I'm a WOW Carebear, fully and totally. I work with 3 guys who all think I'm nuts for not playing on a PVP server. They constantly talk about killing this guy or that class.
I don't understand it any more than they understand my having more than 1 mount ( I keep getting told you can only ride one... why do you need more? ).
One of the guys is far better than average, the other two are strictly average... And I can see the thrill in all thier eyes when they talk about thier latest win...
The best though, is when they lose. The two average guys complain about it not being fair, or make excuses about how they weren't at full health when they got attacked.
The really good guy... when HE loses its great. He doesn't complain. He's grinning like a kid in a candy shop. He comes up with 3 or 4 things he wants to try the next time he sees the person who beat him.
To me thats a big difference in PVP players that I know. The really good PVPer likes it whether they win or lose...
Originally posted by ShakyMo Maybe you should have read up on aion before you know you went out and bought it.
Everyone knew it had invasion portals and pve gated behind pvp. It's the fault of pvpers you didnt do your research.
Wow, your insight...it's amazing. I wish I'd thought of that before...oh wait, I did. Instead, I chose to believe the people who kept telling me all about the great 'server policing' and how 'the community handles griefing' and all the other tripe so often given as 'solutions'. Furthermore, even NCSoft said they never expected the way the Western community would handle rifts because such play was considered cowardly and boring in the East.
But hey, why let some reality interfere with that wonderful narrative in your head, right?
All your points in orange may not be 100% correct but the one thing thta is correct is FFA PvP is a niche audience and hardly worth the normal playerbase's time. FFA PvP games cater to and attract the worst sort of humanity to them. One look at any forum riddled with FFA PvP fans will showcase the absolutely ridiculous counter arguments li[mod edit]
I'll sign up for a full loot PVP game when there are fair mechanics. Ok, you Mr Warrior, you want to corpse camp that crafter over there because it's fun and since he's a trader, his skills are less combat oriented. That's all well and good until he goes back and initiates a hostile take over of your bank account and does a FFA Loot of your inventory.
Yeah. PVP should be allowable in all areas where players can specialize their skills. Also there should be clear and conscise definitions as to what is honorable. Keep doing dishonorable kills and you end up on wanted lists. Now there are NPC given quests to hunt you down. Not only that, but show your face in cities and agro guards everywhere. Etc Etc.
I'll sign up for a full loot PVP game when there are fair mechanics. Ok, you Mr Warrior, you want to corpse camp that crafter over there because it's fun and since he's a trader, his skills are less combat oriented. That's all well and good until he goes back and initiates a hostile take over of your bank account and does a FFA Loot of your inventory.
Yeah. PVP should be allowable in all areas where players can specialize their skills. Also there should be clear and conscise definitions as to what is honorable. Keep doing dishonorable kills and you end up on wanted lists. Now there are NPC given quests to hunt you down. Not only that, but show your face in cities and agro guards everywhere. Etc Etc.
A world, virtual or not still needs order.
Lol Geezer, taht would be pretty awesome. or here is an idea... a cyberpunk type game. It would make more sense for a cyber cowboy to take down someones bank account
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
I'll sign up for a full loot PVP game when there are fair mechanics. Ok, you Mr Warrior, you want to corpse camp that crafter over there because it's fun and since he's a trader, his skills are less combat oriented. That's all well and good until he goes back and initiates a hostile take over of your bank account and does a FFA Loot of your inventory.
Yeah. PVP should be allowable in all areas where players can specialize their skills. Also there should be clear and conscise definitions as to what is honorable. Keep doing dishonorable kills and you end up on wanted lists. Now there are NPC given quests to hunt you down. Not only that, but show your face in cities and agro guards everywhere. Etc Etc.
A world, virtual or not still needs order.
Lol Geezer, taht would be pretty awesome. or here is an idea... a cyberpunk type game. It would make more sense for a cyber cowboy to take down someones bank account
LOL. I have to admit, for the first time I was handily interested. Very ingenious solution imo. I wonder how well that would go over?
In reality, it always devolves into the same cesspool of muck, defended with the tired "Oh, well, see...it just wasn't done -right-, that's all!". Say what you will about harming computer-controlled goblins, you're not going to equate going out of your way to ruin a PERSON's day and mindlessly killing some mobiles. One is psychopathic behaviour, the other is not. As such, PVP tends to be the thing that ruins games for many players. Aion is a perfect example in my case -- I loved that game...until I had to go to a zone where there was a lot of PVP. Ruined in under a day, never logged in again despite my winning several of my battles (so please, spare me, and us, the 'hurrdurr not good at pvp' comments).
What i do not understand. What is so hard, or painful, or even worth mentioning, when your Character dies? Will you not be killed from time to time from NPCs? What is the difference, that another player kills your Avatar?
I never got that. To get killed may have bound with some emotions. Like..
- meh, another respawn..
- wow.. nice fight.. i really want to know how he did that
- damn.. steamrolled.. ok, another try
to whatever, it is just a game after all, isnt it?
And about psychopathic behaviour.. almost all (let say 99% of all multiplayer games, not MMOs) are pvp games, and usually you just kill other players all the time, and in FPS 5 within a minute. And seriously a lot of players play them.. and i really cant get it how that is psychopathic behaviour. IT IS A GAME. And i cant get it how to get your pixeled Avatar get killed will ruin anyones day.
And of course.. if someone is really that "sensitive" (i dont know how to call it else), he should seriously dont play any game where something that "terrible" can even happen. I seriously dont want to ruin another players day. But i think, that it is much more the players problem, who was killed, as of the player, who actually killed him. Because, if he was able to do so, it was most probably a way to play this game.
I think one of the largest problems with FFA PvP as a game mechanic is that it tends to achieve the exact opposite result then the intent the designers (ostensibly) chose to include it. I've often heard the arguement that it's chosen because it is the best way to represent a "realistic" sandbox game environment. It generaly results in the opposite. Although it's true in a "realistic" setting anybody CAN kill anybody. It tends to be a VERY rare occurance. That's because...
1) MOST people in society are driven by a very specific morale/social compass that define a pretty strict set of conditions about when it's acceptable to use violence and who that violence may be directed at.
2) MOST of those who aren't internaly driven by that moral/social compass would at least recognize that the consequences for acting against thier societies morale/social compass are so severe as to not be worth them considering.
3) MOST of those who actualy do act in contravention of thier societies morale/social compass would tend to have extremely short and unsuccessfull careers as they would be ruthelessly hunted down and permanently eliminated from society (i.e. perma-death, jail, exile)
So if FFA PvP'ers were actualy playing characters in that World, according to the internal logic of that game world (as another poster here has aptly pointed out). They really wouldn't be openly attacking anyone outside of groups/factions that were in open hostilities to thier own. Those few who might act as "lawless" bandits would be relagated to operating in very remote, unclaimed marginal areas of the game, far away from the civilized areas where most of the population existed.....and even they would likely have some internal rules of operation amongst themselves. THAT would actualy be a more "realistic" sandbox environment.
Of course if the game world was intended to represent a dystopian complete breakdown of social order and resulting anarchy. That would be more representitive of what most FFA PvP games actualy result in. However such power vacumes tend to be very ephemeral in duration.....and really don't represent the classic fantasy worlds that I've seen most games attempt to depict.
I'll sign up for a full loot PVP game when there are fair mechanics. Ok, you Mr Warrior, you want to corpse camp that crafter over there because it's fun and since he's a trader, his skills are less combat oriented. That's all well and good until he goes back and initiates a hostile take over of your bank account and does a FFA Loot of your inventory.
Yeah. PVP should be allowable in all areas where players can specialize their skills. Also there should be clear and conscise definitions as to what is honorable. Keep doing dishonorable kills and you end up on wanted lists. Now there are NPC given quests to hunt you down. Not only that, but show your face in cities and agro guards everywhere. Etc Etc.
A world, virtual or not still needs order.
Exactly.
FFA, as it currently has been implemented - really is garbage.
FFA, as it could/should be implemented, is the ONLY way to do PvP in a MMO "right".
In reality, it always devolves into the same cesspool of muck, defended with the tired "Oh, well, see...it just wasn't done -right-, that's all!". Say what you will about harming computer-controlled goblins, you're not going to equate going out of your way to ruin a PERSON's day and mindlessly killing some mobiles. One is psychopathic behaviour, the other is not. As such, PVP tends to be the thing that ruins games for many players. Aion is a perfect example in my case -- I loved that game...until I had to go to a zone where there was a lot of PVP. Ruined in under a day, never logged in again despite my winning several of my battles (so please, spare me, and us, the 'hurrdurr not good at pvp' comments).
What i do not understand. What is so hard, or painful, or even worth mentioning, when your Character dies? Will you not be killed from time to time from NPCs? What is the difference, that another player kills your Avatar?
I never got that. To get killed may have bound with some emotions. Like..
- meh, another respawn..
- wow.. nice fight.. i really want to know how he did that
- damn.. steamrolled.. ok, another try
to whatever, it is just a game after all, isnt it?
And about psychopathic behaviour.. almost all (let say 99% of all multiplayer games, not MMOs) are pvp games, and usually you just kill other players all the time, and in FPS 5 within a minute. And seriously a lot of players play them.. and i really cant get it how that is psychopathic behaviour. IT IS A GAME. And i cant get it how to get your pixeled Avatar get killed will ruin anyones day.
And of course.. if someone is really that "sensitive" (i dont know how to call it else), he should seriously dont play any game where something that "terrible" can even happen. I seriously dont want to ruin another players day. But i think, that it is much more the players problem, who was killed, as of the player, who actually killed him. Because, if he was able to do so, it was most probably a way to play this game.
this
who has the most mental issues, the PVP "sociopaths" or the people that get that attached to a bunch of pixels.
In reality, it always devolves into the same cesspool of muck, defended with the tired "Oh, well, see...it just wasn't done -right-, that's all!". Say what you will about harming computer-controlled goblins, you're not going to equate going out of your way to ruin a PERSON's day and mindlessly killing some mobiles. One is psychopathic behaviour, the other is not. As such, PVP tends to be the thing that ruins games for many players. Aion is a perfect example in my case -- I loved that game...until I had to go to a zone where there was a lot of PVP. Ruined in under a day, never logged in again despite my winning several of my battles (so please, spare me, and us, the 'hurrdurr not good at pvp' comments).
What i do not understand. What is so hard, or painful, or even worth mentioning, when your Character dies? Will you not be killed from time to time from NPCs? What is the difference, that another player kills your Avatar?
I never got that. To get killed may have bound with some emotions. Like..
- meh, another respawn..
- wow.. nice fight.. i really want to know how he did that
- damn.. steamrolled.. ok, another try
to whatever, it is just a game after all, isnt it?
And about psychopathic behaviour.. almost all (let say 99% of all multiplayer games, not MMOs) are pvp games, and usually you just kill other players all the time, and in FPS 5 within a minute. And seriously a lot of players play them.. and i really cant get it how that is psychopathic behaviour. IT IS A GAME. And i cant get it how to get your pixeled Avatar get killed will ruin anyones day.
And of course.. if someone is really that "sensitive" (i dont know how to call it else), he should seriously dont play any game where something that "terrible" can even happen. I seriously dont want to ruin another players day. But i think, that it is much more the players problem, who was killed, as of the player, who actually killed him. Because, if he was able to do so, it was most probably a way to play this game.
Well, from my perspective I can try to answer you. In a reasonably 'fair' pvp fight (which is not to say exact level vs level or gear vs gear, but within a range where it is actually a competition and not one-shot-dead-because-I'm-50-levels-higher), I usually take one of the latter views (wow nice fight, or darn steamrolled, or even 'thatll teach ya!' when I win). But several/many/most pvp'ers don't -want- that kind of fight. They flee from them, or won't engage in them. They wait until the odds are stacked so incredibly in their favor as to make victory assured (usually either by level, or by having 7,000 friends in the area) and then go out of their way to 'trash-talk' and intentionally try to ruin the other PERSON's day. That's going beyond the realm of a game every bit as much as punching the person you're playing chess against every time you take one of their pieces. I've said before on other forums one way to tell if someone is a player who players for the challenge of pvp or if they're just ganking scum is to float the idea of friendly fire in groups. It's anathema to gankers.
As for the other point, you're right that there are many multiplayer/competitive games out there and they don't often attract quite the same stigma. Part of this is because outside the MMO genre, gamers are usually in the 'reasonably fair' category I mentioned above. Different weapons, different tactics, but fundamentally identical. Yet even then there are games where the community is known to be among the lowest of the low (COD and LoL come to mind) because of the way they act. Say what you will about PVE'ers, you won't hear the kind of talk you get in CoD coming from people playing Mabinogi. Not to say PVE'ers are perfectly innocent of course -- there are griefers -everywhere- -- but there tends to be mass conglomerations of them in the PVP environment.
*Disclaimer -- Please do note that I often use words like 'generally' and 'tends to' and others to show that I am speaking in terms of trends and tendencies. I am not calling out any particular person or specific playstyle unless mentioned directly by name/description.
What i do not understand. What is so hard, or painful, or even worth mentioning, when your Character dies? Will you not be killed from time to time from NPCs? What is the difference, that another player kills your Avatar?
I never got that. To get killed may have bound with some emotions. Like..
And of course.. if someone is really that "sensitive" (i dont know how to call it else), he should seriously dont play any game where something that "terrible" can even happen. I seriously dont want to ruin another players day. But i think, that it is much more the players problem, who was killed, as of the player, who actually killed him. Because, if he was able to do so, it was most probably a way to play this game.
this
who has the most mental issues, the PVP "sociopaths" or the people that get that attached to a bunch of pixels.
This "A versus B" doesn't end well... FYI
No type is better or worse, and you can't tell me you've never gotten frustrated/upset after dying in a video game, MMO or otherwise, or been upset after a loss/defeat in something IRL.
Just because you don't care when you get PK'd doing some PvE or crafting etc. doesn't mean someone else won't care either.
Also it's pretty obvious that the number of people who don't care and/or accept this type of behavior is a lot, lot smaller than the number of people who it does bother and/or they'd rather just not deal with it at all.
Not saying the more popular option is right, but the more popular options appeals to more people (obvious logic is obvious.)
It seems to me that whenever a game is being made that does not feature a 100% safe world wherein PVE is the main focus, the woodwork comes alive with infuriated gamers. Some of them seems to be deeply hurt by the fact that the game in question is not catering to their particular tastes, others just want to vent some frustration about FFA PVP and PVPers in general, and yet others seem to want to teach the devs how to earn more money by adapting to the mainstream market instead of following their own vision.
The same old arguments always return, however, and it's fascinating to see how they're recycled despite being so shallow and baseless. Some of them are based only on prejudices, but are often touted as fact anyway. Most of them are extremely stupid and also insulting.
Let me list my favorites (in no particular order):
"People who play FFA PVP games are sociopaths"
This is a very common misconception, based on a failure to distinguish the difference between a virtual world and the real world. People who think every FFA PVPer is acting out his irl self in the game are beyond delusional; if this argument was valid, you could also claim that PVE players enjoy slaughtering endless amounts of innocent boars and spiders irl, or that someone playing the market in WoW is a shrewd capitalist irl - or simply that so-called carebears are all spineless cowards irl.
I think it's not only stupid but utterly insulting to imply that a whole subset of the MMO community consists of sociopaths, just because they happen to enjoy a different style of games than you.
"People who play FFA PVP games are cowards"
This argument is related the preceeding one, but while the sociopath angle comes from hobby psychologists spouting armchair diagnoses, this one is the result of a more moralist view. Some people seem to be under the illusion that PVP should be somehow "fair" and "balanced", and that anyone who has learned to use tactics, terrain, numbers, abilities, experience or anything else to their advantage, is a coward who are afraid of a "fair" fight.
Those who use the "coward" argument should just stick to their MOBAS, BGs or WOW duelling.
"FFA PVP games are nothing but gankfests"
This is my personal favorite. Not only does it reek of hurting butts, it also illustrates some people's total lack of understanding of how FFA PVP works. What the hell does "gankfest" even mean?
First of all, the term "ganking" is now widely misused. No longer does it mean a group of people killing a lone adversary, but rather just killing someone in general. In a way, the "gankfest" argument is just as moralistic as the "coward" argument - it's rooted in the idea that open world, non-consensual PVP is somehow unfair and that a game in which unprepared, ungeared, or unexperienced players might die at the hand of another player automatically turn into "gankfests".
The root of the problem here is that many people confuse the FFA logic with the themepark logic. They believe that farming mobs/harvesting/questing in peace is some sort of human right, and that getting killed by another player while doing it constitutes an infringement of this human right. What they fail to realize is that the whole point of a FFA game is that the world is not 100% safe and that the game should be played accordingly.
If that's not your cup of tea, play some other game. You've got plenty to chose from.
"FFA PVP is a griefer's paradise"
While griefing of course happens in FFA games, it would be very naïve to think that PVE games are somehow safe from it. As a matter of fact, griefing can be much worse in games like WOW, where someone can harrass you in many ways without you being able to do anything about it. If the same situation occurs in a FFA game, you have the freedom to kill the harrasser, take his stuff, burn down his house and harrass his guild in multiple ways.
In other words: yes, FFA PVP is a griefer's paradise, but so are all multiplayer games. In FFA games the griefer has to be a competent and dedicated player to get away with his griefing.
"FFA PVP games are not commercially successful, which means they are bad"
Probably the worst argument ever. First of all, it's just false. EVE is one of the most successful MMOs of all time, with a strong player retention and a very active development - despite being an almost ten years old niche FFA game. DayZ, a buggy FFA mod (with permadeath) for a buggy military simulator, has attracted over a million players to date, a standalone is in the works and the WarZ, a simliar game from another dev, is getting loads of attention as we speak. Darkfall: Unholy Wars is another upcoming FFA title with a lot of hype.
So, it seems FFA games can attract quite a substantial audience. But even if the above argument was based on facts, it would be false. All games do not need WoW-like numbers to be successful, and a product can be extremely qualitative without being a mainstream hit - otherwise we would all be eating at McDonald's read Twilight books, and watch Hollywood movies exclusively.
FFA is not for everyone, but its audience is not as small as some people like to claim.
"This game would be great if it had a PVE server"
This argument usually comes from people who claim to be sandbox players. They want "a game like this" just without the FFA PVP, and so they come to the forums of said game clamoring for a PVE server, hoping that the devs will suddenly change their development focus just because these players want them to.
It is a very stupid argument and shows a total lack of understanding for game development. Usually the reasoning goes like this: "adding a PVE server is very easy and would not impact the PVP server in any way, so why are you guys so against it?"
Well, to begin with it's not that easy. A separate PVE server would require a lot of the devs' (often limited) resources, since it would differ in fundamental ways from the PVP server. A FFA game's whole core systems are built around PVP, so just changing them is no trivial matter. Designing and coding a separate ruleset for a game that is not designed for said ruleset would be a terrible waste of time and effort, and for what? So that people who don't even like the game to begin with can play it?
No, some gamers need to realize that games exist that do not cater to them - and never will. If you don't enjoy FFA PVP, don't play FFA PVP games. To each his own. You don't see FFA enthusiasts coming into the LOTRO forums demanding a FFA server, now do you?
"The devs will want to make money, so why don't they just remove the FFA PVP and attract more players?"
This line of reasoning is usually accompanied by some hobby economics bullshit, and just goes to show that sadly, many people believe money is the ultimate be-all end-all and that anyone not pursuing ultimate profit rates is out of his mind. These people can not understand that some devs primarily want to make a good game, a game they want to play, not make shitloads of money.
Of course, most devs need to make some money, or the game will die. But as mentioned above, all games do not need to have WOW-like numbers to be successful. Removing FFA and catering to the mainstream would be contrary to the core philosophy behind a game like DF, DayZ or Salem. It would not be the same game.
Also, it annoys me that some random forum people have the gall to try and tell devs (who have usually spent years developing the game) how to run their business - as if these entitled, spoiled, selfish internet brats knew better what the game in question needs. This of course goes for a lot of badly thought-out, opinionated bullshit floating around the gaming community, not only regarding FFA PVP games but games in general.
Well that's all folks. Please feel free to add your own examples of prejudices, failed reasoning and bad arguments!
You know whats so hilarious about this post. First he starts off talking about how the anti FFA PVP people are "deeply hurt by the game in question is not catering to their playstyle", yet thats exactly what this entire post is. Whining that more games aren't FFA PVP. I get your last point 100% and i agree with you that people who hate FFA PVP games shouldnt be in the forums of those games trying to change them. The same goes for you guys, stay out of the forums for carebear games or whatever you like to call them. The feeling is mutual.
It boils down to a couple key points:
1. There simply aren't that many of you. I know you guys don't like to admit it. but better than 90% of the MMO playerbase DOESN'T LIKE FFA PVP. You can post your diatribes, spew your propaganda all you want, but its not going to change it.
2. The arguments aren't invalid. With the exception of the sociopaths one. Though ive personally never heard that one and ive been in this rodeo for a long time. When Verant was making EverQuest 1 they specifically took PVP out of their game because they went and played UO and realized it wasn't the type of attitude, atmosphere, or player experience that they wanted.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Originally posted by Apraxis Originally posted by LissylIn reality, it always devolves into the same cesspool of muck, defended with the tired "Oh, well, see...it just wasn't done -right-, that's all!". Say what you will about harming computer-controlled goblins, you're not going to equate going out of your way to ruin a PERSON's day and mindlessly killing some mobiles. One is psychopathic behaviour, the other is not. As such, PVP tends to be the thing that ruins games for many players. Aion is a perfect example in my case -- I loved that game...until I had to go to a zone where there was a lot of PVP. Ruined in under a day, never logged in again despite my winning several of my battles (so please, spare me, and us, the 'hurrdurr not good at pvp' comments).
What i do not understand. What is so hard, or painful, or even worth mentioning, when your Character dies? Will you not be killed from time to time from NPCs? What is the difference, that another player kills your Avatar?
I never got that. To get killed may have bound with some emotions. Like..
- meh, another respawn..
- wow.. nice fight.. i really want to know how he did that
- damn.. steamrolled.. ok, another try
to whatever, it is just a game after all, isnt it?
And about psychopathic behaviour.. almost all (let say 99% of all multiplayer games, not MMOs) are pvp games, and usually you just kill other players all the time, and in FPS 5 within a minute. And seriously a lot of players play them.. and i really cant get it how that is psychopathic behaviour. IT IS A GAME. And i cant get it how to get your pixeled Avatar get killed will ruin anyones day.
And of course.. if someone is really that "sensitive" (i dont know how to call it else), he should seriously dont play any game where something that "terrible" can even happen. I seriously dont want to ruin another players day. But i think, that it is much more the players problem, who was killed, as of the player, who actually killed him. Because, if he was able to do so, it was most probably a way to play this game.
It's the difference between what the developer says a game is, and how the game actually plays.
The developer says, "Come play with zombies! Test your survival skills against zombies!", while what happens is, "You got killed by a sniper!", and, "You got killed again by a sniper!"
It's the difference between a game being advertised as a virtual world, when the game is about killing and being killed by other players. If FFA PvP games were advertised first and foremost as kill or be killed PvP games, you wouldn't have people wondering if there should be a PvE version of the game. Nobody wonders about a PvE version of Mortal Online, because it's advertised as a kill or be killed game. This isn't the case for other FFA PvP games.
Players aren't lamenting the loss of their pixels, they are lamenting the loss of the game play that they thought they were going to get.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Really what I like to see is one well made MMO with several different server options:
1. PVE for those that just want PVE
2. PVP/PVE combo for those that like both
3. FFA PVP open world
THis way people can play what they want and everyone is happy.....What I dont like is when a game only offers one server type.....When that is the case then one of the other 3 types complain because the game isnt the way they want it....Ive really only played 3 FFA PVP games.....The first was a very well known game and I hated it...You couldn't even leave town without a group of very high levels just single shotting everyone....The second had a huge world where you could hide apart from most of the playerbase so it wasnt too bad.....The third had maybe 10 players on at any time and you could easily hide if you had no chance. In my opinion its just a bad format that really only appeals to the hardcore gamer.
When Verant was making EverQuest 1 they specifically took PVP out of their game because they went and played UO and realized it wasn't the type of attitude, atmosphere, or player experience that they wanted.
Yeah, D&D and by extension RPGs for the most part have always been about banding together with allies and defeating evils.
They say competition brings out both the best and worst in people.
I'd venture to say cooperation and collaberation bring out the best in people.
Whenever people on this site talk about "the best community ever" most of the time they bring up EQ, SWG, and FFXI.
Really what I like to see is one well made MMO with several different server options:
1. PVE for those that just want PVE
2. PVP/PVE combo for those that like both
3. FFA PVP open world
THis way people can play what they want and everyone is happy.....What I dont like is when a game only offers one server type.....When that is the case then one of the other 3 types complain because the game isnt the way they want it....Ive really only played 3 FFA PVP games.....The first was a very well known game and I hated it...You couldn't even leave town without a group of very high levels just single shotting everyone....The second had a huge world where you could hide apart from most of the playerbase so it wasnt too bad.....The third had maybe 10 players on at any time and you could easily hide if you had no chance. In my opinion its just a bad format that really only appeals to the hardcore gamer.
If you cannot deal with it, don't play! Your cries mean nothing if a game is meant to have FFA PVP, DO NOT CRY ABOUT IT. it's meant to be there, however unjust you might feel it is.
I do not understand people that join/play an FFA PVP / FULL LOOT game and WHINE about it, i just simply cannot fathom that kind of person, what goes inside such a persons head besides kokoo-birds?
When Verant was making EverQuest 1 they specifically took PVP out of their game because they went and played UO and realized it wasn't the type of attitude, atmosphere, or player experience that they wanted.
Yeah, D&D and by extension RPGs for the most part have always been about banding together with allies and defeating evils.
They say competition brings out both the best and worst in people.
I'd venture to say cooperation and collaberation bring out the best in people.
Whenever people on this site talk about "the best community ever" most of the time they bring up EQ, SWG, and FFXI.
Wierd how that works...
cant speak for the other 2, never played them
but EQ had the single worst community of any mmo i ever played, ever, even worse than WOW, full of elitist jerks.
now there are PVE games where ive had good community - coh, lotro (although i found the game itself a lazy wow clone with lotro)
but the best game i played for community was DAOC and thats a pvp orientated game.
Comments
I'm a WOW Carebear, fully and totally. I work with 3 guys who all think I'm nuts for not playing on a PVP server. They constantly talk about killing this guy or that class.
I don't understand it any more than they understand my having more than 1 mount ( I keep getting told you can only ride one... why do you need more? ).
One of the guys is far better than average, the other two are strictly average... And I can see the thrill in all thier eyes when they talk about thier latest win...
The best though, is when they lose. The two average guys complain about it not being fair, or make excuses about how they weren't at full health when they got attacked.
The really good guy... when HE loses its great. He doesn't complain. He's grinning like a kid in a candy shop. He comes up with 3 or 4 things he wants to try the next time he sees the person who beat him.
To me thats a big difference in PVP players that I know. The really good PVPer likes it whether they win or lose...
I know it has changed how I look at PVP...
If your raid leader is a teenager you're playing the wrong game. The age of most raid leaders in Everquest and FFXI is probably 30-40 year olds.
Wow, your insight...it's amazing. I wish I'd thought of that before...oh wait, I did. Instead, I chose to believe the people who kept telling me all about the great 'server policing' and how 'the community handles griefing' and all the other tripe so often given as 'solutions'. Furthermore, even NCSoft said they never expected the way the Western community would handle rifts because such play was considered cowardly and boring in the East.
But hey, why let some reality interfere with that wonderful narrative in your head, right?
I guess you have proved the opposite. ;D
I'll sign up for a full loot PVP game when there are fair mechanics. Ok, you Mr Warrior, you want to corpse camp that crafter over there because it's fun and since he's a trader, his skills are less combat oriented. That's all well and good until he goes back and initiates a hostile take over of your bank account and does a FFA Loot of your inventory.
Yeah. PVP should be allowable in all areas where players can specialize their skills. Also there should be clear and conscise definitions as to what is honorable. Keep doing dishonorable kills and you end up on wanted lists. Now there are NPC given quests to hunt you down. Not only that, but show your face in cities and agro guards everywhere. Etc Etc.
A world, virtual or not still needs order.
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
Lol Geezer, taht would be pretty awesome. or here is an idea... a cyberpunk type game. It would make more sense for a cyber cowboy to take down someones bank account
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
LOL. I have to admit, for the first time I was handily interested. Very ingenious solution imo. I wonder how well that would go over?
What i do not understand. What is so hard, or painful, or even worth mentioning, when your Character dies? Will you not be killed from time to time from NPCs? What is the difference, that another player kills your Avatar?
I never got that. To get killed may have bound with some emotions. Like..
- meh, another respawn..
- wow.. nice fight.. i really want to know how he did that
- damn.. steamrolled.. ok, another try
to whatever, it is just a game after all, isnt it?
And about psychopathic behaviour.. almost all (let say 99% of all multiplayer games, not MMOs) are pvp games, and usually you just kill other players all the time, and in FPS 5 within a minute. And seriously a lot of players play them.. and i really cant get it how that is psychopathic behaviour. IT IS A GAME. And i cant get it how to get your pixeled Avatar get killed will ruin anyones day.
And of course.. if someone is really that "sensitive" (i dont know how to call it else), he should seriously dont play any game where something that "terrible" can even happen. I seriously dont want to ruin another players day. But i think, that it is much more the players problem, who was killed, as of the player, who actually killed him. Because, if he was able to do so, it was most probably a way to play this game.
I think one of the largest problems with FFA PvP as a game mechanic is that it tends to achieve the exact opposite result then the intent the designers (ostensibly) chose to include it. I've often heard the arguement that it's chosen because it is the best way to represent a "realistic" sandbox game environment. It generaly results in the opposite. Although it's true in a "realistic" setting anybody CAN kill anybody. It tends to be a VERY rare occurance. That's because...
1) MOST people in society are driven by a very specific morale/social compass that define a pretty strict set of conditions about when it's acceptable to use violence and who that violence may be directed at.
2) MOST of those who aren't internaly driven by that moral/social compass would at least recognize that the consequences for acting against thier societies morale/social compass are so severe as to not be worth them considering.
3) MOST of those who actualy do act in contravention of thier societies morale/social compass would tend to have extremely short and unsuccessfull careers as they would be ruthelessly hunted down and permanently eliminated from society (i.e. perma-death, jail, exile)
So if FFA PvP'ers were actualy playing characters in that World, according to the internal logic of that game world (as another poster here has aptly pointed out). They really wouldn't be openly attacking anyone outside of groups/factions that were in open hostilities to thier own. Those few who might act as "lawless" bandits would be relagated to operating in very remote, unclaimed marginal areas of the game, far away from the civilized areas where most of the population existed.....and even they would likely have some internal rules of operation amongst themselves. THAT would actualy be a more "realistic" sandbox environment.
Of course if the game world was intended to represent a dystopian complete breakdown of social order and resulting anarchy. That would be more representitive of what most FFA PvP games actualy result in. However such power vacumes tend to be very ephemeral in duration.....and really don't represent the classic fantasy worlds that I've seen most games attempt to depict.
Please tell me you even know what Capitalism is? Im sure one of your favorite anti-scholars coined the phrase....
That is why we have LFR so there is no boss.
Exactly.
FFA, as it currently has been implemented - really is garbage.
FFA, as it could/should be implemented, is the ONLY way to do PvP in a MMO "right".
this
who has the most mental issues, the PVP "sociopaths" or the people that get that attached to a bunch of pixels.
Well, from my perspective I can try to answer you. In a reasonably 'fair' pvp fight (which is not to say exact level vs level or gear vs gear, but within a range where it is actually a competition and not one-shot-dead-because-I'm-50-levels-higher), I usually take one of the latter views (wow nice fight, or darn steamrolled, or even 'thatll teach ya!' when I win). But several/many/most pvp'ers don't -want- that kind of fight. They flee from them, or won't engage in them. They wait until the odds are stacked so incredibly in their favor as to make victory assured (usually either by level, or by having 7,000 friends in the area) and then go out of their way to 'trash-talk' and intentionally try to ruin the other PERSON's day. That's going beyond the realm of a game every bit as much as punching the person you're playing chess against every time you take one of their pieces. I've said before on other forums one way to tell if someone is a player who players for the challenge of pvp or if they're just ganking scum is to float the idea of friendly fire in groups. It's anathema to gankers.
As for the other point, you're right that there are many multiplayer/competitive games out there and they don't often attract quite the same stigma. Part of this is because outside the MMO genre, gamers are usually in the 'reasonably fair' category I mentioned above. Different weapons, different tactics, but fundamentally identical. Yet even then there are games where the community is known to be among the lowest of the low (COD and LoL come to mind) because of the way they act. Say what you will about PVE'ers, you won't hear the kind of talk you get in CoD coming from people playing Mabinogi. Not to say PVE'ers are perfectly innocent of course -- there are griefers -everywhere- -- but there tends to be mass conglomerations of them in the PVP environment.
*Disclaimer -- Please do note that I often use words like 'generally' and 'tends to' and others to show that I am speaking in terms of trends and tendencies. I am not calling out any particular person or specific playstyle unless mentioned directly by name/description.
This "A versus B" doesn't end well... FYI
No type is better or worse, and you can't tell me you've never gotten frustrated/upset after dying in a video game, MMO or otherwise, or been upset after a loss/defeat in something IRL.
Just because you don't care when you get PK'd doing some PvE or crafting etc. doesn't mean someone else won't care either.
Also it's pretty obvious that the number of people who don't care and/or accept this type of behavior is a lot, lot smaller than the number of people who it does bother and/or they'd rather just not deal with it at all.
Not saying the more popular option is right, but the more popular options appeals to more people (obvious logic is obvious.)
You know whats so hilarious about this post. First he starts off talking about how the anti FFA PVP people are "deeply hurt by the game in question is not catering to their playstyle", yet thats exactly what this entire post is. Whining that more games aren't FFA PVP. I get your last point 100% and i agree with you that people who hate FFA PVP games shouldnt be in the forums of those games trying to change them. The same goes for you guys, stay out of the forums for carebear games or whatever you like to call them. The feeling is mutual.
It boils down to a couple key points:
1. There simply aren't that many of you. I know you guys don't like to admit it. but better than 90% of the MMO playerbase DOESN'T LIKE FFA PVP. You can post your diatribes, spew your propaganda all you want, but its not going to change it.
2. The arguments aren't invalid. With the exception of the sociopaths one. Though ive personally never heard that one and ive been in this rodeo for a long time. When Verant was making EverQuest 1 they specifically took PVP out of their game because they went and played UO and realized it wasn't the type of attitude, atmosphere, or player experience that they wanted.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I never got that. To get killed may have bound with some emotions. Like..
- meh, another respawn..
- wow.. nice fight.. i really want to know how he did that
- damn.. steamrolled.. ok, another try
to whatever, it is just a game after all, isnt it?
And about psychopathic behaviour.. almost all (let say 99% of all multiplayer games, not MMOs) are pvp games, and usually you just kill other players all the time, and in FPS 5 within a minute. And seriously a lot of players play them.. and i really cant get it how that is psychopathic behaviour. IT IS A GAME. And i cant get it how to get your pixeled Avatar get killed will ruin anyones day.
And of course.. if someone is really that "sensitive" (i dont know how to call it else), he should seriously dont play any game where something that "terrible" can even happen. I seriously dont want to ruin another players day. But i think, that it is much more the players problem, who was killed, as of the player, who actually killed him. Because, if he was able to do so, it was most probably a way to play this game.
It's the difference between what the developer says a game is, and how the game actually plays.
The developer says, "Come play with zombies! Test your survival skills against zombies!", while what happens is, "You got killed by a sniper!", and, "You got killed again by a sniper!"
It's the difference between a game being advertised as a virtual world, when the game is about killing and being killed by other players. If FFA PvP games were advertised first and foremost as kill or be killed PvP games, you wouldn't have people wondering if there should be a PvE version of the game. Nobody wonders about a PvE version of Mortal Online, because it's advertised as a kill or be killed game. This isn't the case for other FFA PvP games.
Players aren't lamenting the loss of their pixels, they are lamenting the loss of the game play that they thought they were going to get.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Really what I like to see is one well made MMO with several different server options:
1. PVE for those that just want PVE
2. PVP/PVE combo for those that like both
3. FFA PVP open world
THis way people can play what they want and everyone is happy.....What I dont like is when a game only offers one server type.....When that is the case then one of the other 3 types complain because the game isnt the way they want it....Ive really only played 3 FFA PVP games.....The first was a very well known game and I hated it...You couldn't even leave town without a group of very high levels just single shotting everyone....The second had a huge world where you could hide apart from most of the playerbase so it wasnt too bad.....The third had maybe 10 players on at any time and you could easily hide if you had no chance. In my opinion its just a bad format that really only appeals to the hardcore gamer.
"You don't fight with honor! No, he did"
^ Bronn there said it
(one of my favorite parts of s1)
Yeah, D&D and by extension RPGs for the most part have always been about banding together with allies and defeating evils.
They say competition brings out both the best and worst in people.
I'd venture to say cooperation and collaberation bring out the best in people.
Whenever people on this site talk about "the best community ever" most of the time they bring up EQ, SWG, and FFXI.
Wierd how that works...
What were the three games?
Worst argument against FFA PVP = every argument!
If you cannot deal with it, don't play! Your cries mean nothing if a game is meant to have FFA PVP, DO NOT CRY ABOUT IT. it's meant to be there, however unjust you might feel it is.
I do not understand people that join/play an FFA PVP / FULL LOOT game and WHINE about it, i just simply cannot fathom that kind of person, what goes inside such a persons head besides kokoo-birds?
cant speak for the other 2, never played them
but EQ had the single worst community of any mmo i ever played, ever, even worse than WOW, full of elitist jerks.
now there are PVE games where ive had good community - coh, lotro (although i found the game itself a lazy wow clone with lotro)
but the best game i played for community was DAOC and thats a pvp orientated game.