Originally posted by Goll25 Pvp is pvp. Open world or instanced the play is the same. There are benefits to each, open world feels immersive and huge in scale, often lasts long. However stats of instanced pvp, that is being able to see your stats at the end of each game is a big benefit, and also gets rid of people abusing the system to get pvp gear/rank by having another account there to keep killing for w.e. currency or rank experience. Get off your high horse. The amount of things fellow "veteran mmo players" (as if that actually means anything) complain about simply amazes me. Side note i prefer open world hands down, however i wouldnt play a game without instanced pvp, ever. Also vice versa, big reason i dislike gw2 also, wvw is not a replacement by any means.
DAOC didn't have instanced PvP and I could check my stats and KDR whenever I wanted. Also the game had diminishing returns so you couldn't just kill an alt for points. There are better ways of achieving the things you say instanced PvP is good for, than instancing the game. It just takes more effort from the devs.
So you don't give anyone any credit even if they were 100% right? Are you pulling seniority or something? I made a thread about this perceived superiority not too long ago... If someone gets it right most of the time, if one wins most of the time, he or she must know something.
You're just burying your head in the sand.
I don't give anyone credit for playing a game for years. They may well still be ignorant about how the game works. My own guesstimation is that 90% of all players have difficulty grasping even the simplest tactics and strategies. Some of them aren't even interested. It doesn't matter how much you play, but how you play. The quality of your experiences matter. If you can jump into top level PvP right away, you probably make very educated statements about the game fairly quickly.
One guy in the League of Legends World Championship finals had played the game for just 2-3 months. The prizepool in that tournament was 3 million dollars if I remember correctly. So that guy clearly had a good sense of what he was doing and how the game should be played although undoubtedly the top level coaching and training also helped.
My point is, if you can make a pretty good assessment of the game in a relatively short amount of time if you have a lot of experience in gaming to draw upon. So if you have played a lot of MMOs you can have a good idea of what works and what doesn't, which tactics and builds are promising and the general idea of the metagame. Are you saying it can't be done?
I haven't suggested that at all and you seem to be ranting quite frankly.
Pointing out that certain statements do actually require experience to back them up in order to give them credibility, yeah that totally means that I don't believe in transferable skills or the ability to pick something up rapidly........
"I think teamwork and choke points will be important in this pvp game, because I have played plenty of pvp games before". Makes sense, I agree.
"I can catagorically say that 98% of players gank other players 67% of the time in open world game x, I have 5 minutes experience in open world games". Cool story bro.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Originally posted by ShakyMo Players didn't settle for instanced pvp It's just in 90% of post wow mmos its the only pvp available. If players had decided instanced pvp was the best. There would be more players in spvp than in WvW in gw2 and planetside 2 wouldn't be the huge success it is. It took developers 8 years, but finally they realised there's a market for players that don't want the tacked on afterthought trash that is wow style pvp.
Except WoW has OWPvP servers. Players are forced into PvE servers...they are choosing to play those servers.
Same for Rift...OWPvP servers are available, most people pick the PvE servers.
Now, where to start with the rest of it.
WvW and sPvP are not the only reasons people are playing GW2. There are people playing it for the PvE. You don't know what the breakdown is of people playing sPvP versus WvW because you don't have access to ANet's numbers. Your statement about sPvP and WvW is unsupportable. You don't even know how many people are playing Planetside 2 right now...you have no idea if the number of people is significant or not.
Beyond that, the difference between WvW, Planetside PvP and instanced PvP is one of scale. Instead of 20 people on a map, you can have a hundred or more people on a map. When PvP happens is up to the player, it's group based and it has a much better chance of being balanced compared to OWPvP or OWPvP/FFAPvP.
Now, I can certainly get on board with larger scale, faction based PvP being more interesting than small scale faction or team based PvP. There are plenty of other people with the same opinion. But without any numbers to support it, all that can really be said is that there's a market for it, and some games are meeting that market demand. You can't say it's more popular than instanced PvP, and you can't say it's less popular.
About the only thing anyone can be sure of is that instanced PvP and large scale faction PvP are both more popular than OW/FFA PvP. Even there the statement is iffy because again, no real numbers to support the statement.
Well, you could say that PvE games with optional PvP are more popular than OWPvP games and large scale faction based PvP games. That's pretty easily supportable with WoW's numbers alone, but the trend holds with Rift and SWToR as well.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Open world or instanced pvp can be cheated just as much, and is fequently is cheated for ranking/gear what have you. Yet that is true of all systems really, if you can cheat a pve system to get the same reward for less effort it will happen. THe biggest fact is that instanced pvp like bgs are more for those that want their pvp in quick segments, while open world pvp is normally drawn out far longer an have a much higher effect on the world of the game. Like i said bg style pvp is more like a glatiator match or football game that is merely for entertainment, where as open world pvp is well about effecting the world thru pvp (Such as conquest, or such.). One form of pvp being better or worse than another is completely subjective, and also irrelvent since it is based on that person's point of view or taste.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Players didn't settle for instanced pvp It's just in 90% of post wow mmos its the only pvp available. If players had decided instanced pvp was the best. There would be more players in spvp than in WvW in gw2 and planetside 2 wouldn't be the huge success it is. It took developers 8 years, but finally they realised there's a market for players that don't want the tacked on afterthought trash that is wow style pvp.
Except WoW has OWPvP servers. Players are forced into PvE servers...they are choosing to play those servers.
Same for Rift...OWPvP servers are available, most people pick the PvE servers.
Thats probably because its very obvious the game is NOT designed for OWPVP.
I feel instanced PvP is a great thing. Open World PvP is just a gank fest and lets face it, something that is just about taking advantage of another player often times who stands no chance. Its a far less 'fair' match which Instanced PvP is able to deliver.
However...
Open World PvP i feel is something that really enhances the world. When you can add objectives and other factors it really makes the experience more grand to play through. It gives a sense of 'belonging' when applied to a faction your in or a guild. The biggest issue is when it becomes just for griefing and it suddenly loses its appeal. Corpse camping people is quite a pathetic thing to do and when its involving just mindless ganking players who have no chance, it loses its taste to quickly.
I feel its players who just use it to cause grief to other players that has helped to drown out Open World PvP and made it an after thought in so many MMos for people. The fact it is abused in such a way just leaves a foul after taste in people's mouths that just makes it so unpopular.
I agree with you completely. I love to pvp, however I have played several games now where the "open world pvp" is nothing more than groups of higher level, better geared gankers running around terrorizing the lower level, undergeared players attempting to quest and level up. A lot of people abuse the open world pvp idea and simply use it to grief people who have no hope of surviving a real pvp fight with them.
I am seeing more games coming up with pvp servers and pve servers, where instanced pvp has its place! When a person feels they are geared enough to pvp it is great fun to jump into a battleground and kick some butt.
I remember trying out Tera, my hubby and I were about level 12 and supremely under geared in the open world and instead of having other level 12-15 players try to fight us we had a group of level 27's stampeding around 2-shotting every poor sap around! How is this open-world pvp fun?
Another game that comes to mind is Aion. I have played this game since its launch and I remember when rifting was amazing! It was pure 24/7 open world pvp. But then people started to twink at 50 and it all went to hell. People complained about getting ganked by fully geared 50s with enchanted gear and then NCsoft took our beloved rifting away.... Recently however, they released something new and cool: A fast track leveling server where no open world pvp is allowed and where you can freely travel to whenever you want to quest and get away from gankers. If, however you love the thrill of the hunt and want to do your questing and also your open world pvp then stay in your home server and have 24/7 pvp again!
I think that the way that Aion answered this predicament (of appeasing those who want to quest without being ganked, but also those who bought the game expecting open world pvp) was pretty brilliant. More games should do it this way!
"I can catagorically say that 98% of players gank other players 67% of the time in open world game x, I have 5 minutes experience in open world games". Cool story bro.
Thats pretty specific. No one makes specific predictions with a 5-minute experience. Way to build a strawman tho.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Not really. Since either form of pvp being trash or ggreat is completely based on those playing it. Second it shows that more players actually like having pvp at their own determined time frame. Compared to having it constently everywhere, an being the prey/toys of the other players in the wrold in many ways. Mind you nothign wrong with etiher style of pvp, just they really appeal to different players.
Not really. Since either form of pvp being trash or ggreat is completely based on those playing it. Second it shows that more players actually like having pvp at their own determined time frame. Compared to having it constently everywhere, an being the prey/toys of the other players in the wrold in many ways. Mind you nothign wrong with etiher style of pvp, just they really appeal to different players.
Who says open world pvp cannot be suited to a persons own time frame. In dark age of camelots rvr, I nearly always found a group or something to do or wage war on. It gave the whole thing more of a purpose than xno. vs xno.
The purpose of modern day instanced pvp is for self gain, realm pride or server community have been washed away for my former point. My opinion is that wow does instanced pvp the best and theres not much point in playing copy cat games.
New mmorpgs have to break the formula of the modern day theme park / instanced pvp to carve a niche for themselves. Much like EvE online has done. But Im not a fan of EvE even though I gave it a good crack. I prefer a char based experience.
Not really. Since either form of pvp being trash or ggreat is completely based on those playing it. Second it shows that more players actually like having pvp at their own determined time frame. Compared to having it constently everywhere, an being the prey/toys of the other players in the wrold in many ways. Mind you nothign wrong with etiher style of pvp, just they really appeal to different players.
Who says open world pvp cannot be suited to a persons own time frame. In dark age of camelots rvr, I nearly always found a group or something to do or wage war on. It gave the whole thing more of a purpose than xno. vs xno.
The purpose of modern day instanced pvp is for self gain, realm pride or server community have been washed away for my former point. My opinion is that wow does instanced pvp the best and theres not much point in playing copy cat games.
New mmorpgs have to break the formula of the modern day theme park / instanced pvp to carve a niche for themselves. Much like EvE online has done. But Im not a fan of EvE even though I gave it a good crack. I prefer a char based experience.
Well can you choose to not play open world pvp in a open world pvp setting? If you walk out into a area that is contested, and pvp is happening you are forced by the marit of it being open world pvp to fight. Instanced pvp is well pvp on-demand that you choose to play at your choice, not the choice of others largely. Also not everyone that pvp wants that fact of depth to the pvp, as to them it is more of a side game that allows them to get away from the other content in the game. I would not say in the least it is self gain, but that people want to be independent of the other gamers in the mmo for their entertainment. They do not want pvper x to choose when they pvp, but that they actually make that choice to pvp when they wish. It is the same with griefing many people do not like having their game time ruined by being the entertainment of another person, as such pve servers are more popular than pvp servers.
I would not say they need to break out of it, but add open world pvp into the mix, with differing rewards for all three forms of content. One of the huge issues is that the needed amount of rules to make open world pvp desirable an accepted to the mainstream, and those would run off many that want open world pvp. Also many mmos have tried to carve that niche out, and many survive but on numbers that are vastly lower than other games. I doon't think a open world pvp, or instanced pvp only game will bring the needed change, or numbers alone, but a good union that uses both.
"I can catagorically say that 98% of players gank other players 67% of the time in open world game x, I have 5 minutes experience in open world games". Cool story bro.
Thats pretty specific. No one makes specific predictions with a 5-minute experience. Way to build a strawman tho.
If you think people don't make specific comments (especially percentage crap) on here with little to zero actual experience of the systems/games they are talking about. Then might I suggest you pop down to specsavers.
Certain comments actually require you to have enough experience of something in order to back them up, if you want to be taken seriously. That you are arguing against that, well it beggars belief.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I would not say they need to break out of it, but add open world pvp into the mix, with differing rewards for all three forms of content. One of the huge issues is that the needed amount of rules to make open world pvp desirable an accepted to the mainstream, and those would run off many that want open world pvp. Also many mmos have tried to carve that niche out, and many survive but on numbers that are vastly lower than other games. I doon't think a open world pvp, or instanced pvp only game will bring the needed change, or numbers alone, but a good union that uses both.
Agree on this one -- don't know why you couldn't have both. Battlegrounds make sense in that they are very specific fight zones supported by the lore. The main thing needed for open world is a reason for the PVP to be taking place, and some kind of framework around it. Mindless killing in open world just feels supid if it doesn't fit with the backdrop or context of the game.
"I can catagorically say that 98% of players gank other players 67% of the time in open world game x, I have 5 minutes experience in open world games". Cool story bro.
Thats pretty specific. No one makes specific predictions with a 5-minute experience. Way to build a strawman tho.
If you think people don't make specific comments (especially percentage crap) on here with little to zero actual experience of the systems/games they are talking about. Then might I suggest you pop down to specsavers.
Certain comments actually require you to have enough experience of something in order to back them up, if you want to be taken seriously. That you are arguing against that, well it beggars belief.
One would hope that the nugget in red would be fantastically easy to digest. But, this is mmorpg.com afterall
I could describe the meaning of the word "up", and without a doubt, someone on here would actually want to debate me on it. These forums can be truly amazing at times.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
"I can catagorically say that 98% of players gank other players 67% of the time in open world game x, I have 5 minutes experience in open world games". Cool story bro.
Thats pretty specific. No one makes specific predictions with a 5-minute experience. Way to build a strawman tho.
If you think people don't make specific comments (especially percentage crap) on here with little to zero actual experience of the systems/games they are talking about. Then might I suggest you pop down to specsavers.
Certain comments actually require you to have enough experience of something in order to back them up, if you want to be taken seriously. That you are arguing against that, well it beggars belief.
First you call me an idiot, then blind, you feed me strawmen and you insinuate that I can't be taken seriously. Where is your argument? Where is your proper argument?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Zoned, faction based PvP is the best long term type of warfare. Holding your own castles/cities or whatever beats sitting in a lobby any day. Some games like LFD suit the lobby format and I know some posters seem to think every game needs to be in a lobby. They need to get out more.
Borrowing from another thread, we can have a MMO world with faction based, zoned PvP. It has been done well before, it can be done again.
When did players start to accept the fact that it's okay for PvP to be completely instanced?
EverQuest II's 2006 Nagafen Server was a World PvP Server. It worked.
SWG's PvP was World PvP. It worked.
Ever since WoW, PvP has become pure trash. And to make matters worse, "World PvP" has become such a loose term that anything that isn't completely structured is considered World PvP, e.g., SWTOR's Ilum - a dedicated area for PvP. This isn't World PvP. It's trash.
I'll tell you why people waste time in these redundant battlegrounds. It's because they are so helpless and consumed with the damn carrot dangling in front of their faces. You want that little piece of reward that everyone will eventually have. It's boring. It's an embarrassment to the genre.
I don't want to see anyone fail. However, it would be a lie to not say I enjoy watching these Instanced PvP games turn into failed FTP games.
I did play PvP on Nagafen, it was so-so. The problem was that EQ2 was not made for PvP, all mechanics were PvE based and just slapping PvP on it is not enough.
The wole trinity combat mechanics makes PvP a secondary thing and that is the reason they usually instance it. You need a different system that makes PvP and PvE a lot more similar if you want to make a good game with both intergrated instead of a game focsuing one one aspect.
It is kinda sad, because PvP done right is really fun, almost all FPS players prefer PvP to PvE but then it have better PvP mechanics. Now I am not saying that MMOs should have FPS mechanics, not at all but they do need something better.
Get rid of tanks as the first and most important part, then we can have a look on full world none instanced PvP again.
Honestly i would say a dual stat/value abilty system that gives every abilty two sets of values, one which influences pvp, and one that influences pve, would be the best start (imo) to the fact of making a game that intergarates pvp an pve content in the same open world. The biggest reason behind that is that it takes the fact that pvp or pve adjustment would/should no longer directly influence the other side. I have heard so many times where a pvper or a pver gripes about how their build got nerged, or such because of the other side of the game, and i can understand that since if you do not participate in that other form of combat/content it can be annoying. Not to mention it takes alot of headache out of trying to balance a game with one set of values for abilties in a game with as polar opposite styles of combat approaches.
Also having gear in a pvp match betwen players marginallized to where it is only a slight difference from low to high gear, yet do not make gear completely worthless as than it would make pve activities of the plaers that do play pve an pvp meaningless, would allow both high or low level/gear players to play/engage in pvp in the same area. I would say also that largely all abilties are availible at start, but that the next rank is availible at differing levels, as than you could shift the player's level to the lowest level play participating in the pvp match, as you would just rank back the abilties of the characters in the match to where they could be at that level in the game. This would also allow the players morre dynamic combat choices from the start, since players would have more abilties to use than in many other games where for alot of low level content you are limited in your choices of abilities you can use.
To me the trinity can work in a pvp oriented game but the machanics would be to be built slightly differently. Like with tanks they are ment to be a damage soaker, and attention grabbing role in pvp, as such they should have taunts that grab/lock the attention of the target on the tank for a period of time, as well as having abilties or methods of redirecting damage back to themselves. You could also break down the Tanking role in three sub-type roles that use differing methods of proforming their duty in the pvp combat (evven doing this in pve as well.). Such as making a tank role that does not so much grab targets attention as they redirect, or spread the damage of attackers out amoung their comrades, and even might redirect it back to themselves even; While another roles might actually specilize in grabbing/locking the attention of targets on themselves to get the pressure off thier team-mates. To me the trinity in the sense of it being locked into what it is now, with any tank that is not a mitigation tank is worthless/not a tank is in need of being updated badly.
Many off these ideas have been done prior to games now, yet none trully stayed current, or moved into being more of a mainstream mmo standard. Many fo them stayed in their more niche game set, and were lost to the niche side of gaming.
If you think people don't make specific comments (especially percentage crap) on here with little to zero actual experience of the systems/games they are talking about. Then might I suggest you pop down to specsavers.
Certain comments actually require you to have enough experience of something in order to back them up, if you want to be taken seriously. That you are arguing against that, well it beggars belief.
First you call me an idiot, then blind, you feed me strawmen and you insinuate that I can't be taken seriously. Where is your argument? Where is your proper argument?
Perhaps if you had taken the time to understand the argument being made before you stuck your oar in on a debate between two other posters and not simply spouted "strawman, ad hominem", well then perhaps we wouldn't be at this pretty pass now would we.
I have reiterated the "proper" argument over and over again. It is even laid out in the post you quoted (i've underlined it for you). But i'll put it forward yet again...
Some statements require you to actually have enough experience to back up whether that statement is indeed true or false, otherwise you are simply guessing. Basing every argument on a limited (sometimes on zero) amount of experience and then extrapolating outwards can lead to errors which are so large as to make the original hypothesis utterly redundant.
I'm not so sure as to what is so difficult to grasp or controversial that you seem to be arguing the toss over. It doesn't mean people can't pick things up quickly, it doesn't mean skills are not transferable, it doesn't mean someone can't hazard a guess and be right.
We could play the same game, I could play it for three years and you could play it for three weeks. You could be a far better player than me and amazingly enough I would listen to you and try and learn from you. I am not suggesting that time in a game means I am better, more knowledgable about everything in it than you. But there are certain aspects that will require more experience to know.
People in this thread and countless others like it, come out with specific statements relating to specific games/systems and communities without having anything like enough experience to know whether what they are talking about is true or not. For me, that is ludicrous.
Think about what you are arguing against here, because whilst we are prone to having a back and forth in threads like this, I genuinely cannot believe that you are arguing against the premise I have laid out.
Maybe you are just trolling me, if so IB4 "strawman!!".
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
If you think people don't make specific comments (especially percentage crap) on here with little to zero actual experience of the systems/games they are talking about. Then might I suggest you pop down to specsavers.
Certain comments actually require you to have enough experience of something in order to back them up, if you want to be taken seriously. That you are arguing against that, well it beggars belief.
One would hope that the nugget in red would be fantastically easy to digest. But, this is mmorpg.com afterall
I could describe the meaning of the word "up", and without a doubt, someone on here would actually want to debate me on it. These forums can be truly amazing at times.
It is quite amazing.
People seem to be vehemently arguing that it is perfectly acceptable to just blurt out any old bullshit on any topic and claim it as fact, without actually bothering to have enough experience in said topic to find out whether it is true or not in the first place.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Honestly i would say a dual stat/value abilty system that gives every abilty two sets of values, one which influences pvp, and one that influences pve, would be the best start (imo) to the fact of making a game that intergarates pvp an pve content in the same open world. The biggest reason behind that is that it takes the fact that pvp or pve adjustment would/should no longer directly influence the other side. I have heard so many times where a pvper or a pver gripes about how their build got nerged, or such because of the other side of the game, and i can understand that since if you do not participate in that other form of combat/content it can be annoying. Not to mention it takes alot of headache out of trying to balance a game with one set of values for abilties in a game with as polar opposite styles of combat approaches.
Also having gear in a pvp match betwen players marginallized to where it is only a slight difference from low to high gear, yet do not make gear completely worthless as than it would make pve activities of the plaers that do play pve an pvp meaningless, would allow both high or low level/gear players to play/engage in pvp in the same area. I would say also that largely all abilties are availible at start, but that the next rank is availible at differing levels, as than you could shift the player's level to the lowest level play participating in the pvp match, as you would just rank back the abilties of the characters in the match to where they could be at that level in the game. This would also allow the players morre dynamic combat choices from the start, since players would have more abilties to use than in many other games where for alot of low level content you are limited in your choices of abilities you can use.
To me the trinity can work in a pvp oriented game but the machanics would be to be built slightly differently. Like with tanks they are ment to be a damage soaker, and attention grabbing role in pvp, as such they should have taunts that grab/lock the attention of the target on the tank for a period of time, as well as having abilties or methods of redirecting damage back to themselves. You could also break down the Tanking role in three sub-type roles that use differing methods of proforming their duty in the pvp combat (evven doing this in pve as well.). Such as making a tank role that does not so much grab targets attention as they redirect, or spread the damage of attackers out amoung their comrades, and even might redirect it back to themselves even; While another roles might actually specilize in grabbing/locking the attention of targets on themselves to get the pressure off thier team-mates. To me the trinity in the sense of it being locked into what it is now, with any tank that is not a mitigation tank is worthless/not a tank is in need of being updated badly.
Many off these ideas have been done prior to games now, yet none trully stayed current, or moved into being more of a mainstream mmo standard. Many fo them stayed in their more niche game set, and were lost to the niche side of gaming.
It works, but I rather have a completely new system where PvP and PvE are similar instead. What you talk about is a fix for a system that is broken instead of making a new system that truly work.
A better AI system that makes mobs act more human would be the first logical step instead. Get rid of tanking, or to be more specific, allow body tanking but not taunts and lessen the gap between new players and old ones.
While it do feel good to increase from a peasant to a demi god as you usually do in MMOs the cost for that is too high. In PvE it means you cant group with your friends (or most other players not exactly on the same powerlevel as you have) and that you are being judged on your gear and level, in open world PvP it makes most combats either impossible or so easy a chimp would win it.
Gear should matter and so should experience to a degree but not as much as it does in most games. And more experienced players should get more options instead of just becomming more and more powerful. Let us get access to more types of weapons, other skills and so instead of giving us 100 times as many hitpoints and world PvP would become a lot more fun.
When did players start to accept the fact that it's okay for PvP to be completely instanced?
EverQuest II's 2006 Nagafen Server was a World PvP Server. It worked.
SWG's PvP was World PvP. It worked.
Ever since WoW, PvP has become pure trash. And to make matters worse, "World PvP" has become such a loose term that anything that isn't completely structured is considered World PvP, e.g., SWTOR's Ilum - a dedicated area for PvP. This isn't World PvP. It's trash.
I'll tell you why people waste time in these redundant battlegrounds. It's because they are so helpless and consumed with the damn carrot dangling in front of their faces. You want that little piece of reward that everyone will eventually have. It's boring. It's an embarrassment to the genre.
I don't want to see anyone fail. However, it would be a lie to not say I enjoy watching these Instanced PvP games turn into failed FTP games.
the amount of people like the OP who spend most of their time moaning and groaning about why games cant be like SOE games simply amazes me. you want world pvp games then quit looking at American MMO's and look at Korean MMO's(eg Lineage 2, Aion, and RF Online). Also SWG's PvP is crap compared to other game PVP, yes I did play SWG I loved the game but the rewards for PvP did not exist. When SOE finally did put something in for decent PvP with the launch of JTL it still sucked and no one participated in it.
"Possibly we humans can exist without actually having to fight. But many of us have chosen to fight. For what reason? To protect something? Protect what? Ourselves? The future? If we kill people to protect ourselves and this future, then what sort of future is it, and what will we have become? There is no future for those who have died. And what of those who did the killing? Is happiness to be found in a future that is grasped with blood stained hands? Is that the truth?"
Perhaps if you had taken the time to understand the argument being made before you stuck your oar in on a debate between two other posters and not simply spouted "strawman, ad hominem", well then perhaps we wouldn't be at this pretty pass now would we.
I have reiterated the "proper" argument over and over again. It is even laid out in the post you quoted (i've underlined it for you). But i'll put it forward yet again...
Some statements on systems/communities/mechanics/whatever, require you to actually have enough experience to back up whether that statement is indeed true or false, otherwise you are simply guessing. Basing every argument on a limited amount of experience and then extrapolating outwards can lead to errors which are so large as to make the original hypothesis utterly redundant.
I'm not so sure as to what is so difficult to grasp or controversial that you seem to be arguing the toss over. It doesn't mean people can't pick things up quickly, it doesn't mean skills are not transferable, it doesn't mean someone can't hazard a guess and be right. What it means is simply that if you are going to make certain statements, without the experience required to qualify said statements, well then you are going to more than likely get shot down.
We could play the same game, I could play it for three years and you could play it for three weeks. You could be a far better player than me and amazingly enough I would listen to you and try and learn from you. I am not suggesting that time in a game means I am better, more knowledgable about everything in it than you. BUT there are certain aspects that WILL require experience. For example you may grasp the mechanics immediately, but you will have no idea what the players are doing, what the community is doing without experiencing it.
People in this thread and countless others like it, come out with specific statements relating to specific games/systems and communities without having anything like enough experience to know whether what they are talking about is true or not. For me, that is ludicrous. I don't go about proclaiming that x% of SWTOR players do so and so, because I haven't played it enough to know. I can make an informed guess, but if I do I certainly don't dress it up as some kind of gospel fking truth.
Think about what you are arguing against here, because whilst we are prone to having a back and forth in threads like this, I genuinely cannot believe that you are arguing against the premise I have laid out. Because that would mean you are essentially saying you can make highly informed, accurate statements about ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING without adequate experience. Which is clearly utter rubbish. If that is not your argument, then wtf are you continuing this for?
Maybe you are just trolling me, if so IB4 "strawman!!".
But I never said you could make a statement about anything and everything! I never took that position and that is your strawman right there. Ofcourse there are things which can't be guessed or assessed from a short time of playing. -Well, not "can't" but you're unlikely to get it right. But like you said, some guesses are more informed than others.
But the thread I referred to in few posts back partly addressed this notion some players put too much credit on time played. Such as, I had played GW1 under 900 hours (players had well over 2000 hours by that time) and didn't have a very high PvP rank when we won the European Championships and qualified for the GWWC. Still, I couldn't make it into the pickup PvP groups because apparently I was a "newbie" and didn't know what I was doing. If I didn't have the guild tag I had, I would have had serious trouble finding good pickup groups.
I got tons of similar examples but I'm sure you get what I mean: Players overestimate the importance of time played.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
But I never said you could make a statement about anything and everything! I never took that position and that is your strawman right there. Ofcourse there are things which can't be guessed or assessed from a short time of playing. -Well, not "can't" but you're unlikely to get it right. But like you said, some guesses are more informed than others.
Given my premise was merely that there are certain things which require a certain amount of experience to qualify them and given you have been arguing against that for the last n posts (or seemed to have been). Well it is not a case of strawmaning it up to suggest the "anything and everything" line. Given that is the only possible thing you could be arguing for based on my original case.
Looking at the underlined it seems that is not the case, so I do have to wonder just what the hell the argument has been about. Especially with the fact that I haven't ever stated that you can't make informed assessments on some subjects from a limited amount of experience.
Eitherway it doesn't matter now as it seems we are after all not in disagreement really..
EDIT:
Noticed your edit. Yes I agree, in terms of skill levels at the very least, people do put too much credence on time played. After years of play there are many who have simply not improved at all and I have seen raw noobs with a better grasp of the game (in combat/tactical terms).
As someone how has run pvp guilds in the past (decent ones, not super dooper tournament killers) I have never selected players based on "time in game", it's a retarded criteria (although clearly they would have to have been seen in pvp more than once lol). It's down to the individual, they either have promise/skill and a great personality, or they don't. Having over 100 hours game time doesn't allude to whether they have or not.
If I had seen someone stomping people left right and centre in pvp, I wouldn't suddenly say "oh sorry no group for you fella" because they hadn't passed some arbitrary x000 hour mark.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Comments
DAOC didn't have instanced PvP and I could check my stats and KDR whenever I wanted. Also the game had diminishing returns so you couldn't just kill an alt for points. There are better ways of achieving the things you say instanced PvP is good for, than instancing the game. It just takes more effort from the devs.
I haven't suggested that at all and you seem to be ranting quite frankly.
Pointing out that certain statements do actually require experience to back them up in order to give them credibility, yeah that totally means that I don't believe in transferable skills or the ability to pick something up rapidly........
"I think teamwork and choke points will be important in this pvp game, because I have played plenty of pvp games before". Makes sense, I agree.
"I can catagorically say that 98% of players gank other players 67% of the time in open world game x, I have 5 minutes experience in open world games". Cool story bro.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Except WoW has OWPvP servers. Players are forced into PvE servers...they are choosing to play those servers.
Same for Rift...OWPvP servers are available, most people pick the PvE servers.
Now, where to start with the rest of it.
WvW and sPvP are not the only reasons people are playing GW2. There are people playing it for the PvE. You don't know what the breakdown is of people playing sPvP versus WvW because you don't have access to ANet's numbers. Your statement about sPvP and WvW is unsupportable. You don't even know how many people are playing Planetside 2 right now...you have no idea if the number of people is significant or not.
Beyond that, the difference between WvW, Planetside PvP and instanced PvP is one of scale. Instead of 20 people on a map, you can have a hundred or more people on a map. When PvP happens is up to the player, it's group based and it has a much better chance of being balanced compared to OWPvP or OWPvP/FFAPvP.
Now, I can certainly get on board with larger scale, faction based PvP being more interesting than small scale faction or team based PvP. There are plenty of other people with the same opinion. But without any numbers to support it, all that can really be said is that there's a market for it, and some games are meeting that market demand. You can't say it's more popular than instanced PvP, and you can't say it's less popular.
About the only thing anyone can be sure of is that instanced PvP and large scale faction PvP are both more popular than OW/FFA PvP. Even there the statement is iffy because again, no real numbers to support the statement.
Well, you could say that PvE games with optional PvP are more popular than OWPvP games and large scale faction based PvP games. That's pretty easily supportable with WoW's numbers alone, but the trend holds with Rift and SWToR as well.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Thats probably because its very obvious the game is NOT designed for OWPVP.
I agree with you completely. I love to pvp, however I have played several games now where the "open world pvp" is nothing more than groups of higher level, better geared gankers running around terrorizing the lower level, undergeared players attempting to quest and level up. A lot of people abuse the open world pvp idea and simply use it to grief people who have no hope of surviving a real pvp fight with them.
I am seeing more games coming up with pvp servers and pve servers, where instanced pvp has its place! When a person feels they are geared enough to pvp it is great fun to jump into a battleground and kick some butt.
I remember trying out Tera, my hubby and I were about level 12 and supremely under geared in the open world and instead of having other level 12-15 players try to fight us we had a group of level 27's stampeding around 2-shotting every poor sap around! How is this open-world pvp fun?
Another game that comes to mind is Aion. I have played this game since its launch and I remember when rifting was amazing! It was pure 24/7 open world pvp. But then people started to twink at 50 and it all went to hell. People complained about getting ganked by fully geared 50s with enchanted gear and then NCsoft took our beloved rifting away.... Recently however, they released something new and cool: A fast track leveling server where no open world pvp is allowed and where you can freely travel to whenever you want to quest and get away from gankers. If, however you love the thrill of the hunt and want to do your questing and also your open world pvp then stay in your home server and have 24/7 pvp again!
I think that the way that Aion answered this predicament (of appeasing those who want to quest without being ganked, but also those who bought the game expecting open world pvp) was pretty brilliant. More games should do it this way!
Thats pretty specific. No one makes specific predictions with a 5-minute experience. Way to build a strawman tho.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Not really. Since either form of pvp being trash or ggreat is completely based on those playing it. Second it shows that more players actually like having pvp at their own determined time frame. Compared to having it constently everywhere, an being the prey/toys of the other players in the wrold in many ways. Mind you nothign wrong with etiher style of pvp, just they really appeal to different players.
Who says open world pvp cannot be suited to a persons own time frame. In dark age of camelots rvr, I nearly always found a group or something to do or wage war on. It gave the whole thing more of a purpose than xno. vs xno.
The purpose of modern day instanced pvp is for self gain, realm pride or server community have been washed away for my former point. My opinion is that wow does instanced pvp the best and theres not much point in playing copy cat games.
New mmorpgs have to break the formula of the modern day theme park / instanced pvp to carve a niche for themselves. Much like EvE online has done. But Im not a fan of EvE even though I gave it a good crack. I prefer a char based experience.
Well can you choose to not play open world pvp in a open world pvp setting? If you walk out into a area that is contested, and pvp is happening you are forced by the marit of it being open world pvp to fight. Instanced pvp is well pvp on-demand that you choose to play at your choice, not the choice of others largely. Also not everyone that pvp wants that fact of depth to the pvp, as to them it is more of a side game that allows them to get away from the other content in the game. I would not say in the least it is self gain, but that people want to be independent of the other gamers in the mmo for their entertainment. They do not want pvper x to choose when they pvp, but that they actually make that choice to pvp when they wish. It is the same with griefing many people do not like having their game time ruined by being the entertainment of another person, as such pve servers are more popular than pvp servers.
I would not say they need to break out of it, but add open world pvp into the mix, with differing rewards for all three forms of content. One of the huge issues is that the needed amount of rules to make open world pvp desirable an accepted to the mainstream, and those would run off many that want open world pvp. Also many mmos have tried to carve that niche out, and many survive but on numbers that are vastly lower than other games. I doon't think a open world pvp, or instanced pvp only game will bring the needed change, or numbers alone, but a good union that uses both.
Certain comments actually require you to have enough experience of something in order to back them up, if you want to be taken seriously. That you are arguing against that, well it beggars belief.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I hate everything instanced, and I hate it even more if the game doesn´t even TRY to hide it.
(e.g. this freaking "story areas" in TOR with the green doors, complete BS. Same goes for queuing up for PvP an getting a loading screen in GW2)
Secrets of Dragon?s Spine Trailer.. !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwT9cFVQCMw
Best MMOs ever played: Ultima, EvE, SW Galaxies, Age of Conan, The Secret World
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2X_SbZCHpc&t=21s
.
.
The Return of ELITE !
Agree on this one -- don't know why you couldn't have both. Battlegrounds make sense in that they are very specific fight zones supported by the lore. The main thing needed for open world is a reason for the PVP to be taking place, and some kind of framework around it. Mindless killing in open world just feels supid if it doesn't fit with the backdrop or context of the game.
One would hope that the nugget in red would be fantastically easy to digest. But, this is mmorpg.com afterall
I could describe the meaning of the word "up", and without a doubt, someone on here would actually want to debate me on it. These forums can be truly amazing at times.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
First you call me an idiot, then blind, you feed me strawmen and you insinuate that I can't be taken seriously. Where is your argument? Where is your proper argument?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Zoned, faction based PvP is the best long term type of warfare. Holding your own castles/cities or whatever beats sitting in a lobby any day. Some games like LFD suit the lobby format and I know some posters seem to think every game needs to be in a lobby. They need to get out more.
Borrowing from another thread, we can have a MMO world with faction based, zoned PvP. It has been done well before, it can be done again.
I did play PvP on Nagafen, it was so-so. The problem was that EQ2 was not made for PvP, all mechanics were PvE based and just slapping PvP on it is not enough.
The wole trinity combat mechanics makes PvP a secondary thing and that is the reason they usually instance it. You need a different system that makes PvP and PvE a lot more similar if you want to make a good game with both intergrated instead of a game focsuing one one aspect.
It is kinda sad, because PvP done right is really fun, almost all FPS players prefer PvP to PvE but then it have better PvP mechanics. Now I am not saying that MMOs should have FPS mechanics, not at all but they do need something better.
Get rid of tanks as the first and most important part, then we can have a look on full world none instanced PvP again.
Honestly i would say a dual stat/value abilty system that gives every abilty two sets of values, one which influences pvp, and one that influences pve, would be the best start (imo) to the fact of making a game that intergarates pvp an pve content in the same open world. The biggest reason behind that is that it takes the fact that pvp or pve adjustment would/should no longer directly influence the other side. I have heard so many times where a pvper or a pver gripes about how their build got nerged, or such because of the other side of the game, and i can understand that since if you do not participate in that other form of combat/content it can be annoying. Not to mention it takes alot of headache out of trying to balance a game with one set of values for abilties in a game with as polar opposite styles of combat approaches.
Also having gear in a pvp match betwen players marginallized to where it is only a slight difference from low to high gear, yet do not make gear completely worthless as than it would make pve activities of the plaers that do play pve an pvp meaningless, would allow both high or low level/gear players to play/engage in pvp in the same area. I would say also that largely all abilties are availible at start, but that the next rank is availible at differing levels, as than you could shift the player's level to the lowest level play participating in the pvp match, as you would just rank back the abilties of the characters in the match to where they could be at that level in the game. This would also allow the players morre dynamic combat choices from the start, since players would have more abilties to use than in many other games where for alot of low level content you are limited in your choices of abilities you can use.
To me the trinity can work in a pvp oriented game but the machanics would be to be built slightly differently. Like with tanks they are ment to be a damage soaker, and attention grabbing role in pvp, as such they should have taunts that grab/lock the attention of the target on the tank for a period of time, as well as having abilties or methods of redirecting damage back to themselves. You could also break down the Tanking role in three sub-type roles that use differing methods of proforming their duty in the pvp combat (evven doing this in pve as well.). Such as making a tank role that does not so much grab targets attention as they redirect, or spread the damage of attackers out amoung their comrades, and even might redirect it back to themselves even; While another roles might actually specilize in grabbing/locking the attention of targets on themselves to get the pressure off thier team-mates. To me the trinity in the sense of it being locked into what it is now, with any tank that is not a mitigation tank is worthless/not a tank is in need of being updated badly.
Many off these ideas have been done prior to games now, yet none trully stayed current, or moved into being more of a mainstream mmo standard. Many fo them stayed in their more niche game set, and were lost to the niche side of gaming.
I have reiterated the "proper" argument over and over again. It is even laid out in the post you quoted (i've underlined it for you). But i'll put it forward yet again...
Some statements require you to actually have enough experience to back up whether that statement is indeed true or false, otherwise you are simply guessing. Basing every argument on a limited (sometimes on zero) amount of experience and then extrapolating outwards can lead to errors which are so large as to make the original hypothesis utterly redundant.
I'm not so sure as to what is so difficult to grasp or controversial that you seem to be arguing the toss over. It doesn't mean people can't pick things up quickly, it doesn't mean skills are not transferable, it doesn't mean someone can't hazard a guess and be right.
We could play the same game, I could play it for three years and you could play it for three weeks. You could be a far better player than me and amazingly enough I would listen to you and try and learn from you. I am not suggesting that time in a game means I am better, more knowledgable about everything in it than you. But there are certain aspects that will require more experience to know.
People in this thread and countless others like it, come out with specific statements relating to specific games/systems and communities without having anything like enough experience to know whether what they are talking about is true or not. For me, that is ludicrous.
Think about what you are arguing against here, because whilst we are prone to having a back and forth in threads like this, I genuinely cannot believe that you are arguing against the premise I have laid out.
Maybe you are just trolling me, if so IB4 "strawman!!".
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It is quite amazing.
People seem to be vehemently arguing that it is perfectly acceptable to just blurt out any old bullshit on any topic and claim it as fact, without actually bothering to have enough experience in said topic to find out whether it is true or not in the first place.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It works, but I rather have a completely new system where PvP and PvE are similar instead. What you talk about is a fix for a system that is broken instead of making a new system that truly work.
A better AI system that makes mobs act more human would be the first logical step instead. Get rid of tanking, or to be more specific, allow body tanking but not taunts and lessen the gap between new players and old ones.
While it do feel good to increase from a peasant to a demi god as you usually do in MMOs the cost for that is too high. In PvE it means you cant group with your friends (or most other players not exactly on the same powerlevel as you have) and that you are being judged on your gear and level, in open world PvP it makes most combats either impossible or so easy a chimp would win it.
Gear should matter and so should experience to a degree but not as much as it does in most games. And more experienced players should get more options instead of just becomming more and more powerful. Let us get access to more types of weapons, other skills and so instead of giving us 100 times as many hitpoints and world PvP would become a lot more fun.
the amount of people like the OP who spend most of their time moaning and groaning about why games cant be like SOE games simply amazes me. you want world pvp games then quit looking at American MMO's and look at Korean MMO's(eg Lineage 2, Aion, and RF Online). Also SWG's PvP is crap compared to other game PVP, yes I did play SWG I loved the game but the rewards for PvP did not exist. When SOE finally did put something in for decent PvP with the launch of JTL it still sucked and no one participated in it.
"Possibly we humans can exist without actually having to fight. But many of us have chosen to fight. For what reason? To protect something? Protect what? Ourselves? The future? If we kill people to protect ourselves and this future, then what sort of future is it, and what will we have become? There is no future for those who have died. And what of those who did the killing? Is happiness to be found in a future that is grasped with blood stained hands? Is that the truth?"
But I never said you could make a statement about anything and everything! I never took that position and that is your strawman right there. Ofcourse there are things which can't be guessed or assessed from a short time of playing. -Well, not "can't" but you're unlikely to get it right. But like you said, some guesses are more informed than others.
But the thread I referred to in few posts back partly addressed this notion some players put too much credit on time played. Such as, I had played GW1 under 900 hours (players had well over 2000 hours by that time) and didn't have a very high PvP rank when we won the European Championships and qualified for the GWWC. Still, I couldn't make it into the pickup PvP groups because apparently I was a "newbie" and didn't know what I was doing. If I didn't have the guild tag I had, I would have had serious trouble finding good pickup groups.
I got tons of similar examples but I'm sure you get what I mean: Players overestimate the importance of time played.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Given my premise was merely that there are certain things which require a certain amount of experience to qualify them and given you have been arguing against that for the last n posts (or seemed to have been). Well it is not a case of strawmaning it up to suggest the "anything and everything" line. Given that is the only possible thing you could be arguing for based on my original case.
Looking at the underlined it seems that is not the case, so I do have to wonder just what the hell the argument has been about. Especially with the fact that I haven't ever stated that you can't make informed assessments on some subjects from a limited amount of experience.
Eitherway it doesn't matter now as it seems we are after all not in disagreement really..
EDIT:
Noticed your edit. Yes I agree, in terms of skill levels at the very least, people do put too much credence on time played. After years of play there are many who have simply not improved at all and I have seen raw noobs with a better grasp of the game (in combat/tactical terms).
As someone how has run pvp guilds in the past (decent ones, not super dooper tournament killers) I have never selected players based on "time in game", it's a retarded criteria (although clearly they would have to have been seen in pvp more than once lol). It's down to the individual, they either have promise/skill and a great personality, or they don't. Having over 100 hours game time doesn't allude to whether they have or not.
If I had seen someone stomping people left right and centre in pvp, I wouldn't suddenly say "oh sorry no group for you fella" because they hadn't passed some arbitrary x000 hour mark.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."