There is no character upwards "progression" in WWIIONLINE/PLANETSIDE, which makes both games the cream of the PVP MMO crop.
Even being cream of the crop both games STILL don't have LOGISTICS simulated, ARGH! Without simulated logistics, by NPC's, indirect artillery is nothing but a spawn camping tool, and much of the tactics revolves around spawn camping, and much of the code is involved with spawn camp prevention.
Most games simulate logistics in ways which are fun.
Planetside simulated it in the form of "You have this army of players; how do you rapidly get them to the fight with enough punch to win the fight when they get there."
Simulating the boring side of logistics usually errs on the side of simulation without bringing much actual fun. Increasing simulation without adding fun is not good game design (in a general sense that is; if you don't care about making a game lots of people enjoy, you can make a simulation. That's what sandbox games do.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
1. Unless development drastically improves in terms of combat mechanics, PVP and PVE don't work well both being featured in one game. It's much more beneficial for both parties if there are PVP-centric games and PVE-centric games to choose from. Balancing the two in the same game ends up making both PVE and PVP dull and unenjoyable.
2. Penalties need to be created from the get go in PVP games/servers. If player X is in 'protected' area, and player Y decides they want to attack/gank/pk them, the game mechanics itself should allow it, however, player Y should have some sort detrimental punishment to condone the concept that "This is a PVP game/server. You are never 100% safe. But if you grief people, you will have consequences and the consequences will be strict enough to make you think twice about being a douchebag"
3. Continue to give players the option for Arena, Battlegrounds, Warzones, flag-football, duels, or whatever instanced and consentual playground they may want to join for the purpose of instant gratification/action for the people that only want to jump on and do a quick battle or whatnot, however, STOP giving incentives such as GEAR UPGRADES to players taking part in this. It completely nullifies the reason for anyone to engage in WORLD PVP, in turn, making the BULK of the content available unused.
4. Give incentives to WORLD pvp activities such as Player X at level '100' decides to try and gank Player Y who is level '80' -- Player Y overcomes and defeats player X because he is a more talented combatant. Player Y gains xp/honor/prestige/points/GEAR for the completed challenge +50% as his chances were substantially lower to come out of the battle successfully. (Trust me, such a dynamic is possible. Every kill in MMOs nowadays are recorded and calculated on many levels, and this wouldn't be very hard to implement. Gear score/armor/attack/dodge/"resilience" are all stats and values that are already calculated on the fly RIGHT NOW, so adding status and end-result checks and balances to determine who gets what after a PVP battle is definitely possible)
5. Win / Loss is important. If you win a pvp battle, you need to feel like you gained something, giving your aggression purpose, even if it's RP or Lore driven. Same goes for losing. If you lose, it needs to make you feel like redemption is necessary, and/or the loss of substance aka ITEMS, GOLD, GEAR, BUFFS, etc need to be reaquired. This concept fuels more than just the activity level of PVP on a given game/server, it also fuels the crafters and the RPers and everyone else who may be considered PVE'ers
Most games simulate logistics in ways which are fun.
Planetside simulated it in the form of "You have this army of players; how do you rapidly get them to the fight with enough punch to win the fight when they get there."
Simulating the boring side of logistics usually errs on the side of simulation without bringing much actual fun. Increasing simulation without adding fun is not good game design (in a general sense that is; if you don't care about making a game lots of people enjoy, you can make a simulation. That's what sandbox games do.)
Have you still not yet convinced yourself that you know exactly what everyone finds fun, fun, fun, and that sandbox games are basically shit that a select few morons like to dine on?
Open your other eye and you may be surprised to discover that your vision isn't quite as narrow as you're used to.
"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
Nice rant. Following your line of reasoning, if you want competitve pvp join a boxing club?
It was a bit of a rant. It wasn't directed at anybody in particular.
But, yes, a boxing club would be another good analogy. There are reasons that boxers are restricted to fighting within their own weight class. I don't think there are many 250 lb. boxers whining about how it isn't fair that they can't fight in a match against a 160 lb. opponent.
Which would be a valid point if open world combat was not trying to simulate... open world combat and instead be more like a football match or boxing fight. As open world is not trying to be an "e-sport" it seems rather ridiculous to try and apply e-sport metrics to it and to get all bent out of shape when not all combat in the game is inherently "fair".
A boxer crying that he cannot fight an opponent with a severe weight disparity would be rather idiotic as it is completely against the rules. Much in the same way that someone who takes part in games that impose no restrictions upon combat are rather idiotic if they then go and moan about that very fact.
Really though, trying to suggest that everyone in an open world game is only there because they want to destroy newbs, or that they should go an join the millitary is somewhat daft. I can though fully appreciate why people would not like or be interested in open world pvp games, especially mmorpgs which have a progression metric that can make open world combat even more unfair than normal.
1. Even though you're trying hard not to, you obviously got the point I was trying to make.
2. If you re-read my original post, I didn't say that "everyone in an open world game is only there because they want to destroy newbs." I said, "Most of the people whining about boring PVP think that open-world PVP involves allowing them to beat a quadriplegic to death with a baseball bat."
I have nothing against open-world PVP. I would play it regularly, providing that it put everybody on equal footing. It doesn't. Which is why it isn't as mainstream (i.e. popular) as many here would like it to be.
I didn't really get into the 'why' because I truly don't think it matters when you're talking about why there is so much more money thrown at PvE games with a PvP component. The important part (to me) was the number of people who are actually paying money to engage in PvP in a PvP centric game.
There are 11,000,000 people into PvE MMORPG with a PvP component and 300,000 people into PvP MMORPG. Of that 300,000, 200,000 don't participate that much in the PvP. That leaves 100,000 people who actually participate in the PvP side of PvP centric MMORPG.
That's 1% or less of the market assuming everyone who plays an MMORPG plays WoW and/or Eve*. Most investors will look at the 1%, shrug and throw money at something like Rift.
There is a HUGE market for PvP games. There just isn't a HUGE market for PvP based MMORPG, especially open world or FFA PvP MMORPG. There doesn't need to be any other reason because that reason alone is enough to end up with the current MMORPG market.
* The 'market' is actually a good bit bigger than that. I'm also ignoring the very large Asian market, where open world PvP and FFA PvP is much more popular...possibly even as or more popular than PvE with PvP.
None of that has anything whatsoever to do with the point I was raising about your mention of nullsec though... I am well aware of that side (population distribution across mmos) of your argument and have said as much so I am not entirely sure why you have repeated it again.
Mentioning nullsec as a case in point was (as far as I am concerned) a bad example. It didn't invalidate the point you were ultimately trying to make in general terms, nor does it mean that your overall stance is incorrect. But for me nullsec example was a poorly thought out one.
It is a minor thing, but I have seen a few people try and use nullsec as some sort of statistic to prove that people don't want to pvp, when in fact it is an incredibly poor metric to use.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Most games simulate logistics in ways which are fun.
Planetside simulated it in the form of "You have this army of players; how do you rapidly get them to the fight with enough punch to win the fight when they get there."
Simulating the boring side of logistics usually errs on the side of simulation without bringing much actual fun. Increasing simulation without adding fun is not good game design (in a general sense that is; if you don't care about making a game lots of people enjoy, you can make a simulation. That's what sandbox games do.)
Have you still not yet convinced yourself that you know exactly what everyone finds fun, fun, fun, and that sandbox games are basically shit that a select few morons like to dine on?
Open your other eye and you may be surprised to discover that your vision isn't quite as narrow as you're used to.
I merely observe the actual play/purchase patterns of players. (Which conveniently happens to be close to my own gaming preferences.)
You're the one fooling himself, if you think the majority wants boring logistics or world simulation.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
OP, I think you got it all wrong... Don't get mad at the gamer, get mad with the developers..
Devs and their corporate bosses would rather make a mmo for maximum profit as opposed to creating a truly epic mmo experience for loyal and faithful gamers..
Most MMO's are really PVE based with PVP thrown in to get the PVPer's interested in the game.. Dev's have been doing this since the original EQ came out...
If you want to play a MMORPG that primarily focuses on pvp, then don't play a PVE mmo with PVP sprinkled in...
There are PVP based MMO's out now. They are called Ultima Online, Darkfall, and Mortal Online.. Daoc can be PVP based if you focus on RvR,, but even that is primarily a PVE game..
Rallithon Oakthornn (Retired Heirophant of the 60th season)
Are some people still operating under the illusion that the majority of people who take part in instanced pvp in mmos are there because of the competitive aspect of it? Actually it is far more likely the case that it is due to the accessibilty not the competitiveness that is what makes them so popular.
Or wait, are people thinking that the majority of mmorpg arena players are part of voice com using clan pvp teams looking to roll in the next competition? Oh lawd.
Accessibility and ease of use and the ability to pick and choose when and where you fight are the primary driving forces behind the popularity of mmorpg instanced pvp. Not some elite level olympian ideal of competition.
Some really would have you believe that everyone who likes open world pvp is a mean old ganktard, whilst everyone who rolls in a pug in a WAR scenario is a pro gamer.
So you think the primary reason players join instanced PVP isn't because it's fun competition?
With no rewards or game mechanics around it, players PVPed in WOW. Without rewards or mechanics, what remained to motivate them? A desire to challenge the skill of other players -- competition -- was the only driving force needed for it to occur.
Just because the majority aren't ultra-competitive pro gamers doesn't mean they aren't still pursuing the same fundamental form of competition.
"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 oakthornn OP, I think you got it all wrong... Don't get mad at the gamer, get mad with the developers.. Devs and their corporate bosses would rather make a mmo for maximum profit as opposed to creating a truly epic mmo experience for loyal and faithful gamers.. Most MMO's are really PVE based with PVP thrown in to get the PVPer's interested in the game.. Dev's have been doing this since the original EQ came out... If you want to play a MMORPG that primarily focuses on pvp, then don't play a PVE mmo with PVP sprinkled in... There are PVP based MMO's out now. They are called Ultima Online, Darkfall, and Mortal Online.. Daoc can be PVP based if you focus on RvR,, but even that is primarily a PVE game..
The OP is talking about open world PvP where games are developed with PvP in mind first and the PvE content second. No battlegrounds or PvP zones, just open world PvP. It doesn't have to be FFA PvP.
MMORPG PvP enthusiasts aren't just a minority, they are a teensy, tiny minority. It's not just that you wouldn't make much money off of such a game, it's that it would be nearly impossible to make any money off of such a game at all. Nobody did this is...that's just how it is.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
So you think the primary reason players join instanced PVP isn't because it's fun competition?
With no rewards or game mechanics around it, players PVPed in WOW. Without rewards or mechanics, what remained to motivate them? A desire to challenge the skill of other players -- competition -- was the only driving force needed for it to occur.
Just because the majority aren't ultra-competitive pro gamers doesn't mean they aren't still pursuing the same fundamental form of competition.
The primary reason the majority of players who join instanced pvp in mmorpg games is due to accessibility, ease of use and not having to worry about the outcome of winning or losing a "match".
Tell you what, remove the accessibility from arenas, make everyone who wants to fight in one have to organise it between groups at a set time and place and add in a risk mechanic to the losers and tell me how "popular" they are...
Btw combat and competition are two very different things. Some people actually enjoy "having a blast" in instances without really caring too much about winning or losing at the end. It is the combat that is fun, not some notion of winning or losing a match. On the very rare occassion I have been in a pug and on the receiving end of a terrible beating and there was really zero competition in there and yet some people though it was great fun to be able to jump in and mash away at buttons for 15 minutes. They where in there for the quick fix combat, any notion of competition as the advocates of this utopian notion of "teh esport olympian" would have you believe quite simply did not factor into it.
Many do though ofc enjoy competitve combat, but thinking that mmorpg arenas are so popular primarily because of the competition factor is nonsense. A vast amount of them are in there because it is a casual and accessible side game for them. Or wait, are you saying ease of use and accessibilty are not major factors contributing to the success of instanced pvp in mmorpg games?
Don't get me wrong I love e-sport style pvp (i'm spending my game time in beta on an upcomming moba at the moment) but I find the notion mmorpg instanced pvp specifically is so popular primarily due to some notion of everyone in it for the competition somewhat odd.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
So you think the primary reason players join instanced PVP isn't because it's fun competition?
With no rewards or game mechanics around it, players PVPed in WOW. Without rewards or mechanics, what remained to motivate them? A desire to challenge the skill of other players -- competition -- was the only driving force needed for it to occur.
Just because the majority aren't ultra-competitive pro gamers doesn't mean they aren't still pursuing the same fundamental form of competition.
The primary reason the majority of players who join instanced pvp in mmorpg games is due to accessibility, ease of use and not having to worry about the outcome of winning or losing a "match".
Tell you what, remove the accessibility from arenas, make everyone who wants to fight in one have to organise it between groups at a set time and place and add in a risk mechanic to the losers and tell me how "popular" they are...
Btw combat and competition are two very different things. Some people actually enjoy "having a blast" in instances without really caring too much about winning or losing at the end. It is the combat that is fun, not some notion of winning or losing a match. On the very rare occassion I have been in a pug and on the receiving end of a terrible beating and there was really zero competition in there and yet some people though it was great fun to be able to jump in and mash away at buttons for 15 minutes. They where in there for the quick fix combat, any notion of competition as the advocates of this utopian notion of "teh esport olympian" would have you believe quite simply did not factor into it.
Many do though ofc enjoy competitve combat, but thinking that mmorpg arenas are so popular primarily because of the competition factor is nonsense. A vast amount of them are in there because it is a casual and accessible side game for them. Or wait, are you saying ease of use and accessibilty are not major factors contributing to the success of instanced pvp in mmorpg games?
Don't get me wrong I love e-sport style pvp (i'm spending my game time in beta on an upcomming moba at the moment) but I find the notion mmorpg instanced pvp specifically is so popular primarily due to some notion of everyone in it for the competition somewhat odd.
It is very simple: Victory is nothing if the other guy is not even trying. -> Competition is fun. Some may not care if their team does well or not as long as they themselves are doing good. As long as the game keeps challenging you, meaning if your opponents are challenging, you'll have fun.
Don't try to trivialise it and don't use strawmen.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Two tyrants are destroying the PvP Servers: PvE Players and Incentive.
*snip* (read the first post)
THE FIX?
Either remove Instanced PvP from PvP Servers OR remove incentive from the Instanced PvP Games via PvP Server.
I don't think that would really work either.
Blaming the PvE players isn't really fair, the problem is that MMO mechanics basically are made for PvE with PvP as an afterthought. That have created 2 very different experiences, and frankly is the current mechanics better for PvE only than for PvP only.
We need a new smart mechanics that works equally fine for both and make both things very similar and yet fun.
First of all do we need PvE mobs to act more like real humans. That means that the holy trinity needs to go bye bye.It also means that levels either need to go or at least needs to be rewamped. There need to be less difference a lvl 17 and a lvl 25 (or whatever). The whole system for skills and cooldowns also needs a look, probably the enitrie combat system as well.
The issue here is that most MMO players prefer PvE while most FPS players prefer PvP. That tells us that MMO PvP needs to be a lot more fun than it already is to attract more players. I don't doubt that can be achived but not with the current mechanics we have now.
I do agree with you that instanced PvP is a problem on PvP servers because as we see in WAR, it splits up the already limited number of players into instances and make the game from a MMORPG to a regular multiplayer game.
But I also think that part of the problem is why people fight and what they gain by doing so. A great back story would help.
I think MMOs need to get mechanics that focus less on grinded gear as well. "Best gear wins" is not the mechanics that attract most players to PvP. That does not mean I think that MMOs should be like FPS games, far from it. I think MMOs needs to be closer to Warhammer, and not the sad exceuse for a MMO but the old Warhammer fantasy RPG (not to be confused with the crap Fantasy flight games sell).
WFRPG have the right amount of difference between new and veteran players. It also have a rather small focus on gear and is basically a more advanced version of the best selling table top games. It works excellent for both PvP and PvE.
Or we need something in the same spirit. The alternative is to have PvP only and PvE only games with their own mechanics.
Whether they're labeled or not, people will do exactly that and hit control points. Like I mentioned with my WoW comment, when there was only world PvP that's still exactly what every one did. They formed big armies and marched on capitols and quest hubs. No reward, nothing other than to kill one another and yet they still played in the same way because it meant something to the other faction.
The thing is it's not just a chain of things and you bouncing from one to the next. In Battlefield and Planetside both, yes there may be a primary focus of conflict, but there's a plethora of ways in which they are handled and there's a wide range of secondary objectives and other areas that are key to control always present external to the main conflict zones that can still make or break a battle.
And the reason Planetside was awesome is it combined all that multi-layered strategic/tactical/twitch depth on top of an instanced PVP system (population limits) with lateral progression.
So you got the main benefit of world PVP (massive battles) with almost* none of the downsides. (* the not-yet-poplocked continents were still unfair battles, which made things dreadfully dull and lopsided.)
There is no character upwards "progression" in WWIIONLINE/PLANETSIDE, which makes both games the cream of the PVP MMO crop.
Even being cream of the crop both games STILL don't have LOGISTICS simulated, ARGH! Without simulated logistics, by NPC's, indirect artillery is nothing but a spawn camping tool, and much of the tactics revolves around spawn camping, and much of the code is involved with spawn camp prevention.
Just wanted to note a few things.
One, NPCs wouldn't add logistics. They're NPCs.
There is logistics in Planetside as every facility operates on it's own power that must be maintained. It affects combat greatly as even the attacking teams tend to avoid draining a facility of power because that means having to convoy in their own energy to repower and claim the facility.
Indirect artillery can only be used against spawn when they come out of a mobile spawn. Sure you can barrage the doors of a tower and facility, but you're doing the exact same effect as parking a tank there and a tank would do the job better.
Assaulting the spawn tubes is a part of capturing a facility. You aren't just spawn camping you're destroying the equipment in order to force the enemy faction to have to spawn in an external facility so that you can have time to cap the base.
---
In Battlefield games spawning is random across the area, as each spawn location has multiple locations you can pop in at so you aren't always landing in the same spot to potentially get ganked at.
Battlefield does somewhat lack in the logistics side of things, as they aren't trying to manage any resources other than faction body/point count usually. Though in Battlefield 2142 they did remedy that in several game modes so you have extra things like your main base thay you're tying to protect while destroying your oponents, and they have their own shields and health you had to maintain and be wary of. Which also went back to managing how you played ans apread across the battlefield.
As I mentioned above about the way spawning works in Battlefield series, it's actually very hard to spawn camp with it. Next to useless unless you've jammed your enemies into a corner with no other area to pop back up at. And at that point it's not spawn camping so much as hitting the game home for victory.
They also had resource calldowns if your base equipment was up to resupply soldiers and repair vehicles.
I don't even know what you're referring to here as 'spawn camp prevention' in either game. And they did have logistics, unless you're using a new definition of the word not to do with resource management. It just feels like you're making random guesses as to how they work.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Or we need something in the same spirit. The alternative is to have PvP only and PvE only games with their own mechanics.
Loke, I said something similar to this and more -- page 16 of this thread.
I would like to hear your input on it, as no one else responded or read it.... I've followed your posts for a while, and I enjoy your approach to the subjects that concern me regarding MMO combat.
Or we need something in the same spirit. The alternative is to have PvP only and PvE only games with their own mechanics.
Loke, I said something similar to this and more -- page 16 of this thread.
I would like to hear your input on it, as no one else responded or read it.... I've followed your posts for a while, and I enjoy your approach to the subjects that concern me regarding MMO combat.
Something I have learned in my years of playing MMORPGs is that if I am not interested in doing PvP I should stay away from PvP games no matter how much I love the other features of the game. I learned the lessson with EVE and then relearned it with Pirates of the Burning Seas. PvP is like kudzu and will ultimately spread to parts of the game you though were seperate from it. Non-PvP features will be canibalized to support PvP.
It is very simple: Victory is nothing if the other guy is not even trying. -> Competition is fun. Some may not care if their team does well or not as long as they themselves are doing good. As long as the game keeps challenging you, meaning if your opponents are challenging, you'll have fun.
Don't try to trivialise it and don't use strawmen.
I have stated that in my opinion the primary factor behind the success in mmorpg instanced pvp is the ease of use and accessibility of it more-so than the fact the majority of people in there are seeking some halcyon ideal of competition. If you want to put forth a counter to that, something over and above "ra ra strawmen" would be an idea.
Oddly enough people can have "fun" playing pool or going bowling against someone even though the game involves little to no real competition. But no, ofc in mmorpg arenas people can't simply be in there for the fun of the combat alone and the accessibility, they all have the iron will to win...
Oh and challenging yourself is quite, quite different to "competition" in the sense of a sport. Can you not see that?
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
There is logistics in Planetside as every facility operates on it's own power that must be maintained. It affects combat greatly as even the attacking teams tend to avoid draining a facility of power because that means having to convoy in their own energy to repower and claim the facility.
Indirect artillery can only be used against spawn when they come out of a mobile spawn. Sure you can barrage the doors of a tower and facility, but you're doing the exact same effect as parking a tank there and a tank would do the job better.
Assaulting the spawn tubes is a part of capturing a facility. You aren't just spawn camping you're destroying the equipment in order to force the enemy faction to have to spawn in an external facility so that you can have time to cap the base.
---
In Battlefield games spawning is random across the area, as each spawn location has multiple locations you can pop in at so you aren't always landing in the same spot to potentially get ganked at.
Battlefield does somewhat lack in the logistics side of things, as they aren't trying to manage any resources other than faction body/point count usually. Though in Battlefield 2142 they did remedy that in several game modes so you have extra things like your main base thay you're tying to protect while destroying your oponents, and they have their own shields and health you had to maintain and be wary of. Which also went back to managing how you played ans apread across the battlefield.
As I mentioned above about the way spawning works in Battlefield series, it's actually very hard to spawn camp with it. Next to useless unless you've jammed your enemies into a corner with no other area to pop back up at. And at that point it's not spawn camping so much as hitting the game home for victory.
They also had resource calldowns if your base equipment was up to resupply soldiers and repair vehicles.
I don't even know what you're referring to here as 'spawn camp prevention' in either game. And they did have logistics, unless you're using a new definition of the word not to do with resource management. It just feels like you're making random guesses as to how they work.
no, no, no, no, no, no That is not Logistics.
Geez gamers totally abuse the words Tactics, Logistics, and Strategy.
Logistics in a game is the transport of raw materials to finished product in a line all the way up to the point in which the player spawns in the world (SPAWN POINT), which is why only NPC convoy transports can only be used, it would be too boring for players to drive trucks all day long.
The lack of any simulated logistics in PVP games is why we have fixed spawn points (bases, flags to cap), which is developer created content. But if we had logistics from mine ----> factory ----> spawn point, than there would no longer need to be developer created fixed spawn points, the player can place spawn points whever the player wanted.
"Well if the player can create their own spawn point they'd just put a spawn point in the middle of the ocean and laugh while players spawned in and drown, or players would put the spawn point up high on a mountain top somewhere which is unreachable by enemy." Hence the need to simulate logistics, if NPC's driving convoys can't reach the ENDPOINT player created spawn point, on a mountain top or in the ocean, than no players can spawn at that point.
"Well if the player can create their own spawn point, they'd just place it 10 feet next to an objective." Hence the need to simulate logistics, if you have NPC driving convoys right on top of an enemy they would be vulnerable to attack, therefore your spawn point gets no equipment and you can't spawn.
And as long as there are developer created FIXED SPAWN POINTS (bases), than artillery is always going to be gimped in PVP games, cause a guy sitting 10 milies back shooting a spawn point is pretty much a gamebreaker for everyone else.
In the REAL WORLD the frontline in a REAL WAR is determined by your frontline unit's proximity to enemies frontline units, and your ability to defend your LINE OF SUPPLY from enemy attacks, in relation to the enemies ability to defend their LINE OF SUPPLY from your attacks. This is why in REAL WAR, battlelines are typically in a "T" with the frontline units being the top of the "T" and the line of supply going is the vertical part of the "T" The LINE OF SUPPLY are NPC controlled convoys, and the frontline unit is the spawn point.
Totally agree with you. Most PvP games these days are instanced and pretty boring. There is no freedom like there used to be. We're always confined in a small room which is neither exciting nor fun.
The small group of people whining about "balance" etc are the people ruining mmo pvp.
Most of the people whining about boring PVP think that open-world PVP involves allowing them to beat a quadriplegic to death with a baseball bat. They aren't looking for a challenge. They're looking for their next adrenaline fix.
Do you really want "open-world" PVP? Join the military. There's more than enough adrenaline to go around, and you'll learn that your actions have consequences.
An MMO is a game. Games are meant to be played by people as a form of entertainment. For the vast majority of people, entertainment does not involve harming another person. Those who get enjoyment from harming other people are deviants. They are vilified, and usually put away for a long time. Or they are removed. Literally.
If you truly want open-world PVP in an MMO, then find one that doesn't allow levelling. Everybody starts off at level 1 and stays there. Then you'll be facing your opponent equally. The game could let them level for PVE, and give them all of the AC and DPS stats they need to compete against the PVE portion of the game. But, when they encounter another player and decide to fight, all stats and hp are dropped to level 1 for both of them.
Sound fun to you? No? It sounds great to me. Open-world PVP without any worry of being ganked.
Oh, that's right. You don't want fair. You don't want "balance". You want to beat a quadriplegic to death with a baseball bat.
No, I want to pvp with and against people that like to pvp...not with whiny crappy players like you that can't practice and get good enough to stand up for yourself and fight. If you suck at pvp and don't care about getting good at it, just stay with your safe, easy and fair pve. Problem solved.
Oh and if you don't want to "harm" people. What are you doing playing games? 99% of games are about killing...
1. If every restaurant cost the same and McD's still sold the best, it could be considered the best restaurant.
Every MMORPG does cost the same (except the free ones) and WOW outsells them by a huge margin.
2. This isn't about right or wrong. It's merely fact-stating about what people like. You can't claim someone's opinion is "wrong".
3. I lied, you can call someone's opinion wrong: and I'm calling your opinion wrong when you say a world PVP game "done right" would sell equal to an instanced PVP game done right. The traits that make something world PVP just aren't what competitive players are looking for.
so it's not about right or wrong, except when you're right? way to go.
I get it, you're the type of guy who likes to talk about objective "facts", while simply throwing his subjective opitions around.
here's a fact though: that you believe WoW is the best game out there, based on its sub numbers, says more about your arguments than I ever could; I rest my case.
Case A was a subjective opinion.
Case B was an opinion with a lot of objective evidence that suggests it's false.
This isn't me being wishy-washy. This is two very different types of subjects being discussed. There's a long-running history of objective evidence suggesting people strongly prefer instanced PVP over non-instanced.
Nobody can tell you you're wrong about liking what nobody else likes. We can only tell you you're wrong if you insist that type of game has an equal chance at success, when all the data points to "uh, no."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If NPCs drove ANTs in Planetside, it would still be logistics.
Logistics is getting shit where it's needed. Whether it's automated or not is irrelevant. It's a supply line and if it's cut you suffer and if you defend it you thrive.
Hell respawn is logistics -- and that's not even a visible force on the battlefield, it's only a game concept.
Planetside example: The enemy has pushed halfway into a base, and a friendly tank rolls up to the tower where enemies spawn from and kills them before they make it inside. Their supply line has been cut and the battle inside quickly favors your team.
That example is fun logistics. It's not some arduous task, but a logical tactic used by a team to cut the opponent off from their resources (in this case: troop reinforcements.)
There are tons of other examples of naturally occurring logistics tactics in games (MMORPGs too). Like in Planetside if I start a cap on your only connection to my base then all your forces invading from that tower are again countered by the fact that I cut off your ability to even start a capture of my base.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If NPCs drove ANTs in Planetside, it would still be logistics.
Logistics is getting shit where it's needed. Whether it's automated or not is irrelevant. It's a supply line and if it's cut you suffer and if you defend it you thrive.
Hell respawn is logistics -- and that's not even a visible force on the battlefield, it's only a game concept.
Planetside example: The enemy has pushed halfway into a base, and a friendly tank rolls up to the tower where enemies spawn from and kills them before they make it inside. Their supply line has been cut and the battle inside quickly favors your team.
That example is fun logistics. It's not some arduous task, but a logical tactic used by a team to cut the opponent off from their resources (in this case: troop reinforcements.)
There are tons of other examples of naturally occurring logistics tactics in games (MMORPGs too). Like in Planetside if I start a cap on your only connection to my base then all your forces invading from that tower are again countered by the fact that I cut off your ability to even start a capture of my base.
I wouldn't call cutting intercepting players spawining into towers as Logistics, it's more of a frontline tactic of divide and conquer. Logistics is the transportation of men and materials to the battle, the tower is part of the battle, what goes TO the tower is logistics. Logistics units are never frontline units.
But the idea is correct, if there were NPC trucks supplying the tower and the enemy destroys trucks than you don't spawn there.
I absolutely hate to say it but what KILLS pvp servers is cheating. In EVERY PvP game i have been on the same small band of "players" rule the server. Everywhere I go those same Ahats are there and are totally full of win. It is always later defined as this exploit or that cheat/hack. ALWAYS. There is this get with the party mentality going on and honestly that isnt PvP. Thats CvC(code vs code)
So here it is. The market you PvErs are saying should be there is being spent with coders who program and sell hacks cheats and scripts. Players spend X10 a subscription with these coders per game and sometimes per sub if they get banned. If that market didnt exist neither would these guys be in business.
This has been ongoing since game masters 1st allowed a player an advantage over another player. It is the reason most top pvpers even log in at all and if it didnt exist neither would the PvP servers.
That said I do enjoy open world FFA PvP...on even ground! If there is a player or group of players who just simply own my toon I know FOR A FACT they are cheating. No one can go 0 out of 100 by player skill alone. I just dont suck THAT bad. Yea ill go 50 50 with ya or even 30/70 without complaint but OMG no wins out of 100 fights just dont happen and I know whats to blame.
Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by Quirhid
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by Axehilt
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
It is very simple: Victory is nothing if the other guy is not even trying. -> Competition is fun. Some may not care if their team does well or not as long as they themselves are doing good. As long as the game keeps challenging you, meaning if your opponents are challenging, you'll have fun. Don't try to trivialise it and don't use strawmen. I have stated that in my opinion the primary factor behind the success in mmorpg instanced pvp is the ease of use and accessibility of it more-so than the fact the majority of people in there are seeking some halcyon ideal of competition. If you want to put forth a counter to that, something over and above "ra ra strawmen" would be an idea.
Oddly enough people can have "fun" playing pool or going bowling against someone even though the game involves little to no real competition. But no, ofc in mmorpg arenas people can't simply be in there for the fun of the combat alone and the accessibility, they all have the iron will to win...
Oh and challenging yourself is quite, quite different to "competition" in the sense of a sport. Can you not see that?
It's all of the above. Battleground pvp can be like a competitive game of basketball or it can be like a friendly pickup game in the park, you get rewards for participation (usually more if you win), the barrier to entry is low and the player gets to choose when it happens and more importantly, when it doesn't. There isn't any one single feature that makes instanced pvp the more attractive choice for a lot of people.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Though I'm still not savvy on calling an automated system part of logistics when there is no active thought or effort put into it by participants and it's left up to the computer. Guess that doesn't disqualify it though.
As for Nerf.
And per your own link Nerf.
'Militarylogistics is the discipline of planning and carrying out the movement and maintenance of military forces.'
Design, development, acquisition, storage, distribution, maintenance, evacuation, and disposition of materiel.
Transport of personnel.
Acquisition or construction, maintenance, operation, and disposition of facilities.
Acquisition or furnishing of services.
Medical and health service support.
I can tell you right now, that what I was telling you covers at least half of those and I can give more examples to ffulfill the definition if you really think it's inadequate. You're just whining for the sake of whining if you can't see the correlation here. I used the term logistics accurately and I do not appreciate it when some one handwaves it and turns around and posts something like that link, which proves me right, and acts like it's proof I'm wrong (when, again, it's actually proving me right).
I mentioned in passing mobile spawn points in Planetside. I mentioned the convoys (ants+escort) to supply bases with power so troops can spawn at them, restock equipment, and get vehicles.
You an interrupt those convoys, you can place new spaws almost anywhere, you can move supplys for troops and facilities, you can do all those things. I don't even get how you replied to my comment saying it isn't logistics unless it's an active effort to not get it.
There's also the full range of supprt for troops in the form of transport, resource resupply, health and armor repair for troops and vehicles, equipment repair for mobile turrets and base structures, and even multiple ways to coordinate fly in bombing runs and long range mortar fire as well as how to drop or move troops into a conflict. There's even more on top of that, but I just don't know where to cut off to satisfy you because you say one thing and then turn on your own definition the next.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I mentioned in passing mobile spawn points in Planetside. I mentioned the convoys (ants+escort) to supply bases with power so troops can spawn at them, restock equipment, and get vehicles.
That only happens if a base is cut off, and when that happens nobody drives ants up, everyone abandons the base. So this doesn't exist in Planetside. It's a useless game mechanic nobody uses.
You an interrupt those convoys, you can place new spaws almost anywhere, you can move supplys for troops and facilities, you can do all those things. I don't even get how you replied to my comment saying it isn't logistics unless it's an active effort to not get it.
There's also the full range of supprt for troops in the form of transport, resource resupply, health and armor repair for troops and vehicles, equipment repair for mobile turrets and base structures, and even multiple ways to coordinate fly in bombing runs and long range mortar fire as well as how to drop or move troops into a conflict. There's even more on top of that, but I just don't know where to cut off to satisfy you because you say one thing and then turn on your own definition the next.
No, that's frontline operations not logistics. What you spout is the difference between dictionary knowledge and real world knowledge. Just cause the definition includes, "Transportation" doesn't mean all forms of transportation.
And there is no "resources" in planetside.
And there are no "mortars" in Planetside
And coordinating bombers has nothing to do with Logistics.
Seriously dude. And try reading the entire article I linked, not just bullet points in the first paragraph.
Comments
Most games simulate logistics in ways which are fun.
Planetside simulated it in the form of "You have this army of players; how do you rapidly get them to the fight with enough punch to win the fight when they get there."
Simulating the boring side of logistics usually errs on the side of simulation without bringing much actual fun. Increasing simulation without adding fun is not good game design (in a general sense that is; if you don't care about making a game lots of people enjoy, you can make a simulation. That's what sandbox games do.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
1. Unless development drastically improves in terms of combat mechanics, PVP and PVE don't work well both being featured in one game. It's much more beneficial for both parties if there are PVP-centric games and PVE-centric games to choose from. Balancing the two in the same game ends up making both PVE and PVP dull and unenjoyable.
2. Penalties need to be created from the get go in PVP games/servers. If player X is in 'protected' area, and player Y decides they want to attack/gank/pk them, the game mechanics itself should allow it, however, player Y should have some sort detrimental punishment to condone the concept that "This is a PVP game/server. You are never 100% safe. But if you grief people, you will have consequences and the consequences will be strict enough to make you think twice about being a douchebag"
3. Continue to give players the option for Arena, Battlegrounds, Warzones, flag-football, duels, or whatever instanced and consentual playground they may want to join for the purpose of instant gratification/action for the people that only want to jump on and do a quick battle or whatnot, however, STOP giving incentives such as GEAR UPGRADES to players taking part in this. It completely nullifies the reason for anyone to engage in WORLD PVP, in turn, making the BULK of the content available unused.
4. Give incentives to WORLD pvp activities such as Player X at level '100' decides to try and gank Player Y who is level '80' -- Player Y overcomes and defeats player X because he is a more talented combatant. Player Y gains xp/honor/prestige/points/GEAR for the completed challenge +50% as his chances were substantially lower to come out of the battle successfully. (Trust me, such a dynamic is possible. Every kill in MMOs nowadays are recorded and calculated on many levels, and this wouldn't be very hard to implement. Gear score/armor/attack/dodge/"resilience" are all stats and values that are already calculated on the fly RIGHT NOW, so adding status and end-result checks and balances to determine who gets what after a PVP battle is definitely possible)
5. Win / Loss is important. If you win a pvp battle, you need to feel like you gained something, giving your aggression purpose, even if it's RP or Lore driven. Same goes for losing. If you lose, it needs to make you feel like redemption is necessary, and/or the loss of substance aka ITEMS, GOLD, GEAR, BUFFS, etc need to be reaquired. This concept fuels more than just the activity level of PVP on a given game/server, it also fuels the crafters and the RPers and everyone else who may be considered PVE'ers
Have you still not yet convinced yourself that you know exactly what everyone finds fun, fun, fun, and that sandbox games are basically shit that a select few morons like to dine on?
Open your other eye and you may be surprised to discover that your vision isn't quite as narrow as you're used to.
"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
1. Even though you're trying hard not to, you obviously got the point I was trying to make.
2. If you re-read my original post, I didn't say that "everyone in an open world game is only there because they want to destroy newbs." I said, "Most of the people whining about boring PVP think that open-world PVP involves allowing them to beat a quadriplegic to death with a baseball bat."
I have nothing against open-world PVP. I would play it regularly, providing that it put everybody on equal footing. It doesn't. Which is why it isn't as mainstream (i.e. popular) as many here would like it to be.
None of that has anything whatsoever to do with the point I was raising about your mention of nullsec though... I am well aware of that side (population distribution across mmos) of your argument and have said as much so I am not entirely sure why you have repeated it again.
Mentioning nullsec as a case in point was (as far as I am concerned) a bad example. It didn't invalidate the point you were ultimately trying to make in general terms, nor does it mean that your overall stance is incorrect. But for me nullsec example was a poorly thought out one.
It is a minor thing, but I have seen a few people try and use nullsec as some sort of statistic to prove that people don't want to pvp, when in fact it is an incredibly poor metric to use.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I merely observe the actual play/purchase patterns of players. (Which conveniently happens to be close to my own gaming preferences.)
You're the one fooling himself, if you think the majority wants boring logistics or world simulation.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
OP, I think you got it all wrong... Don't get mad at the gamer, get mad with the developers..
Devs and their corporate bosses would rather make a mmo for maximum profit as opposed to creating a truly epic mmo experience for loyal and faithful gamers..
Most MMO's are really PVE based with PVP thrown in to get the PVPer's interested in the game.. Dev's have been doing this since the original EQ came out...
If you want to play a MMORPG that primarily focuses on pvp, then don't play a PVE mmo with PVP sprinkled in...
There are PVP based MMO's out now. They are called Ultima Online, Darkfall, and Mortal Online.. Daoc can be PVP based if you focus on RvR,, but even that is primarily a PVE game..
Rallithon Oakthornn
(Retired Heirophant of the 60th season)
So you think the primary reason players join instanced PVP isn't because it's fun competition?
With no rewards or game mechanics around it, players PVPed in WOW. Without rewards or mechanics, what remained to motivate them? A desire to challenge the skill of other players -- competition -- was the only driving force needed for it to occur.
Just because the majority aren't ultra-competitive pro gamers doesn't mean they aren't still pursuing the same fundamental form of competition.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The OP is talking about open world PvP where games are developed with PvP in mind first and the PvE content second. No battlegrounds or PvP zones, just open world PvP. It doesn't have to be FFA PvP.
MMORPG PvP enthusiasts aren't just a minority, they are a teensy, tiny minority. It's not just that you wouldn't make much money off of such a game, it's that it would be nearly impossible to make any money off of such a game at all. Nobody did this is...that's just how it is.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The primary reason the majority of players who join instanced pvp in mmorpg games is due to accessibility, ease of use and not having to worry about the outcome of winning or losing a "match".
Tell you what, remove the accessibility from arenas, make everyone who wants to fight in one have to organise it between groups at a set time and place and add in a risk mechanic to the losers and tell me how "popular" they are...
Btw combat and competition are two very different things. Some people actually enjoy "having a blast" in instances without really caring too much about winning or losing at the end. It is the combat that is fun, not some notion of winning or losing a match. On the very rare occassion I have been in a pug and on the receiving end of a terrible beating and there was really zero competition in there and yet some people though it was great fun to be able to jump in and mash away at buttons for 15 minutes. They where in there for the quick fix combat, any notion of competition as the advocates of this utopian notion of "teh esport olympian" would have you believe quite simply did not factor into it.
Many do though ofc enjoy competitve combat, but thinking that mmorpg arenas are so popular primarily because of the competition factor is nonsense. A vast amount of them are in there because it is a casual and accessible side game for them. Or wait, are you saying ease of use and accessibilty are not major factors contributing to the success of instanced pvp in mmorpg games?
Don't get me wrong I love e-sport style pvp (i'm spending my game time in beta on an upcomming moba at the moment) but I find the notion mmorpg instanced pvp specifically is so popular primarily due to some notion of everyone in it for the competition somewhat odd.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It is very simple: Victory is nothing if the other guy is not even trying. -> Competition is fun. Some may not care if their team does well or not as long as they themselves are doing good. As long as the game keeps challenging you, meaning if your opponents are challenging, you'll have fun.
Don't try to trivialise it and don't use strawmen.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I don't think that would really work either.
Blaming the PvE players isn't really fair, the problem is that MMO mechanics basically are made for PvE with PvP as an afterthought. That have created 2 very different experiences, and frankly is the current mechanics better for PvE only than for PvP only.
We need a new smart mechanics that works equally fine for both and make both things very similar and yet fun.
First of all do we need PvE mobs to act more like real humans. That means that the holy trinity needs to go bye bye.It also means that levels either need to go or at least needs to be rewamped. There need to be less difference a lvl 17 and a lvl 25 (or whatever). The whole system for skills and cooldowns also needs a look, probably the enitrie combat system as well.
The issue here is that most MMO players prefer PvE while most FPS players prefer PvP. That tells us that MMO PvP needs to be a lot more fun than it already is to attract more players. I don't doubt that can be achived but not with the current mechanics we have now.
I do agree with you that instanced PvP is a problem on PvP servers because as we see in WAR, it splits up the already limited number of players into instances and make the game from a MMORPG to a regular multiplayer game.
But I also think that part of the problem is why people fight and what they gain by doing so. A great back story would help.
I think MMOs need to get mechanics that focus less on grinded gear as well. "Best gear wins" is not the mechanics that attract most players to PvP. That does not mean I think that MMOs should be like FPS games, far from it. I think MMOs needs to be closer to Warhammer, and not the sad exceuse for a MMO but the old Warhammer fantasy RPG (not to be confused with the crap Fantasy flight games sell).
WFRPG have the right amount of difference between new and veteran players. It also have a rather small focus on gear and is basically a more advanced version of the best selling table top games. It works excellent for both PvP and PvE.
Or we need something in the same spirit. The alternative is to have PvP only and PvE only games with their own mechanics.
Just wanted to note a few things.
One, NPCs wouldn't add logistics. They're NPCs.
There is logistics in Planetside as every facility operates on it's own power that must be maintained. It affects combat greatly as even the attacking teams tend to avoid draining a facility of power because that means having to convoy in their own energy to repower and claim the facility.
Indirect artillery can only be used against spawn when they come out of a mobile spawn. Sure you can barrage the doors of a tower and facility, but you're doing the exact same effect as parking a tank there and a tank would do the job better.
Assaulting the spawn tubes is a part of capturing a facility. You aren't just spawn camping you're destroying the equipment in order to force the enemy faction to have to spawn in an external facility so that you can have time to cap the base.
---
In Battlefield games spawning is random across the area, as each spawn location has multiple locations you can pop in at so you aren't always landing in the same spot to potentially get ganked at.
Battlefield does somewhat lack in the logistics side of things, as they aren't trying to manage any resources other than faction body/point count usually. Though in Battlefield 2142 they did remedy that in several game modes so you have extra things like your main base thay you're tying to protect while destroying your oponents, and they have their own shields and health you had to maintain and be wary of. Which also went back to managing how you played ans apread across the battlefield.
As I mentioned above about the way spawning works in Battlefield series, it's actually very hard to spawn camp with it. Next to useless unless you've jammed your enemies into a corner with no other area to pop back up at. And at that point it's not spawn camping so much as hitting the game home for victory.
They also had resource calldowns if your base equipment was up to resupply soldiers and repair vehicles.
I don't even know what you're referring to here as 'spawn camp prevention' in either game. And they did have logistics, unless you're using a new definition of the word not to do with resource management. It just feels like you're making random guesses as to how they work.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Loke, I said something similar to this and more -- page 16 of this thread.
I would like to hear your input on it, as no one else responded or read it.... I've followed your posts for a while, and I enjoy your approach to the subjects that concern me regarding MMO combat.
Something I have learned in my years of playing MMORPGs is that if I am not interested in doing PvP I should stay away from PvP games no matter how much I love the other features of the game. I learned the lessson with EVE and then relearned it with Pirates of the Burning Seas. PvP is like kudzu and will ultimately spread to parts of the game you though were seperate from it. Non-PvP features will be canibalized to support PvP.
I have stated that in my opinion the primary factor behind the success in mmorpg instanced pvp is the ease of use and accessibility of it more-so than the fact the majority of people in there are seeking some halcyon ideal of competition. If you want to put forth a counter to that, something over and above "ra ra strawmen" would be an idea.
Oddly enough people can have "fun" playing pool or going bowling against someone even though the game involves little to no real competition. But no, ofc in mmorpg arenas people can't simply be in there for the fun of the combat alone and the accessibility, they all have the iron will to win...
Oh and challenging yourself is quite, quite different to "competition" in the sense of a sport. Can you not see that?
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
no, no, no, no, no, no That is not Logistics.
Geez gamers totally abuse the words Tactics, Logistics, and Strategy.
Logistics in a game is the transport of raw materials to finished product in a line all the way up to the point in which the player spawns in the world (SPAWN POINT), which is why only NPC convoy transports can only be used, it would be too boring for players to drive trucks all day long.
The lack of any simulated logistics in PVP games is why we have fixed spawn points (bases, flags to cap), which is developer created content. But if we had logistics from mine ----> factory ----> spawn point, than there would no longer need to be developer created fixed spawn points, the player can place spawn points whever the player wanted.
"Well if the player can create their own spawn point they'd just put a spawn point in the middle of the ocean and laugh while players spawned in and drown, or players would put the spawn point up high on a mountain top somewhere which is unreachable by enemy." Hence the need to simulate logistics, if NPC's driving convoys can't reach the ENDPOINT player created spawn point, on a mountain top or in the ocean, than no players can spawn at that point.
"Well if the player can create their own spawn point, they'd just place it 10 feet next to an objective." Hence the need to simulate logistics, if you have NPC driving convoys right on top of an enemy they would be vulnerable to attack, therefore your spawn point gets no equipment and you can't spawn.
And as long as there are developer created FIXED SPAWN POINTS (bases), than artillery is always going to be gimped in PVP games, cause a guy sitting 10 milies back shooting a spawn point is pretty much a gamebreaker for everyone else.
In the REAL WORLD the frontline in a REAL WAR is determined by your frontline unit's proximity to enemies frontline units, and your ability to defend your LINE OF SUPPLY from enemy attacks, in relation to the enemies ability to defend their LINE OF SUPPLY from your attacks. This is why in REAL WAR, battlelines are typically in a "T" with the frontline units being the top of the "T" and the line of supply going is the vertical part of the "T" The LINE OF SUPPLY are NPC controlled convoys, and the frontline unit is the spawn point.
Military Logistics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_logistics
No game exists that simulates logistics. Not even grand strategy paradox games. HOI3 is a joke.
No, I want to pvp with and against people that like to pvp...not with whiny crappy players like you that can't practice and get good enough to stand up for yourself and fight. If you suck at pvp and don't care about getting good at it, just stay with your safe, easy and fair pve. Problem solved.
Oh and if you don't want to "harm" people. What are you doing playing games? 99% of games are about killing...
Case A was a subjective opinion.
Case B was an opinion with a lot of objective evidence that suggests it's false.
This isn't me being wishy-washy. This is two very different types of subjects being discussed. There's a long-running history of objective evidence suggesting people strongly prefer instanced PVP over non-instanced.
Nobody can tell you you're wrong about liking what nobody else likes. We can only tell you you're wrong if you insist that type of game has an equal chance at success, when all the data points to "uh, no."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If NPCs drove ANTs in Planetside, it would still be logistics.
Logistics is getting shit where it's needed. Whether it's automated or not is irrelevant. It's a supply line and if it's cut you suffer and if you defend it you thrive.
Hell respawn is logistics -- and that's not even a visible force on the battlefield, it's only a game concept.
Planetside example: The enemy has pushed halfway into a base, and a friendly tank rolls up to the tower where enemies spawn from and kills them before they make it inside. Their supply line has been cut and the battle inside quickly favors your team.
That example is fun logistics. It's not some arduous task, but a logical tactic used by a team to cut the opponent off from their resources (in this case: troop reinforcements.)
There are tons of other examples of naturally occurring logistics tactics in games (MMORPGs too). Like in Planetside if I start a cap on your only connection to my base then all your forces invading from that tower are again countered by the fact that I cut off your ability to even start a capture of my base.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I wouldn't call cutting intercepting players spawining into towers as Logistics, it's more of a frontline tactic of divide and conquer. Logistics is the transportation of men and materials to the battle, the tower is part of the battle, what goes TO the tower is logistics. Logistics units are never frontline units.
But the idea is correct, if there were NPC trucks supplying the tower and the enemy destroys trucks than you don't spawn there.
I absolutely hate to say it but what KILLS pvp servers is cheating. In EVERY PvP game i have been on the same small band of "players" rule the server. Everywhere I go those same Ahats are there and are totally full of win. It is always later defined as this exploit or that cheat/hack. ALWAYS. There is this get with the party mentality going on and honestly that isnt PvP. Thats CvC(code vs code)
So here it is. The market you PvErs are saying should be there is being spent with coders who program and sell hacks cheats and scripts. Players spend X10 a subscription with these coders per game and sometimes per sub if they get banned. If that market didnt exist neither would these guys be in business.
This has been ongoing since game masters 1st allowed a player an advantage over another player. It is the reason most top pvpers even log in at all and if it didnt exist neither would the PvP servers.
That said I do enjoy open world FFA PvP...on even ground! If there is a player or group of players who just simply own my toon I know FOR A FACT they are cheating. No one can go 0 out of 100 by player skill alone. I just dont suck THAT bad. Yea ill go 50 50 with ya or even 30/70 without complaint but OMG no wins out of 100 fights just dont happen and I know whats to blame.
It is very simple: Victory is nothing if the other guy is not even trying. -> Competition is fun. Some may not care if their team does well or not as long as they themselves are doing good. As long as the game keeps challenging you, meaning if your opponents are challenging, you'll have fun.
Don't try to trivialise it and don't use strawmen.
I have stated that in my opinion the primary factor behind the success in mmorpg instanced pvp is the ease of use and accessibility of it more-so than the fact the majority of people in there are seeking some halcyon ideal of competition. If you want to put forth a counter to that, something over and above "ra ra strawmen" would be an idea.
Oddly enough people can have "fun" playing pool or going bowling against someone even though the game involves little to no real competition. But no, ofc in mmorpg arenas people can't simply be in there for the fun of the combat alone and the accessibility, they all have the iron will to win...
Oh and challenging yourself is quite, quite different to "competition" in the sense of a sport. Can you not see that?
It's all of the above. Battleground pvp can be like a competitive game of basketball or it can be like a friendly pickup game in the park, you get rewards for participation (usually more if you win), the barrier to entry is low and the player gets to choose when it happens and more importantly, when it doesn't. There isn't any one single feature that makes instanced pvp the more attractive choice for a lot of people.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Didn't think of that Axe.
Though I'm still not savvy on calling an automated system part of logistics when there is no active thought or effort put into it by participants and it's left up to the computer. Guess that doesn't disqualify it though.
As for Nerf.
And per your own link Nerf.
'Military logistics is the discipline of planning and carrying out the movement and maintenance of military forces.'
Design, development, acquisition, storage, distribution, maintenance, evacuation, and disposition of materiel.
Transport of personnel.
Acquisition or construction, maintenance, operation, and disposition of facilities.
Acquisition or furnishing of services.
Medical and health service support.
I can tell you right now, that what I was telling you covers at least half of those and I can give more examples to ffulfill the definition if you really think it's inadequate. You're just whining for the sake of whining if you can't see the correlation here. I used the term logistics accurately and I do not appreciate it when some one handwaves it and turns around and posts something like that link, which proves me right, and acts like it's proof I'm wrong (when, again, it's actually proving me right).
I mentioned in passing mobile spawn points in Planetside. I mentioned the convoys (ants+escort) to supply bases with power so troops can spawn at them, restock equipment, and get vehicles.
You an interrupt those convoys, you can place new spaws almost anywhere, you can move supplys for troops and facilities, you can do all those things. I don't even get how you replied to my comment saying it isn't logistics unless it's an active effort to not get it.
There's also the full range of supprt for troops in the form of transport, resource resupply, health and armor repair for troops and vehicles, equipment repair for mobile turrets and base structures, and even multiple ways to coordinate fly in bombing runs and long range mortar fire as well as how to drop or move troops into a conflict. There's even more on top of that, but I just don't know where to cut off to satisfy you because you say one thing and then turn on your own definition the next.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin