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.
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.
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.
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.
A surprising amount of movement is still not that much. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am just less educated. I suppose you could argue that some high quality plate only weighed 45 pounds. As regards fencing its not my fault he wasn't specific.
In any case there are several viable options for dealing with plate. Poleaxes and halbreds are effective at getting through weak points from a distance, also some special swords. Further longbows and crossbows.
Maces and hammers can inflict trauma through armor through blunt trauma and lots of weight on a small point. Plate was mostly good for blocking slashing weapons.
And still 95% of combat had nothing to do with full plate knights and fencers.
Are you saying you want to base all combat on a statistically uncommon system? Also way to prioritize euro combat. Ethnocentrism!
Also magic. Magic doesn't care. And the slowness of plate is more harmful vs say, a super strong demon or ranged fire breath. So in a magic world plate doesn't mean much and costs you a lot.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A surprising amount of movement is still not that much. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am just less educated. I suppose you could argue that some high quality plate only weighed 45 pounds. As regards fencing its not my fault he wasn't specific.
In any case there are several viable options for dealing with plate. Poleaxes and halbreds are effective at getting through weak points from a distance, also some special swords. Further longbows and crossbows.
Maces and hammers can inflict trauma through armor through blunt trauma and lots of weight on a small point. Plate was mostly good for blocking slashing weapons.
And still 95% of combat had nothing to do with full plate knights and fencers.
Are you saying you want to base all combat on a statistically uncommon system? Also way to prioritize euro combat. Ethnocentrism!
Also magic. Magic doesn't care. And the slowness of plate is more harmful vs say, a super strong demon or ranged fire breath. So in a magic world plate doesn't mean much and costs you a lot.
First magic is a bad example as when you bring that into the picture you can look into the fact of warded armors that make it lighter, block more damage, and even block magical damage which goes for all armor. Actually it is your fault for jumping to a conclusion about what he was talking about instead of asking or talking about both version of fencing (as anyone who knows would assume you were talking about actual fighting fencing not sport fencing in a convo about warfare.). To me all armor should have different effects on the damage being dealty by weapons, although plate armor had alot of padding in it to even shield the wearer from blunt force attacks like maces, yet they were better then trying to hack at them with a sword or axe. Also by what you are saying you do seem to know little about actual fighting in the eras that are talked about when armor and such was used. Also any amount of reduced movement you had from the plate is easily offset by the amount of added protection it gives to you.Also with arrows it was proved that the armor penetrating arrow i think it was the bodkin point actually did not pierce armor as much as people thought, crossbows were much better as you could get alot more power behind them as well as took less skill to use compared to a long bow. Coombat should be based on all aspects of combat in the common style of fighting in the era it would take place in. Which would be moderately sized armies overall as large scale wars over a certain size are not that common to happen, add in that most mmo combat is based on small to moderate sized combat it would make sense to base it on styles that work well in these sizes of combat.
A surprising amount of movement is still not that much. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am just less educated. I suppose you could argue that some high quality plate only weighed 45 pounds. As regards fencing its not my fault he wasn't specific.
In any case there are several viable options for dealing with plate. Poleaxes and halbreds are effective at getting through weak points from a distance, also some special swords. Further longbows and crossbows.
Maces and hammers can inflict trauma through armor through blunt trauma and lots of weight on a small point. Plate was mostly good for blocking slashing weapons.
And still 95% of combat had nothing to do with full plate knights and fencers.
Are you saying you want to base all combat on a statistically uncommon system? Also way to prioritize euro combat. Ethnocentrism!
Also magic. Magic doesn't care. And the slowness of plate is more harmful vs say, a super strong demon or ranged fire breath. So in a magic world plate doesn't mean much and costs you a lot.
We are talking about 20 kilo and the weight is all over your body, so carrying it is easier than a backpack with the same weight, which I myslef have wore while wlking really far (together with gun, ammo and other field equipment) when I did my service.
The polearm is really made to knock the knight off the horse, it does not work on a landsknecht who usually are on foot. Once they are down they usually are groggy a while and that is while you take a stilletto and use it to stick it inside the small gaps around the helmet or other points.
There are indeed weapons that can take out a knight fine, like a Warhammer, a pike and a morningstar but they are not easy to use.
The magic part can be used to protect the knight as well, and all MMOs do not even need magic, you could easily make a historical game as well.
While you can make a system that allows player to be peasants, or to level into knights as they play most MMO players do want to play the hero and not the peasant with a stick. Making combat rules that lets you win against a weaker opponent is easy, it is against a opponent of equal strenght that is hard.
I am sorry, but you really still have little clues about actual medival warfare, you might have read a little about it but both me and Eiricmerren have actual experience of it (well, the none leathal kind but it hurts enough to be bashed by an unsharpened steel sword). We have studied the old masters, or at least I have.
A good MMO combat system should be based on strategy, not just fast movement, at least as long as we are talking about people in armor. For a rogue class things can be different but they honestly would do better by killing the knight when he is at home sleeping instead of in honest battle.
The only game I've ever played instanced pvp in is GW1... All those others are pathetic. Looking forward to Planetside 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! New PS2 gameplay video! http://www.planetside-universe.com/
First magic is a bad example as when you bring that into the picture you can look into the fact of warded armors that make it lighter, block more damage, and even block magical damage which goes for all armor. Actually it is your fault for jumping to a conclusion about what he was talking about instead of asking or talking about both version of fencing (as anyone who knows would assume you were talking about actual fighting fencing not sport fencing in a convo about warfare.). To me all armor should have different effects on the damage being dealty by weapons, although plate armor had alot of padding in it to even shield the wearer from blunt force attacks like maces, yet they were better then trying to hack at them with a sword or axe. Also by what you are saying you do seem to know little about actual fighting in the eras that are talked about when armor and such was used. Also any amount of reduced movement you had from the plate is easily offset by the amount of added protection it gives to you.Also with arrows it was proved that the armor penetrating arrow i think it was the bodkin point actually did not pierce armor as much as people thought, crossbows were much better as you could get alot more power behind them as well as took less skill to use compared to a long bow. Coombat should be based on all aspects of combat in the common style of fighting in the era it would take place in. Which would be moderately sized armies overall as large scale wars over a certain size are not that common to happen, add in that most mmo combat is based on small to moderate sized combat it would make sense to base it on styles that work well in these sizes of combat.
People who actually measured on how much slower you become in a real plate armor usually losses just over 10% of the speed, but are getting tons of protection for it. A chainmail full armor (with leggings) slows you down somewhere around 20%, still worth it if no plate is avaliable.
Bad movies from the 50s were knights were winched into the saddle and couldn't moved if they fell have influenced a lot of people into believing that an plate armor is a lot heavier and bulkier than it actually is (but you know that of course).
As for the X-bows against longbows that debate were an actual military debate for hundreds of years, and 2 of my buddies still argue about it. My opinion is that with 15 years training a longbow wins, but with a few weeks training the crossbow is superior.
BTW, can you like split up your post into 2 or 3 parts? It makes them easier to read.
The only game I've ever played instanced pvp in is GW1... All those others are pathetic. Looking forward to Planetside 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! New PS2 gameplay video! http://www.planetside-universe.com/
Yeah, but Guildwars actually made it's combat mechanics to work fine in both PvP and PvE, that is the difference between it and the rest of them.
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.
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!
Pfft, that's nothing. You should check out the Sleeping Beauty Trilogy by A.N.R. You want to talk dirty? I started reading it on a bus not knowing what to expect and had to put it down, I was blushing so profusely.
As for world PvP, it is indeed dead and I wish I could have pity, but I don't. There are people who did World PvP right, it's true, but overall that open-style PvP play was used to punish lower level players. The PvPers, in fact, dug their own hole. What the gankers didn't realize when they were busy trying out their new sword on a lowbie's colon was how vital those new players were to keeping the game alive.
Eventually people get tired of their progress being interrupted, and they start avoiding that game and others like it. Stigmas develop, and you end up with exactly what you have now...players avoiding a game mechanic like the plague, and developers accomodating those players since they make up the majority and thus are where all the money is. The gankers essentially ruined the fun for everyone by bullying potentially interested players into submission. There's a saying about ruling over empty cities...or something like that...it's late, I don't remember it, but it exists. *wavey hand at*
In order for open pvp to thrive again, you'd need a serious community effort on the part of the pvpers. For everyone running around destroying lowbies for fun there need to be shining knights willing to come and save them, recruit them, help them grow to the point they can defend themselves. In doing so, the cycle repeats, a new generation of pvper is born. But that doesn't happen, because MMOs are generally progression treadmills and all the higher level people that aren't ganking lowbies are too busy farming exp/gear to help them. The community shatters, people get bored/frustrated and leave, the games die, and the pvpers have nowhere to go anymore.
Sad. ish.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
The only game I've ever played instanced pvp in is GW1... All those others are pathetic. Looking forward to Planetside 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! New PS2 gameplay video! http://www.planetside-universe.com/
Yeah, but Guildwars actually made it's combat mechanics to work fine in both PvP and PvE, that is the difference between it and the rest of them.
Personally I was able to stand the instanced combat in GW1 because I didn't approach the game expecting it to be the same MMO experience I had come to expect from others. Other MMOs I have found myself supremely disappointed by the push towards instancing... GW1 was just sorta in its own genre, and I enjoyed it for what it was. GW2 I will probably be disappointed when I realize it is heavily instanced...
It is really tiring trying to forget what I REALLY want from a game and trying to enjoy games for what they are. I was able to do it with a few games only in the last few years... GW1 was one of them. Skyrim and minecraft were a couple more recent ones.
the fact is that there are more people out there who like to PVP when its on THEIR terms, this is something PVPers do NOT get. I love to PVP I will spend hours in PVP ....
WHEN I WANT TO PVP <---- this is the biggest thing.
I leveled a character in warhammer through RVR most of the time. however it was nice not having to worry about being ganked while questing when i decided i had enough PVP. I think a lot of people are like that as well, they prefer consensual PVP instead of open PVP all the time.
thats why I don't roll on PVP servers even though i love PVP action, I don't want to have to watch my back anytime i leave the main city. sometimes im just not in the mood for PVP and just want to casually play through some quests.
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.
I personally thought SOE did a pretty good job of it with DCUO. Sure, there were gankers, but the basic approach to world PvP was neat. Quests were designed in such a way that players of both factions would be at the same quest areas at the same level (with the quest objectives often being the opposite side of the same coin). This basically made it so players would naturally fight at these spots in a way that made sense within context and also made for fun PvP.
I realize it wasn't perfect -- but I fondly recall many awesome street fights of fairly even numbers and levels.
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.
I personally thought SOE did a pretty good job of it with DCUO. Sure, there were gankers, but the basic approach to world PvP was neat. Quests were designed in such a way that players of both factions would be at the same quest areas at the same level (with the quest objectives often being the opposite side of the same coin). This basically made it so players would naturally fight at these spots in a way that made sense within context and also made for fun PvP.
I realize it wasn't perfect -- but I fondly recall many awesome street fights of fairly even numbers and levels.
Not to mention the most popular P2P MMO in the world before WoW dethroned it was an open world PvP game... Lineage II. It had nearly 4 million active acounts in 2004 when WoW overtook it. Hardly what I'd call a failure by any measure. The reason why some fail and some succeed is totally dependent on the PvP ruleset used in the game. Lineage II had and still has to this day a ruleset that allows open world PvP but puts penalties on the gankers. This of course doesn't eliminate ganking entirely but it did limit it and allowed the playerbase to be self policing as gankers(PKers) were open free kills for anyone. I will however agree that Open World PvP without a proper ruleset in place does usually devolve into a gankfest and is no fun for anyone.
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.
I personally thought SOE did a pretty good job of it with DCUO. Sure, there were gankers, but the basic approach to world PvP was neat. Quests were designed in such a way that players of both factions would be at the same quest areas at the same level (with the quest objectives often being the opposite side of the same coin). This basically made it so players would naturally fight at these spots in a way that made sense within context and also made for fun PvP.
I realize it wasn't perfect -- but I fondly recall many awesome street fights of fairly even numbers and levels.
Not to mention the most popular P2P MMO in the world before WoW dethroned it was an open world PvP game... Lineage II. It had nearly 4 million active acounts in 2004 when WoW overtook it. Hardly what I'd call a failure by any measure. The reason why some fail and some succeed is totally dependent on the PvP ruleset used in the game. Lineage II had and still has to this day a ruleset that allows open world PvP but puts penalties on the gankers. This of course doesn't eliminate ganking entirely but it did limit it and allowed the playerbase to be self policing as gankers(PKers) were open free kills for anyone. I will however agree that Open World PvP without a proper ruleset in place does usually devolve into a gankfest and is no fun for anyone.
Bren
I don't count Asian markets when we talk about game sales and that, their culture is so different that it's a whole thing on its self. Lineage 2 was never that popular in the western world and it's like Blizzard trying to pass of 10 million subscribers like we have in the west. No it probably only has a couple million here and the rest all Asian which they don't subscribe, they just pay for time and use that time when they want.
I like that system though personally, wish could by time and played the game for that time. I hate having to pay $15 a month and then hardly play it for that month, would be much better to pay like $2 for 24 hours or something.
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.
I personally thought SOE did a pretty good job of it with DCUO. Sure, there were gankers, but the basic approach to world PvP was neat. Quests were designed in such a way that players of both factions would be at the same quest areas at the same level (with the quest objectives often being the opposite side of the same coin). This basically made it so players would naturally fight at these spots in a way that made sense within context and also made for fun PvP.
I realize it wasn't perfect -- but I fondly recall many awesome street fights of fairly even numbers and levels.
Not to mention the most popular P2P MMO in the world before WoW dethroned it was an open world PvP game... Lineage II. It had nearly 4 million active acounts in 2004 when WoW overtook it. Hardly what I'd call a failure by any measure. The reason why some fail and some succeed is totally dependent on the PvP ruleset used in the game. Lineage II had and still has to this day a ruleset that allows open world PvP but puts penalties on the gankers. This of course doesn't eliminate ganking entirely but it did limit it and allowed the playerbase to be self policing as gankers(PKers) were open free kills for anyone. I will however agree that Open World PvP without a proper ruleset in place does usually devolve into a gankfest and is no fun for anyone.
Bren
I don't count Asian markets when we talk about game sales and that, their culture is so different that it's a whole thing on its self. Lineage 2 was never that popular in the western world and it's like Blizzard trying to pass of 10 million subscribers like we have in the west. No it probably only has a couple million here and the rest all Asian which they don't subscribe, they just pay for time and use that time when they want.
I like that system though personally, wish could by time and played the game for that time. I hate having to pay $15 a month and then hardly play it for that month, would be much better to pay like $2 for 24 hours or something.
Well I personally played on the NA servers for Lineage II from Beta to this day and I can personally attest to the fact that is was very popular in the west as well. There were mostly NA and EU people on the servers for Lineage II NA and the servers were crowded most of the time. I'll agree however that probably more than half of that 4 million sub number was Asian markets but the Korean and Chinese markets had there own seperate versions of the game with their own servers as well.
Well Lineage II wasn't really my point anyways. My point was that Open World PvP done with a proper ruleset can be popular and not just a gank or zerg fest.
The problem as I see it atm is that there, as many ppl have pointed out, aren't many games out there that offer a robust rule set for world PvP. Eve is one that makes rather good for it's niche, Darkfall could have made good if they had a better flagging/outlaw system in place and if they hadn't been afraid to ban the rampant macroing and exploiting, altho the latter wasn't as big an issue as the macroing. An then there's Perpetuum, which I personally haven't played but from what I've read is basically a copy of EVE in a different setting
Now what is the common factor in both those game concerning world pvp? You actually had an objective that mattered: territorial and resource control coupled with siege warfare. And those are the components that imho a game that caters to the world pvp crowd need to implement.
Currently aside from EVE and maybe Perpetuum, which I havent played, World PvP is dead but there's hope on the horizon:
I love world PVP and it might be dead for the AAA titles coming out lately, but not for indie developers, nearly every indie MMORPG I have seen in development have had some kind of open world PVP, Town building, Clan Wars basically al lthe things us PVPers want.. So i think in the next few years we will be flocking to these indie games if they manage to get released.
There will still be millions playing wow because thats just what they like simple as, I guess we have to face the fact that PVP type MMORPGs are less popular because the majority of people cant handle being killed by other people.. SO they flock to MMORPGs like WOW, SWTOR and so on and the big companies love it ..
I'm not one for pvping all the time. That being said, I've think world PvP can work, it just needs to be controlled properly which sadly is most games to date.
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.
There will be plenty of no skill ganking and zerging in maps suited for 200v200v200. Progression or no progression.
There is no skill ganking and zerging on smaller maps than that even. Progression or no progression.
PS is world pvp.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
There will be plenty of no skill ganking and zerging in maps suited for 200v200v200. Progression or no progression
The underlying reason for the term "zerg" is a jab at the obviously crappy design of "I have more friends online tonight so I win". That only happens in the spillover continents in Planetside, and definitely doesn't happen in the 200v200 continents.
If you're on a 200v200v200 continent and you find yourself outnumbered, it's your own damn fault. Your teammates were out there and you chose to separate from them.
Sometimes separation is wise, but the crucial difference is it becomes a tactical player choice rather than "Welp, the enemy has more players online tonight guess we're just always going to lose" which is the absolute worst part of Planetside (but is thankfully rare in Planetside, whereas in world PVP it's the norm.)
But in 200v200 fights, population is factored out, leaving skill and teamwork as the reasons you win or lose -- and that's what the majority considers worthwhile PVP: games about skillful competition.
Similarly, the underlying reason for the term "gank" is a jab at the obviously crappy design of "I can ambush you while you're doing a PVE activity which takes you to 50% health". This never happens in Planetside; there are no PVE activities, everything is PVP-related.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There will be plenty of no skill ganking and zerging in maps suited for 200v200v200. Progression or no progression
The underlying reason for the term "zerg" is a jab at the obviously crappy design of "I have more friends online tonight so I win". That only happens in the spillover continents in Planetside, and definitely doesn't happen in the 200v200 continents.
If you're on a 200v200v200 continent and you find yourself outnumbered, it's your own damn fault. Your teammates were out there and you chose to separate from them.
Sometimes separation is wise, but the crucial difference is it becomes a tactical player choice rather than "Welp, the enemy has more players online tonight guess we're just always going to lose" which is the absolute worst part of Planetside (but is thankfully rare in Planetside, whereas in world PVP it's the norm.)
But in 200v200 fights, population is factored out, leaving skill and teamwork as the reasons you win or lose -- and that's what the majority considers worthwhile PVP: games about skillful competition.
Similarly, the underlying reason for the term "gank" is a jab at the obviously crappy design of "I can ambush you while you're doing a PVE activity which takes you to 50% health". This never happens in Planetside; there are no PVE activities, everything is PVP-related.
A zerg is a rush to crush the opponent/s.
A gank is a one sided combat situation, typically through level or number superiority.
Both occur on any size map, whether it is through the fault of the individuals being ganked or zerged does not reduce the fact that it is indeed occurring..
Oddly enough I have spent perhaps less than 1% of my game time in open world, ffa pvp games getting ganked or zerged (and not through permanently being in a massive zerg party myself) and yet I don't see people putting the onus on the people getting ganked in those games. It seems to be a case of "in games I don't like it's bad design, but in games I like it's the players fault".
The problems mainly occur only when games impose no number vs number limitations and at the same time (the crucial part) have "open world maps" which are in fact crappy, small areas (like WAR). Then we see people getting wtfpwnt in small areas and at warcamps/spawnpoints/whatever.
Don't get me wrong, I am well aware a PS is different to say an EVE, having over 9000 turn up against 500 when that majority force has not had to meta game to the top in the first place would be problematic. But it doesn't remove the fact that ganking and zerging will still be rife on larger scale "battleground" style maps.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
in most game there arent any incentive to pvp !do you need it to farm say social in swtor nope not needed ,this is one reason world pvp isnt active,check the +10 to all stat datacron!why not make it a social pvp lock.like you NEED to pvp in order to access it! dont know about you but me i saw the guide and dam this would be fun!
A gank is a one sided combat situation, typically through level or number superiority.
Both occur on any size map, whether it is through the fault of the individuals being ganked or zerged does not reduce the fact that it is indeed occurring..
Oddly enough I have spent perhaps less than 1% of my game time in open world, ffa pvp games getting ganked or zerged (and not through permanently being in a massive zerg party myself) and yet I don't see people putting the onus on the people getting ganked in those games. It seems to be a case of "in games I don't like it's bad design, but in games I like it's the players fault".
The problems mainly occur only when games impose no number vs number limitations and at the same time (the crucial part) have "open world maps" which are in fact crappy, small areas (like WAR). Then we see people getting wtfpwnt in small areas and at warcamps/spawnpoints/whatever.
Don't get me wrong, I am well aware a PS is different to say an EVE, having over 9000 turn up against 500 when that majority force has not had to meta game to the top in the first place would be problematic. But it doesn't remove the fact that ganking and zerging will still be rife on larger scale "battleground" style maps.
That's because in open world FFA PVP games, 99% of your time is spent in ultra-grindy menial tasks like AFKing in front of an asteroid or ore node, or traveling. The "payoff" being a terrible one-sided, no-skill-involved PVP fight.
However you define zerging or ganking, the underlying thing that the vast majority of players seek from PVP is skillful competition. The second you take a game like Planetside (or Chess or Street Fighter or Starcraft or Football or...) and allow one side to bring more players to the match than the other, you dilute skill's value and ruin the game.
So if you define zerging like you do, then there are very clear definitions for good zerging (player decisions and teamwork) and bad zerging (bringing more players).
And if you define ganking like you do, it's a completely meaningless term because it's just catching an opponent offguard -- when what players usually react negatively to (and what actually is ganking to me) is when you're doing some non-PVP activity and get caught in a weakened state which results in completely lopsided combat (where player decisions are meaningless.)
Games live or die by having interesting decisions. Pure PVP games are optimized for providing that because they refuse to dilute the experience with non-skill factors. The more non-skill factors exist, the worse a game's PVP ends up being because player decisions become not only less interesting, but sometimes completely irrelevant.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
However you define zerging or ganking, the underlying thing that the vast majority of players seek from PVP is skillful competition. The second you take a game like Planetside (or Chess or Street Fighter or Starcraft or Football or...) and allow one side to bring more players to the match than the other, you dilute skill's value and ruin the game.
The other major reason is to just have a casual brawl similar to how kids would go and throw/kick/hit the ball with their friends. However, when we did that we would always even out the teams first and not really pay attention to the score.
The problem with 'meaningful' World PvP is that you really need to dedicate the game's entire world to it. It has to affect the players every decision or it quickly loses its focus. This of course means that players who want to do something other than PvP will always be inconvenienced in some way. If you want your Wold PvP to really take first priority for players than you have to eliminate or marginalize other activities and make sure your players know that.
The one major problem I have always had with the concept of World PvP is its endless nature. You really cannot have one faction win outright so you either have to keep teh game in a permament 'draw' state or reset things after a side wins. This means that most players will tire of it sooner or later. Once you stormed a castle twenty times, you might be quite inclined to mjust make a deal with the defenders where you rotate who controls it without the hassle or replaying the same battle over and over.
You can't tie PvP especially world PvP to rewards and loot etc. It's about finding and killing your enemy. It's fun.
As soon as you HAVE to have a monetary or quantified reason to fight your enemies, to be rewarded for it, it's already not worth it to fight in the first place.
Me and a buddy grouped up on Tatooine in TOR and went Imperial hunting. Finding, fighting, and killing players of the opposing faction.
Did we get any phat loot? No.
Did we get any points or XP to buy phat loot or level up? No.
Did we have FUN and got into some great fights and show those damn dirty Imps that no where is safe?!?
That's because in open world FFA PVP games, 99% of your time is spent in ultra-grindy menial tasks like AFKing in front of an asteroid or ore node, or traveling. The "payoff" being a terrible one-sided, no-skill-involved PVP fight.
However you define zerging or ganking, the underlying thing that the vast majority of players seek from PVP is skillful competition. The second you take a game like Planetside (or Chess or Street Fighter or Starcraft or Football or...) and allow one side to bring more players to the match than the other, you dilute skill's value and ruin the game.
So if you define zerging like you do, then there are very clear definitions for good zerging (player decisions and teamwork) and bad zerging (bringing more players).
And if you define ganking like you do, it's a completely meaningless term because it's just catching an opponent offguard -- when what players usually react negatively to (and what actually is ganking to me) is when you're doing some non-PVP activity and get caught in a weakened state which results in completely lopsided combat (where player decisions are meaningless.)
Games live or die by having interesting decisions. Pure PVP games are optimized for providing that because they refuse to dilute the experience with non-skill factors. The more non-skill factors exist, the worse a game's PVP ends up being because player decisions become not only less interesting, but sometimes completely irrelevant.
I certainly do not spend 99% of my game time in open world, ffa games doing menial, afk tasks or mining asteroids. Others may want to do as such and fair play to them. So not sure where you are heading with that one over and above making a bit of a piss poor assumption. The point was very little of my time is spent getting ganked, which given the hyperbole around the whole thing is rather telling. But then said hyperbole is normally coming from people who don't play said games and make terrible cases against them without being aware of the reality of the mechanics thay are talking about.
I don't care what the majority want or do not want, I merely pointed out ganking and zerging can and does occur in 200 vs 200 vs 200 (and the like) maps.
I'm glad you now seem to see that a zerg can be positive and that the term "gank" is essentially meaningless. People (like yourself) simply use them for the main part as (highly ineffective) terms to try and beat games you don't happen to like with.
The issue, as I have already stated, is when a game which has zero meta level complexity, allows anyone to instantly join the winning side and is trying to provide purely instant action AND THEN allows a free for all, no limit blitz on a small map.
Whether you like it, or whether the mmo hordes like it or not, unrestricted (in terms of numbers) open world pvp works in something like EVE (leaving aside trite comments about AFK). It doesn't in a game trying to simulate what are essentially larger instanced battlefields when there is next to fuck all else to do other than shoot at each other.
Finally, skill is a lot more than instant combat. There is skill in making alliances, skill in knowing what territory to take and what to let go, skill in controlling a vast amount of players, skill in knowing when to switch to "economic pvp". Simply put "player skill" is not restricted to instant action combat. If all a game has in one dimension (teh shootem ups) then only the action "skill" counts, but then mmos can offer a few more dimensions than that.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Comments
A surprising amount of movement is still not that much. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am just less educated. I suppose you could argue that some high quality plate only weighed 45 pounds. As regards fencing its not my fault he wasn't specific.
In any case there are several viable options for dealing with plate. Poleaxes and halbreds are effective at getting through weak points from a distance, also some special swords. Further longbows and crossbows.
Maces and hammers can inflict trauma through armor through blunt trauma and lots of weight on a small point. Plate was mostly good for blocking slashing weapons.
And still 95% of combat had nothing to do with full plate knights and fencers.
Are you saying you want to base all combat on a statistically uncommon system? Also way to prioritize euro combat. Ethnocentrism!
Also magic. Magic doesn't care. And the slowness of plate is more harmful vs say, a super strong demon or ranged fire breath. So in a magic world plate doesn't mean much and costs you a lot.
First magic is a bad example as when you bring that into the picture you can look into the fact of warded armors that make it lighter, block more damage, and even block magical damage which goes for all armor. Actually it is your fault for jumping to a conclusion about what he was talking about instead of asking or talking about both version of fencing (as anyone who knows would assume you were talking about actual fighting fencing not sport fencing in a convo about warfare.). To me all armor should have different effects on the damage being dealty by weapons, although plate armor had alot of padding in it to even shield the wearer from blunt force attacks like maces, yet they were better then trying to hack at them with a sword or axe. Also by what you are saying you do seem to know little about actual fighting in the eras that are talked about when armor and such was used. Also any amount of reduced movement you had from the plate is easily offset by the amount of added protection it gives to you.Also with arrows it was proved that the armor penetrating arrow i think it was the bodkin point actually did not pierce armor as much as people thought, crossbows were much better as you could get alot more power behind them as well as took less skill to use compared to a long bow. Coombat should be based on all aspects of combat in the common style of fighting in the era it would take place in. Which would be moderately sized armies overall as large scale wars over a certain size are not that common to happen, add in that most mmo combat is based on small to moderate sized combat it would make sense to base it on styles that work well in these sizes of combat.
We are talking about 20 kilo and the weight is all over your body, so carrying it is easier than a backpack with the same weight, which I myslef have wore while wlking really far (together with gun, ammo and other field equipment) when I did my service.
The polearm is really made to knock the knight off the horse, it does not work on a landsknecht who usually are on foot. Once they are down they usually are groggy a while and that is while you take a stilletto and use it to stick it inside the small gaps around the helmet or other points.
There are indeed weapons that can take out a knight fine, like a Warhammer, a pike and a morningstar but they are not easy to use.
The magic part can be used to protect the knight as well, and all MMOs do not even need magic, you could easily make a historical game as well.
While you can make a system that allows player to be peasants, or to level into knights as they play most MMO players do want to play the hero and not the peasant with a stick. Making combat rules that lets you win against a weaker opponent is easy, it is against a opponent of equal strenght that is hard.
I am sorry, but you really still have little clues about actual medival warfare, you might have read a little about it but both me and Eiricmerren have actual experience of it (well, the none leathal kind but it hurts enough to be bashed by an unsharpened steel sword). We have studied the old masters, or at least I have.
A good MMO combat system should be based on strategy, not just fast movement, at least as long as we are talking about people in armor. For a rogue class things can be different but they honestly would do better by killing the knight when he is at home sleeping instead of in honest battle.
The only game I've ever played instanced pvp in is GW1... All those others are pathetic. Looking forward to Planetside 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! New PS2 gameplay video! http://www.planetside-universe.com/
Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.
People who actually measured on how much slower you become in a real plate armor usually losses just over 10% of the speed, but are getting tons of protection for it. A chainmail full armor (with leggings) slows you down somewhere around 20%, still worth it if no plate is avaliable.
Bad movies from the 50s were knights were winched into the saddle and couldn't moved if they fell have influenced a lot of people into believing that an plate armor is a lot heavier and bulkier than it actually is (but you know that of course).
As for the X-bows against longbows that debate were an actual military debate for hundreds of years, and 2 of my buddies still argue about it. My opinion is that with 15 years training a longbow wins, but with a few weeks training the crossbow is superior.
BTW, can you like split up your post into 2 or 3 parts? It makes them easier to read.
Yeah, but Guildwars actually made it's combat mechanics to work fine in both PvP and PvE, that is the difference between it and the rest of them.
Pfft, that's nothing. You should check out the Sleeping Beauty Trilogy by A.N.R. You want to talk dirty? I started reading it on a bus not knowing what to expect and had to put it down, I was blushing so profusely.
As for world PvP, it is indeed dead and I wish I could have pity, but I don't. There are people who did World PvP right, it's true, but overall that open-style PvP play was used to punish lower level players. The PvPers, in fact, dug their own hole. What the gankers didn't realize when they were busy trying out their new sword on a lowbie's colon was how vital those new players were to keeping the game alive.
Eventually people get tired of their progress being interrupted, and they start avoiding that game and others like it. Stigmas develop, and you end up with exactly what you have now...players avoiding a game mechanic like the plague, and developers accomodating those players since they make up the majority and thus are where all the money is. The gankers essentially ruined the fun for everyone by bullying potentially interested players into submission. There's a saying about ruling over empty cities...or something like that...it's late, I don't remember it, but it exists. *wavey hand at*
In order for open pvp to thrive again, you'd need a serious community effort on the part of the pvpers. For everyone running around destroying lowbies for fun there need to be shining knights willing to come and save them, recruit them, help them grow to the point they can defend themselves. In doing so, the cycle repeats, a new generation of pvper is born. But that doesn't happen, because MMOs are generally progression treadmills and all the higher level people that aren't ganking lowbies are too busy farming exp/gear to help them. The community shatters, people get bored/frustrated and leave, the games die, and the pvpers have nowhere to go anymore.
Sad. ish.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
Personally I was able to stand the instanced combat in GW1 because I didn't approach the game expecting it to be the same MMO experience I had come to expect from others. Other MMOs I have found myself supremely disappointed by the push towards instancing... GW1 was just sorta in its own genre, and I enjoyed it for what it was. GW2 I will probably be disappointed when I realize it is heavily instanced...
It is really tiring trying to forget what I REALLY want from a game and trying to enjoy games for what they are. I was able to do it with a few games only in the last few years... GW1 was one of them. Skyrim and minecraft were a couple more recent ones.
Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.
the fact is that there are more people out there who like to PVP when its on THEIR terms, this is something PVPers do NOT get. I love to PVP I will spend hours in PVP ....
WHEN I WANT TO PVP <---- this is the biggest thing.
I leveled a character in warhammer through RVR most of the time. however it was nice not having to worry about being ganked while questing when i decided i had enough PVP. I think a lot of people are like that as well, they prefer consensual PVP instead of open PVP all the time.
thats why I don't roll on PVP servers even though i love PVP action, I don't want to have to watch my back anytime i leave the main city. sometimes im just not in the mood for PVP and just want to casually play through some quests.
I personally thought SOE did a pretty good job of it with DCUO. Sure, there were gankers, but the basic approach to world PvP was neat. Quests were designed in such a way that players of both factions would be at the same quest areas at the same level (with the quest objectives often being the opposite side of the same coin). This basically made it so players would naturally fight at these spots in a way that made sense within context and also made for fun PvP.
I realize it wasn't perfect -- but I fondly recall many awesome street fights of fairly even numbers and levels.
Not to mention the most popular P2P MMO in the world before WoW dethroned it was an open world PvP game... Lineage II. It had nearly 4 million active acounts in 2004 when WoW overtook it. Hardly what I'd call a failure by any measure. The reason why some fail and some succeed is totally dependent on the PvP ruleset used in the game. Lineage II had and still has to this day a ruleset that allows open world PvP but puts penalties on the gankers. This of course doesn't eliminate ganking entirely but it did limit it and allowed the playerbase to be self policing as gankers(PKers) were open free kills for anyone. I will however agree that Open World PvP without a proper ruleset in place does usually devolve into a gankfest and is no fun for anyone.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
I don't count Asian markets when we talk about game sales and that, their culture is so different that it's a whole thing on its self. Lineage 2 was never that popular in the western world and it's like Blizzard trying to pass of 10 million subscribers like we have in the west. No it probably only has a couple million here and the rest all Asian which they don't subscribe, they just pay for time and use that time when they want.
I like that system though personally, wish could by time and played the game for that time. I hate having to pay $15 a month and then hardly play it for that month, would be much better to pay like $2 for 24 hours or something.
Well I personally played on the NA servers for Lineage II from Beta to this day and I can personally attest to the fact that is was very popular in the west as well. There were mostly NA and EU people on the servers for Lineage II NA and the servers were crowded most of the time. I'll agree however that probably more than half of that 4 million sub number was Asian markets but the Korean and Chinese markets had there own seperate versions of the game with their own servers as well.
Well Lineage II wasn't really my point anyways. My point was that Open World PvP done with a proper ruleset can be popular and not just a gank or zerg fest.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
The problem as I see it atm is that there, as many ppl have pointed out, aren't many games out there that offer a robust rule set for world PvP. Eve is one that makes rather good for it's niche, Darkfall could have made good if they had a better flagging/outlaw system in place and if they hadn't been afraid to ban the rampant macroing and exploiting, altho the latter wasn't as big an issue as the macroing. An then there's Perpetuum, which I personally haven't played but from what I've read is basically a copy of EVE in a different setting
Now what is the common factor in both those game concerning world pvp? You actually had an objective that mattered: territorial and resource control coupled with siege warfare. And those are the components that imho a game that caters to the world pvp crowd need to implement.
Currently aside from EVE and maybe Perpetuum, which I havent played, World PvP is dead but there's hope on the horizon:
http://mwomercs.com/
I love world PVP and it might be dead for the AAA titles coming out lately, but not for indie developers, nearly every indie MMORPG I have seen in development have had some kind of open world PVP, Town building, Clan Wars basically al lthe things us PVPers want.. So i think in the next few years we will be flocking to these indie games if they manage to get released.
There will still be millions playing wow because thats just what they like simple as, I guess we have to face the fact that PVP type MMORPGs are less popular because the majority of people cant handle being killed by other people.. SO they flock to MMORPGs like WOW, SWTOR and so on and the big companies love it
..
I'm not one for pvping all the time. That being said, I've think world PvP can work, it just needs to be controlled properly which sadly is most games to date.
There will be plenty of no skill ganking and zerging in maps suited for 200v200v200. Progression or no progression.
There is no skill ganking and zerging on smaller maps than that even. Progression or no progression.
PS is world pvp.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The underlying reason for the term "zerg" is a jab at the obviously crappy design of "I have more friends online tonight so I win". That only happens in the spillover continents in Planetside, and definitely doesn't happen in the 200v200 continents.
If you're on a 200v200v200 continent and you find yourself outnumbered, it's your own damn fault. Your teammates were out there and you chose to separate from them.
Sometimes separation is wise, but the crucial difference is it becomes a tactical player choice rather than "Welp, the enemy has more players online tonight guess we're just always going to lose" which is the absolute worst part of Planetside (but is thankfully rare in Planetside, whereas in world PVP it's the norm.)
But in 200v200 fights, population is factored out, leaving skill and teamwork as the reasons you win or lose -- and that's what the majority considers worthwhile PVP: games about skillful competition.
Similarly, the underlying reason for the term "gank" is a jab at the obviously crappy design of "I can ambush you while you're doing a PVE activity which takes you to 50% health". This never happens in Planetside; there are no PVE activities, everything is PVP-related.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A zerg is a rush to crush the opponent/s.
A gank is a one sided combat situation, typically through level or number superiority.
Both occur on any size map, whether it is through the fault of the individuals being ganked or zerged does not reduce the fact that it is indeed occurring..
Oddly enough I have spent perhaps less than 1% of my game time in open world, ffa pvp games getting ganked or zerged (and not through permanently being in a massive zerg party myself) and yet I don't see people putting the onus on the people getting ganked in those games. It seems to be a case of "in games I don't like it's bad design, but in games I like it's the players fault".
The problems mainly occur only when games impose no number vs number limitations and at the same time (the crucial part) have "open world maps" which are in fact crappy, small areas (like WAR). Then we see people getting wtfpwnt in small areas and at warcamps/spawnpoints/whatever.
Don't get me wrong, I am well aware a PS is different to say an EVE, having over 9000 turn up against 500 when that majority force has not had to meta game to the top in the first place would be problematic. But it doesn't remove the fact that ganking and zerging will still be rife on larger scale "battleground" style maps.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
in most game there arent any incentive to pvp !do you need it to farm say social in swtor nope not needed ,this is one reason world pvp isnt active,check the +10 to all stat datacron!why not make it a social pvp lock.like you NEED to pvp in order to access it! dont know about you but me i saw the guide and dam this would be fun!
That's because in open world FFA PVP games, 99% of your time is spent in ultra-grindy menial tasks like AFKing in front of an asteroid or ore node, or traveling. The "payoff" being a terrible one-sided, no-skill-involved PVP fight.
However you define zerging or ganking, the underlying thing that the vast majority of players seek from PVP is skillful competition. The second you take a game like Planetside (or Chess or Street Fighter or Starcraft or Football or...) and allow one side to bring more players to the match than the other, you dilute skill's value and ruin the game.
So if you define zerging like you do, then there are very clear definitions for good zerging (player decisions and teamwork) and bad zerging (bringing more players).
And if you define ganking like you do, it's a completely meaningless term because it's just catching an opponent offguard -- when what players usually react negatively to (and what actually is ganking to me) is when you're doing some non-PVP activity and get caught in a weakened state which results in completely lopsided combat (where player decisions are meaningless.)
Games live or die by having interesting decisions. Pure PVP games are optimized for providing that because they refuse to dilute the experience with non-skill factors. The more non-skill factors exist, the worse a game's PVP ends up being because player decisions become not only less interesting, but sometimes completely irrelevant.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Archeage will has open world PVP
The other major reason is to just have a casual brawl similar to how kids would go and throw/kick/hit the ball with their friends. However, when we did that we would always even out the teams first and not really pay attention to the score.
The problem with 'meaningful' World PvP is that you really need to dedicate the game's entire world to it. It has to affect the players every decision or it quickly loses its focus. This of course means that players who want to do something other than PvP will always be inconvenienced in some way. If you want your Wold PvP to really take first priority for players than you have to eliminate or marginalize other activities and make sure your players know that.
The one major problem I have always had with the concept of World PvP is its endless nature. You really cannot have one faction win outright so you either have to keep teh game in a permament 'draw' state or reset things after a side wins. This means that most players will tire of it sooner or later. Once you stormed a castle twenty times, you might be quite inclined to mjust make a deal with the defenders where you rotate who controls it without the hassle or replaying the same battle over and over.
World PvP is not dead.
It's all about attitude.
You can't tie PvP especially world PvP to rewards and loot etc. It's about finding and killing your enemy. It's fun.
As soon as you HAVE to have a monetary or quantified reason to fight your enemies, to be rewarded for it, it's already not worth it to fight in the first place.
Me and a buddy grouped up on Tatooine in TOR and went Imperial hunting. Finding, fighting, and killing players of the opposing faction.
Did we get any phat loot? No.
Did we get any points or XP to buy phat loot or level up? No.
Did we have FUN and got into some great fights and show those damn dirty Imps that no where is safe?!?
Yes.
I certainly do not spend 99% of my game time in open world, ffa games doing menial, afk tasks or mining asteroids. Others may want to do as such and fair play to them. So not sure where you are heading with that one over and above making a bit of a piss poor assumption. The point was very little of my time is spent getting ganked, which given the hyperbole around the whole thing is rather telling. But then said hyperbole is normally coming from people who don't play said games and make terrible cases against them without being aware of the reality of the mechanics thay are talking about.
I don't care what the majority want or do not want, I merely pointed out ganking and zerging can and does occur in 200 vs 200 vs 200 (and the like) maps.
I'm glad you now seem to see that a zerg can be positive and that the term "gank" is essentially meaningless. People (like yourself) simply use them for the main part as (highly ineffective) terms to try and beat games you don't happen to like with.
The issue, as I have already stated, is when a game which has zero meta level complexity, allows anyone to instantly join the winning side and is trying to provide purely instant action AND THEN allows a free for all, no limit blitz on a small map.
Whether you like it, or whether the mmo hordes like it or not, unrestricted (in terms of numbers) open world pvp works in something like EVE (leaving aside trite comments about AFK). It doesn't in a game trying to simulate what are essentially larger instanced battlefields when there is next to fuck all else to do other than shoot at each other.
Finally, skill is a lot more than instant combat. There is skill in making alliances, skill in knowing what territory to take and what to let go, skill in controlling a vast amount of players, skill in knowing when to switch to "economic pvp". Simply put "player skill" is not restricted to instant action combat. If all a game has in one dimension (teh shootem ups) then only the action "skill" counts, but then mmos can offer a few more dimensions than that.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."