Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Is world PVP dead?
tixylix
Member UncommonPosts: 1,288
I think the most fun I've had in MMOs is with world PVP and you just don't get it in MMOs any more. I really don't understand why it has gone to this whole battleground style which is just so boring when doing it over and over. WoW at launch had amazing world PVP because the players made it, I loved the city raids every weekend, fights between Tarren Mil and Southshore and generally protecting people leveling up on your own side.
All Blizzard needed to do was actually let you fight over contested territory and put capture points through the world. Yet all they did was add Battlegrounds and world PVP didn't die right away because you needed to travel to them. The problem came when they let you enter them from anywhere and all of a sudden everyone just camped in cities and stopped zerg pvping in the world.
WAR beta was another game I loved because they closed the game off apart from 31 - 40 so everyone was Tier 4 and there was no access to battlegrounds. It was amazing, we had 600 people in single battles quite often and it was just so amazing to experience these massive fights over keeps. These are PVP based objects that take you through the world to get to their city. The problem with MMOs these days is any large battlegrounds like Ilum tend to be PVE objective based so people do not care for the PVP when it adds no incentive.
http://youtu.be/yDXMLjEcoUo?hd=1 (not my video, just a link showing an example)
Then WAR came out and it had battlegrounds and Tiers 1 - 3 and the population became so spread out that the Keep tier 4 PVP was nothing like it was in beta. So I quit that game prety quickly because it just became about everyone doing battlegrounds and no one in Tier 4. I really do not understand why they bothered with Tier 1 - 3, they should have just had the game all based in Tier 4 with 10 levels.
Planetside was just so amazing fighting in massive battles and was great until SOE ruined it with CC and BFRs making the population leave and then they stopped supporting the game. I just loved battles between two bases between hundreds of people and I remember a fight for one island went on all weekend during the summer of 2003 and was one of the best times of my life. You get such a thrill when you have hundreds of people all battling each other for something that matters.
World PVP just seems so dead now, no MMO is doing it with the mass scale MMOs used to do apart from Planetside 2. So sad because MMOs used to be about their worlds and now they're so instanced up that you don't have that experience any more. Playing SWTOR for example just feels like a bunch of levels rather than an online world and everything is so instanced there is no world PVP.
Comments
I am not a strong pvp player. I play it occasionaly, but I really stink at it. That being said, I think it would be silly for game companies to stop creating world PVP games. The market is there, as a matter of fact, it's my opinion that many of the pvp players are more loyal to the genre then pve players are.
With that said, I do not know why more open world PVP games are created. Maybe it has to do with what I read on these forums, that companies are trying to copy WOW thus PVE over PVP.
I was thinking the other day of a new game idea. Have a PVE based game, that randomly and unpredictibly changes into an open world PVP game. Imagining the excitement generated in a game where you are playing PVE doing your quests when suddenly, the sky turns red (more so then Rift) and the sceneary changes as well. In an instant. All of a sudden it's , OMG!!!!! ATTACK, CHARGE, KILL!!!! Open world PVP. This goes on for a few minutes, you gain rewards and so on typical with PVP games that can be used in the PVE world, then poof, back to PVE exactly where you were before all hell broke loose.
This 'event' if you will, can happen twice day or ten times day, you never when or how much.
I just think this variation in a game, unpredictablility, randomness and spontanitiy would create for a different and exciting new game. Maybe this type of game cost too much to make, but I think it would be fun. Just my opinion.
Keep an eye on Dominus. It might have some potential. Archeage looks like it could also be pretty epic. I do, sadly, agree with everything you've written. Blizzard's creation of Battlegrounds/Arenas has become the death knell to all other upcoming MMO's. They're just another form of grind, they're simply not fun after the 483029432th time.
World PvP that is sporadic, spontaenous, skillful and awesome is what should drive a MMO nowadays. But... alas, the general population is a bunch of lazy asses who want everything given to them on a silver platter. Gone are the days where it actually took some thought process to excel at games.
there are pretty much 2 words that eventually end up describing world pvp in general.
gank and zerg.
if you are not getting ganked by some dude twice your level with golden gear, then your getting zerged by twice as many numbers. this is why pretty much every game that has had world pvp as it's focus has failed. battle grounds make numbers fair and keep level and gear somewhat in balance and this is why they are immensly more popular. sure they are not as exciting as world pvp but they always feel more fair.
nothing leaves you with a worse taste in your mouth then unfair pvp.
There. You said it.
2 words that end up describing world PvP. Is it fair to describe it that way? Of course not. You can't even find someone who can find the definition of what IS NOT a "gank" in a world PvP scenario. Are you supposed to stare at them, alert them of your presence, give them a /wave to let them know of your intent to kill and then fight? People who bitch, moan and whine about world PvP scenarios are simply people who should not be joining "PvP" servers. Everything you ask for, Battlegrounds, Arenas, etc, are always available on the PvE server-type as well. Why ruin the fun for others by joining the PvP servers and subsequently whining profusely about getting your ass tooled?
Ganking is synonymous with every kill in the open world no matter what situation. It's pathetic and it's an annoying truth.
I prefer to think of it as being in a deep slumber like Sleepy Beauty (world PvP) until some magical Prince (developer/company) wakes her up.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
World PvP in the classic way is not feeling well at all, no.
The problem is that we need a new combat mechanic and probably a lot new ides to bring it back to were it should be.
Trinity combat as well as the FFA sandbox FPS mechanics aren't good enough.
A good game could bring back the world PvP though but I think it will have to look a bit on tabletops and RTS games to take the thing to a new level.
do you realize just how dirty the Sleepy Beauty story is? a woman that ,wile in a "coma like" sleep, has to be kissed (without her knowledge or assent) by thousand and thousands of men she has never met before the right one finaly wakes her up.....i mean talk about sloppy seconds. like hell that prince charming is putting his lips on there!
So many others before me have already said it, Zerg and Gank. These reasons alone is why world PVP will probably not exist in any major games anymore. When your playing a game, and your just getting ganked and griefed over and over, your more likely to quit and stop spending money. Any system in game that isn't fun and is bringing the game down for someone, will most likely never exist. Sure, you get some rare occasions of a great 1v1 match someone your level, but these moments are so rare that it doesn't outweigh the annoyance of dying over and over, not being able to do anything but give up.
I think battlegrounds and world PVP zones are the best were gonna get. Areas specially designed for PVP will have people in the area ready and willing to fight anyone they see, and the best part? They will all probably be max level and on equal terms, rather than a level 20 vs a lvl 50. The days of dying to someone max level is dead in any real MMORPG.
So wait for PlanetSide 2 then?
SKYeXile
TRF - GM - GW2, PS2, WAR, AION, Rift, WoW, WOT....etc...
Future Crew - High Council. Planetside 1 & 2.
Unless they really screw up, Planetside 2 won't be world PVP.
World PVP in MMORPGs is bad because of ganking and zerging and progression.
Planetside had none of those things. There was no distracting PVE (no ganking), population limits were enforced in what was effectively 200v200v200 instanced PVP (no zerging), and progression was lateral (a skilled level 1 could easily kill an unskilled max-level player.) So it's not really world PVP.
The only time Planetside offered bad PVP is if your faction was underpopulated. But MMORPGs, especially in world PVP, almost always offer bad PVP where skill is swept aside by population or progression factors.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Based on the plethora of replies by players who have no clue what world PvP entails, yes, world PvP is dead.
Unfortunately, dumb people killed it.
That all world PvP is mostly about griefing is because of bad game design, not that the idea in itself is bad.
MMO game mechanics were initially introduced in Meridian 59 1996. While for some reason that game is only played by a few PvP players, PvP was still added to it as an afterthought, not with the same priority as PvE.
A good PvP game will need mechanics that is as good for PvP as for PvE and trinity combat wont do that. The trinity mechanics makes it so that PvE is fought one way while PvP is fought a different one and that always means one will be better than the other.
A real open world PvP game will need a better AI for mobs and new combat mechanics. I am not suggesting that we should use FPS mechanics though because they work badly in PvE instead, we need something new.
A true MMO mechanics that work in world PvP as well as PvE will need to have strategy in them and should give the player that can outsmart the other player (or mob) victory. I do have some ideas for that myself and I am sure it is possible.
With the current MMO mechanics instanced PvP is sadly the only option if you want more than a handful players at least.
Don't blame the players. Players will play the game as it is, this is the game designers fault, not the players.
If most players don't like the open world PvP it is because it ain't good enough. Not because the players don't get it or because open world PvP can't be fun.
Players are always going to outsmart mobs. That is a fact of life. You can have large scale strategy with lots of players and mobs like EvE but you can't have strategy in 1 player vs 1 mob in a 10 second or less battle. Unlike what you see on TV real melee combat in the case of small groups of people is over fast, with maybe 1-10 seconds for each 1v1 person matchup. You could have a plan, or some very, very simple tactics. Real combat, twitch combat, don't really have strategy. Just a war of muscle memory. You might be able to argue strategy vs a boss although usually boss fights aren't 1 player vs 1 mob.
Warhammer Online
Yes, players should generally outsmart mobs rather easy, but the mobs don't have to be as retarded as they actually are.
And real melee do only take seconds if we are talking about 2 guys without armor but there are plenty of historical examples of duels fought by knights that lasted a long time, half an hour did actually happen (even though 5 minutes were a lot more common).
It is bloody hard to kill someone in a full plate armor and take brains. Melee combat is actually a lot more complicated than people think. You can already on the Bayeux Tapestry see people in combat positions.
If you want to learn more I recommend you to visit your local ARMA or get a nice book about fencing (AMRAs webbpage have some old scanned ones you can download for free, I recommed Tallhoffer). SCA also knows a lot of ancient melee combat.
http://www.thearma.org/
The fact is that many people n the world gain pleasure from the suffering of others, or by inflicting suffering on others, or even by feeling they control another person. This fact that is pretty wide spread across much of humanity can be seen in various forms of entertainment. Now take the flegling mmo market add in a mass influx of players, and you will get many of these types of people in game that gain enjoyment from ruining the enjoyment of others. When you add in the freedom to do as you wish in game to that mentality you will always havee some form of griefing in a game, regardless of it being pvp or pve centric . What has killed world pvp is that players pay money to enjoy their gaming sessions, but the activities of gankers/griefers (those out to just make trouble not really pvp as they normally run when a true challenge comes around.) made many players dislikeworld pvp, then bgs/arena pvp comes in allowing for them to pvp in a more fair or even fight standard whch the devs seen as liked by them. It is good business to give the players what they enjoy over forcing them to only be able to do somethign that they hate/do not enjoy as they would just leave, and would net the company a loss. Blame the true griefers or gankers that are oout not to pvp, but to just ruing the enjoyment of others.
Where melee fighting is concerned it is actually mroe about hwo skilled you were with your weapon, as well as how skilled your opponent to determine the length of a fight. Armor like field plate added more protection to make t take longer to land injuries on a target, yet also it impeads your movement (though now as much as some think.) as well as vision in combat. Two skilled fencers can fight for an hour or more if they are equally skilled, also many martial artists of equal skill have the stamina to keep up a good fight for over an hour or more easy. The length of a melee fight is not really based on what people think, but more about your skils in fighting in your chosen method. Go watch some of the old martial art tournements for the actual title matches or semi final to finals for a look at some semi skilled melee fighters, an then think that their masters are most likely quite abit better fighter then they are.
Still sounds like bad mechanics to me.
Same can be said of world pvp as when you add in a large group f players the lowest/worst of theose players will ruin even a great system for their own enjoyment. The amount of restrctions yo would need, rules, and such to allow for eveyone to enjoy themselves would make it not world pvp. Also the fact of telling people to grow up or such when they find out how unfair world pvp is another factor of killing world pvp, as you are alienating possible players to draw more attention to world pvp,, which in turn keeps it a more minority playstyle compared to other pvp styles like bg/arena pvping.
Fencing? Please. Fencing is not an acceptable example. I know about plate mail. A gentlements dual by knights is not combat. Its a game, like fencing. Its actually not too hard to kill a man in plate armor. It mostly involves ranged weapons which could penetrate plate armor reasonably well. 95% of people in medieval wars were peasants and knights spent more time massacring them than they did fighting each other. A mob with equal stats to a player going from 1% chance to win to 10% is not a huge improvement in regards to better AI. Maybe better AI with also a number advantage. Knights generally ride horses also because they can't actually move in their armor too well, and most mmorpg combat takes place on foot, again making a knight argument a poor one. 1v1 is a poor example also. On the field of battle all that fencing and knight dueling shit doesn't work because there are guys all around ready to chop your head off if you get too focused on one opponent.
World PVP in MMORPGs is bad because of ganking and zerging and progression.
Planetside had none of those things. There was no distracting PVE (no ganking), population limits were enforced in what was effectively 200v200v200 instanced PVP (no zerging), and progression was lateral (a skilled level 1 could easily kill an unskilled max-level player.) So it's not really world PVP.
The only time Planetside offered bad PVP is if your faction was underpopulated. But MMORPGs, especially in world PVP, almost always offer bad PVP where skill is swept aside by population or progression factors.
Thats because world PvP in MMO's is wrong, Planetside (2) is right.
SKYeXile
TRF - GM - GW2, PS2, WAR, AION, Rift, WoW, WOT....etc...
Future Crew - High Council. Planetside 1 & 2.
I still have really good memories of world pvp from WoW. As much as people hate the game, the way they developed daily quest hubs (either intentional or unintentional) always gave a great opportunitiy for world pvp .
Level 80 daily quest hubs = 80 's vs 80's
Anyways I don't play anymore and haven't for a while but I still have very fond memories.
I still remember with the burning crusade that one Island, I would spend hours there world pvping and it would usually turn into all out massive brawls of people.
Then you never have actually seen fencing or actually worn armor as the armor a knight wore was heavy, but actually with hwo it was crafted allowed alot more movement then you would ever think. Also fencing like any fighting styles that have existed had many styes within them for various situations when you were in a fight or battle. Before you go around spouting off about what you think you know, or what you have heard or seen. I would actually go out into the world read about what you are talking about, learn some of the basics of it, and even talk to people that actually leanred to do what you are tlaking about.
Don't confuse 15th century fencing with olympic fencing please.
And it is true that in 12-14th century most people in a battle were rather poorly armed, but Tallhoffer shows himself how to defeat a guy in plate without any, it works (I seen it done by a ARMA member) even though I wouldn't bet on a peasant. Knight also spent a lot of time training while peasants had litlle training if any.
When we are talking about 15 century warfare things get different though, large mercenary companies like the black company and the Swiss guard were well armed and trained.
ut sure, cutting down a trashmob should be about as hard as cutting down a peasant for a knight. But don't underestimate peasants. The Scottish victory at Bannockburn was won by pikes, not ranged weapons or knights. We are talking about around 5000 knights and 25 000 foot soldiers against 800 knights (if so called, they had pathetic armor) and 7500 peasants. Strategy wins every battle, Hannibal knew it, Lee knew it and so did Patton and Rommel.
As how well a knight can move in armor, that is just BS. Have you ever wore an armor? I think not. I have, I own an armor and a real sword. I think you would be surprised how easy it is to mave in a full plate, and just how light a real sword is for that matter. My armor BTW is a chainmal though, not plate but it is actually harder to move in than in the plate, ask anyone who have tried both.
That still doesn't mean that you should focus on a single enemy on a large battlefield, but there were plenty of duels and smaller skirmishers as well, and MMO combat is usually a lot closer to that than large battles like Bannockburn. You just can't get 40 000 players in the same battle in a MMO with current technology.
You should really consider visiting ARMA or SCA and try out things a little yourself, it is fun and educational.
Ah, you beat me to it.. And I just got Dejah vu.