A) I never said accessibility was bad, nor that instanced pvp was bad and It does indeed motivate people to try things they would otherwise not try should it be less accessible. If you don't even see that to be the case then that is quite, quite flabbergasting.
A vast swathe of the people taking part in instanced pvp in mmorpg games are not in there all the time, making up parts of premades. They are in there because it is a casual, quick bit of fun they enjoy. It is the ease of accessibility that get's in the sheer numbers of these more casual players.
Mmorpg arenas have level/item disparities, they have pug vs premade disparities, they are not "competitive". Oh wait, you are going to tell me that the vast majority are in elite matched/ranked arenas now right.....
Given that there is already a disparity in mmorpg arenas in general and given that it is clear to anyone living in the real world that reducing the accessibility and "quick fix" aspect of mmorpg instanced pvp would dramatically reduce the number of players taking part, then it is clear what the main factor in their popularity is.
So you concede people play PVP casually for a "quick bit of fun". What makes it fun? Competition.
Casual PVP is still competition.
So stop incorrectly assuming I think everyone's a top-tier e-sports competitor; the term competition does not imply that at all.
A desire for competition is the underlying motivation for PVP. When someone says "This game would be fun if we could fight each other", that's blatantly a subconscious urge to compete. Doesn't matter if that person and their friend mash buttons like idiots or play like pros. It's competition either way.
This is why you see all the blatant examples of people PVPing without any rewards structure whatsoever. For competition.
Accessibility isn't motivation. You're not going to do something just because it's easy. You're going to do something because you want to -- because you have a motivation to. In PVP, the motivation is almost always a form of competition.
A player without a motivation to PVP will not PVP -- even if it was instantly available at the touch fo a button -- because there is no motivation.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So you concede people play PVP casually for a "quick bit of fun". What makes it fun? Competition.
Casual PVP is still competition.
So stop incorrectly assuming I think everyone's a top-tier e-sports competitor; the term competition does not imply that at all.
A desire for competition is the underlying motivation for PVP. When someone says "This game would be fun if we could fight each other", that's blatantly a subconscious urge to compete. Doesn't matter if that person and their friend mash buttons like idiots or play like pros. It's competition either way.
This is why you see all the blatant examples of people PVPing without any rewards structure whatsoever. For competition.
Accessibility isn't motivation. You're not going to do something just because it's easy. You're going to do something because you want to -- because you have a motivation to. In PVP, the motivation is almost always a form of competition.
A player without a motivation to PVP will not PVP -- even if it was instantly available at the touch fo a button -- because there is no motivation.
Ah I see, but wait if player vs player interaction is "competition" well then open world pvp is also "competition" to. Excellent. IB4 "ganktards", "no skill lulz".
Shame that completely fails to demonstrate that accessibility is not the driving factor for the popularity of instances in mmorpgs, if anything it further supports the case.
Once again, are you trying to tell me that reducing the accessibility of mmorpg arenas to the level seen in open world pvp would not dramatically reduce the numbers playing? I seriously hope not because that would be a retarded thing to think.
And what exactly is the point in talking about people with zero interest in pvp at all? People with little interest are still far more likely to take part in pvp that is readily available, hence more people pvp in fucking arenas.
If I put a beer on top of a mountain or put one on top of a table, someone who likes beer is going to go for which one again? Actually scratch that, how popular do you think beer would be if you had to withstand someone jumping up and down on your testicles for 5 hours straight before you could have one? Not very I would imagine even though the end product was just the same. Accessibility has a massive, massive say in the popularity on instanced pvp. That is not a bad thing and I am certainly not decrying it, but if people can't see such a fundamental truth then wow.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Ah I see, but wait if player vs player interaction is "competition" well then open world pvp is also "competition" to. Excellent. IB4 "ganktards", "no skill lulz".
Shame that completely fails to demonstrate that accessibility is not the driving factor for the popularity of instances in mmorpgs, if anything it further supports the case.
Once again, are you trying to tell me that reducing the accessibility of mmorpg arenas to the level seen in open world pvp would not dramatically reduce the numbers playing? I seriously hope not because that would be a retarded thing to think.
And what exactly is the point in talking about people with zero interest in pvp at all? People with little interest are still far more likely to take part in pvp that is readily available, hence more people pvp in fucking arenas.
If I put a beer on top of a mountain or put one on top of a table, someone who likes beer is going to go for which one again? Actually scratch that, how popular do you think beer would be if you had to withstand someone jumping up and down on your testicles for 5 hours straight before you could have one? Not very I would imagine even though the end product was just the same. Accessibility has a massive, massive say in the popularity on instanced pvp. That is not a bad thing and I am certainly not decrying it, but if people can't see such a fundamental truth then wow.
Using your example, accessibility is the mountain (or rather lack of), not the beer. In one of your previous post you suggested that accessibility is one of the key motivators of instanced PvP ( the beer). That is not true. Instanced PvP just grabs more of its potential audience whereas open world PvP fails to grab some of its potential audience because of its inaccessibility (tall mountain). That and half the time you get on top of the mountain, either the beer is warm or someone else already drank it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
So you concede people play PVP casually for a "quick bit of fun". What makes it fun? Competition.
Casual PVP is still competition.
So stop incorrectly assuming I think everyone's a top-tier e-sports competitor; the term competition does not imply that at all.
A desire for competition is the underlying motivation for PVP. When someone says "This game would be fun if we could fight each other", that's blatantly a subconscious urge to compete. Doesn't matter if that person and their friend mash buttons like idiots or play like pros. It's competition either way.
This is why you see all the blatant examples of people PVPing without any rewards structure whatsoever. For competition.
Accessibility isn't motivation. You're not going to do something just because it's easy. You're going to do something because you want to -- because you have a motivation to. In PVP, the motivation is almost always a form of competition.
A player without a motivation to PVP will not PVP -- even if it was instantly available at the touch fo a button -- because there is no motivation.
Ah I see, but wait if player vs player interaction is "competition" well then open world pvp is also "competition" to. Excellent. IB4 "ganktards", "no skill lulz".
Shame that completely fails to demonstrate that accessibility is not the driving factor for the popularity of instances in mmorpgs, if anything it further supports the case.
Once again, are you trying to tell me that reducing the accessibility of mmorpg arenas to the level seen in open world pvp would not dramatically reduce the numbers playing? I seriously hope not because that would be a retarded thing to think.
And what exactly is the point in talking about people with zero interest in pvp at all? People with little interest are still far more likely to take part in pvp that is readily available, hence more people pvp in fucking arenas.
If I put a beer on top of a mountain or put one on top of a table, someone who likes beer is going to go for which one again? Actually scratch that, how popular do you think beer would be if you had to withstand someone jumping up and down on your testicles for 5 hours straight before you could have one? Not very I would imagine even though the end product was just the same. Accessibility has a massive, massive say in the popularity on instanced pvp. That is not a bad thing and I am certainly not decrying it, but if people can't see such a fundamental truth then wow.
The point of talking about people with no interest in competition is to try to drive home the very obvious point that accessibility does not motivate people to PVP. Competition is the motivation.
So now that we've hopefully overcome the hurdle in the discussion where you think accessibility motivates people to PVP, we can move on.
Would reduced accessibility reduce how many people play? Of course, but that's pretty irrelevant and certainly isn't the reason we see more people prefer instanced PVP. The reasons world PVP sucks (for most people) are pretty clear:
Poor combat theatrics. You're an actor in the dull war movie about marines killing children, when you could've been in the awesome war movie about marines fighting another army.
Infrequent combat. In the best case combat is infrequent. In the worst case, you spend excessive time recouping losses or respawning from some distant location.
Predetermined combat. Instead of victory being a matter of "who was more skilled?" it's decided by whoever entered battle with more friends and better gear.
So the underlying reason instanced PVP is more popular, created in more games, and attracts the most serious PVPers, is it's a much more accurate measurement of player skill. It's balanced competition.
If you want a successful PVP game, you create an arena of balance competition, filled with interesting decisions being made all the time.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So you concede people play PVP casually for a "quick bit of fun". What makes it fun? Competition.
Casual PVP is still competition.
So stop incorrectly assuming I think everyone's a top-tier e-sports competitor; the term competition does not imply that at all.
A desire for competition is the underlying motivation for PVP. When someone says "This game would be fun if we could fight each other", that's blatantly a subconscious urge to compete. Doesn't matter if that person and their friend mash buttons like idiots or play like pros. It's competition either way.
This is why you see all the blatant examples of people PVPing without any rewards structure whatsoever. For competition.
Accessibility isn't motivation. You're not going to do something just because it's easy. You're going to do something because you want to -- because you have a motivation to. In PVP, the motivation is almost always a form of competition.
A player without a motivation to PVP will not PVP -- even if it was instantly available at the touch fo a button -- because there is no motivation.
Ah I see, but wait if player vs player interaction is "competition" well then open world pvp is also "competition" to. Excellent. IB4 "ganktards", "no skill lulz".
Shame that completely fails to demonstrate that accessibility is not the driving factor for the popularity of instances in mmorpgs, if anything it further supports the case.
Once again, are you trying to tell me that reducing the accessibility of mmorpg arenas to the level seen in open world pvp would not dramatically reduce the numbers playing? I seriously hope not because that would be a retarded thing to think.
And what exactly is the point in talking about people with zero interest in pvp at all? People with little interest are still far more likely to take part in pvp that is readily available, hence more people pvp in fucking arenas.
If I put a beer on top of a mountain or put one on top of a table, someone who likes beer is going to go for which one again? Actually scratch that, how popular do you think beer would be if you had to withstand someone jumping up and down on your testicles for 5 hours straight before you could have one? Not very I would imagine even though the end product was just the same. Accessibility has a massive, massive say in the popularity on instanced pvp. That is not a bad thing and I am certainly not decrying it, but if people can't see such a fundamental truth then wow.
The point of talking about people with no interest in competition is to try to drive home the very obvious point that accessibility does not motivate people to PVP. Competition is the motivation.
So now that we've hopefully overcome the hurdle in the discussion where you think accessibility motivates people to PVP, we can move on.
Would reduced accessibility reduce how many people play? Of course, but that's pretty irrelevant and certainly isn't the reason we see more people prefer instanced PVP. The reasons world PVP sucks (for most people) are pretty clear:
Poor combat theatrics. You're an actor in the dull war movie about marines killing children, when you could've been in the awesome war movie about marines fighting another army.
Infrequent combat. In the best case combat is infrequent. In the worst case, you spend excessive time recouping losses or respawning from some distant location.
Predetermined combat. Instead of victory being a matter of "who was more skilled?" it's decided by whoever entered battle with more friends and better gear.
So the underlying reason instanced PVP is more popular, created in more games, and attracts the most serious PVPers, is it's a much more accurate measurement of player skill. It's balanced competition.
If you want a successful PVP game, you create an arena of balance competition, filled with interesting decisions being made all the time.
Instanced battlegrounds are more popular because of the rewards. Developer's choose to reward battlegrounds for their benefit, not the benefit of the pvp players.
Remove all pvp rewards and see where people pvp. We already know the answer.
The problem is pvp is a mini game that has no role in the "game". You are only looking at pvp as people in combat. It starts and stops there. It's the actual fight that you are scrutinizing. You aren't referring to all the non-combat activities and content that built up to the "fight" and what follows and all the people involved. 100 people may have participated, though only 10 actually fought.
Now you might envoke the masses and their wants, and i would envoke bad game design. being as no games has tried anything else i can do that.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Instanced battlegrounds are more popular because of the rewards. Developer's choose to reward battlegrounds for their benefit, not the benefit of the pvp players.
Remove all pvp rewards and see where people pvp. We already know the answer.
The problem is pvp is a mini game that has no role in the "game". You are only looking at pvp as people in combat. It starts and stops there. It's the actual fight that you are scrutinizing. You aren't referring to all the non-combat activities and content that built up to the "fight" and what follows and all the people involved. 100 people may have participated, though only 10 actually fought.
Now you might envoke the masses and their wants, and i would envoke bad game design. being as no games has tried anything else i can do that.
How do you know the answer?
People play instanced PvP in other games without any longterm rewards all the time. The part marked in yellow is something the average gamer doesn't care about as long as the PvP is fun (a problem for Dust 514 perhaps). That is why I would bet my Internet chips on instanced PvP.
We don't play these games because they are MMORPGs, we play these games because they are fun. And making games fun is good game design.
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
PvE Players: You guys and your damn yearning for "safe" PvP.
/shrug... optional PvP is the preference of the majority. That's just the reality and ranting on forums won't change it.
People want optional PvP for a reason... because they don't want to spend their leisure time being farmed by nb mvcmvfgjfgj being farmed by gankers with low self esteem issues 20 levels or whatever above them.
Why do optional PvPers want what they want? Because the hardcore have played with selfish abandon for years.The same hardcore that now moan about reaping the crop they themselves have planted.
Maybe if some of you 'hardcore' guys were more interested in building communities then destroying them more folks would play them and stick around and you would have more games to play, because the populations in the existing games/ servers would warrant them.
Bravo. +1, end thread.
I concur with every word in that post.
Is everyone so sure it required the 'hardcore' people to farm the farmers? I don't think it's even getting ganked by someone who is much higher level than you. I think it's just getting attacked while trying to mine or farm period. It's annoying. That could just be me.
THat would be ambushing not really ganking though ganking has taken a turn to being a different type of pvp then it started as. In the start of it yes it was any pvp that you took the advantasy of killing a engaged, weaken sate at the same lvl or clase to. Though now it is the act of killing a target that has vary little to no chance of winning the fight, as such it is as i said a vary sad form of pvp but a form none the less. THis is the mindset as well as defanition based onn the community as well as most pvpers in game i have played ovver the years.
People play instanced PvP in other games without any longterm rewards all the time. The part marked in yellow is something the average gamer doesn't care about as long as the PvP is fun (a problem for Dust 514 perhaps). That is why I would bet my Internet chips on instanced PvP.
.
Not true, "Just PVP" is deathmatch quake 1996. We've all moved on from that to have more fun in better PVP like Team Deathmatch, and then Capture The Flag, and then Team Fortress with it's many iterrations.
-A RTS game with just pvp, no resource gathering, etc
-WOW with just PVP and nothing else would be lame too
The point of talking about people with no interest in competition is to try to drive home the very obvious point that accessibility does not motivate people to PVP. Competition is the motivation.
So now that we've hopefully overcome the hurdle in the discussion where you think accessibility motivates people to PVP, we can move on.
Would reduced accessibility reduce how many people play? Of course, but that's pretty irrelevant and certainly isn't the reason we see more people prefer instanced PVP. The reasons world PVP sucks (for most people) are pretty clear:
Poor combat theatrics. You're an actor in the dull war movie about marines killing children, when you could've been in the awesome war movie about marines fighting another army.
Infrequent combat. In the best case combat is infrequent. In the worst case, you spend excessive time recouping losses or respawning from some distant location.
Predetermined combat. Instead of victory being a matter of "who was more skilled?" it's decided by whoever entered battle with more friends and better gear.
So the underlying reason instanced PVP is more popular, created in more games, and attracts the most serious PVPers, is it's a much more accurate measurement of player skill. It's balanced competition.
If you want a successful PVP game, you create an arena of balance competition, filled with interesting decisions being made all the time.
Outcome is still predetermined if you're wearing greens and the enemy is wearing blues, even in a battleground.
Instanced battlegrounds are more popular because of the rewards. Developer's choose to reward battlegrounds for their benefit, not the benefit of the pvp players.
Remove all pvp rewards and see where people pvp. We already know the answer.
The problem is pvp is a mini game that has no role in the "game". You are only looking at pvp as people in combat. It starts and stops there. It's the actual fight that you are scrutinizing. You aren't referring to all the non-combat activities and content that built up to the "fight" and what follows and all the people involved. 100 people may have participated, though only 10 actually fought.
Now you might envoke the masses and their wants, and i would envoke bad game design. being as no games has tried anything else i can do that.
As Quirhid already mentions, players already PVP without PVP rewards all the time.
Look at literally every other competitive activity mankind has created since the dawn of time. People play Go, Soccer, Chess, TF2, LoL, Street Fighter, you name it, with zero rewards. It's completely nonsense to imply players wouldn't PVP without rewards.
As for "minigame", PVP is the game. The non-combat stuff is light on decisions (many of which aren't particularly interesting ones) and heavy on tedium, so it's easy to see why a game would be less popular: all that non-combat stuff just waters down the interesting decisions.
One thing those games could try would be non-combat activities that don't suck (good systems design so that players are making frequent interesting decisions and it's not perceived as being tedious.) But there's definitely a limit to how much PVE (non-combat stuff) can be injected into a game calling itself "PVP". It's a non-zero limit (League of Legends and Warcraft 3 actually involve considerable PVE) but typically when players want to PVP they want to PVP.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I can totally get that there can be PvP without rewards or incentives but we are not talking about Unreal Tournament or Team Fotress. The type of games that have PvP servers are predominantly PvE games that have PvP servers because if the game is PvP why would you need PvP servers.
So the type of people who play PvE games are usually interested in character development.. If you play PvE you gain experience and develop your character by getting loot and so on. So would that playerbase not want rewards for PvPing too ?
No, it's effect on the game is consistent. Trying to keep a base powered through the duration of a conflict either at the base or at a base you're sieging from has proven to be a consistent point of management during the game because if either of the bases drop it means that the facility being captured is now a dead zone that every one has to scramble to even faster to control and power, or it sets back the ability to launch attacks on a facility being taken over until you can repower and reclaim your own.
Ants aren't nerfed, they are used all the bloody time and it's regular practice to have one en-route to any facility in combat.
A) Energy consumption at bases were nerfed like the first month the game came out, or in beta, so I read.
Even if they weren't nerfed it's relying on players to do exctremely boring and unrewarding, with no experience gain, to drive an ANT. Which is probably why it was nerfed in the first place. This is why logistics should be manually done by NPC's, trucks driven by NPC's, Ants (more than one an hour) driven by NPC's.
C) Serously, one ant showing up per hour isn't logistics it's a broken game mechanic.
If it has nothing to do with terminology, then what are the nuances here that are failing other than this constant dance of lies I have to correct? What's the nuances here that makes a howitzer disqualified from the same conditions of maintenance and stocking as a mortar vehicle?
Indirect artillery is not a BFR with a mortar gun. INDIRECT Artillery means you are shooting over obstacles, you can't see the target, and you need a forward observer (Laze).
They cap access to vehicles and put them on timers. You blow up your Liberator you aren't just going to charge in with a shiny new one like nothing happened.
That's not logistics, its balancing equipment.
There are actually designated resupply stations for ground and air vehicles at bases in Planetside, specifically because they are needed to repair your vehicles, provide alternate loadouts, and reload/stock ammunition.
And where do those Towers and Bases get their supply from? Yeah I thought so, nowhere, stuff just magically appears at them, and it's impossible to cut the enemy off from their magically teleporting supplies. Planetside simulates as much logistics as Quake1 Deathmatch 1996.
I mentioned supervision because there are actually commanders on the battlefield that have their own snazzy command tools to help organize squads and vehicles as well as the usual case of Liberators being part of a group of ships, not solo fliers.
There are no command tools in Planetside1. CUD abilities are not command tools, they are I-win buttons.
-Reveal enemies cheat
-Destroy all CE in a wide swath I-win button
-Death Ray from Sky I-win button
Yes ships and vehicles are in fact trucked in.
No, they are not, and there are no ships. They magically appear at the vehicle pad.
That's the whole purpose of the Lodestar vehicle. It has no guns or anything else, it's sole purpose for existence is to move other vehicles from distant locations. A player spawns at a spawn point, gets their equipment, then runs outside and either hitches a ride or grabs their own vehicle that has to be moved out to the battle.
That is not logistics, it's moving around the battlefield. That's like calling tank operations logistics cause a tank can move around, or calling a paratroop unit a logistics unit cause it has mobility. Everything with mobility is not logistics.
Vehicles don't magically appear in the battlefield.
Vehicles magically appear at the spawn point in video games, logistics is not simulated EVER. End of story. If logistics were simulated than it's what would happen BEFORE the spawn point, not AFTER.
They need to be produced and moved out, preferably as organized units so you aren't constantly destroying them and having to wait around for the option to finally build a new one while your enemies trample you for doing a suicide run.
Herding cats is a tactic, not logistics.
And no....damage radius, explosive range, and ammo loadout are distictly superior to what you just claimed.
Wrong.
Damage radius, explosive range, and ammo loadout in Planetside/WWIIONLINE are weaker than pre-Napoleanic Artillery.
The flail can cause a tank to explode by lobbing an explosive ball of plasma into the air that can fly across at least a quarter of the maps.
Maps are smaller than you think.
You literally have time to hop into a air vehicle and tail the thing flying through the air over several bases before it impacting with something to explode. It's not like bases in Planetside are next to one another or anything either.
Maps are smaller than you think. Artillery literally at pre-Napeonic range when you take infantry jogging speed into account.
You're driving for a good couple minutes at least, trekking on foot can take you five to ten minutes, and flying is the only one that offers a minute or so between locations. Sure scale is smaller than reality, but it kind of has to be if you don't want people getting bored.
And Liberators literally carpet bomb.
Pathetic damage radius for Liberators, which is understandable since you don't want players camping a spawn point with bombers and flails.
Which goes back to the point of like I said it does run logistics like the ones I mentioned.
No, logistics is simulated in no games, no games includes Planetside.
Aso to note. No, WWIIO is not the same as Planetside. There is a pretty considerable amount of differences that go into it, which should have been apparent by now.
It strategically plays the same, and there is no logistics in WWIIONLINE also.
It is very readily equatable to taking over depots, air fields, and their kin for a real life comparision if you want a better context. These facilities aren't magic self contained fonts of goodies,
Yes they are.
At any point players can destroy your player run trucks, destroying your chain of supply. And when that happens it cuts off the facility we were trying to save from depowering and forces us to spawn at a much further off facility and potentially cuts off acces fo equipment and vehicle types.
Bases almost never run out of supply, The ANT system was nerfed a long time ago, and for good reason.
Outcome is still predetermined if you're wearing greens and the enemy is wearing blues, even in a battleground.
Yes, that's another example of non-skill factors harming PVP quality. But it has a less extreme impact than unbalanced teams.
I would not say that the differnce of a fully blue to green character will mean win or loss in most games unless the abbility of the character or player is stacked against one or the other. I have on serval occations pk'ed a much higher geared player then i, thru my use of abilitiess as well as possibly his lack of skill. Gear-based pvp is not no-skill pvp but is a less skill focues form of pvp, since even in pvp with fully epic sets a well versed player in blues can still win if they play right. THough in a game which is progression as well as gear based you would of course have this, since otherwise your gear would be worthless in spite of the time it took to obtain it, is it a bad or wrong form of pvp? Not by a long shot since it is one of the more favored styles with themepark as well as progreession/gear centric games being opular. THough i will say that just like those othr games a skill based pvp/pve game (like tsw) has alot of appeal, since your characetr actually feels as though they are personally growing over the items they retrieve empowering them, and so pvping in these games has a different feel since you feel that your character is actually personally better then your target was.
Two tyrants are destroying the PvP Servers: PvE Players and Incentive.
THE FIX?
Either remove Instanced PvP from PvP Servers OR remove incentive from the Instanced PvP Games via PvP Server.
I cut out a lot of the stuff, since everybody should be familiar with your basic premise. I have a few arguments against what you said.
Argument 1:
I was originally going to use a biased example to point out a basic flaw, but then I thought... hey! I'll actually use a flattering example, using something I actually like.
Bookstores. I love bookstores. Unfortunately, bookstores are going out of business. One of the primary reasons is because of E-readers. Any plan by the booksellers to improve their sales that involves something sounding like 'The best way to improve our bookstore revenues would be if E-books suck more' is probably a poor plan. I personally think actual physical books are way superior to E-reader books. I wouldn't suggest that the fix would be that E-reader books should cost more, and maybe come with fuzzier print so they're more difficult to read. So... yeah. Bad plan on your part. It's relying on crippling the opponent, rather than improving your own thing. If world PvP was more fun and more awesome for more people, it would win out on its own. In other words...
Fix your own shit, don't shit up other things to be 'competitive'.
Argument 2:
Secondly, one of the basic problems in what you're doing is you're playing games mostly designed for PvE, playing on the tacked on PvP servers, and complaining that you're not being serviced. Well... duh. No kidding. That's what you get for playing a PvE game. Next time you go to McDonalds, don't complain about how crappy their new tacos are.
If you want good PvP, play a PvP based game where it isn't an afterthought.
Argument 3:
Actually, you're confusing CvC with PvP. You want character versus character. In PvP... the battle that really counts, you as a player vs. the other players, I'm afraid you've already been owned. Yes. That's right. All the other players, the players who like instanced battles? They've won. They zerged you with their superior dollars, and conquered all the big companies, leaving you with the dregs to pick from. Why do you get shitty niche games? Because you're a niche market. Basically, you're like a level 1 person whining in public chat that they got ganked.
The PvE players ganked you with their superior purchasing power. Suck it up. Make a fortune and teach them a lesson. Start your own PvP game that's so good they wish they didn't have to play shitty PvE games. Stop whining about how you got your ass kicked by all the PvE players zerging you. It's embarrassing.
Instanced battlegrounds are more popular because of the rewards. Developer's choose to reward battlegrounds for their benefit, not the benefit of the pvp players.
Remove all pvp rewards and see where people pvp. We already know the answer.
The problem is pvp is a mini game that has no role in the "game". You are only looking at pvp as people in combat. It starts and stops there. It's the actual fight that you are scrutinizing. You aren't referring to all the non-combat activities and content that built up to the "fight" and what follows and all the people involved. 100 people may have participated, though only 10 actually fought.
Now you might envoke the masses and their wants, and i would envoke bad game design. being as no games has tried anything else i can do that.
How do you know the answer?
People play instanced PvP in other games without any longterm rewards all the time. The part marked in yellow is something the average gamer doesn't care about as long as the PvP is fun (a problem for Dust 514 perhaps). That is why I would bet my Internet chips on instanced PvP.
We don't play these games because they are MMORPGs, we play these games because they are fun. And making games fun is good game design.
How do I know what? We have history to answer most of this.
Developers dont manufacture fun. They create a set of rules in which fun can be created by the user or between users. rewarding users who play by instanced rules and ignoring and blaming users that play by open world set of rules doesnt mean anythng about fun. or popular. Its the only choice when progression only come via combat. But klike i said earlier there were mmos that rewarded neither. Which do you think was more popular? Which do you think never even got used? History already asnwered this.
Let me put it this way. Tell me a story about an instanced BG pvp fight that changed the way your whole server spent its time in the future. LOL!! Where are the blogs dedicated to instance pvp so we can share in your fun from this good game design?
Open world pvp is fun and we have the stories for people who even came years later so that they to can participate in our fun too. even though they never even played the game.
That is good game design.
No one outside the instance cares about your fun.
That is good game design too?
Good game design is a fun game right?
Just so you know, im not 100% positive on this, so i could be persuaded given something other than lazy answers that ignore reality. Thats my job.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
I do not want to pvp when I pve. I want to pvp when I want to pvp. I dont want to pve when I pvp. I suck at pvp most of the time so I prefer randomized pvp. Hmmmm sounds to me like I prefer battlegrounds. Truth be told I actually think I will enjoy a format like GW2 is going to do in WvWvW in an open world type of setting.
Instanced battlegrounds are more popular because of the rewards. Developer's choose to reward battlegrounds for their benefit, not the benefit of the pvp players.
Remove all pvp rewards and see where people pvp. We already know the answer.
The problem is pvp is a mini game that has no role in the "game". You are only looking at pvp as people in combat. It starts and stops there. It's the actual fight that you are scrutinizing. You aren't referring to all the non-combat activities and content that built up to the "fight" and what follows and all the people involved. 100 people may have participated, though only 10 actually fought.
Now you might envoke the masses and their wants, and i would envoke bad game design. being as no games has tried anything else i can do that.
As Quirhid already mentions, players already PVP without PVP rewards all the time.
Look at literally every other competitive activity mankind has created since the dawn of time. People play Go, Soccer, Chess, TF2, LoL, Street Fighter, you name it, with zero rewards. It's completely nonsense to imply players wouldn't PVP without rewards.
As for "minigame", PVP is the game. The non-combat stuff is light on decisions (many of which aren't particularly interesting ones) and heavy on tedium, so it's easy to see why a game would be less popular: all that non-combat stuff just waters down the interesting decisions.
One thing those games could try would be non-combat activities that don't suck (good systems design so that players are making frequent interesting decisions and it's not perceived as being tedious.) But there's definitely a limit to how much PVE (non-combat stuff) can be injected into a game calling itself "PVP". It's a non-zero limit (League of Legends and Warcraft 3 actually involve considerable PVE) but typically when players want to PVP they want to PVP.
Your missing my point. People would NOT be in instanced pvp battlegrounds in an mmorpg without the rewards. Thats WHY they are rewarded. People ignored them, like any other dev created content that doesnt offer a reward worth their time. When they did offer rewards, people went for the rewards, because they are required to pvp. And world pvp diminished. Has nothing to do with anything else besides that. You already know this.
Developers reward content they want people to partake in. People arent partaking in BG's because of fun or anything else. It's the rewards. Yes people do things they dont like for the reward. This is mmorpg basic design.
As far as beefing up the non-combat roles for less tedium, maybe. I think tedium comes from forced path and forced goals. IF it's a chosen path for a chosen goal, tedium is invisible to the user, not the outsider though. MMO Combat is the most tedious thing in any type of games ever. But the user only notices it when rading is all thats left.
Making those roles playable to the point of success as any other playstyle is the problem. People want to do what they enjoy, but not when success artificially deflated so it in no way can affect anything whatsoever in the game at all, even your own play. Making them funner wont do a thing but make thenm more tedious.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Instanced battlegrounds are more popular because of the rewards. Developer's choose to reward battlegrounds for their benefit, not the benefit of the pvp players.
Remove all pvp rewards and see where people pvp. We already know the answer.
The problem is pvp is a mini game that has no role in the "game". You are only looking at pvp as people in combat. It starts and stops there. It's the actual fight that you are scrutinizing. You aren't referring to all the non-combat activities and content that built up to the "fight" and what follows and all the people involved. 100 people may have participated, though only 10 actually fought.
Now you might envoke the masses and their wants, and i would envoke bad game design. being as no games has tried anything else i can do that.
How do you know the answer?
People play instanced PvP in other games without any longterm rewards all the time. The part marked in yellow is something the average gamer doesn't care about as long as the PvP is fun (a problem for Dust 514 perhaps). That is why I would bet my Internet chips on instanced PvP.
We don't play these games because they are MMORPGs, we play these games because they are fun. And making games fun is good game design.
How do I know what? We have history to answer most of this.
Developers dont manufacture fun. They create a set of rules in which fun can be created by the user or between users. rewarding users who play by instanced rules and ignoring and blaming users that play by open world set of rules doesnt mean anythng about fun. or popular. Its the only choice when progression only come via combat. But klike i said earlier there were mmos that rewarded neither. Which do you think was more popular? Which do you think never even got used? History already asnwered this.
Let me put it this way. Tell me a story about an instanced BG pvp fight that changed the way your whole server spent its time in the future. LOL!! Where are the blogs dedicated to instance pvp so we can share in your fun from this good game design?
Open world pvp is fun and we have the stories for people who even came years later so that they to can participate in our fun too. even though they never even played the game.
That is good game design.
No one outside the instance cares about your fun.
That is good game design too?
Good game design is a fun game right?
Just so you know, im not 100% positive on this, so i could be persuaded given something other than lazy answers that ignore reality. Thats my job.
The issue is that open world pvp in the present is not fun for mmost of the player base, since those that do enjoy it are few in the game with the major groups enjoying and using instanced pvp over world pvp. Catering to a group that out pops the nitch group is a good way to get profits to go up. In world pvp no one cares abotu yoru fun other then you, that guy you ambushed, or that person you killed while he faught a monster care just as much abotu your fun as you cared about their fun. Also good game design is not fun at all, it is profitable which translates to fun for those that make the game design profitable, A few to even sever hundred a counts of people enjoying world pvp is funny, since you can also say that alot of people have had as well as listed nightmares while in world pvp. I have heard hundreds of stories of people pulling bg fight to a win from near absolute certain loss.
Instanced battlegrounds are more popular because of the rewards. Developer's choose to reward battlegrounds for their benefit, not the benefit of the pvp players.
Remove all pvp rewards and see where people pvp. We already know the answer.
The problem is pvp is a mini game that has no role in the "game". You are only looking at pvp as people in combat. It starts and stops there. It's the actual fight that you are scrutinizing. You aren't referring to all the non-combat activities and content that built up to the "fight" and what follows and all the people involved. 100 people may have participated, though only 10 actually fought.
Now you might envoke the masses and their wants, and i would envoke bad game design. being as no games has tried anything else i can do that.
How do you know the answer?
People play instanced PvP in other games without any longterm rewards all the time. The part marked in yellow is something the average gamer doesn't care about as long as the PvP is fun (a problem for Dust 514 perhaps). That is why I would bet my Internet chips on instanced PvP.
We don't play these games because they are MMORPGs, we play these games because they are fun. And making games fun is good game design.
How do I know what? We have history to answer most of this.
Developers dont manufacture fun. They create a set of rules in which fun can be created by the user or between users. rewarding users who play by instanced rules and ignoring and blaming users that play by open world set of rules doesnt mean anythng about fun. or popular. Its the only choice when progression only come via combat. But klike i said earlier there were mmos that rewarded neither. Which do you think was more popular? Which do you think never even got used? History already asnwered this.
Let me put it this way. Tell me a story about an instanced BG pvp fight that changed the way your whole server spent its time in the future. LOL!! Where are the blogs dedicated to instance pvp so we can share in your fun from this good game design?
Open world pvp is fun and we have the stories for people who even came years later so that they to can participate in our fun too. even though they never even played the game.
That is good game design.
No one outside the instance cares about your fun.
That is good game design too?
Good game design is a fun game right?
Just so you know, im not 100% positive on this, so i could be persuaded given something other than lazy answers that ignore reality. Thats my job.
The issue is that open world pvp in the present is not fun for mmost of the player base, since those that do enjoy it are few in the game with the major groups enjoying and using instanced pvp over world pvp. Catering to a group that out pops the nitch group is a good way to get profits to go up. In world pvp no one cares abotu yoru fun other then you, that guy you ambushed, or that person you killed while he faught a monster care just as much abotu your fun as you cared about their fun. Also good game design is not fun at all, it is profitable which translates to fun for those that make the game design profitable, A few to even sever hundred a counts of people enjoying world pvp is funny, since you can also say that alot of people have had as well as listed nightmares while in world pvp. I have heard hundreds of stories of people pulling bg fight to a win from near absolute certain loss.
But if you offered both, with no rewards, people choose open world. Why? Becuase they want to be part of the games history told by gamers. That experience is the most valueable thing an mmo can offer.
What i dont understand is why open world pve is rewarded still and not pvp? People want instanced pve for the same reasons. They have instances for the same reasons. So instance the whole game!! No more getting ganked by npc's because you walked a foot to far to the right. Those npc ruin your fun. Profits would go up for sure!!! Or would pve players say this isnt an mmo?
And as usual open world pvp means FFA gankfest in order to make your points. Of coasre open world pve is a free for all gankfest, but if an npc wastes your time its part of the game and "fun".
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
I would not say that the differnce of a fully blue to green character will mean win or loss in most games unless the abbility of the character or player is stacked against one or the other. I have on serval occations pk'ed a much higher geared player then i, thru my use of abilitiess as well as possibly his lack of skill. Gear-based pvp is not no-skill pvp but is a less skill focues form of pvp, since even in pvp with fully epic sets a well versed player in blues can still win if they play right. THough in a game which is progression as well as gear based you would of course have this, since otherwise your gear would be worthless in spite of the time it took to obtain it, is it a bad or wrong form of pvp? Not by a long shot since it is one of the more favored styles with themepark as well as progreession/gear centric games being opular. THough i will say that just like those othr games a skill based pvp/pve game (like tsw) has alot of appeal, since your characetr actually feels as though they are personally growing over the items they retrieve empowering them, and so pvping in these games has a different feel since you feel that your character is actually personally better then your target was.
Yeah it doesn't ruin PVP quality, it just harms it. It dilutes -- just slightly -- an otherwise pure experience.
I mean I've beat plenty of higher geared players. Even beat some chump shaman in Warlords gear with my puny 58 warlock in level 40 greens. Doesn't change the fact that when you lose a fight purely due to gear (ie down to the wire and it was only gear that won it) it doesn't really sit right.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But if you offered both, with no rewards, people choose open world. Why? Becuase they want to be part of the games history told by gamers. That experience is the most valueable thing an mmo can offer.
What i dont understand is why open world pve is rewarded still and not pvp? People want instanced pve for the same reasons. They have instances for the same reasons. So instance the whole game!! No more getting ganked by npc's because you walked a foot to far to the right. Those npc ruin your fun. Profits would go up for sure!!! Or would pve players say this isnt an mmo?
And as usual open world pvp means FFA gankfest in order to make your points. Of coasre open world pve is a free for all gankfest, but if an npc wastes your time its part of the game and "fun".
Again, throughout the history of all games ever created, a fair playfield has characterized virtually every PVP game mankind has ever made. So it's surprising and unexpected that you actually seem to believe players care more about "games history told by gamers" than balanced PVP where skill determines victors. And I think very wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Why is it that every retardet company tries to copy what blizzard has done and think its successfull ?
SOE's SWG died when they did that, SW:ToR won't live for long if they follow the same path , i know alot of former SWG people who will be playing SW:ToR but if its so fuckedup as people say.
Instanced battlegrounds are more popular because of the rewards. Developer's choose to reward battlegrounds for their benefit, not the benefit of the pvp players.
Remove all pvp rewards and see where people pvp. We already know the answer.
The problem is pvp is a mini game that has no role in the "game". You are only looking at pvp as people in combat. It starts and stops there. It's the actual fight that you are scrutinizing. You aren't referring to all the non-combat activities and content that built up to the "fight" and what follows and all the people involved. 100 people may have participated, though only 10 actually fought.
Now you might envoke the masses and their wants, and i would envoke bad game design. being as no games has tried anything else i can do that.
How do you know the answer?
People play instanced PvP in other games without any longterm rewards all the time. The part marked in yellow is something the average gamer doesn't care about as long as the PvP is fun (a problem for Dust 514 perhaps). That is why I would bet my Internet chips on instanced PvP.
We don't play these games because they are MMORPGs, we play these games because they are fun. And making games fun is good game design.
How do I know what? We have history to answer most of this.
Developers dont manufacture fun. They create a set of rules in which fun can be created by the user or between users. rewarding users who play by instanced rules and ignoring and blaming users that play by open world set of rules doesnt mean anythng about fun. or popular. Its the only choice when progression only come via combat. But klike i said earlier there were mmos that rewarded neither. Which do you think was more popular? Which do you think never even got used? History already asnwered this.
Let me put it this way. Tell me a story about an instanced BG pvp fight that changed the way your whole server spent its time in the future. LOL!! Where are the blogs dedicated to instance pvp so we can share in your fun from this good game design?
Open world pvp is fun and we have the stories for people who even came years later so that they to can participate in our fun too. even though they never even played the game.
That is good game design.
No one outside the instance cares about your fun.
That is good game design too?
Good game design is a fun game right?
Just so you know, im not 100% positive on this, so i could be persuaded given something other than lazy answers that ignore reality. Thats my job.
The issue is that open world pvp in the present is not fun for mmost of the player base, since those that do enjoy it are few in the game with the major groups enjoying and using instanced pvp over world pvp. Catering to a group that out pops the nitch group is a good way to get profits to go up. In world pvp no one cares abotu yoru fun other then you, that guy you ambushed, or that person you killed while he faught a monster care just as much abotu your fun as you cared about their fun. Also good game design is not fun at all, it is profitable which translates to fun for those that make the game design profitable, A few to even sever hundred a counts of people enjoying world pvp is funny, since you can also say that alot of people have had as well as listed nightmares while in world pvp. I have heard hundreds of stories of people pulling bg fight to a win from near absolute certain loss.
But if you offered both, with no rewards, people choose open world. Why? Becuase they want to be part of the games history told by gamers. That experience is the most valueable thing an mmo can offer.
What i dont understand is why open world pve is rewarded still and not pvp? People want instanced pve for the same reasons. They have instances for the same reasons. So instance the whole game!! No more getting ganked by npc's because you walked a foot to far to the right. Those npc ruin your fun. Profits would go up for sure!!! Or would pve players say this isnt an mmo?
And as usual open world pvp means FFA gankfest in order to make your points. Of coasre open world pve is a free for all gankfest, but if an npc wastes your time its part of the game and "fun".
THat is not always the case trully, since i do like open world pvp, but i would still instance pvp, and then you add in the ease as well a the fact of equality in fights it is for the major group of pvpers more what they want. Many pver's as well as pvpers complain abou guard in argo as well as power settings, and have always complained about them. Also the experince is not the most important thing it can offer to most people that play it, since the one thing they are seeking is a time sink as well as entertainent (for themselves). which fr most of the players means they want to fight and do things when they want to not when a pvper or ganker thinks he/she wants to regardless of their target's wishes. YOu woudl see farl less pvper's leaving for open world pvp the you would think if there were no rewards for either of them pvp styles, and it is because the pvper's that like a controled and fair fight over a can come from now where fight will stay with bgs. Which means fewer targerts to pvp with in the open world, since the bg pvper just stay in town as well as pvp via their bgs, while the pvper;s search each other out over the entire world for a few pvp fights. To revive world pvp you would have to completely get rid of bgs now too many have found a good taste in it to want to dare see if they are as good as they think they are. Also for most pvpers now pvping is not aabotu immersion at all, compared to alot of pver's which it is still abootu immersion, as suchbeing or not being able to die to a gaurd is a break in immersion.
Actually in most themeparks like wow and such open world pve is not rewarded really other then gold and items that you get rom yoru actions in it, wiht the lffg making it faster and more profitable to lvl via random instances, as such it has actually made open world content worthless after they put in a lfg system. They have instanced basically the games with rifts, wow, and others being a hob city that you join a group from without leaving to enter the instance. Also when a pver goes out to pve he expects to get tagged by a guard that is part of pve. Actually i did not use ganking as the means to make my point except in saying that most pvper's will never deal with world pvp because they do not want to fight or be fought unfairly or have a higher level lord over them. Now also when a pvper is aout looking for pvp they do not care that you are pve'ing and you make a concious choice to attack that player, the computer is merely doing it's job by having the npc attack you, as such it has no feeling towards you. WHere as most pvper's attidute after killing a player is childish, immature, and rude with a point of annoying and insulting the pk'ed target, as such they veiw you as well as other pvper as a thorn in their fun for choosing too attack when you could have not. IT is completely flawed to compare a comp controled npc to a pvper since you have motives for what you do, yet a comp has none at all. ALso i never mensioned ganking as it is knwon in pve themeparks which is where most of the instanced pvp is, ganking in most pve themeparks is abotu killing a much lower lvl character or weaker character, yet it was about ambushing before that discription. I always make sure that when i say gank i specify it is low lvl ganking not the prior.
Comments
So you concede people play PVP casually for a "quick bit of fun". What makes it fun? Competition.
Casual PVP is still competition.
So stop incorrectly assuming I think everyone's a top-tier e-sports competitor; the term competition does not imply that at all.
A desire for competition is the underlying motivation for PVP. When someone says "This game would be fun if we could fight each other", that's blatantly a subconscious urge to compete. Doesn't matter if that person and their friend mash buttons like idiots or play like pros. It's competition either way.
This is why you see all the blatant examples of people PVPing without any rewards structure whatsoever. For competition.
Accessibility isn't motivation. You're not going to do something just because it's easy. You're going to do something because you want to -- because you have a motivation to. In PVP, the motivation is almost always a form of competition.
A player without a motivation to PVP will not PVP -- even if it was instantly available at the touch fo a button -- because there is no motivation.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Ah I see, but wait if player vs player interaction is "competition" well then open world pvp is also "competition" to. Excellent. IB4 "ganktards", "no skill lulz".
Shame that completely fails to demonstrate that accessibility is not the driving factor for the popularity of instances in mmorpgs, if anything it further supports the case.
Once again, are you trying to tell me that reducing the accessibility of mmorpg arenas to the level seen in open world pvp would not dramatically reduce the numbers playing? I seriously hope not because that would be a retarded thing to think.
And what exactly is the point in talking about people with zero interest in pvp at all? People with little interest are still far more likely to take part in pvp that is readily available, hence more people pvp in fucking arenas.
If I put a beer on top of a mountain or put one on top of a table, someone who likes beer is going to go for which one again? Actually scratch that, how popular do you think beer would be if you had to withstand someone jumping up and down on your testicles for 5 hours straight before you could have one? Not very I would imagine even though the end product was just the same. Accessibility has a massive, massive say in the popularity on instanced pvp. That is not a bad thing and I am certainly not decrying it, but if people can't see such a fundamental truth then wow.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Using your example, accessibility is the mountain (or rather lack of), not the beer. In one of your previous post you suggested that accessibility is one of the key motivators of instanced PvP ( the beer). That is not true. Instanced PvP just grabs more of its potential audience whereas open world PvP fails to grab some of its potential audience because of its inaccessibility (tall mountain). That and half the time you get on top of the mountain, either the beer is warm or someone else already drank it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The point of talking about people with no interest in competition is to try to drive home the very obvious point that accessibility does not motivate people to PVP. Competition is the motivation.
So now that we've hopefully overcome the hurdle in the discussion where you think accessibility motivates people to PVP, we can move on.
Would reduced accessibility reduce how many people play? Of course, but that's pretty irrelevant and certainly isn't the reason we see more people prefer instanced PVP. The reasons world PVP sucks (for most people) are pretty clear:
Poor combat theatrics. You're an actor in the dull war movie about marines killing children, when you could've been in the awesome war movie about marines fighting another army.
Infrequent combat. In the best case combat is infrequent. In the worst case, you spend excessive time recouping losses or respawning from some distant location.
Predetermined combat. Instead of victory being a matter of "who was more skilled?" it's decided by whoever entered battle with more friends and better gear.
So the underlying reason instanced PVP is more popular, created in more games, and attracts the most serious PVPers, is it's a much more accurate measurement of player skill. It's balanced competition.
If you want a successful PVP game, you create an arena of balance competition, filled with interesting decisions being made all the time.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Instanced battlegrounds are more popular because of the rewards. Developer's choose to reward battlegrounds for their benefit, not the benefit of the pvp players.
Remove all pvp rewards and see where people pvp. We already know the answer.
The problem is pvp is a mini game that has no role in the "game". You are only looking at pvp as people in combat. It starts and stops there. It's the actual fight that you are scrutinizing. You aren't referring to all the non-combat activities and content that built up to the "fight" and what follows and all the people involved. 100 people may have participated, though only 10 actually fought.
Now you might envoke the masses and their wants, and i would envoke bad game design. being as no games has tried anything else i can do that.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
How do you know the answer?
People play instanced PvP in other games without any longterm rewards all the time. The part marked in yellow is something the average gamer doesn't care about as long as the PvP is fun (a problem for Dust 514 perhaps). That is why I would bet my Internet chips on instanced PvP.
We don't play these games because they are MMORPGs, we play these games because they are fun. And making games fun is good game design.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
THat would be ambushing not really ganking though ganking has taken a turn to being a different type of pvp then it started as. In the start of it yes it was any pvp that you took the advantasy of killing a engaged, weaken sate at the same lvl or clase to. Though now it is the act of killing a target that has vary little to no chance of winning the fight, as such it is as i said a vary sad form of pvp but a form none the less. THis is the mindset as well as defanition based onn the community as well as most pvpers in game i have played ovver the years.
Not true, "Just PVP" is deathmatch quake 1996. We've all moved on from that to have more fun in better PVP like Team Deathmatch, and then Capture The Flag, and then Team Fortress with it's many iterrations.
-A RTS game with just pvp, no resource gathering, etc
-WOW with just PVP and nothing else would be lame too
Outcome is still predetermined if you're wearing greens and the enemy is wearing blues, even in a battleground.
As Quirhid already mentions, players already PVP without PVP rewards all the time.
Look at literally every other competitive activity mankind has created since the dawn of time. People play Go, Soccer, Chess, TF2, LoL, Street Fighter, you name it, with zero rewards. It's completely nonsense to imply players wouldn't PVP without rewards.
As for "minigame", PVP is the game. The non-combat stuff is light on decisions (many of which aren't particularly interesting ones) and heavy on tedium, so it's easy to see why a game would be less popular: all that non-combat stuff just waters down the interesting decisions.
One thing those games could try would be non-combat activities that don't suck (good systems design so that players are making frequent interesting decisions and it's not perceived as being tedious.) But there's definitely a limit to how much PVE (non-combat stuff) can be injected into a game calling itself "PVP". It's a non-zero limit (League of Legends and Warcraft 3 actually involve considerable PVE) but typically when players want to PVP they want to PVP.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I can totally get that there can be PvP without rewards or incentives but we are not talking about Unreal Tournament or Team Fotress. The type of games that have PvP servers are predominantly PvE games that have PvP servers because if the game is PvP why would you need PvP servers.
So the type of people who play PvE games are usually interested in character development.. If you play PvE you gain experience and develop your character by getting loot and so on. So would that playerbase not want rewards for PvPing too ?
Yes, that's another example of non-skill factors harming PVP quality. But it has a less extreme impact than unbalanced teams.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I would not say that the differnce of a fully blue to green character will mean win or loss in most games unless the abbility of the character or player is stacked against one or the other. I have on serval occations pk'ed a much higher geared player then i, thru my use of abilitiess as well as possibly his lack of skill. Gear-based pvp is not no-skill pvp but is a less skill focues form of pvp, since even in pvp with fully epic sets a well versed player in blues can still win if they play right. THough in a game which is progression as well as gear based you would of course have this, since otherwise your gear would be worthless in spite of the time it took to obtain it, is it a bad or wrong form of pvp? Not by a long shot since it is one of the more favored styles with themepark as well as progreession/gear centric games being opular. THough i will say that just like those othr games a skill based pvp/pve game (like tsw) has alot of appeal, since your characetr actually feels as though they are personally growing over the items they retrieve empowering them, and so pvping in these games has a different feel since you feel that your character is actually personally better then your target was.
I cut out a lot of the stuff, since everybody should be familiar with your basic premise. I have a few arguments against what you said.
Argument 1:
I was originally going to use a biased example to point out a basic flaw, but then I thought... hey! I'll actually use a flattering example, using something I actually like.
Bookstores. I love bookstores. Unfortunately, bookstores are going out of business. One of the primary reasons is because of E-readers. Any plan by the booksellers to improve their sales that involves something sounding like 'The best way to improve our bookstore revenues would be if E-books suck more' is probably a poor plan. I personally think actual physical books are way superior to E-reader books. I wouldn't suggest that the fix would be that E-reader books should cost more, and maybe come with fuzzier print so they're more difficult to read. So... yeah. Bad plan on your part. It's relying on crippling the opponent, rather than improving your own thing. If world PvP was more fun and more awesome for more people, it would win out on its own. In other words...
Fix your own shit, don't shit up other things to be 'competitive'.
Argument 2:
Secondly, one of the basic problems in what you're doing is you're playing games mostly designed for PvE, playing on the tacked on PvP servers, and complaining that you're not being serviced. Well... duh. No kidding. That's what you get for playing a PvE game. Next time you go to McDonalds, don't complain about how crappy their new tacos are.
If you want good PvP, play a PvP based game where it isn't an afterthought.
Argument 3:
Actually, you're confusing CvC with PvP. You want character versus character. In PvP... the battle that really counts, you as a player vs. the other players, I'm afraid you've already been owned. Yes. That's right. All the other players, the players who like instanced battles? They've won. They zerged you with their superior dollars, and conquered all the big companies, leaving you with the dregs to pick from. Why do you get shitty niche games? Because you're a niche market. Basically, you're like a level 1 person whining in public chat that they got ganked.
The PvE players ganked you with their superior purchasing power. Suck it up. Make a fortune and teach them a lesson. Start your own PvP game that's so good they wish they didn't have to play shitty PvE games. Stop whining about how you got your ass kicked by all the PvE players zerging you. It's embarrassing.
Stop being a RL carebear.
How do I know what? We have history to answer most of this.
Developers dont manufacture fun. They create a set of rules in which fun can be created by the user or between users. rewarding users who play by instanced rules and ignoring and blaming users that play by open world set of rules doesnt mean anythng about fun. or popular. Its the only choice when progression only come via combat. But klike i said earlier there were mmos that rewarded neither. Which do you think was more popular? Which do you think never even got used? History already asnwered this.
Let me put it this way. Tell me a story about an instanced BG pvp fight that changed the way your whole server spent its time in the future. LOL!! Where are the blogs dedicated to instance pvp so we can share in your fun from this good game design?
Open world pvp is fun and we have the stories for people who even came years later so that they to can participate in our fun too. even though they never even played the game.
That is good game design.
No one outside the instance cares about your fun.
That is good game design too?
Good game design is a fun game right?
Just so you know, im not 100% positive on this, so i could be persuaded given something other than lazy answers that ignore reality. Thats my job.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
It would be as simple as to separate servers in two diff types.
Pve : Both PVE focused and with controlled pvp, fair pvp and measures to prevent griefing.
PvP: Free for all/faction pvp with no morality backed by the rules.
Oh wait....
Rawr.
I do not want to pvp when I pve. I want to pvp when I want to pvp. I dont want to pve when I pvp. I suck at pvp most of the time so I prefer randomized pvp. Hmmmm sounds to me like I prefer battlegrounds. Truth be told I actually think I will enjoy a format like GW2 is going to do in WvWvW in an open world type of setting.
Your missing my point. People would NOT be in instanced pvp battlegrounds in an mmorpg without the rewards. Thats WHY they are rewarded. People ignored them, like any other dev created content that doesnt offer a reward worth their time. When they did offer rewards, people went for the rewards, because they are required to pvp. And world pvp diminished. Has nothing to do with anything else besides that. You already know this.
Developers reward content they want people to partake in. People arent partaking in BG's because of fun or anything else. It's the rewards. Yes people do things they dont like for the reward. This is mmorpg basic design.
As far as beefing up the non-combat roles for less tedium, maybe. I think tedium comes from forced path and forced goals. IF it's a chosen path for a chosen goal, tedium is invisible to the user, not the outsider though. MMO Combat is the most tedious thing in any type of games ever. But the user only notices it when rading is all thats left.
Making those roles playable to the point of success as any other playstyle is the problem. People want to do what they enjoy, but not when success artificially deflated so it in no way can affect anything whatsoever in the game at all, even your own play. Making them funner wont do a thing but make thenm more tedious.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
The issue is that open world pvp in the present is not fun for mmost of the player base, since those that do enjoy it are few in the game with the major groups enjoying and using instanced pvp over world pvp. Catering to a group that out pops the nitch group is a good way to get profits to go up. In world pvp no one cares abotu yoru fun other then you, that guy you ambushed, or that person you killed while he faught a monster care just as much abotu your fun as you cared about their fun. Also good game design is not fun at all, it is profitable which translates to fun for those that make the game design profitable, A few to even sever hundred a counts of people enjoying world pvp is funny, since you can also say that alot of people have had as well as listed nightmares while in world pvp. I have heard hundreds of stories of people pulling bg fight to a win from near absolute certain loss.
But if you offered both, with no rewards, people choose open world. Why? Becuase they want to be part of the games history told by gamers. That experience is the most valueable thing an mmo can offer.
What i dont understand is why open world pve is rewarded still and not pvp? People want instanced pve for the same reasons. They have instances for the same reasons. So instance the whole game!! No more getting ganked by npc's because you walked a foot to far to the right. Those npc ruin your fun. Profits would go up for sure!!! Or would pve players say this isnt an mmo?
And as usual open world pvp means FFA gankfest in order to make your points. Of coasre open world pve is a free for all gankfest, but if an npc wastes your time its part of the game and "fun".
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Yeah it doesn't ruin PVP quality, it just harms it. It dilutes -- just slightly -- an otherwise pure experience.
I mean I've beat plenty of higher geared players. Even beat some chump shaman in Warlords gear with my puny 58 warlock in level 40 greens. Doesn't change the fact that when you lose a fight purely due to gear (ie down to the wire and it was only gear that won it) it doesn't really sit right.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Again, throughout the history of all games ever created, a fair playfield has characterized virtually every PVP game mankind has ever made. So it's surprising and unexpected that you actually seem to believe players care more about "games history told by gamers" than balanced PVP where skill determines victors. And I think very wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Sigh..........
SW:ToR = WoW v.2.0
Why is it that every retardet company tries to copy what blizzard has done and think its successfull ?
SOE's SWG died when they did that, SW:ToR won't live for long if they follow the same path , i know alot of former SWG people who will be playing SW:ToR but if its so fuckedup as people say.
They are going to loose customers en masse.
List of SOE lies
THat is not always the case trully, since i do like open world pvp, but i would still instance pvp, and then you add in the ease as well a the fact of equality in fights it is for the major group of pvpers more what they want. Many pver's as well as pvpers complain abou guard in argo as well as power settings, and have always complained about them. Also the experince is not the most important thing it can offer to most people that play it, since the one thing they are seeking is a time sink as well as entertainent (for themselves). which fr most of the players means they want to fight and do things when they want to not when a pvper or ganker thinks he/she wants to regardless of their target's wishes. YOu woudl see farl less pvper's leaving for open world pvp the you would think if there were no rewards for either of them pvp styles, and it is because the pvper's that like a controled and fair fight over a can come from now where fight will stay with bgs. Which means fewer targerts to pvp with in the open world, since the bg pvper just stay in town as well as pvp via their bgs, while the pvper;s search each other out over the entire world for a few pvp fights. To revive world pvp you would have to completely get rid of bgs now too many have found a good taste in it to want to dare see if they are as good as they think they are. Also for most pvpers now pvping is not aabotu immersion at all, compared to alot of pver's which it is still abootu immersion, as suchbeing or not being able to die to a gaurd is a break in immersion.
Actually in most themeparks like wow and such open world pve is not rewarded really other then gold and items that you get rom yoru actions in it, wiht the lffg making it faster and more profitable to lvl via random instances, as such it has actually made open world content worthless after they put in a lfg system. They have instanced basically the games with rifts, wow, and others being a hob city that you join a group from without leaving to enter the instance. Also when a pver goes out to pve he expects to get tagged by a guard that is part of pve. Actually i did not use ganking as the means to make my point except in saying that most pvper's will never deal with world pvp because they do not want to fight or be fought unfairly or have a higher level lord over them. Now also when a pvper is aout looking for pvp they do not care that you are pve'ing and you make a concious choice to attack that player, the computer is merely doing it's job by having the npc attack you, as such it has no feeling towards you. WHere as most pvper's attidute after killing a player is childish, immature, and rude with a point of annoying and insulting the pk'ed target, as such they veiw you as well as other pvper as a thorn in their fun for choosing too attack when you could have not. IT is completely flawed to compare a comp controled npc to a pvper since you have motives for what you do, yet a comp has none at all. ALso i never mensioned ganking as it is knwon in pve themeparks which is where most of the instanced pvp is, ganking in most pve themeparks is abotu killing a much lower lvl character or weaker character, yet it was about ambushing before that discription. I always make sure that when i say gank i specify it is low lvl ganking not the prior.