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.
True.
You'll probably see it come back after the current stagnation/ same-old-same-old is milked dry. I don't think anyone will be able to top SW:TOR's Themepark if it's as polished and KOTOR as they say it is. I'm not saying it'll beat WoW's subs, I'm just saying it'll be a better -->game<---.
Things always come back again. It might be 10 more years, though.
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.
MMORPGs are games. MMORPGs are not on a pedestal of their own. One of the reasons why they became popular is that new MMORPGs embraced their inner "gaminess".
I have tons of memories from instanced PvP and I remember any number of instances where someone did something which then changed the metagame later. You're wrong if you think that instanced PvP doesn't create history.
Infact, in Eve Online, huge number of people watch the Alliance Tournament matches, instanced PvP, on a stream. They also talk about the matches afterwards: who beat who, what build did they use, how well they played, what happened during the match. All this happened too in Guild Wars 1 which had all of its PvP instanced and anyone could watch the top matches on observer mode.
People remember and talk about epic matches in Starcraft, CS, Quake, LoL, DotA - any RTS, FPS, MOBA, sports or racing game - any game with instanced PvP. It is just outright wrong to claim that people don't create history outside openworld PvP.
Everyone I played with in Warhammer Online preferred the scenarios over the RvR even when the RvR had loot which couldn't be otherwise obtained. There was no gear grind in the scenarios as far as I remember. We just qued in and had tons of fun.
I am quite amazed by your claims. Amazed because they are so wrong.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
What steps do you all intend to take to stop this problem then ?
Not to play the MMOs in question. I will (personally) only support innovative MMOs. If GW2 ends up being a bust, I'll probably switch to singleplayer games full time...Skyrim, Assassin's Creed...hmm...anno 1707...those kind of games. I have more hours played in Fallout 3, than I do in my 3 years of WoW.
GW2 is the most innovative MMO on the horizon. At least from the videos I've seen of it, and what Arenanet has said...however, like I said, it may end up as a bust. At least it is sounding they want to do something different than all the WoW clones that are coming out.
But yeah...it is GW2 or bust for me.
There are of course other innovative MMOs out already...Ryzom...EVE...being my favorite ones. But Ryzom item variety (in terms of looks) is lacking, and it is way too grindy. EVE is too PvP focused.
Till then, it will be Skyrim I imagine (with mods) I'll have hundreds and hundreds of hours into it.
Yes but what if the games you avoid continue to grow and the ones you support remain small or even what if GW 2 is a bust. Meanwhile you would have left this genre and something you love , is that the way to handle it by giving up the things we love and turning our backs on the games we do not like.
Yes but what if the games you avoid continue to grow and the ones you support remain small or even what if GW 2 is a bust. Meanwhile you would have left this genre and something you love , is that the way to handle it by giving up the things we love and turning our backs on the games we do not like.
But that's the thing- it's no longer something beloved when the games go in such a fundamentally different direction than what was loved. Far better in my mind to have loved and lost than to keep lowering expectations and settle for a game (or even genre for that matter) that you don't enjoy.
Either remove Instanced PvP from PvP Servers OR remove incentive from the Instanced PvP Games via PvP Server.
so am i right in assuming you mean that they removed all pvp only servers? That's weird in itself. They need to do is make pvp server code different from pve in that world games are open and ready. Secondly. i think it's hilarious that you actually believe PVE'ers actually had anything to do with this complaint. It's not pve'ers who change pvp it's the pvp'ers who change them. Pvp has killed multiple games in my time playing mmo's to the point of it just being a stupid pass time. If you want pvp so badly why not go and play one of those idiotic mind numbing FPS games i hear soooo much about that way you can get your nerd rage rocks off and yell at people over your headset in your living room.
PVP should have a separate code for handing abilities vs players so it doesn't interfere with the standard pve abilities that inlfuences raids or solo content. This is easy to do btw from a programming side and allows the devs to instantly change something in the pvp side without affecting the entire game. oh and before someone talks about cost, this is lucasarts we're talking about not some tiny no money company.
PVP servers should have open world events for pvp not instances i agree, this code could be different for pvp servers then pve it shouldn't be that much of an issue playing with two shards. again, buttloads of money here...not and issue.
PVP is only ruined by softcore pvp'ers and actual imbalances in classes that never get fixed.
Originally posted by cheyane Yes but what if the games you avoid continue to grow and the ones you support remain small or even what if GW 2 is a bust. Meanwhile you would have left this genre and something you love , is that the way to handle it by giving up the things we love and turning our backs on the games we do not like.
'Adapt or Die'. If a type of game is not financially viable, it's not. No amount of complaining or point listing will help it. Learn to like what's available, or find something else to do.
Your other option is to round up fifty million dollars and make the kind of game you like, and then hope that there are enough people who also like it to make money so the market shifts a bit.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
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.
Every fight I ever had in EVE or DF was a one-sided slaughter where one or the other side had zero hope of victory. 95% of world PVP fights I have in themeparks are the same.
If you take a 5v5 and suddenly let one side bring 5 more friends, that is not more balanced. It's less balanced (or at best equal.)
And you make the common mistake of assuming MMORPGs aren't games. They live or die on being good games. Whether they're massive or alternate realities is simply irrelevant to most players. Therefore the same rules of what makes PVP good apply (and it's clear that they've worked, given the popularity of WOW style PVP.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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
The discussion, simply put, is this:
World PVP isn't popular.
Why? Because it's bad PVP.
Why's it bad? The reasons I listed before, (worse, infrequent, and predetermined combat,) and probably some I missed.
Those are the facts of what people are playing and paying for. You may not agree with my breakdown (you certainly don't feel the same way personally), you can't disagree that world PVP is less popular because most players find it to be worse PVP. All you can do is state a personal preference for world PVP.
Ganking doesn't occur in instanced PVP, because in instanced PVP it's purely about PVP. You can't be ganked.
Lopsided PVP still occurs. When it's due to progression (non-skill factor), it unbalances PVP and makes it less interesting. When it's due to skill, PVP is balanced and that player deserves to win. And hopefully the game can match that player up with someone of near-equal skill so that those two can have better combat theatrics.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Every fight I ever had in EVE or DF was a one-sided slaughter where one or the other side had zero hope of victory. 95% of world PVP fights I have in themeparks are the same.
If you take a 5v5 and suddenly let one side bring 5 more friends, that is not more balanced. It's less balanced (or at best equal.)
And you make the common mistake of assuming MMORPGs aren't games. They live or die on being good games. Whether they're massive or alternate realities is simply irrelevant to most players. Therefore the same rules of what makes PVP good apply (and it's clear that they've worked, given the popularity of WOW style PVP.)
Boom. Right there. You just exposed yourself.
If that was your experience in either of those games (both of which I have played extensively), you were either a) terrible at both games and quit before learning anything about them, or b) picked terrible corps/clans, and never really got to experience how great the PVP can be in either title.
Either way, when I read your incessant posts about PVP and sandboxes, I'm not going to able to take you seriously. You simply do not have the experience to know what the heck you're talking about.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Has it occurred to you that if you dismiss Axehilt out of hand you might not have much success with investers or developers that think like him. You have to find more convincing arguments not just give up and say a person is not worth talking to or respecting ,by just putting them down you have not gained anything just perhaps only solidifying his point of view.
What do you think has lead to the the scarcity of world PvP over bgs and should you not try to find better ways to advance your points of views without alienating people . Help them see your point of view and while on that subject it is also pointless to blame PvEers because they are just merely lobbying for thier interests and they seemed to have gained more purchase if like the op says they are ruining pvp servers.
Why's it bad? The reasons I listed before, (worse, infrequent, and predetermined combat,) and probably some I missed.
No that is not "the discussion" I am having and you are responding to at all. This is about what makes instanced mmorpg so popular, not what makes open world pvp unpopular in Axehilt's opinion. No wonder you seem to be struggling if you don't grasp what you are trying to argue against in the first place...
Those are the facts of what people are playing and paying for. You may not agree with my breakdown (you certainly don't feel the same way personally), you can't disagree that world PVP is less popular because most players find it to be worse PVP. All you can do is state a personal preference for world PVP.
Ganking doesn't occur in instanced PVP, because in instanced PVP it's purely about PVP. You can't be ganked.
Haha, oh wow.
Lopsided PVP still occurs. When it's due to progression (non-skill factor), it unbalances PVP and makes it less interesting. When it's due to skill, PVP is balanced and that player deserves to win. And hopefully the game can match that player up with someone of near-equal skill so that those two can have better combat theatrics.
Hello, we are talking about mmorpgs, which have progression metrics.
Instanced pvp in mmorpgs is as popular as it is because of accessibilty and ease of use. You have still failed to come up with any reasonable counter to that.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
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?
Yet no one would participate in BG's without the reward. Thats why they are rewarded. If people played the hell out of them for fun devs wouldnt need to add rewards. Yet they NEED to add them to BG's. Why? Explain the need to add rewards that hinder the activity, make it less fair, less fun if they didnt need to. Let's start there and maybe we can have a serious discussion:)
I assume you disagree that pvp was purposely transformed into a gear grind because it benefited the devs.
Fair fights rarely happen anywhere. People always look for an advantage. BG's are responsible for some of the lamest unfair pvp ever seen. We can nitpick each to death if you want.
Really want you to change my mind btw.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Instanced pvp in mmorpgs is as popular as it is because of accessibilty and ease of use. You have still failed to come up with any reasonable counter to that.
If by "ease of use" you mean "It's easier and much more common to have good, fun fights" then we're in agreement.
It's superior PVP design. No question.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Remove instanced PvP all together, hell for that matter remove instanced PvE too.
Create super huge land masses with sectioned off areas , underground dungeons (like in DAoC) or huge mansions/castles that are used as a source for PvE groups.
Have resource driven PvP objectives to foster combat, such as guild claimable keeps or better yet cities. The thing that makes world PvP in games like AC and DAoC is you fight for resources, whether they be spots where the mobs drop more greater then average loot or crafting materials, or a location that have quicker spawns or spawns that grant a greater XP reward. you could also have guild/alliance/faction (I prefer the first 2) claimable cities & Keeps that lets those groups fight over.
Anytime you foster world PvP through group resource driven goals (as above), instead of character specific goals (i.e. honor points or PvP gear) you cater to the lowest common denominator and remove incentive for people working together.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Every fight I ever had in EVE or DF was a one-sided slaughter where one or the other side had zero hope of victory. 95% of world PVP fights I have in themeparks are the same.
If you take a 5v5 and suddenly let one side bring 5 more friends, that is not more balanced. It's less balanced (or at best equal.)
And you make the common mistake of assuming MMORPGs aren't games. They live or die on being good games. Whether they're massive or alternate realities is simply irrelevant to most players. Therefore the same rules of what makes PVP good apply (and it's clear that they've worked, given the popularity of WOW style PVP.)
Boom. Right there. You just exposed yourself.
If that was your experience in either of those games (both of which I have played extensively), you were either a) terrible at both games and quit before learning anything about them, or b) picked terrible corps/clans, and never really got to experience how great the PVP can be in either title.
Either way, when I read your incessant posts about PVP and sandboxes, I'm not going to able to take you seriously. You simply do not have the experience to know what the heck you're talking about.
Very common, but alas very weak argument. Is that really the only reason you can come up with why people don't like open world PvP? That they haven't had enough experience?
I played Eve for 13 months, was a co-CEO and an FC in a PvP corp in a PvP alliance who held sovereignty in nullsec and the region we were, was commonly one of the most violent regions in the game. No shortage of action then. My responsibilities included training and teaching new recruits how to PvP. Many vets who had older characters than I, commended my abilities.
Still I think much the same way as Axehilt. Is that not enough experience for you?
Action is more scarce in open world PvP and great majority of times that action is one-sided. I pick well made instanced PvP anyday.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Instanced pvp in mmorpgs is as popular as it is because of accessibilty and ease of use. You have still failed to come up with any reasonable counter to that.
You forgot 'Because some people like the idea of a fair fight'.
Just look at pretty much all sports ever (Including things like martial arts). They all extoll the virtue of a fair fight, balanced sides (In numbers, anyway, if not neccessarily skill) and such.
You don't go to a soccer match where the referee says 'Okay, to make this more interesting, it's an 11 on 3 match today. Also, if you can ambush the 3 people from behind, that's cool. Today is a 'I don't care if there's fouls' day.
The concept of sports and fair play is deeply ingrained in society, and what people expect.
You know where they team up multiple people on one, and there's a strong 'anything goes' mentality?
Pro wrestling.
Not that I'm suggesting that open PvP holds a strong resemblance to pro wrestling.
Instanced pvp in mmorpgs is as popular as it is because of accessibilty and ease of use. You have still failed to come up with any reasonable counter to that.
You forgot 'Because some people like the idea of a fair fight'.
Just look at pretty much all sports ever (Including things like martial arts). They all extoll the virtue of a fair fight, balanced sides (In numbers, anyway, if not neccessarily skill) and such.
You don't go to a soccer match where the referee says 'Okay, to make this more interesting, it's an 11 on 3 match today. Also, if you can ambush the 3 people from behind, that's cool. Today is a 'I don't care if there's fouls' day.
The concept of sports and fair play is deeply ingrained in society, and what people expect.
You know where they team up multiple people on one, and there's a strong 'anything goes' mentality?
Pro wrestling.
Not that I'm suggesting that open PvP holds a strong resemblance to pro wrestling.
But fair fights and gear grinds are 2 different things. But BG proponents wont admit it, nor will they give up the rewards. We understand they're fair, but they only became more popular when rewards were only offered to that specific form of pvp. And to people whether they succeed or not. It's simply a gear grind. A fair one hehe.
Faction vs faction. We can tell which is better by their pants. Awesome lore there.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Very common, but alas very weak argument. Is that really the only reason you can come up with why people don't like open world PvP? That they haven't had enough experience? When they say that "Every fight I ever had in EVE or DF was a one-sided slaughter where one or the other side had zero hope of victory," I most certainly do. Franky, how could you not?
I played Eve for 13 months, was a co-CEO and an FC in a PvP corp in a PvP alliance who held sovereignty in nullsec and the region we were, was commonly one of the most violent regions in the game. No shortage of action then. My responsibilities included training and teaching new recruits how to PvP. Many vets who had older characters than I, commended my abilities.
Still I think much the same way as Axehilt. Is that not enough experience for you? I can't help you there, I'm afraid.
Action is more scarce in open world PvP and great majority of times that action is one-sided. I pick well made instanced PvP anyday. Fair enough. Personally, I can't stand everything being overly and artificially fair every time all the time. I never pick on noobs and in fact help them out whenever I possibly can. It's just that I relish in not easily knowing how things will turn out. It raises the level of unpredictability and can often times increase adrenaline release.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
PvPers ruin PvP. Mostly, the balance babies....They see mto thin keverything should have the same power against anything else, instead of a proper paper/rock/scissors style of balance. But no, things get changed for the PvEers which are the vast majority, but pvPers see mto encompass the biggest forum whiners, so they mess up balance over and over trying to pander to the 10% who happens to be the loudest crybabies in the game.
Instanced pvp in mmorpgs is as popular as it is because of accessibilty and ease of use. You have still failed to come up with any reasonable counter to that.
You forgot 'Because some people like the idea of a fair fight'.
Just look at pretty much all sports ever (Including things like martial arts). They all extoll the virtue of a fair fight, balanced sides (In numbers, anyway, if not neccessarily skill) and such.
You don't go to a soccer match where the referee says 'Okay, to make this more interesting, it's an 11 on 3 match today. Also, if you can ambush the 3 people from behind, that's cool. Today is a 'I don't care if there's fouls' day.
The concept of sports and fair play is deeply ingrained in society, and what people expect.
You know where they team up multiple people on one, and there's a strong 'anything goes' mentality?
Pro wrestling.
Not that I'm suggesting that open PvP holds a strong resemblance to pro wrestling.
but not all MMO players want to do sports when they log in.
believe it or not, but there are actually players who want to play a Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game, in a persistent world, were character development, strategy, planning and teamwork on a massive scale (like alliances, territory control, etc) are important - not fast and shallow deathmatches.
that's why PvP in sandbox games are more about unexpected situations, player politics and total freedom, than about "fair" fights trying to simulate some kind of sports logic on a static playfield.
besides, instanced PvP games are not necessarily "fair" - I remember in WAR, high-ranked players from the top guilds would steamroll PUGs all day long in scenarios.
it didn't matter if you where a low-ranked solo player with crap gear, you still got thrown in there together with some random players (often in a group with a totally random class combination) and then you where supposed to fight against six high-ranked players with top-end gear, on vent and using the ultimate class setup.
15 minutes of pure humiliation.
so those trying to argue that instanced PvP is "pure" PvP without ganking are totally clueless, as are those trying to argue that PvP is about "fair" fights.
PvP is about winning, in any way you can, and anyone claiming otherwise is just doing scrub talk.
PvPers ruin PvP. Mostly, the balance babies....They see mto thin keverything should have the same power against anything else, instead of a proper paper/rock/scissors style of balance. But no, things get changed for the PvEers which are the vast majority, but pvPers see mto encompass the biggest forum whiners, so they mess up balance over and over trying to pander to the 10% who happens to be the loudest crybabies in the game.
PvPers ruin PvE games. Not visa-versa.
LOL, no thats developer BS. They change and nerf classes on purpose, it's part of how they keep people playing. The only balance devs give a shit about is pve balance. Is the instance to hard or not ect..If they wanted pvp balance they would have balanced it. this is what ive heard, i dunno if its true.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Comments
True.
You'll probably see it come back after the current stagnation/ same-old-same-old is milked dry. I don't think anyone will be able to top SW:TOR's Themepark if it's as polished and KOTOR as they say it is. I'm not saying it'll beat WoW's subs, I'm just saying it'll be a better -->game<---.
Things always come back again. It might be 10 more years, though.
MMORPGs are games. MMORPGs are not on a pedestal of their own. One of the reasons why they became popular is that new MMORPGs embraced their inner "gaminess".
I have tons of memories from instanced PvP and I remember any number of instances where someone did something which then changed the metagame later. You're wrong if you think that instanced PvP doesn't create history.
Infact, in Eve Online, huge number of people watch the Alliance Tournament matches, instanced PvP, on a stream. They also talk about the matches afterwards: who beat who, what build did they use, how well they played, what happened during the match. All this happened too in Guild Wars 1 which had all of its PvP instanced and anyone could watch the top matches on observer mode.
People remember and talk about epic matches in Starcraft, CS, Quake, LoL, DotA - any RTS, FPS, MOBA, sports or racing game - any game with instanced PvP. It is just outright wrong to claim that people don't create history outside openworld PvP.
Everyone I played with in Warhammer Online preferred the scenarios over the RvR even when the RvR had loot which couldn't be otherwise obtained. There was no gear grind in the scenarios as far as I remember. We just qued in and had tons of fun.
I am quite amazed by your claims. Amazed because they are so wrong.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
It isn't just modern MMOers destroying PvP servers/games.
They've absolutely destroyed LOTRO...Turbine (I guess at request of players), have made their game EASIER THAN WoW
How fail is that?
Not to play the MMOs in question. I will (personally) only support innovative MMOs. If GW2 ends up being a bust, I'll probably switch to singleplayer games full time...Skyrim, Assassin's Creed...hmm...anno 1707...those kind of games. I have more hours played in Fallout 3, than I do in my 3 years of WoW.
GW2 is the most innovative MMO on the horizon. At least from the videos I've seen of it, and what Arenanet has said...however, like I said, it may end up as a bust. At least it is sounding they want to do something different than all the WoW clones that are coming out.
But yeah...it is GW2 or bust for me.
There are of course other innovative MMOs out already...Ryzom...EVE...being my favorite ones. But Ryzom item variety (in terms of looks) is lacking, and it is way too grindy. EVE is too PvP focused.
Till then, it will be Skyrim
I imagine (with mods) I'll have hundreds and hundreds of hours into it.
Yes but what if the games you avoid continue to grow and the ones you support remain small or even what if GW 2 is a bust. Meanwhile you would have left this genre and something you love , is that the way to handle it by giving up the things we love and turning our backs on the games we do not like.
But that's the thing- it's no longer something beloved when the games go in such a fundamentally different direction than what was loved. Far better in my mind to have loved and lost than to keep lowering expectations and settle for a game (or even genre for that matter) that you don't enjoy.
so am i right in assuming you mean that they removed all pvp only servers? That's weird in itself. They need to do is make pvp server code different from pve in that world games are open and ready. Secondly. i think it's hilarious that you actually believe PVE'ers actually had anything to do with this complaint. It's not pve'ers who change pvp it's the pvp'ers who change them. Pvp has killed multiple games in my time playing mmo's to the point of it just being a stupid pass time. If you want pvp so badly why not go and play one of those idiotic mind numbing FPS games i hear soooo much about that way you can get your nerd rage rocks off and yell at people over your headset in your living room.
PVP should have a separate code for handing abilities vs players so it doesn't interfere with the standard pve abilities that inlfuences raids or solo content. This is easy to do btw from a programming side and allows the devs to instantly change something in the pvp side without affecting the entire game. oh and before someone talks about cost, this is lucasarts we're talking about not some tiny no money company.
PVP servers should have open world events for pvp not instances i agree, this code could be different for pvp servers then pve it shouldn't be that much of an issue playing with two shards. again, buttloads of money here...not and issue.
PVP is only ruined by softcore pvp'ers and actual imbalances in classes that never get fixed.
'Adapt or Die'. If a type of game is not financially viable, it's not. No amount of complaining or point listing will help it. Learn to like what's available, or find something else to do.
Your other option is to round up fifty million dollars and make the kind of game you like, and then hope that there are enough people who also like it to make money so the market shifts a bit.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Every fight I ever had in EVE or DF was a one-sided slaughter where one or the other side had zero hope of victory. 95% of world PVP fights I have in themeparks are the same.
If you take a 5v5 and suddenly let one side bring 5 more friends, that is not more balanced. It's less balanced (or at best equal.)
And you make the common mistake of assuming MMORPGs aren't games. They live or die on being good games. Whether they're massive or alternate realities is simply irrelevant to most players. Therefore the same rules of what makes PVP good apply (and it's clear that they've worked, given the popularity of WOW style PVP.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The discussion, simply put, is this:
World PVP isn't popular.
Why? Because it's bad PVP.
Why's it bad? The reasons I listed before, (worse, infrequent, and predetermined combat,) and probably some I missed.
Those are the facts of what people are playing and paying for. You may not agree with my breakdown (you certainly don't feel the same way personally), you can't disagree that world PVP is less popular because most players find it to be worse PVP. All you can do is state a personal preference for world PVP.
Ganking doesn't occur in instanced PVP, because in instanced PVP it's purely about PVP. You can't be ganked.
Lopsided PVP still occurs. When it's due to progression (non-skill factor), it unbalances PVP and makes it less interesting. When it's due to skill, PVP is balanced and that player deserves to win. And hopefully the game can match that player up with someone of near-equal skill so that those two can have better combat theatrics.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Boom. Right there. You just exposed yourself.
If that was your experience in either of those games (both of which I have played extensively), you were either a) terrible at both games and quit before learning anything about them, or b) picked terrible corps/clans, and never really got to experience how great the PVP can be in either title.
Either way, when I read your incessant posts about PVP and sandboxes, I'm not going to able to take you seriously. You simply do not have the experience to know what the heck you're talking about.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Has it occurred to you that if you dismiss Axehilt out of hand you might not have much success with investers or developers that think like him. You have to find more convincing arguments not just give up and say a person is not worth talking to or respecting ,by just putting them down you have not gained anything just perhaps only solidifying his point of view.
What do you think has lead to the the scarcity of world PvP over bgs and should you not try to find better ways to advance your points of views without alienating people . Help them see your point of view and while on that subject it is also pointless to blame PvEers because they are just merely lobbying for thier interests and they seemed to have gained more purchase if like the op says they are ruining pvp servers.
Instanced pvp in mmorpgs is as popular as it is because of accessibilty and ease of use. You have still failed to come up with any reasonable counter to that.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Yet no one would participate in BG's without the reward. Thats why they are rewarded. If people played the hell out of them for fun devs wouldnt need to add rewards. Yet they NEED to add them to BG's. Why? Explain the need to add rewards that hinder the activity, make it less fair, less fun if they didnt need to. Let's start there and maybe we can have a serious discussion:)
I assume you disagree that pvp was purposely transformed into a gear grind because it benefited the devs.
Fair fights rarely happen anywhere. People always look for an advantage. BG's are responsible for some of the lamest unfair pvp ever seen. We can nitpick each to death if you want.
Really want you to change my mind btw.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
If by "ease of use" you mean "It's easier and much more common to have good, fun fights" then we're in agreement.
It's superior PVP design. No question.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Remove instanced PvP all together, hell for that matter remove instanced PvE too.
Create super huge land masses with sectioned off areas , underground dungeons (like in DAoC) or huge mansions/castles that are used as a source for PvE groups.
Have resource driven PvP objectives to foster combat, such as guild claimable keeps or better yet cities. The thing that makes world PvP in games like AC and DAoC is you fight for resources, whether they be spots where the mobs drop more greater then average loot or crafting materials, or a location that have quicker spawns or spawns that grant a greater XP reward. you could also have guild/alliance/faction (I prefer the first 2) claimable cities & Keeps that lets those groups fight over.
Anytime you foster world PvP through group resource driven goals (as above), instead of character specific goals (i.e. honor points or PvP gear) you cater to the lowest common denominator and remove incentive for people working together.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Very common, but alas very weak argument. Is that really the only reason you can come up with why people don't like open world PvP? That they haven't had enough experience?
I played Eve for 13 months, was a co-CEO and an FC in a PvP corp in a PvP alliance who held sovereignty in nullsec and the region we were, was commonly one of the most violent regions in the game. No shortage of action then. My responsibilities included training and teaching new recruits how to PvP. Many vets who had older characters than I, commended my abilities.
Still I think much the same way as Axehilt. Is that not enough experience for you?
Action is more scarce in open world PvP and great majority of times that action is one-sided. I pick well made instanced PvP anyday.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
There's still way more depth in Open PvP games than there is in sports PvP.
Sports PvP is a subset of open PvP.
To say that open PvP is wrong is shallow and ignorant.
You forgot 'Because some people like the idea of a fair fight'.
Just look at pretty much all sports ever (Including things like martial arts). They all extoll the virtue of a fair fight, balanced sides (In numbers, anyway, if not neccessarily skill) and such.
You don't go to a soccer match where the referee says 'Okay, to make this more interesting, it's an 11 on 3 match today. Also, if you can ambush the 3 people from behind, that's cool. Today is a 'I don't care if there's fouls' day.
The concept of sports and fair play is deeply ingrained in society, and what people expect.
You know where they team up multiple people on one, and there's a strong 'anything goes' mentality?
Pro wrestling.
Not that I'm suggesting that open PvP holds a strong resemblance to pro wrestling.
But fair fights and gear grinds are 2 different things. But BG proponents wont admit it, nor will they give up the rewards. We understand they're fair, but they only became more popular when rewards were only offered to that specific form of pvp. And to people whether they succeed or not. It's simply a gear grind. A fair one hehe.
Faction vs faction. We can tell which is better by their pants. Awesome lore there.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
PvPers ruin PvP. Mostly, the balance babies....They see mto thin keverything should have the same power against anything else, instead of a proper paper/rock/scissors style of balance. But no, things get changed for the PvEers which are the vast majority, but pvPers see mto encompass the biggest forum whiners, so they mess up balance over and over trying to pander to the 10% who happens to be the loudest crybabies in the game.
PvPers ruin PvE games. Not visa-versa.
but not all MMO players want to do sports when they log in.
believe it or not, but there are actually players who want to play a Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game, in a persistent world, were character development, strategy, planning and teamwork on a massive scale (like alliances, territory control, etc) are important - not fast and shallow deathmatches.
that's why PvP in sandbox games are more about unexpected situations, player politics and total freedom, than about "fair" fights trying to simulate some kind of sports logic on a static playfield.
besides, instanced PvP games are not necessarily "fair" - I remember in WAR, high-ranked players from the top guilds would steamroll PUGs all day long in scenarios.
it didn't matter if you where a low-ranked solo player with crap gear, you still got thrown in there together with some random players (often in a group with a totally random class combination) and then you where supposed to fight against six high-ranked players with top-end gear, on vent and using the ultimate class setup.
15 minutes of pure humiliation.
so those trying to argue that instanced PvP is "pure" PvP without ganking are totally clueless, as are those trying to argue that PvP is about "fair" fights.
PvP is about winning, in any way you can, and anyone claiming otherwise is just doing scrub talk.
LOL, no thats developer BS. They change and nerf classes on purpose, it's part of how they keep people playing. The only balance devs give a shit about is pve balance. Is the instance to hard or not ect..If they wanted pvp balance they would have balanced it. this is what ive heard, i dunno if its true.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.