise pure experience.
I mean I've beat plenty of higher geared players. Even beat some chump shaman in Warlords gear with my puny 58 warlock in level 40 greens. Doesn't change the fact that when you lose a fight purely due to gear (ie down to the wire and it was only gear that won it) it doesn't really sit right.
VAry true though at the same time for some that are more gear focused it actually highens it, sicne they see the benefit of that bracer or axe they can get in a fight, and it not sitting right is normally from a skill-based pvper/ Why i say that is that in a themepark gear centric game you are rather weak as a character, and only thru gaining more powerful gear do you become a hero or force to be reconded with, as such seeing your opponent die from the fact of you getting that piece of gear warms up some people that they time spent was worth it. IT comes to mind sets in pvp their are two fo them one is skill based with you wanting t beat your opponent with yoru superior skills, and then there is the gear mind set in which you want to defeat an opponent with your superiour gear. I have seen both of them in action in the long years i have played mmo, even in my D&D group with a player gushing over a new item or ability they gained that makes they supperior to the others.
But if you offered both, with no rewards, people choose open world. Why? Becuase they want to be part of the games history told by gamers. That experience is the most valueable thing an mmo can offer.
What i dont understand is why open world pve is rewarded still and not pvp? People want instanced pve for the same reasons. They have instances for the same reasons. So instance the whole game!! No more getting ganked by npc's because you walked a foot to far to the right. Those npc ruin your fun. Profits would go up for sure!!! Or would pve players say this isnt an mmo?
And as usual open world pvp means FFA gankfest in order to make your points. Of coasre open world pve is a free for all gankfest, but if an npc wastes your time its part of the game and "fun".
Again, throughout the history of all games ever created, a fair playfield has characterized virtually every PVP game mankind has ever made. So it's surprising and unexpected that you actually seem to believe players care more about "games history told by gamers" than balanced PVP where skill determines victors. And I think very wrong.
But we arent talking about games throughout history. We are talking about mmos. If you think mmorpg's are just games, then I and alot of developers would disagree with you .BTW Instanced pvp made a great south park episode!! That experience is the only experience that makes an mmo unuiqe.
So why do players choose open world pvp when both are offered and neither is rewarded? Fair is what they want, but have to be bribed to partake? Because its not about fair or even pvp maybe? Its about another gear grind treadmill perfected to be the most addictive to gear. Not addicted to pvp, or fun. Gear. The one thing that ruins pvp...yep, thats what pvp is about. This is what pvpers want? Nope nope.
Fair and balanced pvp in an instance happens as often as it does in open world too.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Instanced battlegrounds are more popular because of the rewards. Developer's choose to reward battlegrounds for their benefit, not the benefit of the pvp players.
Remove all pvp rewards and see where people pvp. We already know the answer.
The problem is pvp is a mini game that has no role in the "game". You are only looking at pvp as people in combat. It starts and stops there. It's the actual fight that you are scrutinizing. You aren't referring to all the non-combat activities and content that built up to the "fight" and what follows and all the people involved. 100 people may have participated, though only 10 actually fought.
Now you might envoke the masses and their wants, and i would envoke bad game design. being as no games has tried anything else i can do that.
How do you know the answer?
People play instanced PvP in other games without any longterm rewards all the time. The part marked in yellow is something the average gamer doesn't care about as long as the PvP is fun (a problem for Dust 514 perhaps). That is why I would bet my Internet chips on instanced PvP.
We don't play these games because they are MMORPGs, we play these games because they are fun. And making games fun is good game design.
How do I know what? We have history to answer most of this.
Developers dont manufacture fun. They create a set of rules in which fun can be created by the user or between users. rewarding users who play by instanced rules and ignoring and blaming users that play by open world set of rules doesnt mean anythng about fun. or popular. Its the only choice when progression only come via combat. But klike i said earlier there were mmos that rewarded neither. Which do you think was more popular? Which do you think never even got used? History already asnwered this.
Let me put it this way. Tell me a story about an instanced BG pvp fight that changed the way your whole server spent its time in the future. LOL!! Where are the blogs dedicated to instance pvp so we can share in your fun from this good game design?
Open world pvp is fun and we have the stories for people who even came years later so that they to can participate in our fun too. even though they never even played the game.
That is good game design.
No one outside the instance cares about your fun.
That is good game design too?
Good game design is a fun game right?
Just so you know, im not 100% positive on this, so i could be persuaded given something other than lazy answers that ignore reality. Thats my job.
The issue is that open world pvp in the present is not fun for mmost of the player base, since those that do enjoy it are few in the game with the major groups enjoying and using instanced pvp over world pvp. Catering to a group that out pops the nitch group is a good way to get profits to go up. In world pvp no one cares abotu yoru fun other then you, that guy you ambushed, or that person you killed while he faught a monster care just as much abotu your fun as you cared about their fun. Also good game design is not fun at all, it is profitable which translates to fun for those that make the game design profitable, A few to even sever hundred a counts of people enjoying world pvp is funny, since you can also say that alot of people have had as well as listed nightmares while in world pvp. I have heard hundreds of stories of people pulling bg fight to a win from near absolute certain loss.
But if you offered both, with no rewards, people choose open world. Why? Becuase they want to be part of the games history told by gamers. That experience is the most valueable thing an mmo can offer.
What i dont understand is why open world pve is rewarded still and not pvp? People want instanced pve for the same reasons. They have instances for the same reasons. So instance the whole game!! No more getting ganked by npc's because you walked a foot to far to the right. Those npc ruin your fun. Profits would go up for sure!!! Or would pve players say this isnt an mmo?
And as usual open world pvp means FFA gankfest in order to make your points. Of coasre open world pve is a free for all gankfest, but if an npc wastes your time its part of the game and "fun".
THat is not always the case trully, since i do like open world pvp, but i would still instance pvp, and then you add in the ease as well a the fact of equality in fights it is for the major group of pvpers more what they want. Many pver's as well as pvpers complain abou guard in argo as well as power settings, and have always complained about them. Also the experince is not the most important thing it can offer to most people that play it, since the one thing they are seeking is a time sink as well as entertainent (for themselves). which fr most of the players means they want to fight and do things when they want to not when a pvper or ganker thinks he/she wants to regardless of their target's wishes. YOu woudl see farl less pvper's leaving for open world pvp the you would think if there were no rewards for either of them pvp styles, and it is because the pvper's that like a controled and fair fight over a can come from now where fight will stay with bgs. Which means fewer targerts to pvp with in the open world, since the bg pvper just stay in town as well as pvp via their bgs, while the pvper;s search each other out over the entire world for a few pvp fights. To revive world pvp you would have to completely get rid of bgs now too many have found a good taste in it to want to dare see if they are as good as they think they are. Also for most pvpers now pvping is not aabotu immersion at all, compared to alot of pver's which it is still abootu immersion, as suchbeing or not being able to die to a gaurd is a break in immersion.
Actually in most themeparks like wow and such open world pve is not rewarded really other then gold and items that you get rom yoru actions in it, wiht the lffg making it faster and more profitable to lvl via random instances, as such it has actually made open world content worthless after they put in a lfg system. They have instanced basically the games with rifts, wow, and others being a hob city that you join a group from without leaving to enter the instance. Also when a pver goes out to pve he expects to get tagged by a guard that is part of pve. Actually i did not use ganking as the means to make my point except in saying that most pvper's will never deal with world pvp because they do not want to fight or be fought unfairly or have a higher level lord over them. Now also when a pvper is aout looking for pvp they do not care that you are pve'ing and you make a concious choice to attack that player, the computer is merely doing it's job by having the npc attack you, as such it has no feeling towards you. WHere as most pvper's attidute after killing a player is childish, immature, and rude with a point of annoying and insulting the pk'ed target, as such they veiw you as well as other pvper as a thorn in their fun for choosing too attack when you could have not. IT is completely flawed to compare a comp controled npc to a pvper since you have motives for what you do, yet a comp has none at all. ALso i never mensioned ganking as it is knwon in pve themeparks which is where most of the instanced pvp is, ganking in most pve themeparks is abotu killing a much lower lvl character or weaker character, yet it was about ambushing before that discription. I always make sure that when i say gank i specify it is low lvl ganking not the prior.
People use BG's to progress. IF you removed the progression from it, no one would partake in it. Period.
And what you descibe is why pvpers dont play mmos'. There is just people who pvp instead of raid for gear. Gear being the reason pvp is awful in mmos., is now the reward for pvp.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
But if you offered both, with no rewards, people choose open world. Why? Becuase they want to be part of the games history told by gamers. That experience is the most valueable thing an mmo can offer.
What i dont understand is why open world pve is rewarded still and not pvp? People want instanced pve for the same reasons. They have instances for the same reasons. So instance the whole game!! No more getting ganked by npc's because you walked a foot to far to the right. Those npc ruin your fun. Profits would go up for sure!!! Or would pve players say this isnt an mmo?
And as usual open world pvp means FFA gankfest in order to make your points. Of coasre open world pve is a free for all gankfest, but if an npc wastes your time its part of the game and "fun".
Again, throughout the history of all games ever created, a fair playfield has characterized virtually every PVP game mankind has ever made. So it's surprising and unexpected that you actually seem to believe players care more about "games history told by gamers" than balanced PVP where skill determines victors. And I think very wrong.
But we arent talking about games throughout history. We are talking about mmos. If you think mmorpg's are just games, then I and alot of developers would disagree with you .BTW Instanced pvp made a great south park episode!! That experience is the only experience that makes an mmo unuiqe.
So why do players choose open world pvp when both are offered and neither is rewarded? Fair is what they want, but have to be bribed to partake? Because its not about fair or even pvp maybe? Its about another gear grind treadmill perfected to be the most addictive to gear. Not addicted to pvp, or fun. Gear. The one thing that ruins pvp...yep, thats what pvp is about. This is what pvpers want? Nope nope.
Fair and balanced pvp in an instance happens as often as it does in open world too.
That is the thing overall players do not choose open world pvp as a majority, but a miniority do choose to world pvp. Actually when the pvp in wow was relatively even in points for the bgs to open worrld pvp points the pvper;s to a large extent ggrined thier points in instanced bgs over grinding it in open world pvp unless they were already there. IF you add even fair, as well as on damand pvp compared to seek and destroy pvp in open world that happens less offen, they wil do it in the bgs plain as day. Also is it a time sink plan as day with the gear grind to mask that time sink. You can ask a hundred pvpers what pvp is and get a hundred different anwsers, i pvp for every reason out there from gear to addrenaline even as a stress release. Maybe to you the pvp is abotu gearing up to me it is abotu becoming more powerful within the context of the game, weither thru skills (hey that is a grind) or gear, but i do it as a fun enterianing activity. Which pvpers want what? If you are a skill based pvper then moving to a skill based pvp game is yoru only avenue, if you are a gear based pvp then the themepark mmos are your cup of tea, and the reason is that the game is crafted for one side not both. YOu want world pvp then look to mo, darkfall and such, since most of the pvp in the themeparks are not open world pvp (they shoudl not have their setting and concept butched for the sake of one set of pvp when another already existsgoing to a pvp centric game is al you can do. IT is sad but world pvp is pretty much dead on most large budget mmos since they have bgs, and the funny thing is a developer would not impliment as well as reward a system that would not allow them to retaiin subs, which is why world pvp is not rewarded largely in themepark mmos it has such a small impact on subs that focusing on bgs is much better. I can talk for those pvpers that are like me and that i pvp with alot, and they like instanced pvp as well as the gear grind it gives their pvp purpose outside of the combat which gets boring. So your statement abotu pvpers wanting it is false in that you do not speak for all pvpers but for your like minded ggroup of pvpers. As i said gear being the ruination of pvp is all to each pvper many pvpers find that a gear grind keeps the pvp well after they woukdl have taken a break from it, so that in itself shows that it helps to have a gear grind to keep people pvping aftr they woud have reired.
Instanced battlegrounds are more popular because of the rewards. Developer's choose to reward battlegrounds for their benefit, not the benefit of the pvp players.
Remove all pvp rewards and see where people pvp. We already know the answer.
The problem is pvp is a mini game that has no role in the "game". You are only looking at pvp as people in combat. It starts and stops there. It's the actual fight that you are scrutinizing. You aren't referring to all the non-combat activities and content that built up to the "fight" and what follows and all the people involved. 100 people may have participated, though only 10 actually fought.
Now you might envoke the masses and their wants, and i would envoke bad game design. being as no games has tried anything else i can do that.
How do you know the answer?
People play instanced PvP in other games without any longterm rewards all the time. The part marked in yellow is something the average gamer doesn't care about as long as the PvP is fun (a problem for Dust 514 perhaps). That is why I would bet my Internet chips on instanced PvP.
We don't play these games because they are MMORPGs, we play these games because they are fun. And making games fun is good game design.
How do I know what? We have history to answer most of this.
Developers dont manufacture fun. They create a set of rules in which fun can be created by the user or between users. rewarding users who play by instanced rules and ignoring and blaming users that play by open world set of rules doesnt mean anythng about fun. or popular. Its the only choice when progression only come via combat. But klike i said earlier there were mmos that rewarded neither. Which do you think was more popular? Which do you think never even got used? History already asnwered this.
Let me put it this way. Tell me a story about an instanced BG pvp fight that changed the way your whole server spent its time in the future. LOL!! Where are the blogs dedicated to instance pvp so we can share in your fun from this good game design?
Open world pvp is fun and we have the stories for people who even came years later so that they to can participate in our fun too. even though they never even played the game.
That is good game design.
No one outside the instance cares about your fun.
That is good game design too?
Good game design is a fun game right?
Just so you know, im not 100% positive on this, so i could be persuaded given something other than lazy answers that ignore reality. Thats my job.
The issue is that open world pvp in the present is not fun for mmost of the player base, since those that do enjoy it are few in the game with the major groups enjoying and using instanced pvp over world pvp. Catering to a group that out pops the nitch group is a good way to get profits to go up. In world pvp no one cares abotu yoru fun other then you, that guy you ambushed, or that person you killed while he faught a monster care just as much abotu your fun as you cared about their fun. Also good game design is not fun at all, it is profitable which translates to fun for those that make the game design profitable, A few to even sever hundred a counts of people enjoying world pvp is funny, since you can also say that alot of people have had as well as listed nightmares while in world pvp. I have heard hundreds of stories of people pulling bg fight to a win from near absolute certain loss.
But if you offered both, with no rewards, people choose open world. Why? Becuase they want to be part of the games history told by gamers. That experience is the most valueable thing an mmo can offer.
What i dont understand is why open world pve is rewarded still and not pvp? People want instanced pve for the same reasons. They have instances for the same reasons. So instance the whole game!! No more getting ganked by npc's because you walked a foot to far to the right. Those npc ruin your fun. Profits would go up for sure!!! Or would pve players say this isnt an mmo?
And as usual open world pvp means FFA gankfest in order to make your points. Of coasre open world pve is a free for all gankfest, but if an npc wastes your time its part of the game and "fun".
THat is not always the case trully, since i do like open world pvp, but i would still instance pvp, and then you add in the ease as well a the fact of equality in fights it is for the major group of pvpers more what they want. Many pver's as well as pvpers complain abou guard in argo as well as power settings, and have always complained about them. Also the experince is not the most important thing it can offer to most people that play it, since the one thing they are seeking is a time sink as well as entertainent (for themselves). which fr most of the players means they want to fight and do things when they want to not when a pvper or ganker thinks he/she wants to regardless of their target's wishes. YOu woudl see farl less pvper's leaving for open world pvp the you would think if there were no rewards for either of them pvp styles, and it is because the pvper's that like a controled and fair fight over a can come from now where fight will stay with bgs. Which means fewer targerts to pvp with in the open world, since the bg pvper just stay in town as well as pvp via their bgs, while the pvper;s search each other out over the entire world for a few pvp fights. To revive world pvp you would have to completely get rid of bgs now too many have found a good taste in it to want to dare see if they are as good as they think they are. Also for most pvpers now pvping is not aabotu immersion at all, compared to alot of pver's which it is still abootu immersion, as suchbeing or not being able to die to a gaurd is a break in immersion.
Actually in most themeparks like wow and such open world pve is not rewarded really other then gold and items that you get rom yoru actions in it, wiht the lffg making it faster and more profitable to lvl via random instances, as such it has actually made open world content worthless after they put in a lfg system. They have instanced basically the games with rifts, wow, and others being a hob city that you join a group from without leaving to enter the instance. Also when a pver goes out to pve he expects to get tagged by a guard that is part of pve. Actually i did not use ganking as the means to make my point except in saying that most pvper's will never deal with world pvp because they do not want to fight or be fought unfairly or have a higher level lord over them. Now also when a pvper is aout looking for pvp they do not care that you are pve'ing and you make a concious choice to attack that player, the computer is merely doing it's job by having the npc attack you, as such it has no feeling towards you. WHere as most pvper's attidute after killing a player is childish, immature, and rude with a point of annoying and insulting the pk'ed target, as such they veiw you as well as other pvper as a thorn in their fun for choosing too attack when you could have not. IT is completely flawed to compare a comp controled npc to a pvper since you have motives for what you do, yet a comp has none at all. ALso i never mensioned ganking as it is knwon in pve themeparks which is where most of the instanced pvp is, ganking in most pve themeparks is abotu killing a much lower lvl character or weaker character, yet it was about ambushing before that discription. I always make sure that when i say gank i specify it is low lvl ganking not the prior.
People use BG's to progress. IF you removed the progression from it, no one would partake in it. Period.
And what you descibe is why pvpers dont play mmos'. There is just people who pvp instead of raid for gear. Gear being the reason pvp is awful in mmos., is now the reward for pvp.
Then all bgs are is instanced confined pvp on demand for people to que for, which many pvpers would say yay i can just que and forget about looking for pvp. The progression is what a themepark is about at it's heart progressing in the story, pregressing yoru characetr's power. YOu are trying to say that unless we pvp like you we are not pvper? That is laughable if you fight against a player and are a player you are a pvperr plain as day, if you think that your style of pvp is the holy grail as well as the only way to trully pvp you need to see a doctor. IT is your belief and other pvper's belief that gear makes it aweful, and yet to others it is why they love to pvp to gain rewards and power thru fighting against another player, and so feel you earned somethign other then just merely killing another player.
A) Energy consumption at bases were nerfed like the first month the game came out, or in beta, so I read.
Even if they weren't nerfed it's relying on players to do exctremely boring and unrewarding, with no experience gain, to drive an ANT. Which is probably why it was nerfed in the first place. This is why logistics should be manually done by NPC's, trucks driven by NPC's, Ants (more than one an hour) driven by NPC's.
C) Serously, one ant showing up per hour isn't logistics it's a broken game mechanic.
Energy consumption of bases has been changed plenty of times over the course of the game. You citing it as being nerfed a month after it coming out is utterly pointless.
And now you're not even arguing over whether or not it's worthwhile for a player to do because they don't get rewards... Their reward is a working afcility they can continue to operate out of and not see their hold on an island go away.
And again you rebrand things. With a heavy dose of biased misinformation.
Indirect artillery is not a BFR with a mortar gun. INDIRECT Artillery means you are shooting over obstacles, you can't see the target, and you need a forward observer (Laze).
Both the flail and the BFR mortar weapons can and are fired indirectly using laser targeters.
That's not logistics, its balancing equipment.
True, it's not logistics. What it is was me correcting your false claim about the game, and leads to my other points I've made about logistics.
And where do those Towers and Bases get their supply from? Yeah I thought so, nowhere, stuff just magically appears at them, and it's impossible to cut the enemy off from their magically teleporting supplies. Planetside simulates as much logistics as Quake1 Deathmatch 1996.
Towers don't resupply (most, some have aircraft pads at certain facilities, guess which kind of facilities those are?). And to go back to the prior point, facilities run out of energy, and that supplies everything.
There are no command tools in Planetside1. CUD abilities are not command tools, they are I-win buttons.
-Reveal enemies cheat
-Destroy all CE in a wide swath I-win button
-Death Ray from Sky I-win button
See, right here you only mention perks from leveling up in command, and not the standard commands every one uses tied directly into group play.
No, they are not, and there are no ships. They magically appear at the vehicle pad.
True they appear at a vehicle pad, but they are only built at facilities. Furthermore only at facilities made to build them. They then have to be taken to the actual point of conflict and just rolling on down the road is hardly the most effective way to do that, even in Planetside.
That is not logistics, it's moving around the battlefield. That's like calling tank operations logistics cause a tank can move around, or calling a paratroop unit a logistics unit cause it has mobility. Everything with mobility is not logistics.
See, you misinform again! You just called shuttling a tank in from outside the battlefield to a point of operation the same as operations. We aren't driving tanks areound here, we are actively loading ang moving them long distances OUTSIDE OF CONFLICT.
Vehicles magically appear at the spawn point in video games, logistics is not simulated EVER. End of story. If logistics were simulated than it's what would happen BEFORE the spawn point, not AFTER.
Holy effing hell. Do you want me to run through this more clearly for you?
Lets say the US military needs a tank on a battlefront. You know hw that tank gets to the battlefront?
Well first it's parts are made, yes. And then it's assembled at a manufacturing plant capable of it yes.
Then do you know what they do with it? They keep it at facilities around the nation and at operating bases abroad.
When a requisition for such a thing is actually given, they are pulled out of one such facility, loaded up with other equipment, and shipped on over.
Now I'm sorry that you can't watch them build the vehicles in Planetside, but they handle every step past the construction of the vehicle as fine as they can, and still cost you just for calling up a tank. Is that honestly what you want? Just the option to watch them making these things?
Then go play an RTS and stop badgering a genre focused on player characters, or do what I do and look for a way to marry larger scale RTS elements into a player character oriented game like they do for Mount&Blade.
Herding cats is a tactic, not logistics.
Stop bouncing back and forth between logistics and tactics like that. Logistics deals with aquisition and distribution, not just shuffling junk about in the background or whatever you are calling it this time.
Fact is you aren't even giving a cohesive argument because I have responded to topic points on that wiki you gave as your definition, and you're not even living up to the accuracy of it every time you shrug things off as 'not logistics' and then fail to even define your target or meaning.
Wrong.
Damage radius, explosive range, and ammo loadout in Planetside/WWIIONLINE are weaker than pre-Napoleanic Artillery.
No, true. Tell me honestly what the radius of impact of an equivalent weapon to the flail is, for that matter give me real examples of all this stuff you keep taking vague jabs at.
Maps are smaller than you think. Artillery literally at pre-Napeonic range when you take infantry jogging speed into account.
Pathetic damage radius for Liberators, which is understandable since you don't want players camping a spawn point with bombers and flails.
Not really. I am fully aware that maps are smaller to scale than reality. But travel time was accounted for, and the scale for the game is understood fine. Sure, if you jog between two bases and it only takes ten minutes that will indeed be shorter than reality. Even compared to 'pre-Napoleonic' range weapons. Comparing a game world where distance to travel needs to be balanced against entertainment value means there's a threshold that needs to be maintained there.
This must also be accounted for when talking about scale of damage. A smaller map and snaller combat area must inherently have similarly smaller scaled weapons and artillery. The fact that a flail is capable of taking out groups of enemies, tanks, and other vehicles with it's shots as well as the Liberator able to explode entire lines of troops is proof. You have to account for this relative scale here when you're taking your mindless jabs at these weapons and their capacity.
And you really need to do some better learning in the status of the game and the weaspons so you can stop lying.
No, logistics is simulated in no games, no games includes Planetside.
Yes, it is. Your inability to accept that does not change reality.
It strategically plays the same, and there is no logistics in WWIIONLINE also.
It plays similar. Not the same. That's like saying they play the same to MAG. Yes there are overarching similarities you easily compare and contrast, but there are a lot of things that go into each one that is simply different.
Yes they are.
No, they aren't. Like I've mentioned before they are highly interdependent on other facilities in their system as well as player mainetnance being needed. Stop lying.
Bases almost never run out of supply, The ANT system was nerfed a long time ago, and for good reason.
And then un-nerfed, then re-nerfed, and then un-nerfed again, and re-nerfed again, and...
One instance of a game that has gotten tons of updates updates and expanded content over it's lifespan is the most useless argument point you could make.
Stop. Lying. About. The. Game.
Your comments are becoming progressively less factual and considerably more akin to a troll in these.
Please, provide some real and concrete definitions of what you mean instead of constantly denying things and then making wildly inaccurate comments I have to correct (just for you to turn around and deny them again with the same claim even though I just gave you more explanation).
This is getting frustrating and I can't argue with some one who can't be bothered to check their claims beyond conjecture.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
But if you offered both, with no rewards, people choose open world. Why? Becuase they want to be part of the games history told by gamers. That experience is the most valueable thing an mmo can offer.
What i dont understand is why open world pve is rewarded still and not pvp? People want instanced pve for the same reasons. They have instances for the same reasons. So instance the whole game!! No more getting ganked by npc's because you walked a foot to far to the right. Those npc ruin your fun. Profits would go up for sure!!! Or would pve players say this isnt an mmo?
And as usual open world pvp means FFA gankfest in order to make your points. Of coasre open world pve is a free for all gankfest, but if an npc wastes your time its part of the game and "fun".
Again, throughout the history of all games ever created, a fair playfield has characterized virtually every PVP game mankind has ever made. So it's surprising and unexpected that you actually seem to believe players care more about "games history told by gamers" than balanced PVP where skill determines victors. And I think very wrong.
But we arent talking about games throughout history. We are talking about mmos. If you think mmorpg's are just games, then I and alot of developers would disagree with you .BTW Instanced pvp made a great south park episode!! That experience is the only experience that makes an mmo unuiqe.
So why do players choose open world pvp when both are offered and neither is rewarded? Fair is what they want, but have to be bribed to partake? Because its not about fair or even pvp maybe? Its about another gear grind treadmill perfected to be the most addictive to gear. Not addicted to pvp, or fun. Gear. The one thing that ruins pvp...yep, thats what pvp is about. This is what pvpers want? Nope nope.
Fair and balanced pvp in an instance happens as often as it does in open world too.
That is the thing overall players do not choose open world pvp as a majority, but a miniority do choose to world pvp. Actually when the pvp in wow was relatively even in points for the bgs to open worrld pvp points the pvper;s to a large extent ggrined thier points in instanced bgs over grinding it in open world pvp unless they were already there. IF you add even fair, as well as on damand pvp compared to seek and destroy pvp in open world that happens less offen, they wil do it in the bgs plain as day. Also is it a time sink plan as day with the gear grind to mask that time sink. You can ask a hundred pvpers what pvp is and get a hundred different anwsers, i pvp for every reason out there from gear to addrenaline even as a stress release. Maybe to you the pvp is abotu gearing up to me it is abotu becoming more powerful within the context of the game, weither thru skills (hey that is a grind) or gear, but i do it as a fun enterianing activity. Which pvpers want what? If you are a skill based pvper then moving to a skill based pvp game is yoru only avenue, if you are a gear based pvp then the themepark mmos are your cup of tea, and the reason is that the game is crafted for one side not both. YOu want world pvp then look to mo, darkfall and such, since most of the pvp in the themeparks are not open world pvp (they shoudl not have their setting and concept butched for the sake of one set of pvp when another already existsgoing to a pvp centric game is al you can do. IT is sad but world pvp is pretty much dead on most large budget mmos since they have bgs, and the funny thing is a developer would not impliment as well as reward a system that would not allow them to retaiin subs, which is why world pvp is not rewarded largely in themepark mmos it has such a small impact on subs that focusing on bgs is much better. I can talk for those pvpers that are like me and that i pvp with alot, and they like instanced pvp as well as the gear grind it gives their pvp purpose outside of the combat which gets boring. So your statement abotu pvpers wanting it is false in that you do not speak for all pvpers but for your like minded ggroup of pvpers. As i said gear being the ruination of pvp is all to each pvper many pvpers find that a gear grind keeps the pvp well after they woukdl have taken a break from it, so that in itself shows that it helps to have a gear grind to keep people pvping aftr they woud have reired.
Now we're getting somewhere. BG's are the developers choice to help the developer. That's my point. PVP is another gear grind treadmil for the people who fail at raiding. It increases the number of addicts. And is designed to be the most addicting not the most fun or fair. AFK pvp progression wouldnt exist if it was.
But you still think this is what pvpers really want, even after years of complaining about gear ruining pvp? No pvpers have all gone. Without them there is not much more room for growth in client based mmos. Browser based games are the only viable targets left, if you think like the suits.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
How dare you turn this into a tri-color disgussion.
A) Energy consumption at bases were nerfed like the first month the game came out, or in beta, so I read.
Even if they weren't nerfed it's relying on players to do exctremely boring and unrewarding, with no experience gain, to drive an ANT. Which is probably why it was nerfed in the first place. This is why logistics should be manually done by NPC's, trucks driven by NPC's, Ants (more than one an hour) driven by NPC's.
C) Serously, one ant showing up per hour isn't logistics it's a broken game mechanic.
Energy consumption of bases has been changed plenty of times over the course of the game. You citing it as being nerfed a month after it coming out is utterly pointless.
And now you're not even arguing over whether or not it's worthwhile for a player to do because they don't get rewards... Their reward is a working afcility they can continue to operate out of and not see their hold on an island go away.
And again you rebrand things. With a heavy dose of biased misinformation.
In 6 hours of playing you'll probably see one guy do an ANT run, that's not logistics, it's a broken game mechanic.
Indirect artillery is not a BFR with a mortar gun. INDIRECT Artillery means you are shooting over obstacles, you can't see the target, and you need a forward observer (Laze).
Both the flail and the BFR mortar weapons can and are fired indirectly using laser targeters.
BFR mortar is a direct fire weapon.
That's not logistics, its balancing equipment.
True, it's not logistics. What it is was me correcting your false claim about the game, and leads to my other points I've made about logistics.
And where do those Towers and Bases get their supply from? Yeah I thought so, nowhere, stuff just magically appears at them, and it's impossible to cut the enemy off from their magically teleporting supplies. Planetside simulates as much logistics as Quake1 Deathmatch 1996.
Towers don't resupply (most, some have aircraft pads at certain facilities, guess which kind of facilities those are?). And to go back to the prior point, facilities run out of energy, and that supplies everything.
A) Towers don't
It very rarely happens. It's a broken game mechanic. Why are you talking about a broken game mechanic?
There are no command tools in Planetside1. CUD abilities are not command tools, they are I-win buttons.
-Reveal enemies cheat
-Destroy all CE in a wide swath I-win button
-Death Ray from Sky I-win button
See, right here you only mention perks from leveling up in command, and not the standard commands every one uses tied directly into group play.
Name the "standard command tools", that aren't CUD abilities, then.
No, they are not, and there are no ships. They magically appear at the vehicle pad.
True they appear at a vehicle pad, but they are only built at facilities. Furthermore only at facilities made to build them. They then have to be taken to the actual point of conflict and just rolling on down the road is hardly the most effective way to do that, even in Planetside.
"Facilities make them," Thank you for agreeing that logistics is non-existant in Planetside.
That is not logistics, it's moving around the battlefield. That's like calling tank operations logistics cause a tank can move around, or calling a paratroop unit a logistics unit cause it has mobility. Everything with mobility is not logistics.
See, you misinform again! You just called shuttling a tank in from outside the battlefield to a point of operation the same as operations. We aren't driving tanks areound here, we are actively loading ang moving them long distances OUTSIDE OF CONFLICT.
It is operations. Combat Operations is driving a fully loaded out tank around looking for targets, logistics is getting the crew, tank, ammo, fuel ready for combat.
Logistics is nonexistant in Planetside. Spawning a tank at a base then going rampaging around is not logistics.
Vehicles magically appear at the spawn point in video games, logistics is not simulated EVER. End of story. If logistics were simulated than it's what would happen BEFORE the spawn point, not AFTER.
Holy effing hell. Do you want me to run through this more clearly for you?
Lets say the US military needs a tank on a battlefront. You know hw that tank gets to the battlefront?
Well first it's parts are made, yes. And then it's assembled at a manufacturing plant capable of it yes.
From mine, to alloy, to factory, and transportation on trains/trucks from mine to alloy to factory are all logistics: destroyable strategic interdictable targets. Nonexistant in Planetside.
Then do you know what they do with it? They keep it at facilities around the nation and at operating bases abroad.
When a requisition for such a thing is actually given, they are pulled out of one such facility, loaded up with other equipment, and shipped on over.
Bases (spawn points) are frontline units not supply depots. Driving from main army depot to frontline unit is logistics: destroyable strategic itnerdictable targets. Nonexistant in Planetside.
Now I'm sorry that you can't watch them build the vehicles in Planetside, but they handle every step past the construction of the vehicle as fine as they can, and still cost you just for calling up a tank. Is that honestly what you want? Just the option to watch them making these things?
I already told you one resource representing everything and being carried on NPC trucks to player spawn point is sufficient enough, I guess you missed that part. Try reading it again.
Then go play an RTS and stop badgering a genre focused on player characters, or do what I do and look for a way to marry larger scale RTS elements into a player character oriented game like they do for Mount&Blade.
Stop abusing words.
Herding cats is a tactic, not logistics.
Stop bouncing back and forth between logistics and tactics like that. Logistics deals with aquisition and distribution, not just shuffling junk about in the background or whatever you are calling it this time.
Everything to you is logistics isn't it.
Fact is you aren't even giving a cohesive argument because I have responded to topic points on that wiki you gave as your definition, and you're not even living up to the accuracy of it every time you shrug things off as 'not logistics' and then fail to even define your target or meaning.
Well according to you, shooting a gun is logistics: someone "acquires" a gun, someone "distributes" the shell in the general directiion of the enemy. Hey what do you know, everything is logistics, yeah isnt' this wonderful.
Wrong.
Damage radius, explosive range, and ammo loadout in Planetside/WWIIONLINE are weaker than pre-Napoleanic Artillery.
No, true. Tell me honestly what the radius of impact of an equivalent weapon to the flail is, for that matter give me real examples of all this stuff you keep taking vague jabs at.
Radius impact of the flail is about 20 feet, a pre-napoleanic solid shot cannnon could take out enemies in a 500 foot path if it bounces allot.
Maps are smaller than you think. Artillery literally at pre-Napeonic range when you take infantry jogging speed into account.
Pathetic damage radius for Liberators, which is understandable since you don't want players camping a spawn point with bombers and flails.
Not really. I am fully aware that maps are smaller to scale than reality. But travel time was accounted for, and the scale for the game is understood fine. Sure, if you jog between two bases and it only takes ten minutes that will indeed be shorter than reality. Even compared to 'pre-Napoleonic' range weapons. Comparing a game world where distance to travel needs to be balanced against entertainment value means there's a threshold that needs to be maintained there.
This must also be accounted for when talking about scale of damage. A smaller map and snaller combat area must inherently have similarly smaller scaled weapons and artillery. The fact that a flail is capable of taking out groups of enemies, tanks, and other vehicles with it's shots as well as the Liberator able to explode entire lines of troops is proof. You have to account for this relative scale here when you're taking your mindless jabs at these weapons and their capacity.
And you really need to do some better learning in the status of the game and the weaspons so you can stop lying.
OMG I'm lying now is it. Gosh that's a reportable offense, HEY MODS! WHAAAH.
Indirect artillery in this game, including direct artillery like bombers, is gimped because of fixed spawn points, it's as simple as that.
No, logistics is simulated in no games, no games includes Planetside.
Yes, it is. Your inability to accept that does not change reality.
No it isn't.
It strategically plays the same, and there is no logistics in WWIIONLINE also.
It plays similar. Not the same. That's like saying they play the same to MAG. Yes there are overarching similarities you easily compare and contrast, but there are a lot of things that go into each one that is simply different.
It plays strategically the same. You cap flags in a matrix, outside of that nothing else exists.
One instance of a game that has gotten tons of updates updates and expanded content over it's lifespan is the most useless argument point you could make.
Stop. Lying. About. The. Game.
Stop claiming something exists that doesn't exist.
Your comments are....
whoah don't EVER EVER do this, you can't mix white text with green text.
This entire discussion is silly. If you want to PvP, go play a PvP game. Don't try to play a PvE game like it is meant for open, unrestricted PvP then complain about it on the forums without even mentioning what game it is. Instead, play a game that is designed around PvP. Darkfall, Mortal, and Earthrise are the three main ones I can think of. Guess what? Those games are doing pretty poorly. They are barely scraping by because the PvP style of gameplay isn't what most people want. Hardcore PvPers are a MINORITY.
If you want to PvP, play a PvP game or stop complaining about PvEers in a PvE game, even though it is a "PvP" server.
Instanced battlegrounds are more popular because of the rewards. Developer's choose to reward battlegrounds for their benefit, not the benefit of the pvp players.
Remove all pvp rewards and see where people pvp. We already know the answer.
The problem is pvp is a mini game that has no role in the "game". You are only looking at pvp as people in combat. It starts and stops there. It's the actual fight that you are scrutinizing. You aren't referring to all the non-combat activities and content that built up to the "fight" and what follows and all the people involved. 100 people may have participated, though only 10 actually fought.
Now you might envoke the masses and their wants, and i would envoke bad game design. being as no games has tried anything else i can do that.
How do you know the answer?
People play instanced PvP in other games without any longterm rewards all the time. The part marked in yellow is something the average gamer doesn't care about as long as the PvP is fun (a problem for Dust 514 perhaps). That is why I would bet my Internet chips on instanced PvP.
We don't play these games because they are MMORPGs, we play these games because they are fun. And making games fun is good game design.
How do I know what? We have history to answer most of this.
Developers dont manufacture fun. They create a set of rules in which fun can be created by the user or between users. rewarding users who play by instanced rules and ignoring and blaming users that play by open world set of rules doesnt mean anythng about fun. or popular. Its the only choice when progression only come via combat. But klike i said earlier there were mmos that rewarded neither. Which do you think was more popular? Which do you think never even got used? History already asnwered this.
Let me put it this way. Tell me a story about an instanced BG pvp fight that changed the way your whole server spent its time in the future. LOL!! Where are the blogs dedicated to instance pvp so we can share in your fun from this good game design?
Open world pvp is fun and we have the stories for people who even came years later so that they to can participate in our fun too. even though they never even played the game.
That is good game design.
No one outside the instance cares about your fun.
That is good game design too?
Good game design is a fun game right?
Just so you know, im not 100% positive on this, so i could be persuaded given something other than lazy answers that ignore reality. Thats my job.
The issue is that open world pvp in the present is not fun for mmost of the player base, since those that do enjoy it are few in the game with the major groups enjoying and using instanced pvp over world pvp. Catering to a group that out pops the nitch group is a good way to get profits to go up. In world pvp no one cares abotu yoru fun other then you, that guy you ambushed, or that person you killed while he faught a monster care just as much abotu your fun as you cared about their fun. Also good game design is not fun at all, it is profitable which translates to fun for those that make the game design profitable, A few to even sever hundred a counts of people enjoying world pvp is funny, since you can also say that alot of people have had as well as listed nightmares while in world pvp. I have heard hundreds of stories of people pulling bg fight to a win from near absolute certain loss.
But if you offered both, with no rewards, people choose open world. Why? Becuase they want to be part of the games history told by gamers. That experience is the most valueable thing an mmo can offer.
What i dont understand is why open world pve is rewarded still and not pvp? People want instanced pve for the same reasons. They have instances for the same reasons. So instance the whole game!! No more getting ganked by npc's because you walked a foot to far to the right. Those npc ruin your fun. Profits would go up for sure!!! Or would pve players say this isnt an mmo?
And as usual open world pvp means FFA gankfest in order to make your points. Of coasre open world pve is a free for all gankfest, but if an npc wastes your time its part of the game and "fun".
THat is not always the case trully, since i do like open world pvp, but i would still instance pvp, and then you add in the ease as well a the fact of equality in fights it is for the major group of pvpers more what they want. Many pver's as well as pvpers complain abou guard in argo as well as power settings, and have always complained about them. Also the experince is not the most important thing it can offer to most people that play it, since the one thing they are seeking is a time sink as well as entertainent (for themselves). which fr most of the players means they want to fight and do things when they want to not when a pvper or ganker thinks he/she wants to regardless of their target's wishes. YOu woudl see farl less pvper's leaving for open world pvp the you would think if there were no rewards for either of them pvp styles, and it is because the pvper's that like a controled and fair fight over a can come from now where fight will stay with bgs. Which means fewer targerts to pvp with in the open world, since the bg pvper just stay in town as well as pvp via their bgs, while the pvper;s search each other out over the entire world for a few pvp fights. To revive world pvp you would have to completely get rid of bgs now too many have found a good taste in it to want to dare see if they are as good as they think they are. Also for most pvpers now pvping is not aabotu immersion at all, compared to alot of pver's which it is still abootu immersion, as suchbeing or not being able to die to a gaurd is a break in immersion.
Actually in most themeparks like wow and such open world pve is not rewarded really other then gold and items that you get rom yoru actions in it, wiht the lffg making it faster and more profitable to lvl via random instances, as such it has actually made open world content worthless after they put in a lfg system. They have instanced basically the games with rifts, wow, and others being a hob city that you join a group from without leaving to enter the instance. Also when a pver goes out to pve he expects to get tagged by a guard that is part of pve. Actually i did not use ganking as the means to make my point except in saying that most pvper's will never deal with world pvp because they do not want to fight or be fought unfairly or have a higher level lord over them. Now also when a pvper is aout looking for pvp they do not care that you are pve'ing and you make a concious choice to attack that player, the computer is merely doing it's job by having the npc attack you, as such it has no feeling towards you. WHere as most pvper's attidute after killing a player is childish, immature, and rude with a point of annoying and insulting the pk'ed target, as such they veiw you as well as other pvper as a thorn in their fun for choosing too attack when you could have not. IT is completely flawed to compare a comp controled npc to a pvper since you have motives for what you do, yet a comp has none at all. ALso i never mensioned ganking as it is knwon in pve themeparks which is where most of the instanced pvp is, ganking in most pve themeparks is abotu killing a much lower lvl character or weaker character, yet it was about ambushing before that discription. I always make sure that when i say gank i specify it is low lvl ganking not the prior.
People use BG's to progress. IF you removed the progression from it, no one would partake in it. Period.
And what you descibe is why pvpers dont play mmos'. There is just people who pvp instead of raid for gear. Gear being the reason pvp is awful in mmos., is now the reward for pvp.
Then all bgs are is instanced confined pvp on demand for people to que for, which many pvpers would say yay i can just que and forget about looking for pvp. The progression is what a themepark is about at it's heart progressing in the story, pregressing yoru characetr's power. YOu are trying to say that unless we pvp like you we are not pvper? That is laughable if you fight against a player and are a player you are a pvperr plain as day, if you think that your style of pvp is the holy grail as well as the only way to trully pvp you need to see a doctor. IT is your belief and other pvper's belief that gear makes it aweful, and yet to others it is why they love to pvp to gain rewards and power thru fighting against another player, and so feel you earned somethign other then just merely killing another player.
Nope. The lore of the particular game tells you why you should be pvping, the style of pvp, and the goals of pvp. My point is if you remove the rewards, people would no longer partake in BG's. THAT IS WHY IT HAS REWARDS!! People would pvp because of the fun, the lore, and the interactions that make the game run and grow. Like they did before BG's and before world pvp was totally dead.
Given the choice people wont even use BG's for fun without a bribe. They have to put walls up to keep world pvp from happening too much with no incentive except the lore says this guys an enemy. This is proven in history. What youre defending is completely dependant on rewards for participation not success. Or no one would do them at all. Thats my only point. So getting rewards is fun, pvp is just a device to get rewards. AFK people love to pvp in BG's too. If losing is quicker than trying, then thats what people will do. Because pvp is about gear not winning and losing, or the great war the lore talks about.
I have no style of pvp. I just play the game until it stops being an mmorpg. I wouldnt spend 6 months in real life getting some boots in order to get some gloves to reach the next tier of boots and gloves. Wont do it in a mmorpg about the war between good and evil were just particpating even afk, gets me closer to boots. No I want to do things that arent possible in the real world. Collecting clothes that ill never use for anything else but to get more clothes isnt a fantasy. Sounds more like eternal virginity.. But vrtually killing others for that is awesome!! No idea why mmorpg players are stereotyped so harshly.
Anything for loot.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
This entire discussion is silly. If you want to PvP, go play a PvP game. Don't try to play a PvE game like it is meant for open, unrestricted PvP then complain about it on the forums without even mentioning what game it is. Instead, play a game that is designed around PvP. Darkfall, Mortal, and Earthrise are the three main ones I can think of. Guess what? Those games are doing pretty poorly. They are barely scraping by because the PvP style of gameplay isn't what most people want. Hardcore PvPers are a MINORITY.
If you want to PvP, play a PvP game or stop complaining about PvEers in a PvE game, even though it is a "PvP" server.
Thats what people do. Except they leave the genre totally.
The games you desribe would do just as poorly, probably worse as pve games? know why?
Are they doing better than tabula rasa or auto assault or AC2 or the matrix or apb or the sims online? Bad games are bad games.
Hardcore anything is a minority. Design a game totally about raiding a see how it does. Extemes dont make a point. PVP is offered and its in the best interest of all that the game does well.
Dont worry, you pve'ers are gonna get tossed for the socials....your time will come too. They'll be like questing is for a small minority, if you like that go play maplestory.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Please, I'm trying to hope you're not a troll Nerf.
In six hours of gameplay you can see anywhere from a dozen to no ants depending on what you're doing. Your claim is flat out false.
You 'can fire the BFR mortar directly, and yes that's is the most common use. But players can also take a targeter and mark for it.
At least you finally got the point about towers, but you are still trying to rail home that broken comment that is wrong. The state of the game one month after release is hardly the same as it is now, eight years later. Sure there's many ways in which the mechanics are still broken and will never be fixed, but at least make the effort to find out what is current.
You mean the command tools for painting targets, making requisition requests (that everyone can do, not only commanders), marking personal and group locations, the chat options for commanders to use global communications, and the rest of those? I could.
Bases are not only frontline locations in Planetside. Only a few at any given moment are being fought over usually, and the rest are the ones that have to actually supply the battle. I said 'facilities make them' because they are, like I compared, held as stock at those facilities.
You did not say one resource is insufficient. You might have intended to (noting your past occasion of actually mentioning 'one resource' that was garbled into another sentence), but you did not.
And then your tank comment!
I clearly stated the procedure of spawning a tank and shuttling it. No combat, no marauding about to fight. You aren't driving around in the thing, it's loaded in the back of a transport vehicle THAT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE GUNS and transported to the battlefront!
What about that don't you get? People aren't just hopping in tanks and then just shooting. Spawning a tank at a facility in the middle of combat is a rediculous idea to say the least because you and your vehicle are more likely to explode before you can do anything else.
Hence why I mentioned the Lodestar and tank transportation. They added the Lodestar to the game because players were constantly having to move and supply/maintain vehicles outside of combat and into combat. The Lodestar can not be used for combat and if flown in has minimal armor and capacity to survive, making it an in-fight improbability to use for hot drops of heavy vehicles.
It is a purely logistical vehicle used solely to do the exact thing you keep trying to claim doesn't happen. You aren't in combat. You aren't putting about hunting people. You are quite literally getting the two man crew, vehicle, pilot, and transport vehicle set up and then using them to move vehicles on the backlines to supply the frontlines with new vehicles and maintenance.
Not everything to me is logistics. I have consistently cited aspects of the game that happen outside of combat and supply the ability to perform combat, nothing to do with the combat itself. It is your inability to admit that any of this could even be possible and as a result completely ignoring what I actually say to instead maintain the ill conceived idea that people just spawn run and gun in Planetside.
Your fault and your inability to define your own concept, not mine.
20 metres not feet. granted that only expands the radius to 65 feet.
Compare that to a howitzer firing fragmentation that hits lethally in 30 meters and account for scale.
An old cannon that tears up the troops and land in 500 feet by bouncing around is neither as accurate, powerful on impact, nor as consequently effective due to uncontrolled colatteral damage. The effective 'blast radius' of atrillery, like with other weapons and explosive weapons, has gotten smaller and more concentrated over time.
Add that the flail is still firing at thinfa a half a kilometer or more away, and you're doing an ok emulation of more modern weaponry.
I all ready mentioned player spawns as well as the ability to destroy and disable fixed spawns.
Logistics is simulated. You very apparently play the wrong genres and wrong games to see it.
You cap facilities. Call them flags if you want. But those are some damn complex flags with a damn lot of implications tied to eaxh one that you have to dramatically oversimplyfy and flat out ignore in order to make the claim they are simply spots on the map to trade between teams.
See you are lying. Or conveniently forgetting things over and over. Stop claiming something that exists doesn't exist.
And occasionally provide some real information. I'll have to report you sooner or later if you don't. That's not a threat because I would much prefer to have a real conversation, but if you aren't capable of having one then dragging on talking to a brick wall doesn't help me
EDIT: And stop dropping some of corrections I make just because you can't respond to them.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
But if you offered both, with no rewards, people choose open world. Why? Becuase they want to be part of the games history told by gamers. That experience is the most valueable thing an mmo can offer.
What i dont understand is why open world pve is rewarded still and not pvp? People want instanced pve for the same reasons. They have instances for the same reasons. So instance the whole game!! No more getting ganked by npc's because you walked a foot to far to the right. Those npc ruin your fun. Profits would go up for sure!!! Or would pve players say this isnt an mmo?
And as usual open world pvp means FFA gankfest in order to make your points. Of coasre open world pve is a free for all gankfest, but if an npc wastes your time its part of the game and "fun".
Again, throughout the history of all games ever created, a fair playfield has characterized virtually every PVP game mankind has ever made. So it's surprising and unexpected that you actually seem to believe players care more about "games history told by gamers" than balanced PVP where skill determines victors. And I think very wrong.
But we arent talking about games throughout history. We are talking about mmos. If you think mmorpg's are just games, then I and alot of developers would disagree with you .BTW Instanced pvp made a great south park episode!! That experience is the only experience that makes an mmo unuiqe.
So why do players choose open world pvp when both are offered and neither is rewarded? Fair is what they want, but have to be bribed to partake? Because its not about fair or even pvp maybe? Its about another gear grind treadmill perfected to be the most addictive to gear. Not addicted to pvp, or fun. Gear. The one thing that ruins pvp...yep, thats what pvp is about. This is what pvpers want? Nope nope.
Fair and balanced pvp in an instance happens as often as it does in open world too.
That is the thing overall players do not choose open world pvp as a majority, but a miniority do choose to world pvp. Actually when the pvp in wow was relatively even in points for the bgs to open worrld pvp points the pvper;s to a large extent ggrined thier points in instanced bgs over grinding it in open world pvp unless they were already there. IF you add even fair, as well as on damand pvp compared to seek and destroy pvp in open world that happens less offen, they wil do it in the bgs plain as day. Also is it a time sink plan as day with the gear grind to mask that time sink. You can ask a hundred pvpers what pvp is and get a hundred different anwsers, i pvp for every reason out there from gear to addrenaline even as a stress release. Maybe to you the pvp is abotu gearing up to me it is abotu becoming more powerful within the context of the game, weither thru skills (hey that is a grind) or gear, but i do it as a fun enterianing activity. Which pvpers want what? If you are a skill based pvper then moving to a skill based pvp game is yoru only avenue, if you are a gear based pvp then the themepark mmos are your cup of tea, and the reason is that the game is crafted for one side not both. YOu want world pvp then look to mo, darkfall and such, since most of the pvp in the themeparks are not open world pvp (they shoudl not have their setting and concept butched for the sake of one set of pvp when another already existsgoing to a pvp centric game is al you can do. IT is sad but world pvp is pretty much dead on most large budget mmos since they have bgs, and the funny thing is a developer would not impliment as well as reward a system that would not allow them to retaiin subs, which is why world pvp is not rewarded largely in themepark mmos it has such a small impact on subs that focusing on bgs is much better. I can talk for those pvpers that are like me and that i pvp with alot, and they like instanced pvp as well as the gear grind it gives their pvp purpose outside of the combat which gets boring. So your statement abotu pvpers wanting it is false in that you do not speak for all pvpers but for your like minded ggroup of pvpers. As i said gear being the ruination of pvp is all to each pvper many pvpers find that a gear grind keeps the pvp well after they woukdl have taken a break from it, so that in itself shows that it helps to have a gear grind to keep people pvping aftr they woud have reired.
Now we're getting somewhere. BG's are the developers choice to help the developer. That's my point. PVP is another gear grind treadmil for the people who fail at raiding. It increases the number of addicts. And is designed to be the most addicting not the most fun or fair. AFK pvp progression wouldnt exist if it was.
But you still think this is what pvpers really want, even after years of complaining about gear ruining pvp? No pvpers have all gone. Without them there is not much more room for growth in client based mmos. Browser based games are the only viable targets left, if you think like the suits.
Yet many who pvp actualy also raid and vis versa, in truth the stand alone pvper and pver are dieing out vary quuickly. The afk pvper are a small group of pvpers in most themeparks with many who actually pvp in bgs wantig to finsih or atleast put up a fight, before losing for whatever reason. Also the afk pvper happens from the fact that they points yhou gain from bging have a minimum reward, now if you made it that you had to partisipate and the game/mmo actually measured how much you fought compared to the other people in yoru bg, and if you were not within a certain percentage of output it would negate your reward people would not afk. Any system with a static reward system weither you participents like and enjoy it or not will have afker, because human nature is to seek the path of less resistant atleast for alot of people it is. In my own personal opinion they shhould make it that based on your output in the battle ground your end reward is given, meaning if you do not participate or end up with a vary small amoount of output in the bg you get no or a snall reward for that participation.
Vary much so but not for ever pvper out there since to a skill or none themepark gear0grind type of pvper it is not somethign they like, but yet to those that like the reward that coes with also being able to fight how we wish, and when we wish it is nice to see. The issue is that you thik that every pvper is like you or those you call a pvper, and if they are not then they are something other then a pvp, but pvp is about player vs player fihgt not one certain system of pvp as such anyone particapating in pvp content is a pvper. It was not everyone that complaining abotu gear oor bgs ruining pvp, but it was a group of pvpers that did do this most of which prefered a more skill (mo, darkfall) style of pvp over the gear based one in most themeparks. These types of pvpers have largely left the themepark bg mmos for other games, while those that actually enjoy aquiring gear while they pvp are the ones left, with some of the pvpers that would rather not bg pvp left since they do not want try and find antoher game so will wade thru the bg style. There are jsut as many pvper that complain (if not more from many pvper that i talk to in game.) about open world pvp as well as no reward pvp on the basis it is boring after they have been doing it for so long. Before you say it they are pvpers they enjoy the pvp style of cotent as well as plike to fight a person over an ai, which makes them a pvper like it or not they particiate in pvp content as such they are pvpers.
But we arent talking about games throughout history. We are talking about mmos. If you think mmorpg's are just games, then I and alot of developers would disagree with you .BTW Instanced pvp made a great south park episode!! That experience is the only experience that makes an mmo unuiqe.
So why do players choose open world pvp when both are offered and neither is rewarded? Fair is what they want, but have to be bribed to partake? Because its not about fair or even pvp maybe? Its about another gear grind treadmill perfected to be the most addictive to gear. Not addicted to pvp, or fun. Gear. The one thing that ruins pvp...yep, thats what pvp is about. This is what pvpers want? Nope nope.
Fair and balanced pvp in an instance happens as often as it does in open world too.
Players don't actually care whether MMOs are "unique". They just want a fun game. Only a tiny minority holds the "MMORPG" acronym to have some sort of innate value. Everybody else is like "Is it fun? I'll play. Is it not fun? I'm gone." MMORPGs live or die based on how good a game they are, not based on how much of a world they are.
Players wouldn't choose open world PVP when both are offered and neither rewarded. That was my point: out of all the games mankind makes, we make nearly all our PVP games balanced and without reward! People still play the hell out of them!
Your last sentence seems written wrong. Are you suggesting balanced fights happen as often in world PVP as instanced PVP?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
More often than not bgs are not balanced it is only an illusion of balance and when a team that is queing as a group and using vent has wiped the floor with the pugs. Those are not balanced games. People protest and make a lot of noise complaining about those and they only stay and play for the rewards.
Open world PvP without rewards side by side to bgs, the open world lost out as evidenced in WoW because of the rewards. Can anyone give an example of an open world no reward game side by side to bgs with no rewards in the same game and data on what people picked. Did people pick the open world over the bgs when both were without rewards ?
Instanced battlegrounds are more popular because of the rewards. Developer's choose to reward battlegrounds for their benefit, not the benefit of the pvp players.
Remove all pvp rewards and see where people pvp. We already know the answer.
The problem is pvp is a mini game that has no role in the "game". You are only looking at pvp as people in combat. It starts and stops there. It's the actual fight that you are scrutinizing. You aren't referring to all the non-combat activities and content that built up to the "fight" and what follows and all the people involved. 100 people may have participated, though only 10 actually fought.
Now you might envoke the masses and their wants, and i would envoke bad game design. being as no games has tried anything else i can do that.
How do you know the answer?
People play instanced PvP in other games without any longterm rewards all the time. The part marked in yellow is something the average gamer doesn't care about as long as the PvP is fun (a problem for Dust 514 perhaps). That is why I would bet my Internet chips on instanced PvP.
We don't play these games because they are MMORPGs, we play these games because they are fun. And making games fun is good game design.
How do I know what? We have history to answer most of this.
Developers dont manufacture fun. They create a set of rules in which fun can be created by the user or between users. rewarding users who play by instanced rules and ignoring and blaming users that play by open world set of rules doesnt mean anythng about fun. or popular. Its the only choice when progression only come via combat. But klike i said earlier there were mmos that rewarded neither. Which do you think was more popular? Which do you think never even got used? History already asnwered this.
Let me put it this way. Tell me a story about an instanced BG pvp fight that changed the way your whole server spent its time in the future. LOL!! Where are the blogs dedicated to instance pvp so we can share in your fun from this good game design?
Open world pvp is fun and we have the stories for people who even came years later so that they to can participate in our fun too. even though they never even played the game.
That is good game design.
No one outside the instance cares about your fun.
That is good game design too?
Good game design is a fun game right?
Just so you know, im not 100% positive on this, so i could be persuaded given something other than lazy answers that ignore reality. Thats my job.
The issue is that open world pvp in the present is not fun for mmost of the player base, since those that do enjoy it are few in the game with the major groups enjoying and using instanced pvp over world pvp. Catering to a group that out pops the nitch group is a good way to get profits to go up. In world pvp no one cares abotu yoru fun other then you, that guy you ambushed, or that person you killed while he faught a monster care just as much abotu your fun as you cared about their fun. Also good game design is not fun at all, it is profitable which translates to fun for those that make the game design profitable, A few to even sever hundred a counts of people enjoying world pvp is funny, since you can also say that alot of people have had as well as listed nightmares while in world pvp. I have heard hundreds of stories of people pulling bg fight to a win from near absolute certain loss.
But if you offered both, with no rewards, people choose open world. Why? Becuase they want to be part of the games history told by gamers. That experience is the most valueable thing an mmo can offer.
What i dont understand is why open world pve is rewarded still and not pvp? People want instanced pve for the same reasons. They have instances for the same reasons. So instance the whole game!! No more getting ganked by npc's because you walked a foot to far to the right. Those npc ruin your fun. Profits would go up for sure!!! Or would pve players say this isnt an mmo?
And as usual open world pvp means FFA gankfest in order to make your points. Of coasre open world pve is a free for all gankfest, but if an npc wastes your time its part of the game and "fun".
THat is not always the case trully, since i do like open world pvp, but i would still instance pvp, and then you add in the ease as well a the fact of equality in fights it is for the major group of pvpers more what they want. Many pver's as well as pvpers complain abou guard in argo as well as power settings, and have always complained about them. Also the experince is not the most important thing it can offer to most people that play it, since the one thing they are seeking is a time sink as well as entertainent (for themselves). which fr most of the players means they want to fight and do things when they want to not when a pvper or ganker thinks he/she wants to regardless of their target's wishes. YOu woudl see farl less pvper's leaving for open world pvp the you would think if there were no rewards for either of them pvp styles, and it is because the pvper's that like a controled and fair fight over a can come from now where fight will stay with bgs. Which means fewer targerts to pvp with in the open world, since the bg pvper just stay in town as well as pvp via their bgs, while the pvper;s search each other out over the entire world for a few pvp fights. To revive world pvp you would have to completely get rid of bgs now too many have found a good taste in it to want to dare see if they are as good as they think they are. Also for most pvpers now pvping is not aabotu immersion at all, compared to alot of pver's which it is still abootu immersion, as suchbeing or not being able to die to a gaurd is a break in immersion.
Actually in most themeparks like wow and such open world pve is not rewarded really other then gold and items that you get rom yoru actions in it, wiht the lffg making it faster and more profitable to lvl via random instances, as such it has actually made open world content worthless after they put in a lfg system. They have instanced basically the games with rifts, wow, and others being a hob city that you join a group from without leaving to enter the instance. Also when a pver goes out to pve he expects to get tagged by a guard that is part of pve. Actually i did not use ganking as the means to make my point except in saying that most pvper's will never deal with world pvp because they do not want to fight or be fought unfairly or have a higher level lord over them. Now also when a pvper is aout looking for pvp they do not care that you are pve'ing and you make a concious choice to attack that player, the computer is merely doing it's job by having the npc attack you, as such it has no feeling towards you. WHere as most pvper's attidute after killing a player is childish, immature, and rude with a point of annoying and insulting the pk'ed target, as such they veiw you as well as other pvper as a thorn in their fun for choosing too attack when you could have not. IT is completely flawed to compare a comp controled npc to a pvper since you have motives for what you do, yet a comp has none at all. ALso i never mensioned ganking as it is knwon in pve themeparks which is where most of the instanced pvp is, ganking in most pve themeparks is abotu killing a much lower lvl character or weaker character, yet it was about ambushing before that discription. I always make sure that when i say gank i specify it is low lvl ganking not the prior.
People use BG's to progress. IF you removed the progression from it, no one would partake in it. Period.
And what you descibe is why pvpers dont play mmos'. There is just people who pvp instead of raid for gear. Gear being the reason pvp is awful in mmos., is now the reward for pvp.
Then all bgs are is instanced confined pvp on demand for people to que for, which many pvpers would say yay i can just que and forget about looking for pvp. The progression is what a themepark is about at it's heart progressing in the story, pregressing yoru characetr's power. YOu are trying to say that unless we pvp like you we are not pvper? That is laughable if you fight against a player and are a player you are a pvperr plain as day, if you think that your style of pvp is the holy grail as well as the only way to trully pvp you need to see a doctor. IT is your belief and other pvper's belief that gear makes it aweful, and yet to others it is why they love to pvp to gain rewards and power thru fighting against another player, and so feel you earned somethign other then just merely killing another player.
Nope. The lore of the particular game tells you why you should be pvping, the style of pvp, and the goals of pvp. My point is if you remove the rewards, people would no longer partake in BG's. THAT IS WHY IT HAS REWARDS!! People would pvp because of the fun, the lore, and the interactions that make the game run and grow. Like they did before BG's and before world pvp was totally dead.
Given the choice people wont even use BG's for fun without a bribe. They have to put walls up to keep world pvp from happening too much with no incentive except the lore says this guys an enemy. This is proven in history. What youre defending is completely dependant on rewards for participation not success. Or no one would do them at all. Thats my only point. So getting rewards is fun, pvp is just a device to get rewards. AFK people love to pvp in BG's too. If losing is quicker than trying, then thats what people will do. Because pvp is about gear not winning and losing, or the great war the lore talks about.
I have no style of pvp. I just play the game until it stops being an mmorpg. I wouldnt spend 6 months in real life getting some boots in order to get some gloves to reach the next tier of boots and gloves. Wont do it in a mmorpg about the war between good and evil were just particpating even afk, gets me closer to boots. No I want to do things that arent possible in the real world. Collecting clothes that ill never use for anything else but to get more clothes isnt a fantasy. Sounds more like eternal virginity.. But vrtually killing others for that is awesome!! No idea why mmorpg players are stereotyped so harshly.
Anything for loot.
That is not completely true i would still bg pvp, just as when open world pvp began to die off i still pvped in open world, because i enjoyed both styles of it. I will admit that players would stop or change hwo they pvped if you droppeed the rewards for bgs (i will not speak for them all becuase i am not them.), but many would not they would still pvp in bgs just as other pvpers after they bg came in stayed pvping in open world. Actually thhe afk bg pvper is a small group for the most part i rarely see them in bgs, pvpers asked for a report tool to get them to have to participate in the bg instead of afking for easy rewards. YOur point is only valid for a group of pvpers not for all pvpers, it s not valid for me or the people i pvp with at all. We cann't see eye to eye on the point mostly since our groups of pvpers are different in thier mind set. Lore reasons for mmo gaming have been worthless for a long time both as a pvper as well as a pver, since most players do not care why you are doing this or that in the least they want there want their loot. Primary examples would be people when they quest, instance or even bg pvp don't take the time to read or even look at the background of the instances. Look at mmo gaming as a while the leveling (travel or adventure) is seen a tedious as wel as blocking to what the true game is abotu, which is end game (pvp or pve content.), as such developers have shortened the time it takes to get to that place.mmo gamers are also stareotyped liek that when you look at that we go from quests, instance grinding gear to get into more quests or instances as well as zones, after that we grind more instances/raids to go to the next one. It is basically to me like we are argueing with the raid/instance bosses over the price of a blouse or t shirt, and when the boss dies we won the arguement of hwo much it is. THen we move on to the next boss/teller for our nexxt arguement over more clothing to progress on in the instances. Themepark mmos now are abootu progression thru gear or lore based on what you as a player want to focus on (i actually have spent alot time pvping lore wise in open world as i leveled under the idea of being a roaming sabatuer.). In a way a none gear based or lore based (not sure who you would progress with lore since lore is largely stagent till the devs change or add more of it.) progression in a themepark would be against the entire idea of themeparks, which is to progress your characetr in the mordern mmos that is thru gear. Most pvpers would still pvp in bgs although they may not pvp as long as they do now if you took the rewards that are purely for bgs away, but they would still do it as a quick way to get in pvp, and yet people still go out into the world trying to find world pvp even now. The gear progresssion is hwo they prolong the time you spend in grinding bgs (since most are so small that you want to only play them so much, and that pvp like all content gets old.), after you had yoru fill of bgs you would go out to experince other forms of pvp.
>>an open pvp game needs to provide ample punishment , massive penalty's for unlawfull kills<<
How is it an open pvp game, then, if you can't pvp in it without being banned for a week? How do you differentiate between "lawful" and "unlawful"? If pvp is "lawful" only in some area, how exactly is it different from instanced pvp?
Your idea of what is "lawful" or "unlawful", or the possibilities of a "consequence" system seems a bit limited. Not an insult, just an observation based on your statement.
In Lineage 2, you can attack anyone, anytime, almost anywhere (except inside cities and major towns). There's nothing stopping you.
The penalty for attacking and killing someone who wasn't an actual combattant (ie. someone sitting afk, or was trying to escape, etc), makes you a "murderer" or "chaotic". Once you have murderer status, you are considered a criminal and are penalized with a number of restrictions and penalties until you either work off the penalty or enough time goes by that it dissipates on its own (a sort of statute of limitations, if you will).
What is being discussed is the idea of consequences for your actions... not limitations on them.You're free to attack anyone you want... but you're much more likely to weigh whether the act is worth the consequences.
That's the point of having a PvP system with consequences like that. It's one of the only things that keep it from becoming a pointless gank-fest.
In L2 it has certainly worked for the most part. People are much more thoughtful of who they attack in L2 than they would be in a MMO like WoW where there's no real penalty for killing an opposing player. For example, I was ganked fewer times in 4+ years playing L2 than I was inside a single week on a PvP server in WoW. I'm not exaggerating. Of course, the times I was ganked in L2 were mostly for very specific reasons (enemy player, competition for a hunting area, revenge, etc). In WoW, most of the PKs were at the hands of a much higher level player doing it for yuks, simply because they could get away with it.
'course, on a partially related note, what also contributes to that in L2 is that it's a truly open player-driven political system and there are consequences for PK'ing that are not part of the game's design but determined by the players themselves.
A player you attack and PK, especialy unprovoked, may be on an alt of a character that's in a major clan. Or, they may have friends in a powerful clan/alliance. By killing them, you could have just brought a world of pain on yourself... 'cause now you've just landed yourself on the KoS list of that guy and his friends. Congratulations, you've just earned yourself a bright read bull's eye which will be stuck to your back everywhere you go until such a time that revenge is taken, or they decide to let it go. So that's another potential consequence of it that has to be measured, at least as it works in L2. I haven't seen that level of comraderie in many other PvP MMOs, where people will come to the aid of an ally or friend like that. In other MMOs I've played, it's usually "So what if you were PK'd? It's a PvP MMO. Deal with it".
Also, what stops me from power-leveling, say, 10 characters to a relatively small level and then just switching them? So I've killed 10 pve players, got my character into jail for two weeks... tomorrow I take another char and kill those same 10 with him. That'll learn them.
Nothing. In fact there are people who do that. In L2 some players keep characters used solely for PK'ing others; they refer to them as "perma-reds".
However, the point is, you still aren't able to play that other character. And if the one you're jailed on just happens to be your "main" or the one you are focusing most on at that moment... then it's definitely a meaningful penalty. It would certainly make you think twice about PK'ing someone on that character, wouldn't it? Assuming it would, then the system has served its purpose.
One character per account? That would inconvenience everyone else. So I'm griefing everyone - EVERYONE - without even loggin in! Yay me!
Not necessarily. Depends on how the game is setup and how much can be done on that one character. In FFXI you could train all jobs on one character and then switch between them as you saw fit. Your actions as a player also tended to follow you.. if you were a jerk, people figured it out and eventually it would come back to bite you in the ass.
In L2, again, because of the game's steeeeep progression curve - especially early on - people would tend to stick to 1, maybe 2 main characters. Most of their activities, including PvP, took place on those characters. And, so, people came to know them as those characters and their reputation on the server was built around their actions on those characters, for better or worse.
Again... consequences.
See? "Harsh penalties"? Bah. Griefers will find their way around them.
If the game is set up well, Griefers "finding their way" around the rules will not save them. They can circumvent the game's rules, perhaps... but they can't circumvent the consequences for those actions... especially not where other players are concerned.
Just going to requote this..lol...
On another note...
There's more "competition" and "skill" involved with open pvp as there is in sports pvp. This is because you can get all ranges of situation. The more PvP-esque your game is, the higher the chance that you'll get into good PvP fights. When I first played Darkfall (when it came out... I quit after the free month ended because while PvP was good/challenging, I saw the game heading in to a bad direction because of how free it was), I never got griefed and I was never grossly outnumbered. It was always 1 person finding me in the world or a couple finding me and making me have to run if it was more than two-ish. If you play a game like WoW on a PvP server, most of the time it'll be unfair fights (except in AoC since you can kill a higher player 30 levels higher if you're good).
The more people involved in the opposing sides, the less the difference between the size of the forces matters and the more the logistics/strategies behind the fighting mattered.
For mmorpg players, the most exciting thing to be able to do is on a MASSIVE scale. You don't really get MASSIVELY in sports PvP/ sports PvE. There's a place for small scale and "afterthought" PvP (games that slap a PvP at the end of a server name) and there's a place for largescale and more in depth PvP (games that PvP is the only ruleset that was thought about).
The OP is playing the games that were meant for e-sporters with pretty shallow PvP mechanics. The games that had good mechanics and good depth with regards to PvP are old. The games with good depth regarding PvP are still availiable, they just don't have good enough mechanics to support playing them.
But we arent talking about games throughout history. We are talking about mmos. If you think mmorpg's are just games, then I and alot of developers would disagree with you .BTW Instanced pvp made a great south park episode!! That experience is the only experience that makes an mmo unuiqe.
So why do players choose open world pvp when both are offered and neither is rewarded? Fair is what they want, but have to be bribed to partake? Because its not about fair or even pvp maybe? Its about another gear grind treadmill perfected to be the most addictive to gear. Not addicted to pvp, or fun. Gear. The one thing that ruins pvp...yep, thats what pvp is about. This is what pvpers want? Nope nope.
Fair and balanced pvp in an instance happens as often as it does in open world too.
Players don't actually care whether MMOs are "unique". They just want a fun game. Only a tiny minority holds the "MMORPG" acronym to have some sort of innate value. Everybody else is like "Is it fun? I'll play. Is it not fun? I'm gone." MMORPGs live or die based on how good a game they are, not based on how much of a world they are.
Players wouldn't choose open world PVP when both are offered and neither rewarded. That was my point: out of all the games mankind makes, we make nearly all our PVP games balanced and without reward! People still play the hell out of them!
Your last sentence seems written wrong. Are you suggesting balanced fights happen as often in world PVP as instanced PVP?
For your last sentece... they do. The polished PvP games do. WoW, Rift, AoC are not PvP games, their mechanics are not developed enough for world PvP. They are PvE games with PvP turned on inside of them.
The currently developed PvP games are struggling because they thought players would love 100% freedom. The truth is, players do want it, but they just can't handle it. They should have first created risk, reward, and consequence to support an Open PvP world and then allowed PvP in the world. Games before seemed to understand this with some respects.
It's shallow to say that tourney games built for e-sports should have the same type of PvP mechanics as games built for massive and alternate realities.
More often than not bgs are not balanced it is only an illusion of balance and when a team that is queing as a group and using vent has wiped the floor with the pugs. Those are not balanced games. People protest and make a lot of noise complaining about those and they only stay and play for the rewards.
Open world PvP without rewards side by side to bgs, the open world lost out as evidenced in WoW because of the rewards. Can anyone give an example of an open world no reward game side by side to bgs with no rewards in the same game and data on what people picked. Did people pick the open world over the bgs when both were without rewards ?
Nothign in truth is balanced at all even world pvp s inbalaced, but having a equal number of combatanton each sides as well as an overall equal field to dight on is as close to quality in pvp as we can get without making everyone shift their gear to be the same as their opponent;s gear. World pvp is jsut as if not less equaal as well as balanced as bgs, in the simple fact that there is no controls to make a pvper no bring 3 to 20 people to camp a lone character out in the world. It has happened many times where a group of pvpers either guilded or not ramapaged over zones killing any player in thier way weather it was even by level or group size.
There is one issue with no reward in that you still as a bg pvp get to not have to search for yoru pvp combat at all, you just wait for yoru bg to come up and then enter into the bg. Rewards are a big part to why people pvp yet it is not the only reason, with alott of people not wating to have to seek out thier fun (ie wait to pvp till they find a target in the open world.). The fact that you can sit in town talking to a group of friends or other players while you wait for yoru pvp to come to you is a large lure as well, look at the lfg tool people sit in town talking when they could go quest or do other activities while they waited or even actively search for a group.
The point of talking about people with no interest in competition is to try to drive home the very obvious point that accessibility does not motivate people to PVP. Competition is the motivation.
Well done, you seem not to be able to tell the difference between what motivates someone to try something and what makes a product popular. Hunger motivates people to eat, and yet hunger alone is not the primary factor in making McDonald's more popular than another burger franchise.
So now that we've hopefully overcome the hurdle in the discussion where you think accessibility motivates people to PVP, we can move on.
Now there's irony for you...
Would reduced accessibility reduce how many people play? Of course, but that's pretty irrelevant and certainly isn't the reason we see more people prefer instanced PVP. The reasons world PVP sucks (for most people) are pretty clear:
Poor combat theatrics. You're an actor in the dull war movie about marines killing children, when you could've been in the awesome war movie about marines fighting another army.
Just no.
Infrequent combat. In the best case combat is infrequent. In the worst case, you spend excessive time recouping losses or respawning from some distant location.
Which falls under accessibilty and ease of access. Thanks for demonstrating the point.
Predetermined combat. Instead of victory being a matter of "who was more skilled?" it's decided by whoever entered battle with more friends and better gear.
We are talking about mmorpg combat here not mobas or fps which kind of invalidates that completely.Eitherway combat is far more predetermined in instanced pvp because it has less dynamic factors, you would have to be incredibily blind/biased not to see that. Oh wait...
So the underlying reason instanced PVP is more popular, created in more games, and attracts the most serious PVPers, is it's a much more accurate measurement of player skill. It's balanced competition.
In general, serious pvpers in progression based mmorpg instances with itemization? Oh you.
If you want a successful PVP game, you create an arena of balance competition, filled with interesting decisions being made all the time.
You seem to be confusing what makes people interested in generic pvp with what makes a certain form of pvp popular. This might also be the reason you are still bringing up people with zero interest in pvp whatsoever when that has absolutely fuck all impact on the debate.
People looking for pvp do so generally for the interaction against other players, that is present in all forms of player vs player be it open world or instanced.
What makes instanced pvp in mmorpgs so very popular is they can get that interaction against other players on tap, when they want, all the time and suffer little to no consequences should they lose a match. The accessibility and ease of use is what drives the popularity as it enables people to sample player vs player contact without having to spend time plotting and planning it out.
In fairness ganking and lopsided pvp occur a vast amount of the time in mmorpg instanced pvp and yet nobody moans about it, why? Because when you can just roll another match straight after and don't have to spend ages planning and setting up combat it doesn't make a difference. Which pretty much points to the fact that the popularity factor boils down to ease of use and accessibility
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
So why make a post directed at other players when the developers are the problem?
If you want game design to change you have to convince developers and more importantly investors...
So again why post here and blame the customer for the choices made by the person wanting to get the customers money?
I'd love to see a modern day Ultima Online... and I mean based on the original *live* design... its not going to happen. I don't ever see a well funded and experienced development company making that virtual world.
I also know that talking to people who have no interest in playing that game... won't help get it created. *.*
Then again I doubt talking to people who have no interest in funding that game.. is going to get created either. Tho I do believe you could find people who would love to design that game.. but don't have the 10's of millions to do so.
Comments
VAry true though at the same time for some that are more gear focused it actually highens it, sicne they see the benefit of that bracer or axe they can get in a fight, and it not sitting right is normally from a skill-based pvper/ Why i say that is that in a themepark gear centric game you are rather weak as a character, and only thru gaining more powerful gear do you become a hero or force to be reconded with, as such seeing your opponent die from the fact of you getting that piece of gear warms up some people that they time spent was worth it. IT comes to mind sets in pvp their are two fo them one is skill based with you wanting t beat your opponent with yoru superior skills, and then there is the gear mind set in which you want to defeat an opponent with your superiour gear. I have seen both of them in action in the long years i have played mmo, even in my D&D group with a player gushing over a new item or ability they gained that makes they supperior to the others.
But we arent talking about games throughout history. We are talking about mmos. If you think mmorpg's are just games, then I and alot of developers would disagree with you .BTW Instanced pvp made a great south park episode!! That experience is the only experience that makes an mmo unuiqe.
So why do players choose open world pvp when both are offered and neither is rewarded? Fair is what they want, but have to be bribed to partake? Because its not about fair or even pvp maybe? Its about another gear grind treadmill perfected to be the most addictive to gear. Not addicted to pvp, or fun. Gear. The one thing that ruins pvp...yep, thats what pvp is about. This is what pvpers want? Nope nope.
Fair and balanced pvp in an instance happens as often as it does in open world too.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
People use BG's to progress. IF you removed the progression from it, no one would partake in it. Period.
And what you descibe is why pvpers dont play mmos'. There is just people who pvp instead of raid for gear. Gear being the reason pvp is awful in mmos., is now the reward for pvp.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
That is the thing overall players do not choose open world pvp as a majority, but a miniority do choose to world pvp. Actually when the pvp in wow was relatively even in points for the bgs to open worrld pvp points the pvper;s to a large extent ggrined thier points in instanced bgs over grinding it in open world pvp unless they were already there. IF you add even fair, as well as on damand pvp compared to seek and destroy pvp in open world that happens less offen, they wil do it in the bgs plain as day. Also is it a time sink plan as day with the gear grind to mask that time sink. You can ask a hundred pvpers what pvp is and get a hundred different anwsers, i pvp for every reason out there from gear to addrenaline even as a stress release. Maybe to you the pvp is abotu gearing up to me it is abotu becoming more powerful within the context of the game, weither thru skills (hey that is a grind) or gear, but i do it as a fun enterianing activity. Which pvpers want what? If you are a skill based pvper then moving to a skill based pvp game is yoru only avenue, if you are a gear based pvp then the themepark mmos are your cup of tea, and the reason is that the game is crafted for one side not both. YOu want world pvp then look to mo, darkfall and such, since most of the pvp in the themeparks are not open world pvp (they shoudl not have their setting and concept butched for the sake of one set of pvp when another already existsgoing to a pvp centric game is al you can do. IT is sad but world pvp is pretty much dead on most large budget mmos since they have bgs, and the funny thing is a developer would not impliment as well as reward a system that would not allow them to retaiin subs, which is why world pvp is not rewarded largely in themepark mmos it has such a small impact on subs that focusing on bgs is much better. I can talk for those pvpers that are like me and that i pvp with alot, and they like instanced pvp as well as the gear grind it gives their pvp purpose outside of the combat which gets boring. So your statement abotu pvpers wanting it is false in that you do not speak for all pvpers but for your like minded ggroup of pvpers. As i said gear being the ruination of pvp is all to each pvper many pvpers find that a gear grind keeps the pvp well after they woukdl have taken a break from it, so that in itself shows that it helps to have a gear grind to keep people pvping aftr they woud have reired.
Then all bgs are is instanced confined pvp on demand for people to que for, which many pvpers would say yay i can just que and forget about looking for pvp. The progression is what a themepark is about at it's heart progressing in the story, pregressing yoru characetr's power. YOu are trying to say that unless we pvp like you we are not pvper? That is laughable if you fight against a player and are a player you are a pvperr plain as day, if you think that your style of pvp is the holy grail as well as the only way to trully pvp you need to see a doctor. IT is your belief and other pvper's belief that gear makes it aweful, and yet to others it is why they love to pvp to gain rewards and power thru fighting against another player, and so feel you earned somethign other then just merely killing another player.
Your comments are becoming progressively less factual and considerably more akin to a troll in these.
Please, provide some real and concrete definitions of what you mean instead of constantly denying things and then making wildly inaccurate comments I have to correct (just for you to turn around and deny them again with the same claim even though I just gave you more explanation).
This is getting frustrating and I can't argue with some one who can't be bothered to check their claims beyond conjecture.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Now we're getting somewhere. BG's are the developers choice to help the developer. That's my point. PVP is another gear grind treadmil for the people who fail at raiding. It increases the number of addicts. And is designed to be the most addicting not the most fun or fair. AFK pvp progression wouldnt exist if it was.
But you still think this is what pvpers really want, even after years of complaining about gear ruining pvp? No pvpers have all gone. Without them there is not much more room for growth in client based mmos. Browser based games are the only viable targets left, if you think like the suits.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
This entire discussion is silly. If you want to PvP, go play a PvP game. Don't try to play a PvE game like it is meant for open, unrestricted PvP then complain about it on the forums without even mentioning what game it is. Instead, play a game that is designed around PvP. Darkfall, Mortal, and Earthrise are the three main ones I can think of. Guess what? Those games are doing pretty poorly. They are barely scraping by because the PvP style of gameplay isn't what most people want. Hardcore PvPers are a MINORITY.
If you want to PvP, play a PvP game or stop complaining about PvEers in a PvE game, even though it is a "PvP" server.
Nope. The lore of the particular game tells you why you should be pvping, the style of pvp, and the goals of pvp. My point is if you remove the rewards, people would no longer partake in BG's. THAT IS WHY IT HAS REWARDS!! People would pvp because of the fun, the lore, and the interactions that make the game run and grow. Like they did before BG's and before world pvp was totally dead.
Given the choice people wont even use BG's for fun without a bribe. They have to put walls up to keep world pvp from happening too much with no incentive except the lore says this guys an enemy. This is proven in history. What youre defending is completely dependant on rewards for participation not success. Or no one would do them at all. Thats my only point. So getting rewards is fun, pvp is just a device to get rewards. AFK people love to pvp in BG's too. If losing is quicker than trying, then thats what people will do. Because pvp is about gear not winning and losing, or the great war the lore talks about.
I have no style of pvp. I just play the game until it stops being an mmorpg. I wouldnt spend 6 months in real life getting some boots in order to get some gloves to reach the next tier of boots and gloves. Wont do it in a mmorpg about the war between good and evil were just particpating even afk, gets me closer to boots. No I want to do things that arent possible in the real world. Collecting clothes that ill never use for anything else but to get more clothes isnt a fantasy. Sounds more like eternal virginity.. But vrtually killing others for that is awesome!! No idea why mmorpg players are stereotyped so harshly.
Anything for loot.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Thats what people do. Except they leave the genre totally.
The games you desribe would do just as poorly, probably worse as pve games? know why?
Are they doing better than tabula rasa or auto assault or AC2 or the matrix or apb or the sims online? Bad games are bad games.
Hardcore anything is a minority. Design a game totally about raiding a see how it does. Extemes dont make a point. PVP is offered and its in the best interest of all that the game does well.
Dont worry, you pve'ers are gonna get tossed for the socials....your time will come too. They'll be like questing is for a small minority, if you like that go play maplestory.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Please, I'm trying to hope you're not a troll Nerf.
In six hours of gameplay you can see anywhere from a dozen to no ants depending on what you're doing. Your claim is flat out false.
You 'can fire the BFR mortar directly, and yes that's is the most common use. But players can also take a targeter and mark for it.
At least you finally got the point about towers, but you are still trying to rail home that broken comment that is wrong. The state of the game one month after release is hardly the same as it is now, eight years later. Sure there's many ways in which the mechanics are still broken and will never be fixed, but at least make the effort to find out what is current.
You mean the command tools for painting targets, making requisition requests (that everyone can do, not only commanders), marking personal and group locations, the chat options for commanders to use global communications, and the rest of those? I could.
Bases are not only frontline locations in Planetside. Only a few at any given moment are being fought over usually, and the rest are the ones that have to actually supply the battle. I said 'facilities make them' because they are, like I compared, held as stock at those facilities.
You did not say one resource is insufficient. You might have intended to (noting your past occasion of actually mentioning 'one resource' that was garbled into another sentence), but you did not.
And then your tank comment!
I clearly stated the procedure of spawning a tank and shuttling it. No combat, no marauding about to fight. You aren't driving around in the thing, it's loaded in the back of a transport vehicle THAT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE GUNS and transported to the battlefront!
What about that don't you get? People aren't just hopping in tanks and then just shooting. Spawning a tank at a facility in the middle of combat is a rediculous idea to say the least because you and your vehicle are more likely to explode before you can do anything else.
Hence why I mentioned the Lodestar and tank transportation. They added the Lodestar to the game because players were constantly having to move and supply/maintain vehicles outside of combat and into combat. The Lodestar can not be used for combat and if flown in has minimal armor and capacity to survive, making it an in-fight improbability to use for hot drops of heavy vehicles.
It is a purely logistical vehicle used solely to do the exact thing you keep trying to claim doesn't happen. You aren't in combat. You aren't putting about hunting people. You are quite literally getting the two man crew, vehicle, pilot, and transport vehicle set up and then using them to move vehicles on the backlines to supply the frontlines with new vehicles and maintenance.
Not everything to me is logistics. I have consistently cited aspects of the game that happen outside of combat and supply the ability to perform combat, nothing to do with the combat itself. It is your inability to admit that any of this could even be possible and as a result completely ignoring what I actually say to instead maintain the ill conceived idea that people just spawn run and gun in Planetside.
Your fault and your inability to define your own concept, not mine.
20 metres not feet. granted that only expands the radius to 65 feet.
Compare that to a howitzer firing fragmentation that hits lethally in 30 meters and account for scale.
An old cannon that tears up the troops and land in 500 feet by bouncing around is neither as accurate, powerful on impact, nor as consequently effective due to uncontrolled colatteral damage. The effective 'blast radius' of atrillery, like with other weapons and explosive weapons, has gotten smaller and more concentrated over time.
Add that the flail is still firing at thinfa a half a kilometer or more away, and you're doing an ok emulation of more modern weaponry.
I all ready mentioned player spawns as well as the ability to destroy and disable fixed spawns.
Logistics is simulated. You very apparently play the wrong genres and wrong games to see it.
You cap facilities. Call them flags if you want. But those are some damn complex flags with a damn lot of implications tied to eaxh one that you have to dramatically oversimplyfy and flat out ignore in order to make the claim they are simply spots on the map to trade between teams.
See you are lying. Or conveniently forgetting things over and over. Stop claiming something that exists doesn't exist.
And occasionally provide some real information. I'll have to report you sooner or later if you don't. That's not a threat because I would much prefer to have a real conversation, but if you aren't capable of having one then dragging on talking to a brick wall doesn't help me
EDIT: And stop dropping some of corrections I make just because you can't respond to them.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Yet many who pvp actualy also raid and vis versa, in truth the stand alone pvper and pver are dieing out vary quuickly. The afk pvper are a small group of pvpers in most themeparks with many who actually pvp in bgs wantig to finsih or atleast put up a fight, before losing for whatever reason. Also the afk pvper happens from the fact that they points yhou gain from bging have a minimum reward, now if you made it that you had to partisipate and the game/mmo actually measured how much you fought compared to the other people in yoru bg, and if you were not within a certain percentage of output it would negate your reward people would not afk. Any system with a static reward system weither you participents like and enjoy it or not will have afker, because human nature is to seek the path of less resistant atleast for alot of people it is. In my own personal opinion they shhould make it that based on your output in the battle ground your end reward is given, meaning if you do not participate or end up with a vary small amoount of output in the bg you get no or a snall reward for that participation.
Vary much so but not for ever pvper out there since to a skill or none themepark gear0grind type of pvper it is not somethign they like, but yet to those that like the reward that coes with also being able to fight how we wish, and when we wish it is nice to see. The issue is that you thik that every pvper is like you or those you call a pvper, and if they are not then they are something other then a pvp, but pvp is about player vs player fihgt not one certain system of pvp as such anyone particapating in pvp content is a pvper. It was not everyone that complaining abotu gear oor bgs ruining pvp, but it was a group of pvpers that did do this most of which prefered a more skill (mo, darkfall) style of pvp over the gear based one in most themeparks. These types of pvpers have largely left the themepark bg mmos for other games, while those that actually enjoy aquiring gear while they pvp are the ones left, with some of the pvpers that would rather not bg pvp left since they do not want try and find antoher game so will wade thru the bg style. There are jsut as many pvper that complain (if not more from many pvper that i talk to in game.) about open world pvp as well as no reward pvp on the basis it is boring after they have been doing it for so long. Before you say it they are pvpers they enjoy the pvp style of cotent as well as plike to fight a person over an ai, which makes them a pvper like it or not they particiate in pvp content as such they are pvpers.
Now that is a wall of text.
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
Quote from animal farm that may apply here. All are PvPers but obviously the op considers some pvpers better or more elite
Players don't actually care whether MMOs are "unique". They just want a fun game. Only a tiny minority holds the "MMORPG" acronym to have some sort of innate value. Everybody else is like "Is it fun? I'll play. Is it not fun? I'm gone." MMORPGs live or die based on how good a game they are, not based on how much of a world they are.
Players wouldn't choose open world PVP when both are offered and neither rewarded. That was my point: out of all the games mankind makes, we make nearly all our PVP games balanced and without reward! People still play the hell out of them!
Your last sentence seems written wrong. Are you suggesting balanced fights happen as often in world PVP as instanced PVP?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Oh, wow.
I had initially mistaken your posts for serious discussion.
It's clear now that's not the case.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
More often than not bgs are not balanced it is only an illusion of balance and when a team that is queing as a group and using vent has wiped the floor with the pugs. Those are not balanced games. People protest and make a lot of noise complaining about those and they only stay and play for the rewards.
Open world PvP without rewards side by side to bgs, the open world lost out as evidenced in WoW because of the rewards. Can anyone give an example of an open world no reward game side by side to bgs with no rewards in the same game and data on what people picked. Did people pick the open world over the bgs when both were without rewards ?
That is not completely true i would still bg pvp, just as when open world pvp began to die off i still pvped in open world, because i enjoyed both styles of it. I will admit that players would stop or change hwo they pvped if you droppeed the rewards for bgs (i will not speak for them all becuase i am not them.), but many would not they would still pvp in bgs just as other pvpers after they bg came in stayed pvping in open world. Actually thhe afk bg pvper is a small group for the most part i rarely see them in bgs, pvpers asked for a report tool to get them to have to participate in the bg instead of afking for easy rewards. YOur point is only valid for a group of pvpers not for all pvpers, it s not valid for me or the people i pvp with at all. We cann't see eye to eye on the point mostly since our groups of pvpers are different in thier mind set. Lore reasons for mmo gaming have been worthless for a long time both as a pvper as well as a pver, since most players do not care why you are doing this or that in the least they want there want their loot. Primary examples would be people when they quest, instance or even bg pvp don't take the time to read or even look at the background of the instances. Look at mmo gaming as a while the leveling (travel or adventure) is seen a tedious as wel as blocking to what the true game is abotu, which is end game (pvp or pve content.), as such developers have shortened the time it takes to get to that place.mmo gamers are also stareotyped liek that when you look at that we go from quests, instance grinding gear to get into more quests or instances as well as zones, after that we grind more instances/raids to go to the next one. It is basically to me like we are argueing with the raid/instance bosses over the price of a blouse or t shirt, and when the boss dies we won the arguement of hwo much it is. THen we move on to the next boss/teller for our nexxt arguement over more clothing to progress on in the instances. Themepark mmos now are abootu progression thru gear or lore based on what you as a player want to focus on (i actually have spent alot time pvping lore wise in open world as i leveled under the idea of being a roaming sabatuer.). In a way a none gear based or lore based (not sure who you would progress with lore since lore is largely stagent till the devs change or add more of it.) progression in a themepark would be against the entire idea of themeparks, which is to progress your characetr in the mordern mmos that is thru gear. Most pvpers would still pvp in bgs although they may not pvp as long as they do now if you took the rewards that are purely for bgs away, but they would still do it as a quick way to get in pvp, and yet people still go out into the world trying to find world pvp even now. The gear progresssion is hwo they prolong the time you spend in grinding bgs (since most are so small that you want to only play them so much, and that pvp like all content gets old.), after you had yoru fill of bgs you would go out to experince other forms of pvp.
Can you please use some paragraphs I have difficulty reading that.
Just going to requote this..lol...
On another note...
There's more "competition" and "skill" involved with open pvp as there is in sports pvp. This is because you can get all ranges of situation. The more PvP-esque your game is, the higher the chance that you'll get into good PvP fights. When I first played Darkfall (when it came out... I quit after the free month ended because while PvP was good/challenging, I saw the game heading in to a bad direction because of how free it was), I never got griefed and I was never grossly outnumbered. It was always 1 person finding me in the world or a couple finding me and making me have to run if it was more than two-ish. If you play a game like WoW on a PvP server, most of the time it'll be unfair fights (except in AoC since you can kill a higher player 30 levels higher if you're good).
The more people involved in the opposing sides, the less the difference between the size of the forces matters and the more the logistics/strategies behind the fighting mattered.
For mmorpg players, the most exciting thing to be able to do is on a MASSIVE scale. You don't really get MASSIVELY in sports PvP/ sports PvE. There's a place for small scale and "afterthought" PvP (games that slap a PvP at the end of a server name) and there's a place for largescale and more in depth PvP (games that PvP is the only ruleset that was thought about).
The OP is playing the games that were meant for e-sporters with pretty shallow PvP mechanics. The games that had good mechanics and good depth with regards to PvP are old. The games with good depth regarding PvP are still availiable, they just don't have good enough mechanics to support playing them.
For your last sentece... they do. The polished PvP games do. WoW, Rift, AoC are not PvP games, their mechanics are not developed enough for world PvP. They are PvE games with PvP turned on inside of them.
The currently developed PvP games are struggling because they thought players would love 100% freedom. The truth is, players do want it, but they just can't handle it. They should have first created risk, reward, and consequence to support an Open PvP world and then allowed PvP in the world. Games before seemed to understand this with some respects.
It's shallow to say that tourney games built for e-sports should have the same type of PvP mechanics as games built for massive and alternate realities.
Nothign in truth is balanced at all even world pvp s inbalaced, but having a equal number of combatanton each sides as well as an overall equal field to dight on is as close to quality in pvp as we can get without making everyone shift their gear to be the same as their opponent;s gear. World pvp is jsut as if not less equaal as well as balanced as bgs, in the simple fact that there is no controls to make a pvper no bring 3 to 20 people to camp a lone character out in the world. It has happened many times where a group of pvpers either guilded or not ramapaged over zones killing any player in thier way weather it was even by level or group size.
There is one issue with no reward in that you still as a bg pvp get to not have to search for yoru pvp combat at all, you just wait for yoru bg to come up and then enter into the bg. Rewards are a big part to why people pvp yet it is not the only reason, with alott of people not wating to have to seek out thier fun (ie wait to pvp till they find a target in the open world.). The fact that you can sit in town talking to a group of friends or other players while you wait for yoru pvp to come to you is a large lure as well, look at the lfg tool people sit in town talking when they could go quest or do other activities while they waited or even actively search for a group.
You seem to be confusing what makes people interested in generic pvp with what makes a certain form of pvp popular. This might also be the reason you are still bringing up people with zero interest in pvp whatsoever when that has absolutely fuck all impact on the debate.
People looking for pvp do so generally for the interaction against other players, that is present in all forms of player vs player be it open world or instanced.
What makes instanced pvp in mmorpgs so very popular is they can get that interaction against other players on tap, when they want, all the time and suffer little to no consequences should they lose a match. The accessibility and ease of use is what drives the popularity as it enables people to sample player vs player contact without having to spend time plotting and planning it out.
In fairness ganking and lopsided pvp occur a vast amount of the time in mmorpg instanced pvp and yet nobody moans about it, why? Because when you can just roll another match straight after and don't have to spend ages planning and setting up combat it doesn't make a difference. Which pretty much points to the fact that the popularity factor boils down to ease of use and accessibility
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
So why make a post directed at other players when the developers are the problem?
If you want game design to change you have to convince developers and more importantly investors...
So again why post here and blame the customer for the choices made by the person wanting to get the customers money?
I'd love to see a modern day Ultima Online... and I mean based on the original *live* design... its not going to happen. I don't ever see a well funded and experienced development company making that virtual world.
I also know that talking to people who have no interest in playing that game... won't help get it created. *.*
Then again I doubt talking to people who have no interest in funding that game.. is going to get created either. Tho I do believe you could find people who would love to design that game.. but don't have the 10's of millions to do so.