Developers depend on treadmills for subscriptions.
They are going to control the behavior of the playerbase through rewards to gravitate to treadmills.
This is a fact.
Developers will freely admit it.
Its the reason they are made so easy to access and rewarded so highly. because thats what they want people doing. Because their subscriptions depend on it.
Developers admit this.
It's part of 'the model".
They charge you for an mmorpg. You are playing a poor BG over and over for 15 a month. You can play a fantastic one for free. There are mods if you like progression. Play whatever you want, but your not part of the most popular pvp, you followed.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Developers depend on treadmills for subscriptions.
They are going to control the behavior of the playerbase through rewards to gravitate to treadmills.
This is a fact.
Developers will freely admit it.
Its the reason they are made so easy to access and rewarded so highly. because thats what they want people doing. Because their subscriptions depend on it.
Developers admit this.
It's part of 'the model".
They charge you for an mmorpg. You are playing a poor BG over and over for 15 a month. You can play a fantastic one for free. There are mods if you like progression. Play whatever you want, but your not part of the most popular pvp, you followed.
If thats a fact, how does GW1 fit in your theory? How does Starcraft fit in your theory - or any other popular instanced PvP game without subscription fee or gear grind?
Hey, people play it for fun. If they're having fun what else matters?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Developers depend on treadmills for subscriptions.
They are going to control the behavior of the playerbase through rewards to gravitate to treadmills.
This is a fact.
Developers will freely admit it.
Its the reason they are made so easy to access and rewarded so highly. because thats what they want people doing. Because their subscriptions depend on it.
Developers admit this.
It's part of 'the model".
They charge you for an mmorpg. You are playing a poor BG over and over for 15 a month. You can play a fantastic one for free. There are mods if you like progression. Play whatever you want, but your not part of the most popular pvp, you followed.
If thats a fact, how does GW1 fit in your theory? How does Starcraft fit in your theory - or any other popular instanced PvP game without subscription fee or gear grind?
Hey, people play it for fun. If they're having fun what else matters?
It doesnt. those games rely on great fun and great gameplay. They dont rely on subscriptions. They don't rely on treadmills. IF someone stops playing, no one cares. They're not mmorpgs. They do what the funnest thing is.
Thats my point. Remove rewards. Let your gameplay stand on its own. There is no reason for rewards. Millions do it without rewards. But this is what the devs want people doing. They offer a gear grind treadmill to keep people subbed. It starts as fun, thats how they hook you. Especially first time mmo'ers. They just play the game unaware the activites are designed to be addictive. See the difference?
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
It doesnt. those games rely on great fun and great gameplay. They dont rely on subscriptions. They don't rely on treadmills. IF someone stops playing, no one cares. They're not mmorpgs. They do what the funnest thing is.
Thats my point. Remove rewards. Let your gameplay stand on its own. There is no reason for rewards. Millions do it without rewards. But this is what the devs want people doing. They offer a gear grind treadmill to keep people subbed. It starts as fun, thats how they hook you. Especially first time mmo'ers. They just play the game unaware the activites are designed to be addictive. See the difference?
Rewards are icing on the cake.
It's in developers' best interest to create awesome gameplay first, and intrinsic reward second. Any game with recurring fees in any form is going to make more money with awesome gameplay.
Player A logs onto Game A and gets ganked in World PVP.
Player B logs onto Game B and has a close PVP fight in an instance.
Who do you think is more likely to come back tomorrow for another PVP battle? A game consistently providing fun PVP is at the heart of why instanced PVP is vastly more popular.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It doesnt. those games rely on great fun and great gameplay. They dont rely on subscriptions. They don't rely on treadmills. IF someone stops playing, no one cares. They're not mmorpgs. They do what the funnest thing is.
Thats my point. Remove rewards. Let your gameplay stand on its own. There is no reason for rewards. Millions do it without rewards. But this is what the devs want people doing. They offer a gear grind treadmill to keep people subbed. It starts as fun, thats how they hook you. Especially first time mmo'ers. They just play the game unaware the activites are designed to be addictive. See the difference?
Rewards are icing on the cake.
It's in developers' best interest to create awesome gameplay first, and intrinsic reward second. Any game with recurring fees in any form is going to make more money with awesome gameplay.
Player A logs onto Game A and gets ganked in World PVP.
Player B logs onto Game B and has a close PVP fight in an instance.
Who do you think is more likely to come back tomorrow for another PVP battle? A game consistently providing fun PVP is at the heart of why instanced PVP is vastly more popular.
I agree with you but the debate seems over now with his account or atleast user deleted.
In my view there is never a such thing as true PVP with skill in msot MMO games.
1. World OF Warcraft, It is all about gear now the person with the best gear will always win more than likely, unless you run a guild with other players, and out number, use strategy etc. (WOW Cata ruined it worse than bc for me.)
2. Runes OF Magic, it isn't that bad, but the same thing 1vs1 Sieges, and such the same problems GEAR, the team with the highest gear will win vs people without gear.
3. The way PVP should be is quite simple, games like DarkFall are okay, but a MMO that is really about PVE, and PVP should be simple, No loss of gear at all and PVP in arena's/battle areas, so in other words there are certain channels people can play on such as a channel with no restriction on PVP, One channel has no PVP at all, others are capped every 5-10 levels per zone and channel, so pvp can be fun and fair.
There are only currently a hand full of MMO games I find somewhat fun with PVP that is actually PVP, not based on gear, but based on Skill.
1. League OF Legends
2. Fury Online (Dead game) But it is sad.
3. APB, No i dont play it much and no this doesnt exactly fully fit into it but still.
4. Rise of Imortals
5. Bloodlines Champions
6. FPS games like BF3, Global Agenda, Tribes & such.
7. Guild Wars
In general any game that is not 100% item shop pay 2 win based, any game that requires actual skill not based on armor, and has pvp is a good pvp game, however not everyone is a hardcore pvper and unless the game is like DarkFall no one wants to loose their gear, which is the reason for example why in rules of magic no one plays on the pvp servers because its a game where you can loose +12 items unless you pay from a items shop to get it bound unless you play on a pve server where you will not loose your items as I have lost nothing yet from a PVE server but can on a pvp and would hate to loose a 50 million item for example to a high level pker like the hoggs on grimdal because it costs money and people abuse bots or multibox to gain unfair advantages in these type of games, otherwise if its a game like darkfall no one cares if they loose their gear really.
Games like WOW, and Warhammer may have battle grounds so people may consider it PVP, but I dont consider such PVP because it is based all on gear and levels, if it was a game like GW, or League OF Legends, then I would consider it pvp because it isnt based on gear but everyone has the same fair chance of actually win/loss, in wow it is based on gear too much, sure rewards for PVP are fine, but there should be limits on other places you can obtain that gear outside of PVP as well because simply making arena specific sets, and BG specific sets well try 1vs1 someone fully decked and enchanted your same level and see who wins lol.
My point being there really isnt PVP with incentives that do not over power based on gear, and hey I like PVP, but I dont like stupid PVP, or PVP based off gear, and lame things like in ROM for example, Scounts/Rouges too OP One/Two hit kill invisible right after without any cooldown the cooldown should be 3-5 seconds after attacking to make it real and fair, but meh.
The MAJORITY of instanced pvp in MMORPGS is neither "fair" nor "competitve". That being the case, trying to say that it is popular due to it being fair and competitive is ludicrous even for someone as rose tinted and biased as you clearly are.
You do realise ofc that simply having equal numbers on each "side" does not make something fair and competitive unless they are matched by ability and by whatever progression gear/metrics are in the game? That is not the case in a vast swathe of MMORPG instanced pvp.
Until that time that the MAJORITY of people taking part in instanced pvp across the MAJORITY of MMORPS are in well ranked, zero item and zero gear disparity matches on smaller scale e-sport maps then your argument holds absolutely zero weight whatsoever.
Outside of the top ranked matches on specific servers, or on one off games, we clearly see premades vs pugs, we see item disparities we see level disparities. We see people getting zerged and spawn camped from start to finish. There is no balance between the opponents, there is no fairness and there is no competition/e-sport.
And yet they are still popular, yes, because they are combat on instant tap. If you get wiped in a highly lopsided match it doesn't matter because in five minutes time you will be in another instance vs another group of people who you may well wipe out with ease. That is what makes them so popular.
The MAJORITY in MMORPGS just want combat, they cba with long periods of planning or high risk factors attributed to losses. The MAJORITY want instant gratification combat with rewards when they happen to kill the other players. That is what motivates the MAJORITY and it is the accessibility and ability to do as such that makes it POPULAR.
If the MAJORITY in MMORPGS gave two shits about competition and fairness over and above quick access combat regardless of them steamrolling over a badly matched team, the MAJORITY of MMORPG instanced pvp would be ranked matches, with zero item, character, class or any other disparities. They are not though are they.
So no, claiming that the popularity for the majority is down to fairness and competition in mmorpg instanced pvp is a load of crap. But if it makes you feel better then you believe what you want, I am done explaining the obvious.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Developers only focus on arena-systems because they're easier to make and maintain. They're not particularly rewarding or fun, but they are solid and can easily add incentives to them. Non-PvPers won't be bothered and everybody is happy. In theory.
TBH, open world PvP devs are so backward they release crap like Darkfall or MO.
If you want to land a massive hit, just take the idea of Warhammer Online and do it right.
- Make open PvP super-easily accessible
- Make open PvP deaths and kills punishment-free but zones level-adapted
- Make open PvP grouping a must. Just by giving people so much health they can't be killed by a single opponent.
- Give major incentives for CAPTURING objectives and achieving war-relevant goals, not killing random people
This will make splendid, large scale, meaningful battles and minimize griefing.
The MAJORITY of instanced pvp in MMORPGS is neither "fair" nor "competitve". That being the case, trying to say that it is popular due to it being fair and competitive is ludicrous even for someone as rose tinted and biased as you clearly are.
It's MORE fair, so it's MORE popular.
Players seek fair PVP. To seek unfair PVP doesn't usually enter their minds.
How many casual Soccer matches do you think randomly decide to play 3v7 Soccer? Zero. Apart from the ones doing it in pursuit of fairness (3 adults vs. 6 kids)
The rewards and accessibility would be identical if the players chose 3v7 Soccer, yet it doesn't even enter their minds to do so.
In our culture, how popular is unfair PVP (like world PVP) vs. fair PVP (instanced PVP like...well...like every single competitive game you can think of except world PVP MMORPGs, basically.) Players have a choice between these two concepts all the time (often with no rewards or accessibility factor), and literally like 99% of the total competitive play mankind does is in fair PVP.
Because you're incapable of seeing players' natural preference for fair PVP (citing that MMORPGs are somehow a different beast, when they aren't; or that accessibility is the issue when it's not), it's useless to continue discussing this topic with you. This isn't intelligent discussion, it's you insisting you're right in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Axehilt Originally posted by bunnyhopper
The MAJORITY of instanced pvp in MMORPGS is neither "fair" nor "competitve". That being the case, trying to say that it is popular due to it being fair and competitive is ludicrous even for someone as rose tinted and biased as you clearly are.
It's MORE fair, so it's MORE popular. Players seek fair PVP. To seek unfair PVP doesn't usually enter their minds. How many casual Soccer matches do you think randomly decide to play 3v7 Soccer? Zero. Apart from the ones doing it in pursuit of fairness (3 adults vs. 6 kids) The rewards and accessibility would be identical if the players chose 3v7 Soccer, yet it doesn't even enter their minds to do so. In our culture, how popular is unfair PVP (like world PVP) vs. fair PVP (instanced PVP like...well...like every single competitive game you can think of except world PVP MMORPGs, basically.) Players have a choice between these two concepts all the time (often with no rewards or accessibility factor), and literally like 99% of the total competitive play mankind does is in fair PVP. Because you're incapable of seeing players' natural preference for fair PVP (citing that MMORPGs are somehow a different beast, when they aren't; or that accessibility is the issue when it's not), it's useless to continue discussing this topic with you. This isn't intelligent discussion, it's you insisting you're right in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
When you're talking about Instanced PvP, More Fair and More Accessible are part of the definition. Remove either one of those and you've changed Instanced PvP into something else. I'm not sure it even makes sense to discuss which is more important.
However, we can do a thought experiment. Which of the following would be more popular?
(a) World PvP - Happens in the world, more or less random confrontations, players must look for PvP.
(b) Instanced PvP - Happens in an instance, no limits on accessibility but teams are balanced.
(c) Zone or Instanced PvP - Players are queued with no regard to population balance. Limits are placed on availability by time of day.
(d) Zone or Instanced PvP - Players are queued with no regard to population balance. Very accessible, no limits on participation.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Players seek fair PVP. To seek unfair PVP doesn't usually enter their minds.
How many casual Soccer matches do you think randomly decide to play 3v7 Soccer? Zero. Apart from the ones doing it in pursuit of fairness (3 adults vs. 6 kids)
The rewards and accessibility would be identical if the players chose 3v7 Soccer, yet it doesn't even enter their minds to do so.
In our culture, how popular is unfair PVP (like world PVP) vs. fair PVP (instanced PVP like...well...like every single competitive game you can think of except world PVP MMORPGs, basically.) Players have a choice between these two concepts all the time (often with no rewards or accessibility factor), and literally like 99% of the total competitive play mankind does is in fair PVP.
Because you're incapable of seeing players' natural preference for fair PVP (citing that MMORPGs are somehow a different beast, when they aren't; or that accessibility is the issue when it's not), it's useless to continue discussing this topic with you. This isn't intelligent discussion, it's you insisting you're right in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
So let me get this straight, the major differences between open world an instanced pvp for the majority in mmorpgs is accessibiltiy and fairness/competition. Whilst in general mmorpg instanced pvp is neither fair nor competitive but IS far more accessible, you would have us believe that it is the former which is what makes it more popular? Lulz, convincing case that, not.
Btw I have already pointed out why comparing an mmorpg instanced pvp battle with football (or any other true sport) is complete nonsense so not sure why you are still trying to use such a defunct analogy. I have already shown why just balancing numbers does not make something "fair", "competitve" or a "sport", so again you thinking along those lines after all this time is amusing to say the least.
When the majority are entering instanced MMORPG pvp they are seeking COMBAT, whether they instantly and repeatedly steamroll over the opposition time and again because of item, group, team, level or player imbalances does not matter to them as much as the fact that they can get instant combat on tap.
What actual evidence have you provided exactly? Saying "hurr it is fairer than open world and has more people", wow that is compelling. "hurr it is more accessible than open world" so that is the reason then... The difference is we can actually look at how "fair" it is for the majority and in fact it fucking well isn't is it. Ergo accessibility offers the most compelling case for it's popularity.
You will find I am more than open to a convincing and well put out case, it's simply that you have failed to provide any semblance of one.
I know it must put something of a crimp in your whole anti open world rabble rabble campaign to learn that mmorpg instances are generally not a great bastion of fairness and competition, that they are not like MOBAS and FPS games or real sports in general. And that a vast amount of people are in there for reasons other than to be "bloody good sports". But you really have provided zero credible argument to the counter.
Without refering to MOBAS, FPS or football matches (none of which are even remotely similar to the majority of mmorpg instanced pvp situations), staying within the genre. What is this convincing case that competition is what makes fundamentally non competitive instances popular, more so than people looking for instant, on tap combat (which is exactly what general mmorpg instances are)?
As an aside it is interesting that Blizz look like they going to start pushing world pvp more, citing players looking for spontaneity, talking about rewards and the like. Seems odd that eh given you keep on telling everyone that no one wants open world combat as everyone in mmorpgs is after fairness and competition. Perhaps you should get on the line to Blizz and BW (who have open world in their massive budget mmo) to tell them they are wasting their time with open world stuff as no one wants it rofl.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
World PvP with concrete objectives for personal gain (world raid bosses) is not exactly the same as world pvp with no objectives other than pvp. When you add in 'Reward' and 'Sort of Balanced', world pvp can become attractive to players. Blizzard isn't giving up on instanced pvp either...they're just adding some meaning to world pvp. We should wait and see what their definition of world pvp is though...
** edit ** Blizzard is kind of like Microsoft and Windows. They've already taken the market, in order to hold on to it, they have to do things they normally wouldn't have considered.
WoW will eventually have every feature of every MMO somewhere in the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
When you're talking about Instanced PvP, More Fair and More Accessible are part of the definition. Remove either one of those and you've changed Instanced PvP into something else. I'm not sure it even makes sense to discuss which is more important.
However, we can do a thought experiment. Which of the following would be more popular?
(a) World PvP - Happens in the world, more or less random confrontations, players must look for PvP.
(b) Instanced PvP - Happens in an instance, no limits on accessibility but teams are balanced.
(c) Zone or Instanced PvP - Players are queued with no regard to population balance. Limits are placed on availability by time of day.
(d) Zone or Instanced PvP - Players are queued with no regard to population balance. Very accessible, no limits on participation.
Interesting idea, if I may run with it...
A) Type One PVP - Have to organise it or look for it for an unknown amount of time. Lasts an unknown amount of time, occcurs two or three times a day. Number, gear, level, skill disparities.
Type Two PVP - Press a button to activate. Lasts 5-15 minutes, occurs all the time. Gear, level, skill disparities.
Some would have you believe that the number disparity in that bit is what makes one far more unpopular than the other. I lol'd.
That said instanced pvp if done well and in the right kind of game is fantastic.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Then you sirs have not played the Battlefield series...
Control points via Conquest mode?
No thanks. That is the worst via MMO.
It's like watching a soccer game that's filled with a bunch of 5 year olds. Everyone just runs from point to point in a gigantic pack. It's terrible.
Then you didn't play with people that have half a clue how battefield is played. I've owned every battleifield and most battles play NOTHING like that.
If you want true competitive pvp play fps's and tps's, these are where the real pvpers live. MMO pvp has never been balanced in the least on a open world setting and never will be. When you cosider lvl difference gear difference numbers difference etc etc etc. Most hardcore mmo pvpers don't seem to want a fair fight and that at its core is the problem.
I play mmo's to relax with friends, I play fps/tps games when I want to put myself up against someone else in a competitive fight.
Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by lizardbones
Originally posted by Axehilt
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
When you're talking about Instanced PvP, More Fair and More Accessible are part of the definition. Remove either one of those and you've changed Instanced PvP into something else. I'm not sure it even makes sense to discuss which is more important.
However, we can do a thought experiment. Which of the following would be more popular?
(a) World PvP - Happens in the world, more or less random confrontations, players must look for PvP.
(b) Instanced PvP - Happens in an instance, no limits on accessibility but teams are balanced.(c) Zone or Instanced PvP - Players are queued with no regard to population balance. Limits are placed on availability by time of day.(d) Zone or Instanced PvP - Players are queued with no regard to population balance. Very accessible, no limits on participation.
Interesting idea, if I may run with it...
A) Type One PVP - Have to organise it or look for it for an unkown amount of time. Lasts an unknown amount of time, occcurs two or three times a day. Number, gear, level, skill disparities. Type Two PVP - Press a button to activate. Lasts 15-15 minutes, occurs all the time. Gear, level, skill disparities.
Some would have you believe that the number disparity in that bit is what makes one far more unpopular than the other. I lol'd.
The numbers are important because of the appearance of fairness. People see two teams of 10v10 and they think 'fair'. Doesn't matter that one team has twice the funding or play time of the other, people still think 'fair'.
Here's the thing. Remove either 'Balance' or 'Accessibility' and you will remove the desire to play in Instanced PvP. If both are absolutely necessary, then neither is the 'key feature'. They both are. All other things being equal, these two features must exist or Instanced PvP will not be attractive.
Remove the population balance from Instanced PvP and you will see an immediately drop in Instanced PvP participation. Make queueing for Instanced PvP random, as in you might get in and you might not, then you will see an immediately drop in Instanced PvP participation.
Magically create population balance in World PvP, and you will see an increase in participation in World PvP. Magically make it possible to engage in World PvP when you want to and the ability to avoid it whenever you want to and you'll see an increase in World PvP participation.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You keep forgetting that the whole idea of competition is for the player skill to matter. So if the best player wins, it is not imbalanced, it works as intended. People are fine with losing to their betters. What people don't want is losing despite their skill - for the battles to be predetermined no matter what they do. Some people just want to have control over their fate. If the setup is fair, it means player skill matters.
Sure, pitting newbies against vets is bad, but it is not a feature of ideal instanced PvP. It is just bad implementation In League of Legends, players have Elo rating that determines who they are matched up against. If they keep winning, they will encounter tougher players. Same with Halo 2, COD, Quake Live and many other well-made FPS games. Guild Wars 1 had it in GvG. GW2 will have something similar in WvWvW. You have amateur leagues and pro leagues in soccer too.
Do you just forget or do you overlook these things intentionally?
And using "hurr", "lol", "rofl", "instant gratification" and ad hominems is not exactly building up your credibility.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
You keep forgetting that the whole idea of competition is for the player skill to matter. So if the best player wins, it is not imbalanced, it works as intended. People are fine with losing to their betters. What people don't want is losing despite their skill - for the battles to be predetermined no matter what they do. Some people just want to have control over their fate. If the setup is fair, it means player skill matters.
Sure, pitting newbies against vets is bad, but it is not a feature of ideal instanced PvP. It is just bad implementation In League of Legends, players have Elo rating that determines who they are matched up against. If they keep winning, they will encounter tougher players. Same with Halo 2, COD, Quake Live and many other well-made FPS games. Guild Wars 1 had it in GvG. GW2 will have something similar in WvWvW. You have amateur leagues and pro leagues in soccer too.
Do you just forget or do you overlook these things intentionally?
And using "hurr", "lol", "rofl", "instant gratification" and ad hominems is not exactly building up your credibility.
I play competitve sports and competitive pvp games, I am well aware of the role of player skill in competitive sport/games, and because of that if there is a clear divide between player skill levels then no, there is no competitive combat there. Mike Tyson smashing seven shades of shit out of an amateur flyweight is not "competition" or "competitve" by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore if progression metrics can also be decisive factors then again, no there is no "competition" there just as there would be no "competition" matching a Sherman tank vs a nun on a bicycle. Both of which is exactly what you get in the bulk of non ranked, mmorpg instanced pvp.
Balancing numbers does not immediately equate to fair and comeptitive pvp, it takes more than that.
A random player's queueing for an instanced pvp match has precious little more control over his "fate" than someone randomly heading off into the open world. He/she does not know who he will be fighting with/against or what levels and gear they will have (within a range). What he does have control over is how often and exactly when he will get pvp interaction and that is exactly why is it so popular for the vast majority of people in mmorpgs.
Oh and mentioning MOBAS and real sports again... really? I am speaking of mmorpgs that are out now and the implementation of instanced pvp that the majority take part in (given that I was expressly speaking of popularity for the majority of mmorpg players). Constantly trying to refer to other genres of games with better implementations of instanced pvp only serves to highlight why my hypothesis was correct in the first place. If the majority of instanced pvp in mmorpgs happened to be like MOBAS or FPS games then you would have a point. They don't.
Oh and I can afford to get away with saying "hurr" on occassion because I have spent the vast majority of the time explaining exactly why the case for accessibilty is the strongest one when looking at popularity for the majority in mmorpgs in terms of instanced pvp. What has been proffered as a counter to that? Talk of games which have nothing whatsoever to do with mmorpgs and erm, yeah well that's pretty much it now isn't it really. I guess though simply posting "futile" is a great way to boost your gravitas in a thread right.
Instanced pvp in mmorpgs general IS a bad implementation of e-sport pvp, that may well be because of it's "newness" to the genre and that may well change. And should such time occur and should open world be made accessible we will be able to accurately judge whether or not it is the competitive aspect that is the primary driver in it's popularity. But as it stands, in the here and now it seems clear as day that the accessibility and ease of use is the primary (not the only but, the primary) factor in making mmorpg instanced pvp as popular as it is at the moment for the general player.
I am well aware many people do seek competitive pvp, but generally that is not found in a vast amount of mmorpg instances and the playerbase knows that. Those really interested in competitive pvp seek it in ranked matches or pvp specfic games. And yet there are still the majority happy to smash away (or be smashed), premades smashing pugs, people with better gear and higher levels smashing under equipped and lower leveled players. So what does that tell us, it tells us that the majority of mmorpg players in such instances don't mind that so long as they can have combat as and when they like it.
I wait to see if someone can actually come up with a reason as to why accessibiltiy and ease of use are not the primary factors in the success of instanced pvp in mmorpgs without trying to refer to the pvp you get in games outside of the mmorpg genre. To see if someone can straight faced say that the majority of mmorpg instanced pvp is competitive and fair for the majority of it's players. Not those in ranked elite WoW arena server matches, but for the average joe who makes up the vast majority of the playerbase and who queues up for pugs.
Until that point, whilst I am well aware many look for competition I am also aware that for many mmorpg instanced pvp is neither competitive of fair (and most people are aware of that aside from the odd one or two living in lala land it seems), but it is highly accessible and as such it seems to be clear that it is that very accessibility that drives it's popularity for the majority.
I eagerly await GW2 for it's instanced pvp and hope that it is player skill driven primarily and I enjoy FPS/RTS and MOBA games for pvp as well as open world pvp in mmos/mmorpgs so do not think that I am "anti instanced pvp". I am just looking at it from the realistic perspective that for the main part is it not done well in mmorpgs and the primary reason for it's success in it's current state is more down to accessibility than any notion of gamers chasing fair/e-sport pvp.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Comments
Instanced PVP is a gear grind treadmill.
Developers depend on treadmills for subscriptions.
They are going to control the behavior of the playerbase through rewards to gravitate to treadmills.
This is a fact.
Developers will freely admit it.
Its the reason they are made so easy to access and rewarded so highly. because thats what they want people doing. Because their subscriptions depend on it.
Developers admit this.
It's part of 'the model".
They charge you for an mmorpg. You are playing a poor BG over and over for 15 a month. You can play a fantastic one for free. There are mods if you like progression. Play whatever you want, but your not part of the most popular pvp, you followed.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
If thats a fact, how does GW1 fit in your theory? How does Starcraft fit in your theory - or any other popular instanced PvP game without subscription fee or gear grind?
Hey, people play it for fun. If they're having fun what else matters?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
It doesnt. those games rely on great fun and great gameplay. They dont rely on subscriptions. They don't rely on treadmills. IF someone stops playing, no one cares. They're not mmorpgs. They do what the funnest thing is.
Thats my point. Remove rewards. Let your gameplay stand on its own. There is no reason for rewards. Millions do it without rewards. But this is what the devs want people doing. They offer a gear grind treadmill to keep people subbed. It starts as fun, thats how they hook you. Especially first time mmo'ers. They just play the game unaware the activites are designed to be addictive. See the difference?
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Rewards are icing on the cake.
It's in developers' best interest to create awesome gameplay first, and intrinsic reward second. Any game with recurring fees in any form is going to make more money with awesome gameplay.
Player A logs onto Game A and gets ganked in World PVP.
Player B logs onto Game B and has a close PVP fight in an instance.
Who do you think is more likely to come back tomorrow for another PVP battle? A game consistently providing fun PVP is at the heart of why instanced PVP is vastly more popular.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I agree with you but the debate seems over now with his account or atleast user deleted.
In my view there is never a such thing as true PVP with skill in msot MMO games.
1. World OF Warcraft, It is all about gear now the person with the best gear will always win more than likely, unless you run a guild with other players, and out number, use strategy etc. (WOW Cata ruined it worse than bc for me.)
2. Runes OF Magic, it isn't that bad, but the same thing 1vs1 Sieges, and such the same problems GEAR, the team with the highest gear will win vs people without gear.
3. The way PVP should be is quite simple, games like DarkFall are okay, but a MMO that is really about PVE, and PVP should be simple, No loss of gear at all and PVP in arena's/battle areas, so in other words there are certain channels people can play on such as a channel with no restriction on PVP, One channel has no PVP at all, others are capped every 5-10 levels per zone and channel, so pvp can be fun and fair.
There are only currently a hand full of MMO games I find somewhat fun with PVP that is actually PVP, not based on gear, but based on Skill.
1. League OF Legends
2. Fury Online (Dead game) But it is sad.
3. APB, No i dont play it much and no this doesnt exactly fully fit into it but still.
4. Rise of Imortals
5. Bloodlines Champions
6. FPS games like BF3, Global Agenda, Tribes & such.
7. Guild Wars
In general any game that is not 100% item shop pay 2 win based, any game that requires actual skill not based on armor, and has pvp is a good pvp game, however not everyone is a hardcore pvper and unless the game is like DarkFall no one wants to loose their gear, which is the reason for example why in rules of magic no one plays on the pvp servers because its a game where you can loose +12 items unless you pay from a items shop to get it bound unless you play on a pve server where you will not loose your items as I have lost nothing yet from a PVE server but can on a pvp and would hate to loose a 50 million item for example to a high level pker like the hoggs on grimdal because it costs money and people abuse bots or multibox to gain unfair advantages in these type of games, otherwise if its a game like darkfall no one cares if they loose their gear really.
Games like WOW, and Warhammer may have battle grounds so people may consider it PVP, but I dont consider such PVP because it is based all on gear and levels, if it was a game like GW, or League OF Legends, then I would consider it pvp because it isnt based on gear but everyone has the same fair chance of actually win/loss, in wow it is based on gear too much, sure rewards for PVP are fine, but there should be limits on other places you can obtain that gear outside of PVP as well because simply making arena specific sets, and BG specific sets well try 1vs1 someone fully decked and enchanted your same level and see who wins lol.
My point being there really isnt PVP with incentives that do not over power based on gear, and hey I like PVP, but I dont like stupid PVP, or PVP based off gear, and lame things like in ROM for example, Scounts/Rouges too OP One/Two hit kill invisible right after without any cooldown the cooldown should be 3-5 seconds after attacking to make it real and fair, but meh.
The MAJORITY of instanced pvp in MMORPGS is neither "fair" nor "competitve". That being the case, trying to say that it is popular due to it being fair and competitive is ludicrous even for someone as rose tinted and biased as you clearly are.
You do realise ofc that simply having equal numbers on each "side" does not make something fair and competitive unless they are matched by ability and by whatever progression gear/metrics are in the game? That is not the case in a vast swathe of MMORPG instanced pvp.
Until that time that the MAJORITY of people taking part in instanced pvp across the MAJORITY of MMORPS are in well ranked, zero item and zero gear disparity matches on smaller scale e-sport maps then your argument holds absolutely zero weight whatsoever.
Outside of the top ranked matches on specific servers, or on one off games, we clearly see premades vs pugs, we see item disparities we see level disparities. We see people getting zerged and spawn camped from start to finish. There is no balance between the opponents, there is no fairness and there is no competition/e-sport.
And yet they are still popular, yes, because they are combat on instant tap. If you get wiped in a highly lopsided match it doesn't matter because in five minutes time you will be in another instance vs another group of people who you may well wipe out with ease. That is what makes them so popular.
The MAJORITY in MMORPGS just want combat, they cba with long periods of planning or high risk factors attributed to losses. The MAJORITY want instant gratification combat with rewards when they happen to kill the other players. That is what motivates the MAJORITY and it is the accessibility and ability to do as such that makes it POPULAR.
If the MAJORITY in MMORPGS gave two shits about competition and fairness over and above quick access combat regardless of them steamrolling over a badly matched team, the MAJORITY of MMORPG instanced pvp would be ranked matches, with zero item, character, class or any other disparities. They are not though are they.
So no, claiming that the popularity for the majority is down to fairness and competition in mmorpg instanced pvp is a load of crap. But if it makes you feel better then you believe what you want, I am done explaining the obvious.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Developers only focus on arena-systems because they're easier to make and maintain. They're not particularly rewarding or fun, but they are solid and can easily add incentives to them. Non-PvPers won't be bothered and everybody is happy. In theory.
TBH, open world PvP devs are so backward they release crap like Darkfall or MO.
If you want to land a massive hit, just take the idea of Warhammer Online and do it right.
- Make open PvP super-easily accessible
- Make open PvP deaths and kills punishment-free but zones level-adapted
- Make open PvP grouping a must. Just by giving people so much health they can't be killed by a single opponent.
- Give major incentives for CAPTURING objectives and achieving war-relevant goals, not killing random people
This will make splendid, large scale, meaningful battles and minimize griefing.
M
Futile...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
It's MORE fair, so it's MORE popular.
Players seek fair PVP. To seek unfair PVP doesn't usually enter their minds.
How many casual Soccer matches do you think randomly decide to play 3v7 Soccer? Zero. Apart from the ones doing it in pursuit of fairness (3 adults vs. 6 kids)
The rewards and accessibility would be identical if the players chose 3v7 Soccer, yet it doesn't even enter their minds to do so.
In our culture, how popular is unfair PVP (like world PVP) vs. fair PVP (instanced PVP like...well...like every single competitive game you can think of except world PVP MMORPGs, basically.) Players have a choice between these two concepts all the time (often with no rewards or accessibility factor), and literally like 99% of the total competitive play mankind does is in fair PVP.
Because you're incapable of seeing players' natural preference for fair PVP (citing that MMORPGs are somehow a different beast, when they aren't; or that accessibility is the issue when it's not), it's useless to continue discussing this topic with you. This isn't intelligent discussion, it's you insisting you're right in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Players seek fair PVP. To seek unfair PVP doesn't usually enter their minds.
How many casual Soccer matches do you think randomly decide to play 3v7 Soccer? Zero. Apart from the ones doing it in pursuit of fairness (3 adults vs. 6 kids)
The rewards and accessibility would be identical if the players chose 3v7 Soccer, yet it doesn't even enter their minds to do so.
In our culture, how popular is unfair PVP (like world PVP) vs. fair PVP (instanced PVP like...well...like every single competitive game you can think of except world PVP MMORPGs, basically.) Players have a choice between these two concepts all the time (often with no rewards or accessibility factor), and literally like 99% of the total competitive play mankind does is in fair PVP.
Because you're incapable of seeing players' natural preference for fair PVP (citing that MMORPGs are somehow a different beast, when they aren't; or that accessibility is the issue when it's not), it's useless to continue discussing this topic with you. This isn't intelligent discussion, it's you insisting you're right in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
When you're talking about Instanced PvP, More Fair and More Accessible are part of the definition. Remove either one of those and you've changed Instanced PvP into something else. I'm not sure it even makes sense to discuss which is more important.
However, we can do a thought experiment. Which of the following would be more popular?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
So let me get this straight, the major differences between open world an instanced pvp for the majority in mmorpgs is accessibiltiy and fairness/competition. Whilst in general mmorpg instanced pvp is neither fair nor competitive but IS far more accessible, you would have us believe that it is the former which is what makes it more popular? Lulz, convincing case that, not.
Btw I have already pointed out why comparing an mmorpg instanced pvp battle with football (or any other true sport) is complete nonsense so not sure why you are still trying to use such a defunct analogy. I have already shown why just balancing numbers does not make something "fair", "competitve" or a "sport", so again you thinking along those lines after all this time is amusing to say the least.
When the majority are entering instanced MMORPG pvp they are seeking COMBAT, whether they instantly and repeatedly steamroll over the opposition time and again because of item, group, team, level or player imbalances does not matter to them as much as the fact that they can get instant combat on tap.
What actual evidence have you provided exactly? Saying "hurr it is fairer than open world and has more people", wow that is compelling. "hurr it is more accessible than open world" so that is the reason then... The difference is we can actually look at how "fair" it is for the majority and in fact it fucking well isn't is it. Ergo accessibility offers the most compelling case for it's popularity.
You will find I am more than open to a convincing and well put out case, it's simply that you have failed to provide any semblance of one.
I know it must put something of a crimp in your whole anti open world rabble rabble campaign to learn that mmorpg instances are generally not a great bastion of fairness and competition, that they are not like MOBAS and FPS games or real sports in general. And that a vast amount of people are in there for reasons other than to be "bloody good sports". But you really have provided zero credible argument to the counter.
Without refering to MOBAS, FPS or football matches (none of which are even remotely similar to the majority of mmorpg instanced pvp situations), staying within the genre. What is this convincing case that competition is what makes fundamentally non competitive instances popular, more so than people looking for instant, on tap combat (which is exactly what general mmorpg instances are)?
As an aside it is interesting that Blizz look like they going to start pushing world pvp more, citing players looking for spontaneity, talking about rewards and the like. Seems odd that eh given you keep on telling everyone that no one wants open world combat as everyone in mmorpgs is after fairness and competition. Perhaps you should get on the line to Blizz and BW (who have open world in their massive budget mmo) to tell them they are wasting their time with open world stuff as no one wants it rofl.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
World PvP with concrete objectives for personal gain (world raid bosses) is not exactly the same as world pvp with no objectives other than pvp. When you add in 'Reward' and 'Sort of Balanced', world pvp can become attractive to players. Blizzard isn't giving up on instanced pvp either...they're just adding some meaning to world pvp. We should wait and see what their definition of world pvp is though...
** edit **
Blizzard is kind of like Microsoft and Windows. They've already taken the market, in order to hold on to it, they have to do things they normally wouldn't have considered.
WoW will eventually have every feature of every MMO somewhere in the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Interesting idea, if I may run with it...
A) Type One PVP - Have to organise it or look for it for an unknown amount of time. Lasts an unknown amount of time, occcurs two or three times a day. Number, gear, level, skill disparities.
Some would have you believe that the number disparity in that bit is what makes one far more unpopular than the other. I lol'd.
That said instanced pvp if done well and in the right kind of game is fantastic.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Then you didn't play with people that have half a clue how battefield is played. I've owned every battleifield and most battles play NOTHING like that.
If you want true competitive pvp play fps's and tps's, these are where the real pvpers live. MMO pvp has never been balanced in the least on a open world setting and never will be. When you cosider lvl difference gear difference numbers difference etc etc etc. Most hardcore mmo pvpers don't seem to want a fair fight and that at its core is the problem.
I play mmo's to relax with friends, I play fps/tps games when I want to put myself up against someone else in a competitive fight.
When you're talking about Instanced PvP, More Fair and More Accessible are part of the definition. Remove either one of those and you've changed Instanced PvP into something else. I'm not sure it even makes sense to discuss which is more important.
However, we can do a thought experiment. Which of the following would be more popular?
Interesting idea, if I may run with it...
A) Type One PVP - Have to organise it or look for it for an unkown amount of time. Lasts an unknown amount of time, occcurs two or three times a day. Number, gear, level, skill disparities.
Some would have you believe that the number disparity in that bit is what makes one far more unpopular than the other. I lol'd.
The numbers are important because of the appearance of fairness. People see two teams of 10v10 and they think 'fair'. Doesn't matter that one team has twice the funding or play time of the other, people still think 'fair'.
Here's the thing. Remove either 'Balance' or 'Accessibility' and you will remove the desire to play in Instanced PvP. If both are absolutely necessary, then neither is the 'key feature'. They both are. All other things being equal, these two features must exist or Instanced PvP will not be attractive.
Remove the population balance from Instanced PvP and you will see an immediately drop in Instanced PvP participation. Make queueing for Instanced PvP random, as in you might get in and you might not, then you will see an immediately drop in Instanced PvP participation.
Magically create population balance in World PvP, and you will see an increase in participation in World PvP. Magically make it possible to engage in World PvP when you want to and the ability to avoid it whenever you want to and you'll see an increase in World PvP participation.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You keep forgetting that the whole idea of competition is for the player skill to matter. So if the best player wins, it is not imbalanced, it works as intended. People are fine with losing to their betters. What people don't want is losing despite their skill - for the battles to be predetermined no matter what they do. Some people just want to have control over their fate. If the setup is fair, it means player skill matters.
Sure, pitting newbies against vets is bad, but it is not a feature of ideal instanced PvP. It is just bad implementation In League of Legends, players have Elo rating that determines who they are matched up against. If they keep winning, they will encounter tougher players. Same with Halo 2, COD, Quake Live and many other well-made FPS games. Guild Wars 1 had it in GvG. GW2 will have something similar in WvWvW. You have amateur leagues and pro leagues in soccer too.
Do you just forget or do you overlook these things intentionally?
And using "hurr", "lol", "rofl", "instant gratification" and ad hominems is not exactly building up your credibility.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I play competitve sports and competitive pvp games, I am well aware of the role of player skill in competitive sport/games, and because of that if there is a clear divide between player skill levels then no, there is no competitive combat there. Mike Tyson smashing seven shades of shit out of an amateur flyweight is not "competition" or "competitve" by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore if progression metrics can also be decisive factors then again, no there is no "competition" there just as there would be no "competition" matching a Sherman tank vs a nun on a bicycle. Both of which is exactly what you get in the bulk of non ranked, mmorpg instanced pvp.
Balancing numbers does not immediately equate to fair and comeptitive pvp, it takes more than that.
A random player's queueing for an instanced pvp match has precious little more control over his "fate" than someone randomly heading off into the open world. He/she does not know who he will be fighting with/against or what levels and gear they will have (within a range). What he does have control over is how often and exactly when he will get pvp interaction and that is exactly why is it so popular for the vast majority of people in mmorpgs.
Oh and mentioning MOBAS and real sports again... really? I am speaking of mmorpgs that are out now and the implementation of instanced pvp that the majority take part in (given that I was expressly speaking of popularity for the majority of mmorpg players). Constantly trying to refer to other genres of games with better implementations of instanced pvp only serves to highlight why my hypothesis was correct in the first place. If the majority of instanced pvp in mmorpgs happened to be like MOBAS or FPS games then you would have a point. They don't.
Oh and I can afford to get away with saying "hurr" on occassion because I have spent the vast majority of the time explaining exactly why the case for accessibilty is the strongest one when looking at popularity for the majority in mmorpgs in terms of instanced pvp. What has been proffered as a counter to that? Talk of games which have nothing whatsoever to do with mmorpgs and erm, yeah well that's pretty much it now isn't it really. I guess though simply posting "futile" is a great way to boost your gravitas in a thread right.
Instanced pvp in mmorpgs general IS a bad implementation of e-sport pvp, that may well be because of it's "newness" to the genre and that may well change. And should such time occur and should open world be made accessible we will be able to accurately judge whether or not it is the competitive aspect that is the primary driver in it's popularity. But as it stands, in the here and now it seems clear as day that the accessibility and ease of use is the primary (not the only but, the primary) factor in making mmorpg instanced pvp as popular as it is at the moment for the general player.
I am well aware many people do seek competitive pvp, but generally that is not found in a vast amount of mmorpg instances and the playerbase knows that. Those really interested in competitive pvp seek it in ranked matches or pvp specfic games. And yet there are still the majority happy to smash away (or be smashed), premades smashing pugs, people with better gear and higher levels smashing under equipped and lower leveled players. So what does that tell us, it tells us that the majority of mmorpg players in such instances don't mind that so long as they can have combat as and when they like it.
I wait to see if someone can actually come up with a reason as to why accessibiltiy and ease of use are not the primary factors in the success of instanced pvp in mmorpgs without trying to refer to the pvp you get in games outside of the mmorpg genre. To see if someone can straight faced say that the majority of mmorpg instanced pvp is competitive and fair for the majority of it's players. Not those in ranked elite WoW arena server matches, but for the average joe who makes up the vast majority of the playerbase and who queues up for pugs.
Until that point, whilst I am well aware many look for competition I am also aware that for many mmorpg instanced pvp is neither competitive of fair (and most people are aware of that aside from the odd one or two living in lala land it seems), but it is highly accessible and as such it seems to be clear that it is that very accessibility that drives it's popularity for the majority.
I eagerly await GW2 for it's instanced pvp and hope that it is player skill driven primarily and I enjoy FPS/RTS and MOBA games for pvp as well as open world pvp in mmos/mmorpgs so do not think that I am "anti instanced pvp". I am just looking at it from the realistic perspective that for the main part is it not done well in mmorpgs and the primary reason for it's success in it's current state is more down to accessibility than any notion of gamers chasing fair/e-sport pvp.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."