Because you never hear anything about 'The Hero's Journey' being littered with friendly fights and consensual combat.
But no where does it specify if the hero's journey is a PvP or PvE experience.... For all we know they were all NPCs :P
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Developers I have talked to were pretty unanimous that uncontrolled PvP drove paying customers away from their MMOrpgs. To make non-consensual PvP work in the genre, you have to draw in a bigger base than you drive away.
Present game social systems don't work well enough to stop abuses.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Once upon a time there used to be these things called pvp servers, and if you were to make a character on one you were consenting to pvp. I miss those things
But why should someone else who is playing a game to have fun have to endure being killed for no reason other than because it was fun for you?
Wouldn't that mechanic make the game less fun for them?
Of course.
Which is why it's rare nowadays for devs to allow players to ruin the game for other players without their consent.
One way or another PVE-focused players are going to avoid PVP.
If the game makes PVP optional, they're going to choose not to PVP.
If the game doesn't make PVP optional, they're going to choose not to play that game.
Aye, I see what you are saying. And it's the reason most devs give players the option to opt in/out of PvP.
Which is why I can't seem to understand why a lot of PvP'ers feel there *has* to be FFA PvP. And aside from great answers from Robo and yourself, the vast majority of reason seem to boil down to "Because it's fun to me, so it has to be"
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
PvP is a method of conflict resolution: an old-fashioned "might is right" approach to the world. There are many ways conflict that can arise (control of resources, territorial control, settling of scores, you-look-like-easy-prey, not-liking-your-face-today, etc). But whatever the reason, when a conflict does arise, PvP-focused players get frustrated if there is an arbitrary barrier to being able to resolve the conflict their way.
But why should someone else who is playing a game to have fun have to endure being killed for no reason other than because it was fun for you?
Wouldn't that mechanic make the game less fun for them?
Of course.
Which is why it's rare nowadays for devs to allow players to ruin the game for other players without their consent.
One way or another PVE-focused players are going to avoid PVP.
If the game makes PVP optional, they're going to choose not to PVP.
If the game doesn't make PVP optional, they're going to choose not to play that game.
Aye, I see what you are saying. And it's the reason most devs give players the option to opt in/out of PvP.
Which is why I can't seem to understand why a lot of PvP'ers feel there *has* to be FFA PvP. And aside from great answers from Robo and yourself, the vast majority of reason seem to boil down to "Because it's fun to me, so it has to be"
Most of the ones demanding FFA PVP soon change their minds if the game isnt level based
There has yet to be a really successful level based FFA PVP game, perhaps there just arent enough players to warrant that kind of gameplay, or perhaps its because the only PVP games that do that well are usually FPS like Planetside, even Eve itself, while technically an Open world FFA PVP game, has game mechanics in place that prevent it getting out of hand, even when the goons burned Jita, the majority of the ship kills there were their own, suicide ganks, mean just that. But, the Burn Jita event was spectacular even so
Once upon a time there used to be these things called pvp servers, and if you were to make a character on one you were consenting to pvp. I miss those things
Many games still have those, but most are almost empty. If you log into a game with PvE servers and PvP servers, the PvP ones are always far less crowded.
Why? Because most people don't like it. So PvPers have to try to force it onto others.
It does not, but in so many modern MMO's PvP has become a mini game. Stick to zoned PvP, not open world, but certain zones are open PvP and you have the right mix.
There has been a lot of discussion as of late on the EQ:Next boards about PvP. One of the issue that has been stated is that if PvP is in any way consensual its bad PvP.
I originally posted this question in a thread there, but only got one answer which really wasn't much of an answer, so I thought I would ask it here;
Why does PvP have to be Non-Consensual to be considered 'Good PvP'?
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
But why should someone else who is playing a game to have fun have to endure being killed for no reason other than because it was fun for you?
Wouldn't that mechanic make the game less fun for them?
Of course.
Which is why it's rare nowadays for devs to allow players to ruin the game for other players without their consent.
One way or another PVE-focused players are going to avoid PVP.
If the game makes PVP optional, they're going to choose not to PVP.
If the game doesn't make PVP optional, they're going to choose not to play that game.
Aye, I see what you are saying. And it's the reason most devs give players the option to opt in/out of PvP.
Which is why I can't seem to understand why a lot of PvP'ers feel there *has* to be FFA PvP. And aside from great answers from Robo and yourself, the vast majority of reason seem to boil down to "Because it's fun to me, so it has to be"
Most of the ones demanding FFA PVP soon change their minds if the game isnt level based
There has yet to be a really successful level based FFA PVP game, perhaps there just arent enough players to warrant that kind of gameplay, or perhaps its because the only PVP games that do that well are usually FPS like Planetside, even Eve itself, while technically an Open world FFA PVP game, has game mechanics in place that prevent it getting out of hand, even when the goons burned Jita, the majority of the ship kills there were their own, suicide ganks, mean just that. But, the Burn Jita event was spectacular even so
Yeah, I have noticed that trend as well. You give these players a game designed for what they have been asking for, and they find fault in it and end up back on the forums begging developers to make game X in development their PvP savior MMO.
You suggest Eve to them and its "We dont want space ships" or "Its all spreadsheets"
Suggest PlanetSide 2 and its "Too many cheaters"
Darkfall, MO, etc: "too badly coded"
AoW: "Too asian"
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Originally posted by Scot It does not, but in so many modern MMO's PvP has become a mini game. Stick to zoned PvP, not open world, but certain zones are open PvP and you have the right mix.
See, I agree with this and so do a lot of people. Sadly there are people who say this won't work for PvP to be meaningful. It has to be all or nothing. And for some reason you can't seem to get a straight answer as to why.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Originally posted by lugal Something tells me all these threads about consensual pvp is a very well done spam, however; non-consensual pvp is a myth. You consent when you join a pvp server or a game with open pvp.
That is bullshit from a point of view. Person wants to play a game that has N features one of which is pvp. He wants non-pvp but really loves the other aspects of the game. He wants it (GET IT) but to play the game he is forced to deal with pvp. He is consenting to play the game but he is forced to pvp. Get it? It's not hard.
I understand you are using debating skills to shape an point but it is still not correct. In any case, if this game has forced PVP, it will be a failure. Apparenly those wanting this type of pvp aren't able to see it for whatever reason.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I'll tell you from my own experience how I look at the whole consesual/non-consesual pvp thing.
The two MMORPGs that i've played by far the most in my "MMOcareer" are Lineage 2 and Guild Wars 1. And when I look at them both it's acutally pretty simple. Guild Wars 1 in my eyes had the best structured pvp ever. No contest. So that's what I call a GOOD pvp. However something was missing there, and that gap was filled with Lineage 2 - hunting down mobs, meeting enemy clans and alliances, whooping their asses or getting your own ass whooped, hours of pvp and flaming before big raid bosses would spawn, etc. That's what I call the more exciting pvp. It was exciting but to be honest, it never was really good. The combat mechanics were quite bad, non-consesual pvp always ends up in 1 side being completely devastated by the other, because the numbers are never fair, there's chaos on battlefield - in one word it's a Zerg.
So TL;DR:
structured PvP: consesual, better players win, usually doesn't offer as much excitement unless you're on e-sport level.
open world pvp: non-consesual, biggest zerg or better equipment wins, offers more excitement, fun can be quickly diminished for casual players that aren't a part of a big clan and don't have the level or the gear to compete with the big boys.
Personally I prefer sPvP over open world zerging any day.
Originally posted by lugal Something tells me all these threads about consensual pvp is a very well done spam, however; non-consensual pvp is a myth. You consent when you join a pvp server or a game with open pvp.
That is bullshit from a point of view. Person wants to play a game that has N features one of which is pvp. He wants non-pvp but really loves the other aspects of the game. He wants it (GET IT) but to play the game he is forced to deal with pvp. He is consenting to play the game but he is forced to pvp. Get it? It's not hard.
I understand you are using debating skills to shape an point but it is still not correct. In any case, if this game has forced PVP, it will be a failure. Apparenly those wanting this type of pvp aren't able to see it for whatever reason.
Bull shit is reading the same thread posed in a different way over and over to make pvp'ers sound like assholes.
You wanna know the truth of all this, You and I have absolutely NO SAY whatsoever how EQN is made. None.
It really doesn't matter what we think. The game will be made how it's made regardless. No amount of pvp hatorade or Carebear Stare is going to make a difference.
And the ONLY reason so many people are jumping on to this "For or Against FFA PVP" is because that retard Smedley made claims that got the pvp'ers all hot. Personally speaking, I think he's full of shit and this game is nothing until I can see something concrete.
There has been a lot of discussion as of late on the EQ:Next boards about PvP. One of the issue that has been stated is that if PvP is in any way consensual its bad PvP.
I originally posted this question in a thread there, but only got one answer which really wasn't much of an answer, so I thought I would ask it here;
Why does PvP have to be Non-Consensual to be considered 'Good PvP'?
I think the main element desired by the non-consensual pvp proponents is simply a craving for fear and danger in the open world, nothing more. It has little to do with the validity of game modes like battlegrounds. I think those have proven quite fun and successful over the years. It's just all about creating an open world where you have to watch your back. It's about that adrenaline rush that occurs when you're going about your business and stumble upon an enemy player. Is he going to attack? Should you attack him first? Should you present yourself honorably first before you duel or just open with a sneak attack? Does he look more powerful? Should you go hide? This adds a tremendous element of tension to the entire experience that can be exhilarating.
I haven't followed this particular EQN debate, however, so maybe I'm off the mark on my assessment.
structured PvP: consesual, better players win, usually doesn't offer as much excitement unless you're on e-sport level.
open world pvp: non-consesual, biggest zerg or better equipment wins, offers more excitement, fun can be quickly diminished for casual players that aren't a part of a big clan and don't have the level or the gear to compete with the big boys.
Personally I prefer sPvP over open world zerging any day.
My sentiments exactly, which is why GW1 is still my favourite PvP game ever.
Once upon a time there used to be these things called pvp servers, and if you were to make a character on one you were consenting to pvp. I miss those things
Many games still have those, but most are almost empty. If you log into a game with PvE servers and PvP servers, the PvP ones are always far less crowded.
Why? Because most people don't like it. So PvPers have to try to force it onto others.
The point I was making is that pvpers should roll on pvp servers and pvers should roll on pve servers.
Also on the games I play on the pvp servers have very healthy populations. Indeed there are more pve gamers in the mmo genre, this is I believe common knowledge. Doesn't mean pvpers are not important as well though.
Not all pvpers are bad. I am a full on pvp gamer and do you see me trying to force my prefered play style on other people? Indeed there are some pvp gamers who would like nothing more than to grief and harass pvers, but I do not class these people as true pvpers but more so muppets.
I'll tell you from my own experience how I look at the whole consesual/non-consesual pvp thing.
The two MMORPGs that i've played by far the most in my "MMOcareer" are Lineage 2 and Guild Wars 1. And when I look at them both it's acutally pretty simple. Guild Wars 1 in my eyes had the best structured pvp ever. No contest. So that's what I call a GOOD pvp. However something was missing there, and that gap was filled with Lineage 2 - hunting down mobs, meeting enemy clans and alliances, whooping their asses or getting your own ass whooped, hours of pvp and flaming before big raid bosses would spawn, etc. That's what I call the more exciting pvp. It was exciting but to be honest, it never was really good. The combat mechanics were quite bad, non-consesual pvp always ends up in 1 side being completely devastated by the other, because the numbers are never fair, there's chaos on battlefield - in one word it's a Zerg.
So TL;DR:
structured PvP: consesual, better players win, usually doesn't offer as much excitement unless you're on e-sport level.
open world pvp: non-consesual, biggest zerg or better equipment wins, offers more excitement, fun can be quickly diminished for casual players that aren't a part of a big clan and don't have the level or the gear to compete with the big boys.
Personally I prefer sPvP over open world zerging any day.
Best pvp I have ever had was DAOC, hands down. It was better than the Arena style pvp of Guild Wars because it was WAR but it was a HUGE consensual war. You had the surprise of FFA pvp without the small arenas of GW/WoW.
There has been a lot of discussion as of late on the EQ:Next boards about PvP. One of the issue that has been stated is that if PvP is in any way consensual its bad PvP.
I originally posted this question in a thread there, but only got one answer which really wasn't much of an answer, so I thought I would ask it here;
Why does PvP have to be Non-Consensual to be considered 'Good PvP'?
I think the main element desired by the non-consensual pvp proponents is simply a craving for fear and danger in the open world, nothing more. It has little to do with the validity of game modes like battlegrounds. I think those have proven quite fun and successful over the years. It's just all about creating an open world where you have to watch your back. It's about that adrenaline rush that occurs when you're going about your business and stumble upon an enemy player. Is he going to attack? Should you attack him first? Should you present yourself honorably first before you duel or just open with a sneak attack? Does he look more powerful? Should you go hide? This adds a tremendous element of tension to the entire experience that can be exhilarating.
I haven't followed this particular EQN debate, however, so maybe I'm off the mark on my assessment.
This post sums it up neatly.
Open world PvP is about the conflict dynamics of a virtual, player-driven world and not about sport matches or "fair fights". That's why FFA/OW games generally require a whole other mindset than the PvE games' tacked-on PvP, and that's also why many players who are used to themepark BGs and duels feel that FFA games are just griefer-infested, zerg-dominated cess pools - after all they're more like war zones than isolated arenas.
Of course, if you go to war with a sportsmanlike mindset and expecting fair fights, you are bound to experience some pretty rough times. But is that really the fault of the other players who just abide by the logic of war, or your own fault for expecting war to play out like a soccer match?
It's just two different types of PvP that serve different purposes and require different types of skill. OPvP is not everyone's cup of tea, but on the other hand there are plenty of games on the market that cater to the soccer player mentality.
There has been a lot of discussion as of late on the EQ:Next boards about PvP. One of the issue that has been stated is that if PvP is in any way consensual its bad PvP.
I originally posted this question in a thread there, but only got one answer which really wasn't much of an answer, so I thought I would ask it here;
Why does PvP have to be Non-Consensual to be considered 'Good PvP'?
It doesn't. Don't listen to people that try and label everything. A game can have good pvp and have the pvp be 'non-consensual' (what a terrible term for pvp..makes it sound like rape) AND a game can have bad pvp and have the pvp be 'non-consensual'.
But regardless - I think smart devs will offer multiple options for players, sort of like offering PvE only servers and PvP allowable servers.
Comments
But no where does it specify if the hero's journey is a PvP or PvE experience.... For all we know they were all NPCs :P
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
No because that is not a video game.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Exactly.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Of course.
Which is why it's rare nowadays for devs to allow players to ruin the game for other players without their consent.
One way or another PVE-focused players are going to avoid PVP.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Developers I have talked to were pretty unanimous that uncontrolled PvP drove paying customers away from their MMOrpgs. To make non-consensual PvP work in the genre, you have to draw in a bigger base than you drive away.
Present game social systems don't work well enough to stop abuses.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Once upon a time there used to be these things called pvp servers, and if you were to make a character on one you were consenting to pvp. I miss those things
Aye, I see what you are saying. And it's the reason most devs give players the option to opt in/out of PvP.
Which is why I can't seem to understand why a lot of PvP'ers feel there *has* to be FFA PvP. And aside from great answers from Robo and yourself, the vast majority of reason seem to boil down to "Because it's fun to me, so it has to be"
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Does this argument make sense to any PvPers:
PvP is a method of conflict resolution: an old-fashioned "might is right" approach to the world. There are many ways conflict that can arise (control of resources, territorial control, settling of scores, you-look-like-easy-prey, not-liking-your-face-today, etc). But whatever the reason, when a conflict does arise, PvP-focused players get frustrated if there is an arbitrary barrier to being able to resolve the conflict their way.
( Bueller? Bueller? )
Most of the ones demanding FFA PVP soon change their minds if the game isnt level based
There has yet to be a really successful level based FFA PVP game, perhaps there just arent enough players to warrant that kind of gameplay, or perhaps its because the only PVP games that do that well are usually FPS like Planetside, even Eve itself, while technically an Open world FFA PVP game, has game mechanics in place that prevent it getting out of hand, even when the goons burned Jita, the majority of the ship kills there were their own, suicide ganks, mean just that. But, the Burn Jita event was spectacular even so
Many games still have those, but most are almost empty. If you log into a game with PvE servers and PvP servers, the PvP ones are always far less crowded.
Why? Because most people don't like it. So PvPers have to try to force it onto others.
R.I.P. City of Heroes and my 17 characters there
Don't believe it.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Yeah, I have noticed that trend as well. You give these players a game designed for what they have been asking for, and they find fault in it and end up back on the forums begging developers to make game X in development their PvP savior MMO.
You suggest Eve to them and its "We dont want space ships" or "Its all spreadsheets"
Suggest PlanetSide 2 and its "Too many cheaters"
Darkfall, MO, etc: "too badly coded"
AoW: "Too asian"
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
See, I agree with this and so do a lot of people. Sadly there are people who say this won't work for PvP to be meaningful. It has to be all or nothing. And for some reason you can't seem to get a straight answer as to why.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
That is bullshit from a point of view. Person wants to play a game that has N features one of which is pvp. He wants non-pvp but really loves the other aspects of the game. He wants it (GET IT) but to play the game he is forced to deal with pvp. He is consenting to play the game but he is forced to pvp. Get it? It's not hard.
I understand you are using debating skills to shape an point but it is still not correct. In any case, if this game has forced PVP, it will be a failure. Apparenly those wanting this type of pvp aren't able to see it for whatever reason.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
PvP needs to be WAR and not an E Sport.
I'll tell you from my own experience how I look at the whole consesual/non-consesual pvp thing.
The two MMORPGs that i've played by far the most in my "MMOcareer" are Lineage 2 and Guild Wars 1. And when I look at them both it's acutally pretty simple. Guild Wars 1 in my eyes had the best structured pvp ever. No contest. So that's what I call a GOOD pvp. However something was missing there, and that gap was filled with Lineage 2 - hunting down mobs, meeting enemy clans and alliances, whooping their asses or getting your own ass whooped, hours of pvp and flaming before big raid bosses would spawn, etc. That's what I call the more exciting pvp. It was exciting but to be honest, it never was really good. The combat mechanics were quite bad, non-consesual pvp always ends up in 1 side being completely devastated by the other, because the numbers are never fair, there's chaos on battlefield - in one word it's a Zerg.
So TL;DR:
structured PvP: consesual, better players win, usually doesn't offer as much excitement unless you're on e-sport level.
open world pvp: non-consesual, biggest zerg or better equipment wins, offers more excitement, fun can be quickly diminished for casual players that aren't a part of a big clan and don't have the level or the gear to compete with the big boys.
Personally I prefer sPvP over open world zerging any day.
Bull shit is reading the same thread posed in a different way over and over to make pvp'ers sound like assholes.
You wanna know the truth of all this, You and I have absolutely NO SAY whatsoever how EQN is made. None.
It really doesn't matter what we think. The game will be made how it's made regardless. No amount of pvp hatorade or Carebear Stare is going to make a difference.
And the ONLY reason so many people are jumping on to this "For or Against FFA PVP" is because that retard Smedley made claims that got the pvp'ers all hot. Personally speaking, I think he's full of shit and this game is nothing until I can see something concrete.
I think the main element desired by the non-consensual pvp proponents is simply a craving for fear and danger in the open world, nothing more. It has little to do with the validity of game modes like battlegrounds. I think those have proven quite fun and successful over the years. It's just all about creating an open world where you have to watch your back. It's about that adrenaline rush that occurs when you're going about your business and stumble upon an enemy player. Is he going to attack? Should you attack him first? Should you present yourself honorably first before you duel or just open with a sneak attack? Does he look more powerful? Should you go hide? This adds a tremendous element of tension to the entire experience that can be exhilarating.
I haven't followed this particular EQN debate, however, so maybe I'm off the mark on my assessment.
My sentiments exactly, which is why GW1 is still my favourite PvP game ever.
The point I was making is that pvpers should roll on pvp servers and pvers should roll on pve servers.
Also on the games I play on the pvp servers have very healthy populations. Indeed there are more pve gamers in the mmo genre, this is I believe common knowledge. Doesn't mean pvpers are not important as well though.
Not all pvpers are bad. I am a full on pvp gamer and do you see me trying to force my prefered play style on other people? Indeed there are some pvp gamers who would like nothing more than to grief and harass pvers, but I do not class these people as true pvpers but more so muppets.
Best pvp I have ever had was DAOC, hands down. It was better than the Arena style pvp of Guild Wars because it was WAR but it was a HUGE consensual war. You had the surprise of FFA pvp without the small arenas of GW/WoW.
This post sums it up neatly.
Open world PvP is about the conflict dynamics of a virtual, player-driven world and not about sport matches or "fair fights". That's why FFA/OW games generally require a whole other mindset than the PvE games' tacked-on PvP, and that's also why many players who are used to themepark BGs and duels feel that FFA games are just griefer-infested, zerg-dominated cess pools - after all they're more like war zones than isolated arenas.
Of course, if you go to war with a sportsmanlike mindset and expecting fair fights, you are bound to experience some pretty rough times. But is that really the fault of the other players who just abide by the logic of war, or your own fault for expecting war to play out like a soccer match?
It's just two different types of PvP that serve different purposes and require different types of skill. OPvP is not everyone's cup of tea, but on the other hand there are plenty of games on the market that cater to the soccer player mentality.
It doesn't. Don't listen to people that try and label everything. A game can have good pvp and have the pvp be 'non-consensual' (what a terrible term for pvp..makes it sound like rape) AND a game can have bad pvp and have the pvp be 'non-consensual'.
But regardless - I think smart devs will offer multiple options for players, sort of like offering PvE only servers and PvP allowable servers.