Originally posted by dumpcat It is personal preference. Personally I prefer faction or flag based open word PvP. It gives purpose while maintaining the fun of constant danger.
I dislike FFA and I dislike PvE only servers. That's why I was so disappointed with AoC...it's either mindless FFA on one server or carebear on another.
I don't understand why you would hate PVE only servers in a game? It doesn't affect you at all if you don't play on them just like PVP servers don't affect PVE players who don't play on them. Well other than the horrible mashing together of game mechanics that trying to balance PVP and PVE at the same time causes but that's a different issue all together.
Open PVP zones and PVP servers are fine but as soon as you force PVP on people who would rather not do it they will either have to spend all their time trying to avoid PVP (not fun) or just not play the game at all (not profitable).
I hate PvE servers in the scenario I used as an example. AoC is one extreme or the other. It's all PvE or FFA PvP which is thoughtless PvP. I don't mind the existence of PvE servers in general...I just don't roll on them.
because consensual pvp is basically a battleground. the element of danger is nonexistent if you can prevent another player from killing you with you ... checkbox.
edit: these topics always go the same way. here's what we'll see over the next 20 pages:
Noobs don't want to be killed.
Elites don't want to miss a kill.
Agreed, danger is an important part of PvP just like risk Vs reward.
The real problem really is when someone can kill someone else without any risk whatsoever. The huge power gap between levels (or noobs and vets in level-less systems) really takes that away.
Whenever you kill someone with zero chance of failing the game mechanics really takes away the best and most fun part of PvP.
And instead of fixing this MMOs have created stuff like battlegrounds. PvP will never be really fun in a MMO until the powergap is enough so a really good noob can kill a really lousy vet.
And, yeah.. People have called me carebear for these opinions but there is really a reason why most FPSers more or less only play PvP while most MMOers prefer PvE. I am not saying there shouldn't be progression in MMOs or anything, just that the gap in power needs to lessen.
Heck, GW2s system of leveling down people for the zone they are into would be a simple way to actually make open world PvP more fun even though I would prefer a mechanic where the gap is low totally and harder stuff actually were more based on player skill than gear and stats. Not completely mind you since part of the RPG thing is to slowly become better as you play...
Originally posted by dumpcat SWG had the best system imho. Faction based flag system plus guild wars that bypassed factional rules. It catered to PvE and PvP with one ruleset.
I kinda liked the original Lineages system too where your bloodpledge ( a kind of guild sworn to serve a player prince or princess) and its allies were PvP flagged on any alliance that mutually declared war on PvE servers while your alliance were the only one you couldn't kill on PvP servers.
It made safe runnings for uninterested PvEers on PvE servers (except in transit zones that were PvP flagged so a few people shouldn't be able to body block without a fight).
I always felt this system was the best Korean addition to the genre.
If not everyone is vulnerable it really ruins the experience for me. For example if I see a player doing some PVE I want nothing more than to creep up on him, stab him in the back and steal his stuff. However if he was to have a 'pve flag' it would prevent this, which has happened more than once to me in other games.
This mechanic really removes from the game and makes it feel tame and dull to me.
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?
But wouldnt removing open pvp make the game less fun for them?
Why should someone else who is playing a game to have fun have to endure not being able to kill other guys for no reason other than it was fun to you?
See? The reverse thing is also possible.
Also, a guy is playing a open pvp game but dont like being killed by random guys?
If not everyone is vulnerable it really ruins the experience for me. For example if I see a player doing some PVE I want nothing more than to creep up on him, stab him in the back and steal his stuff. However if he was to have a 'pve flag' it would prevent this, which has happened more than once to me in other games.
This mechanic really removes from the game and makes it feel tame and dull to me.
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?
So a guy is playing a open pvp game but dont like being killed by random guys?
Who says the guy is playing an open pvp game?
In fact, isn't the point of willo248 that it is NOT a open pvp game. Of course people who don't like being killed by random guys is playing a pve game. willo248 is ranting why others won't play open pvp and be fodder to him.
Well, the answer is clear. People play for their own fun, not his.
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.
You sound like a selfish person. You want the game rules to not apply to you. You can not pick and choose which rules will apply, you take them all or play a different game. It would seem you are the one who does not get it.
Roses are red Violets are blue The reviewer has a mishapen head Which means his opinion is skewed ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
If not everyone is vulnerable it really ruins the experience for me. For example if I see a player doing some PVE I want nothing more than to creep up on him, stab him in the back and steal his stuff. However if he was to have a 'pve flag' it would prevent this, which has happened more than once to me in other games.
This mechanic really removes from the game and makes it feel tame and dull to me.
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?
So a guy is playing a open pvp game but dont like being killed by random guys?
Its called a hypothetical question - there is no game. Trying to gauge the reasons why people feel that a certain system has to be in play for something to be considered good.
And to all those that have answered, I appreciate all your responses!
And reading these response I have noticed it has gone on for 9 pages with being a complete cluster f%^&. And with PvP in the title to boot!
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?!"
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 really depends on who you're talking to.
I dont know any pro gamers who would consider pvping random people who cant fight back/ don't stand a chance 'good pvp'. They might have fun w/ it, but 'good pvp' is usually considered that which is designed from the ground-up to be played as pvp (and thus consensual).
The problem with most games that try and combine PvP w/ open (non-consensual) PvP, is that they either A) fail to give players realistic means to defend themselves; fail to implement meaningful punishment against PKs; or most often C) fail at both. I can't even remember the last game that made it difficult for murderers(PKs) to walk around freely in town, let alone use all the merchants & services.
- In short, PvP doesn't technically have to be 100% consensual for it to be 'good', but the game absolutely has to be designed around PvP and it's consequences to be good. It's much less that PvP needs to be consensual to be good, and much more that most non-consensual PvP games just have bad mechanics.
Originally posted by STYNKFYST"Because pvpers want to gank noobs."^ThisIt is more than this...but this sums it up. Has nothing to do with anything but history. The morons that destroyed PvP in other games are scaring off anyone that is already apprehensive about PvP. No one wants to play with the l33t twitch gamers that decided they like MMOs too. Who's only goal is to take yer stuff in a lopsided fight.
every time this argument is made it's painted as 100 wolves surrounding a sheep, tactically placing themselves in the bushes around it before pouncing out at once. The sheep is never in their group...or grouped with a sheepswarm...fighting against other groups of sheep+wolves.this is fiction. it's not how FFA-PVP works. In eve, the concept of "Newbros" is very popular with many alliances and corps dedicated to only one thing: training and exposing newbies to pvp. E-UNI, RvB, Brave Newbies and others come to mind.the only reason you'll be the one sheep against 100 wolves i if your social skills are so nasty that nobody will want to associate themselves with you.
You just named most of them. The EVE argument is nonsense. I have played for a year and half now and can count on one hand the number of fights I've had while my combat history log is filled with ganks where I've been murdered in a 5+ versus 1 battle, with situations such as insta-locking gate camps and other such nonsense. I never have trouble joining corps and I can usually hold my own in a 2 versus myself fight, but the vast majority of the time it's exactly that, a group of half a dozen or more of people geared solely for PVPing catching me at an awkward time alone.
Even in the older versions when it was myself and two friends running missions we'd have a ninja show up to steal our loot and that ninja would be in a worthless ship with about four friends in gank builds just waiting for someone to pop the thief.
I've heard on the forums several variations of the idea that if you're in a fair fight in eve you aren't playing it right.
I wrote this essay on the Everquest forums a while back but I will repost it here since it is relevant to the design of EQ-Next pvp servers.
Disclaimer: This is going to be long, opinionated, and blunt, but I've been reading a few too many posts from people who don't seem to understand what it is that they got themselves into, and are clamoring to "carebear" up the game to suit their particular idea of just what fair PvP is. This is coming from a long-time PvP player, but by no means am I claiming to be an expert on game design or marketing. I'm just a hardcore player who understands what real PvP is. Take my words for what they are or ignore them.
Now then, who I am: I started my gaming life by playing text only MUDs in the 90s and played UO as my first graphical MUD. I played EQ1 on Rallos Zek back when it was EQ's only "red" server. I played Star Wars Galaxies pvp pre CU Jedi and lost my character forever when he died. I played Lineage 2 on and off for a while until Eq2 pvp caught my attention. I was mediocre at best, hardly a feared PKer, but I learned to survive and enjoyed what I played, no matter if I was outmatched or not. I understood what I was playing. Now that EQ-Next has planned PvP servers, I couldn't help but join in. But I've noticed that there are numbers of "bluebies" who came to these forums not understanding the nature of PvP games. This is evident in the number of posts on this board where people are crying for everything to be changed to support what they thought it is. So let's get this started with the fundamental laws of the jungle.
Law of the Jungle #1: You are going to die.
There's no getting out of it. You did not come here to be safe. You were safe before. Now, those strawberry fields of treasure and experience are crawling with cutthroats who know where you used to go, what you used to do, what you used to seek there, and how to use this knowledge to catch you and inflict death on you. They aren't going to wait for you to get ready. They aren't going to play fair. They aren't going to care if a particular move or tactic is too devastating if they catch you with it. Your only way around it is to learn them- learn where they are, learn what they're after, learn what they're going to do, and prepare yourself ahead of time. And no matter how well-prepared you are for what's out there- you are still going to die. There is no way out of Law #1. Whether it's at the hands of someone at the top picking you off just because you're there, whether it's a group of players lower than you who gang up and tear you apart, whether it's an even-con, similar class who just happens to get that last shot in before you, whether it's some punk who sucker-punches you right after a tough fight, or whether it's someone whom you thought had no chance in hell who happens to get lucky, you're going to be killed. If this bothers you, you made a mistake.
Law of the Jungle #2: This isn't a PvE server
You can't play the same game you played when they weren't after you. The skill and tactics that were good enough before because of its effectiveness against the mindless MOBs isn't worth squat- you have to outfit yourself with your most dreaded foes in mind being actual players who are out to kill you. You can't just trot over to your favorite hunting grounds to knock out that quest anymore and hope for the best. They know that those spots attract people who still think that they're playing the same game, and they will be waiting for you. (See Law #1) You have to forget everything you learned on the PvE servers, and be prepared to learn it all over again. There are new rules for how to get a level. There are new rules for where to hunt, and there are new rules for which routes to take through the lands. If it's something that many people used to do or where many people used to go, it is now bait that will lead many people to their deaths. If you thought that you were going to play the same route you played before on PvE except that you can kill people now, you made a mistake.
Law of the Jungle #3: Cover your rear
All players have advantages in certain situations. If you find yourself in one of these situations and you aren't the player in question, see Law #1. So, such-and-such can take you down solo if they get the jump on you, if all they do is X and Y? Well, yes. That's what they do, and you were there. The essence of pvp is that all players have advantages and weaknesses, and the way you overcome these weaknesses is by grouping with someone who can complement them. You're not here to run around solo and have a fair, balanced even 1v1 match against everyone you meet. That's not PvP, that's dueling. Running around alone isn't something you have the right to do. This is not, nor should it be, a game where you always stand a fair chance. There's more to PvP than who has what nuke or how many hitpoints or what dps rate is. PvP is about knowing everything you can do and how it works, not just what numbers popped up when you fought mobs before. If you can't fight them, learn how to. If you can't learn and expect others to change everything around to suit you, you made a mistake. Learn, Adapt, and Grow; if you can't do that then you're not cut out for this.
Law of the Jungle #4: Success is measured by survival
Any idiot can PK another, that doesn't make them skilled. Your skill isn't determined by how many people of what level you can take on. And the little punk who ran away, or avoided you altogether, he's not a coward, he's smart. Just because you pvp someone doesn't mean you have the right to kill them. You have to earn that kill. If they get away, they survived. If they fight back too hard and you're outmatched, sticking around and letting them have you isn't brave or honorable, it's stupid. Make them earn it! If you can get away, you deserved to. If you can't out-damage them because they are jumping around and dodging your attacks, it's not unfair- they're just thinking ahead of you. Don't lower your defenses just because you think that extra bit of dps that you used to get against mobs is going to turn the tide- because you're thinking in terms of a kill you haven't earned yet and not thinking with survival in mind. It takes time, patience, and smarts to figure out all the little tricks, tactics, and moves that help you survive in PvP. It's not about killing- it's about depriving your enemy of the kill. If this isn't your primary thought when planning every last detail of your character , see Law #1. You aren't a good PvPer because of who you fight and which fights you win, you are a good PvPer depending on your overall level of preparation and how many times you can count that that preparation saves your rear.
Law of the Jungle #5: You are never going to be a god
Too many people have had that time when you have those cute little adolescent fantasies about being a powerful, unstoppable killing machine with the title of Overlord while wielding the shiniest, largest and most phallic weapon in the universe and laying out every single foe you happen to encounter through sheer invincibility. It ain't gonna happen- ever. (See Law #1) PvP isn't for people who like to play single-player games in godmode. You didn't come here to be godlike, you came here to embrace mortality. You aren't just here to kill other players- you came here to give them permission to kill you, to utilize advantages over you, to take advantage of your weaknesses, to leave you broken and bleeding while they dance on your corpse. If you came here planning on becoming the all-powerful king of the hill that no one can topple, you made a mistake. Coming here means the players are going to be after you more than ever. You will never be safe again. The safe servers are still where you left them.
Law of the Jungle #6: It's still just a game
Playing on a PvP server doesn't take cojones. It doesn't take an iron will, or an asbestos stomach. It doesn't make you a man. You're still a geek just like the rest of us, it's just a lot more difficult. If it's too hard, too frustrating, too unfair, too immature, too cutthroat, too inconvenient, or if you're just not that good at it or if you think that so-and-so shouldn't be doing such-and-such because it "ruins" your fun, then it's not for you. You're here if you enjoy what you're playing. PvP is what it is. It's MEAN. And if someone PKs you and dances on you corpse while you are on your way to turn in a quest, or whatever else it may be that spoiled your plans, well, you either suck it up and keep playing or you're on the wrong server. It's only "griefing" if you let it give you grief. If you can't laugh it off, you're the problem. If you're not having fun, you made a mistake. There's no shame in playing on the PvE servers if that's more your cup of tea, we're all here to play games, and the game you play isn't a reflection on your status as a human being. But PvP is a different game. If you could go live in a beach house with central air and plasma-screen TV's for the same price, why would you move into a shack with no plumbing or power and complain about the leak in the roof? You have to want to live in this shack. Don't expect them to turn it into a carebears' resort, they've already built those for you.
----------------
If the developers listen to these rules the PvP will be awesome. If not then well who knows but it won't be the "good" kind of PvP I enjoy.
I don't think it's in any way reprsentative of actual gameplay experience for the majority.
I was in a big fleet toay, working on one of Fountain's I-HUBs. The events you describe didn't occur. But then again I'm doing sov warfare not randomly getting ganked in empire.
I've played Eve for 2 years, nearly all of that in nullsec, flown with some of the best FCs in the game, I have always look for a conflict and content and I have had less than a dozen "good fights" in that game.
Sov warfare is dull grind, rest of it is ganking to a varying degree. Eve is the quintessential game for gank warfare. For example, goons do not engage if they do not have at least 2:1 odds. They don't do even fights and they have the numbers to pull it off. They don't need to be good, they just need to bring more people.
Its not fun for goons and its not fun for their opponents either. Then I hear this drivel "this simulates real war" ... no it doesn't. Its a game! Wars, in games, are started by people who are bored. It can never simulate real war, and falling short of real war, what it devolves into is not fun for great many people.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Imagine reaching a dark and terrifying borderland where danger and death lurk behind every corner.
Now imagine reaching a dark and terrifying borderland where danger and death lurk behind every corner, however you have a bag of unlimited extra lives with you.
Consential PvP takes away the danger and fear of traversing trough PvP areas. And that feeling of danger and fear is exactly the thing that adds the most to a PvP game. It also takes away the feeling of justice, because if you decide to flag, then you will quickly notice that the majority of other players won't be flagged unless they outnumber or outlevel you, making a person brave enough to flag themselves a never ending freekill.
I wrote this essay on the Everquest forums a while back but I will repost it here since it is relevant to the design of EQ-Next pvp servers.
Disclaimer: This is going to be long, opinionated, and blunt, but I've been reading a few too many posts from people who don't seem to understand what it is that they got themselves into, and are clamoring to "carebear" up the game to suit their particular idea of just what fair PvP is. This is coming from a long-time PvP player, but by no means am I claiming to be an expert on game design or marketing. I'm just a hardcore player who understands what real PvP is. Take my words for what they are or ignore them.
Now then, who I am: I started my gaming life by playing text only MUDs in the 90s and played UO as my first graphical MUD. I played EQ1 on Rallos Zek back when it was EQ's only "red" server. I played Star Wars Galaxies pvp pre CU Jedi and lost my character forever when he died. I played Lineage 2 on and off for a while until Eq2 pvp caught my attention. I was mediocre at best, hardly a feared PKer, but I learned to survive and enjoyed what I played, no matter if I was outmatched or not. I understood what I was playing. Now that EQ-Next has planned PvP servers, I couldn't help but join in. But I've noticed that there are numbers of "bluebies" who came to these forums not understanding the nature of PvP games. This is evident in the number of posts on this board where people are crying for everything to be changed to support what they thought it is. So let's get this started with the fundamental laws of the jungle.
Law of the Jungle #1: You are going to die.
There's no getting out of it. You did not come here to be safe. You were safe before. Now, those strawberry fields of treasure and experience are crawling with cutthroats who know where you used to go, what you used to do, what you used to seek there, and how to use this knowledge to catch you and inflict death on you. They aren't going to wait for you to get ready. They aren't going to play fair. They aren't going to care if a particular move or tactic is too devastating if they catch you with it. Your only way around it is to learn them- learn where they are, learn what they're after, learn what they're going to do, and prepare yourself ahead of time. And no matter how well-prepared you are for what's out there- you are still going to die. There is no way out of Law #1. Whether it's at the hands of someone at the top picking you off just because you're there, whether it's a group of players lower than you who gang up and tear you apart, whether it's an even-con, similar class who just happens to get that last shot in before you, whether it's some punk who sucker-punches you right after a tough fight, or whether it's someone whom you thought had no chance in hell who happens to get lucky, you're going to be killed. If this bothers you, you made a mistake.
Law of the Jungle #2: This isn't a PvE server
You can't play the same game you played when they weren't after you. The skill and tactics that were good enough before because of its effectiveness against the mindless MOBs isn't worth squat- you have to outfit yourself with your most dreaded foes in mind being actual players who are out to kill you. You can't just trot over to your favorite hunting grounds to knock out that quest anymore and hope for the best. They know that those spots attract people who still think that they're playing the same game, and they will be waiting for you. (See Law #1) You have to forget everything you learned on the PvE servers, and be prepared to learn it all over again. There are new rules for how to get a level. There are new rules for where to hunt, and there are new rules for which routes to take through the lands. If it's something that many people used to do or where many people used to go, it is now bait that will lead many people to their deaths. If you thought that you were going to play the same route you played before on PvE except that you can kill people now, you made a mistake.
Law of the Jungle #3: Cover your rear
All players have advantages in certain situations. If you find yourself in one of these situations and you aren't the player in question, see Law #1. So, such-and-such can take you down solo if they get the jump on you, if all they do is X and Y? Well, yes. That's what they do, and you were there. The essence of pvp is that all players have advantages and weaknesses, and the way you overcome these weaknesses is by grouping with someone who can complement them. You're not here to run around solo and have a fair, balanced even 1v1 match against everyone you meet. That's not PvP, that's dueling. Running around alone isn't something you have the right to do. This is not, nor should it be, a game where you always stand a fair chance. There's more to PvP than who has what nuke or how many hitpoints or what dps rate is. PvP is about knowing everything you can do and how it works, not just what numbers popped up when you fought mobs before. If you can't fight them, learn how to. If you can't learn and expect others to change everything around to suit you, you made a mistake. Learn, Adapt, and Grow; if you can't do that then you're not cut out for this.
Law of the Jungle #4: Success is measured by survival
Any idiot can PK another, that doesn't make them skilled. Your skill isn't determined by how many people of what level you can take on. And the little punk who ran away, or avoided you altogether, he's not a coward, he's smart. Just because you pvp someone doesn't mean you have the right to kill them. You have to earn that kill. If they get away, they survived. If they fight back too hard and you're outmatched, sticking around and letting them have you isn't brave or honorable, it's stupid. Make them earn it! If you can get away, you deserved to. If you can't out-damage them because they are jumping around and dodging your attacks, it's not unfair- they're just thinking ahead of you. Don't lower your defenses just because you think that extra bit of dps that you used to get against mobs is going to turn the tide- because you're thinking in terms of a kill you haven't earned yet and not thinking with survival in mind. It takes time, patience, and smarts to figure out all the little tricks, tactics, and moves that help you survive in PvP. It's not about killing- it's about depriving your enemy of the kill. If this isn't your primary thought when planning every last detail of your character , see Law #1. You aren't a good PvPer because of who you fight and which fights you win, you are a good PvPer depending on your overall level of preparation and how many times you can count that that preparation saves your rear.
Law of the Jungle #5: You are never going to be a god
Too many people have had that time when you have those cute little adolescent fantasies about being a powerful, unstoppable killing machine with the title of Overlord while wielding the shiniest, largest and most phallic weapon in the universe and laying out every single foe you happen to encounter through sheer invincibility. It ain't gonna happen- ever. (See Law #1) PvP isn't for people who like to play single-player games in godmode. You didn't come here to be godlike, you came here to embrace mortality. You aren't just here to kill other players- you came here to give them permission to kill you, to utilize advantages over you, to take advantage of your weaknesses, to leave you broken and bleeding while they dance on your corpse. If you came here planning on becoming the all-powerful king of the hill that no one can topple, you made a mistake. Coming here means the players are going to be after you more than ever. You will never be safe again. The safe servers are still where you left them.
Law of the Jungle #6: It's still just a game
Playing on a PvP server doesn't take cojones. It doesn't take an iron will, or an asbestos stomach. It doesn't make you a man. You're still a geek just like the rest of us, it's just a lot more difficult. If it's too hard, too frustrating, too unfair, too immature, too cutthroat, too inconvenient, or if you're just not that good at it or if you think that so-and-so shouldn't be doing such-and-such because it "ruins" your fun, then it's not for you. You're here if you enjoy what you're playing. PvP is what it is. It's MEAN. And if someone PKs you and dances on you corpse while you are on your way to turn in a quest, or whatever else it may be that spoiled your plans, well, you either suck it up and keep playing or you're on the wrong server. It's only "griefing" if you let it give you grief. If you can't laugh it off, you're the problem. If you're not having fun, you made a mistake. There's no shame in playing on the PvE servers if that's more your cup of tea, we're all here to play games, and the game you play isn't a reflection on your status as a human being. But PvP is a different game. If you could go live in a beach house with central air and plasma-screen TV's for the same price, why would you move into a shack with no plumbing or power and complain about the leak in the roof? You have to want to live in this shack. Don't expect them to turn it into a carebears' resort, they've already built those for you.
----------------
If the developers listen to these rules the PvP will be awesome. If not then well who knows but it won't be the "good" kind of PvP I enjoy.
Exactly. If EQ Next is going to have PvP (and I think it will) let it happen on Red servers. As for me I will play on a PvE server and enjoy myself I want no part of the above.
Then I hear this drivel "this simulates real war" ... no it doesn't. Its a game.
that's your counter-argument to "this simulate real war" ? you answer by "it doesn't, it's a game" ?
aloso...
you misunerstood, the game is a tool for the metagame and the metagame simulates real war.
other than the 300 spartans, i can't think of many times when a group did not want to go to war with full benefits to maximize victory.
Games are entertainment - they are supposed to be fun. They can be war-themed, many are, but at the end of the day, they are games. War is not fun. It is everything but. And they are not started because someone got bored (vast majority at least weren't).
Non-consentual PvP is not war. It is not even close. The same people who claim that are the ones who think grinding signatures and anomalies in Eve is "exploration". Or spawn camping "baddies" in Fall of Mankind is "keeping the peace". Don't be that guy.
The idea that the metagame in Eve is war or simulates war is a joke. At the end of the day it is just a game, and that makes all the difference.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
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 most players feel exactly the opposite. Consensual competitive games like Soccer, LoL, TF2, and Chess are vastly more popular than the MMORPGs which have non-consensual PVP. Consensual competitive games dominate.
Well that's what I am trying to figure out here. There are a lot of PvP centric games out there, but watching the threads about EQ:N, there are people saying for PvP to be good in an MMO it has to be FFA Non-consensual. Anything else would lead to bad PvP.
to me, the pvp being "meaningful" is FAR more important than it being "consensual".
meaningful, again to me, meaning that something is at stake over the outcome rather than just one person won and one person lost. (i know, that alone is a motivator for some people but not me)
EX: in eve where a pvp battle might determine ownership of a system (a zone in eve)
this is the essence of pvp in an mmo to me; this is even though in eve the pvp is in a grey area between non consensual and consensual (there are areas in eve where you get punished for PK to the point where it rarely happens).
thanks for reading.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
I've played Eve for 2 years, nearly all of that in nullsec, flown with some of the best FCs in the game, I have always look for a conflict and content and I have had less than a dozen "good fights" in that game.
Sov warfare is dull grind, rest of it is ganking to a varying degree. Eve is the quintessential game for gank warfare. For example, goons do not engage if they do not have at least 2:1 odds. They don't do even fights and they have the numbers to pull it off. They don't need to be good, they just need to bring more people.
Its not fun for goons and its not fun for their opponents either. Then I hear this drivel "this simulates real war" ... no it doesn't. Its a game! Wars, in games, are started by people who are bored. It can never simulate real war, and falling short of real war, what it devolves into is not fun for great many people.
Your post seems to be an expression of a very common misconception, or better: a very common but IMO too restricted way of looking at PvP.
The actual fighting is only a very small part of PvP. It is merely the culmination of all the other aspects. Just like the actual shot is only a very small part of hunting and comes only after all the preparations, the tracking, the luring, the choice of time and spot, the exploit of the surroundings, landscape, weather, the training and use of dogs etc.
And still most people reduce PvP to the actual fight and complain about it being "unfair". Well if you want fair fights there is no way around an Arena like GW2 sPvP.
But for me that isn't enough. It is a boring and dull grind.
And now EvE. The art of PvP shows not in the actual fights alone, but in the preparation. All the fun is in the metagame which gives you nearly limitless possibilities. There are quite some ways to avoid the gank scenario and also it can be exploited for more fun when you get some friends and bumrush them.
Chess players don't complain about the rules and try to impose their own idea of how a game should be played on the pieces, but if chess was an MMO players would probably complain about white having an unfair advantage and whine on the game forums that the movement of the Knights is totally OP and the Queen should be taken out (only for the opponent of course) and some would probably also complain that their King got ganked by some no life basement dweller.
But FFA games and chess have one thing in common: Preparation is much more important than a single match or fight which is only an expression of your understanding of the game at a certain point in time.
Btw. regarding the argument that FFA games are not financially feasible because of being elitist... Not true. EvE and even UO tell otherwise. PvP games do not tank because of the FFA PvP but because thery are just bad games. FFA PVP alone without a sandbox, deep economy etc. doesn't cut it. You need the whole package to have a good game, otherwise there is no emergent gameplay and the self fufilling prophecy of gank and destroy happens.
In less deep games or themeparks non consensual PvP is at least a bit of flavour. I am quite happy when it is restricted to PvP servers in such games since then there is less complaining, but even then there is usually a vocal minority starting to hardcore whine instead of just choosing a PvE server. Tera was a disgusting example of that.
because consensual pvp is basically a battleground. the element of danger is nonexistent if you can prevent another player from killing you with you ... checkbox.
So what if it is an battleground? E-sports are not good games anymore?
The point of pvp does not have to be danger all the time .. it can be ... e-sport .. skill vs skill.
that's great. but not specifically what I'm looking for in an MMO. Those games are great, but when I go for steak I don't want chicken. I love chicken though. Just not during steak meals.
well .. if other players don't want non-consensual pvp in a MMO, then you are out of luck. You can force others to play with you in ways they are not having fun.
Your post seems to be an expression of a very common misconception, or better: a very common but IMO too restricted way of looking at PvP.
The actual fighting is only a very small part of PvP. It is merely the culmination of all the other aspects. Just like the actual shot is only a very small part of hunting and comes only after all the preparations, the tracking, the luring, the choice of time and spot, the exploit of the surroundings, landscape, weather, the training and use of dogs etc.
And still most people reduce PvP to the actual fight and complain about it being "unfair". Well if you want fair fights there is no way around an Arena like GW2 sPvP.
But for me that isn't enough. It is a boring and dull grind.
And now EvE. The art of PvP shows not in the actual fights alone, but in the preparation. All the fun is in the metagame which gives you nearly limitless possibilities. There are quite some ways to avoid the gank scenario and also it can be exploited for more fun when you get some friends and bumrush them.
Chess players don't complain about the rules and try to impose their own idea of how a game should be played on the pieces, but if chess was an MMO players would probably complain about white having an unfair advantage and whine on the game forums that the movement of the Knights is totally OP and the Queen should be taken out (only for the opponent of course) and some would probably also complain that their King got ganked by some no life basement dweller.
But FFA games and chess have one thing in common: Preparation is much more important than a single match or fight which is only an expression of your understanding of the game at a certain point in time.
Btw. regarding the argument that FFA games are not financially feasible because of being elitist... Not true. EvE and even UO tell otherwise. PvP games do not tank because of the FFA PvP but because thery are just bad games. FFA PVP alone without a sandbox, deep economy etc. doesn't cut it. You need the whole package to have a good game, otherwise there is no emergent gameplay and the self fufilling prophecy of gank and destroy happens.
In less deep games or themeparks non consensual PvP is at least a bit of flavour. I am quite happy when it is restricted to PvP servers in such games since then there is less complaining, but even then there is usually a vocal minority starting to hardcore whine instead of just choosing a PvE server. Tera was a disgusting example of that.
Oh, please... I know as much about the metagame as you. And it doesn't have enough mechanics outside combat to make it interesting. I know my way around Eve so you can spare me the usual gibberish. Its a game just like any other and suffers from, among its own, much of the same shortcomings many other games do.
My view is not restriced. I am looking at the game as a whole and finding it unsatisfactory. You're the one saying there's no preparation or grander metagame behind consensual PvP or competitive PvP. The fact that you made such a pejorative comment about those games shows that you're quite ignorant about the matter.
[mod edit]
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
to me, the pvp being "meaningful" is FAR more important than it being "consensual".
meaningful, again to me, meaning that something is at stake over the outcome rather than just one person won and one person lost. (i know, that alone is a motivator for some people but not me)
EX: in eve where a pvp battle might determine ownership of a system (a zone in eve)
this is the essence of pvp in an mmo to me; this is even though in eve the pvp is in a grey area between non consensual and consensual (there are areas in eve where you get punished for PK to the point where it rarely happens).
thanks for reading.
The meaningfulness of an engagement is entirely subjective and a separate matter. You can decide the fate of a fortress, a town, a mine, a province, a star system or a space station through either non-consensual or consensual way.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
To me, consensual and non-consensual (open-world PvP) must come hand in hand. One without the other can cause imbalances.
On one hand, with only consensual PvP, there is no thrill of leveling in the world and always being on your guard for any threat from another player. It adds another level to the game that is necessary for any MMO imo.
On the other hand, with only open world PvP, it turns into a big gank/zerg fest that's only enjoyable for the winning side until the other decides to /ragequit. Then there is nothing.
Balance is the best bet imo. One without the other is bad news.
The meaningfulness of an engagement is entirely subjective and a separate matter. You can decide the fate of a fortress, a town, a mine, a province, a star system or a space station through either non-consensual or consensual way.
yeah. And "meaningful" is subjective. For example, a story mission in STO is meaningful to trekkies, but may appearing as just "kill x quests" to others.
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 most players feel exactly the opposite. Consensual competitive games like Soccer, LoL, TF2, and Chess are vastly more popular than the MMORPGs which have non-consensual PVP. Consensual competitive games dominate.
Well that's what I am trying to figure out here. There are a lot of PvP centric games out there, but watching the threads about EQ:N, there are people saying for PvP to be good in an MMO it has to be FFA Non-consensual. Anything else would lead to bad PvP.
to me, the pvp being "meaningful" is FAR more important than it being "consensual".
meaningful, again to me, meaning that something is at stake over the outcome rather than just one person won and one person lost. (i know, that alone is a motivator for some people but not me)
EX: in eve where a pvp battle might determine ownership of a system (a zone in eve)
this is the essence of pvp in an mmo to me; this is even though in eve the pvp is in a grey area between non consensual and consensual (there are areas in eve where you get punished for PK to the point where it rarely happens).
thanks for reading.
Ownership of a system in EVE always seemed to me like a trite reason for PvP. It just never seemed like a very meaningful accomplishment to me, Blowing up other people's stuff just seemed like such a wasteful way to accomplish anything.
Comments
I don't understand why you would hate PVE only servers in a game? It doesn't affect you at all if you don't play on them just like PVP servers don't affect PVE players who don't play on them. Well other than the horrible mashing together of game mechanics that trying to balance PVP and PVE at the same time causes but that's a different issue all together.
Open PVP zones and PVP servers are fine but as soon as you force PVP on people who would rather not do it they will either have to spend all their time trying to avoid PVP (not fun) or just not play the game at all (not profitable).
Neither one of those are things developers want.
Agreed, danger is an important part of PvP just like risk Vs reward.
The real problem really is when someone can kill someone else without any risk whatsoever. The huge power gap between levels (or noobs and vets in level-less systems) really takes that away.
Whenever you kill someone with zero chance of failing the game mechanics really takes away the best and most fun part of PvP.
And instead of fixing this MMOs have created stuff like battlegrounds. PvP will never be really fun in a MMO until the powergap is enough so a really good noob can kill a really lousy vet.
And, yeah.. People have called me carebear for these opinions but there is really a reason why most FPSers more or less only play PvP while most MMOers prefer PvE. I am not saying there shouldn't be progression in MMOs or anything, just that the gap in power needs to lessen.
Heck, GW2s system of leveling down people for the zone they are into would be a simple way to actually make open world PvP more fun even though I would prefer a mechanic where the gap is low totally and harder stuff actually were more based on player skill than gear and stats. Not completely mind you since part of the RPG thing is to slowly become better as you play...
I kinda liked the original Lineages system too where your bloodpledge ( a kind of guild sworn to serve a player prince or princess) and its allies were PvP flagged on any alliance that mutually declared war on PvE servers while your alliance were the only one you couldn't kill on PvP servers.
It made safe runnings for uninterested PvEers on PvE servers (except in transit zones that were PvP flagged so a few people shouldn't be able to body block without a fight).
I always felt this system was the best Korean addition to the genre.
But wouldnt removing open pvp make the game less fun for them?
Why should someone else who is playing a game to have fun have to endure not being able to kill other guys for no reason other than it was fun to you?
See? The reverse thing is also possible.
Also, a guy is playing a open pvp game but dont like being killed by random guys?
Who says the guy is playing an open pvp game?
In fact, isn't the point of willo248 that it is NOT a open pvp game. Of course people who don't like being killed by random guys is playing a pve game. willo248 is ranting why others won't play open pvp and be fodder to him.
Well, the answer is clear. People play for their own fun, not his.
You sound like a selfish person. You want the game rules to not apply to you. You can not pick and choose which rules will apply, you take them all or play a different game. It would seem you are the one who does not get it.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
The reviewer has a mishapen head
Which means his opinion is skewed
...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
Its called a hypothetical question - there is no game. Trying to gauge the reasons why people feel that a certain system has to be in play for something to be considered good.
And to all those that have answered, I appreciate all your responses!
And reading these response I have noticed it has gone on for 9 pages with being a complete cluster f%^&. And with PvP in the title to boot!
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?!"
It really depends on who you're talking to.
I dont know any pro gamers who would consider pvping random people who cant fight back/ don't stand a chance 'good pvp'. They might have fun w/ it, but 'good pvp' is usually considered that which is designed from the ground-up to be played as pvp (and thus consensual).
The problem with most games that try and combine PvP w/ open (non-consensual) PvP, is that they either A) fail to give players realistic means to defend themselves;
fail to implement meaningful punishment against PKs; or most often C) fail at both. I can't even remember the last game that made it difficult for murderers(PKs) to walk around freely in town, let alone use all the merchants & services.
- In short, PvP doesn't technically have to be 100% consensual for it to be 'good', but the game absolutely has to be designed around PvP and it's consequences to be good. It's much less that PvP needs to be consensual to be good, and much more that most non-consensual PvP games just have bad mechanics.
You just named most of them.
The EVE argument is nonsense. I have played for a year and half now and can count on one hand the number of fights I've had while my combat history log is filled with ganks where I've been murdered in a 5+ versus 1 battle, with situations such as insta-locking gate camps and other such nonsense. I never have trouble joining corps and I can usually hold my own in a 2 versus myself fight, but the vast majority of the time it's exactly that, a group of half a dozen or more of people geared solely for PVPing catching me at an awkward time alone.
Even in the older versions when it was myself and two friends running missions we'd have a ninja show up to steal our loot and that ninja would be in a worthless ship with about four friends in gank builds just waiting for someone to pop the thief.
I've heard on the forums several variations of the idea that if you're in a fair fight in eve you aren't playing it right.
I wrote this essay on the Everquest forums a while back but I will repost it here since it is relevant to the design of EQ-Next pvp servers.
Disclaimer: This is going to be long, opinionated, and blunt, but I've been reading a few too many posts from people who don't seem to understand what it is that they got themselves into, and are clamoring to "carebear" up the game to suit their particular idea of just what fair PvP is. This is coming from a long-time PvP player, but by no means am I claiming to be an expert on game design or marketing. I'm just a hardcore player who understands what real PvP is. Take my words for what they are or ignore them.
Now then, who I am: I started my gaming life by playing text only MUDs in the 90s and played UO as my first graphical MUD. I played EQ1 on Rallos Zek back when it was EQ's only "red" server. I played Star Wars Galaxies pvp pre CU Jedi and lost my character forever when he died. I played Lineage 2 on and off for a while until Eq2 pvp caught my attention. I was mediocre at best, hardly a feared PKer, but I learned to survive and enjoyed what I played, no matter if I was outmatched or not. I understood what I was playing. Now that EQ-Next has planned PvP servers, I couldn't help but join in. But I've noticed that there are numbers of "bluebies" who came to these forums not understanding the nature of PvP games. This is evident in the number of posts on this board where people are crying for everything to be changed to support what they thought it is. So let's get this started with the fundamental laws of the jungle.
Law of the Jungle #1: You are going to die.
There's no getting out of it. You did not come here to be safe. You were safe before. Now, those strawberry fields of treasure and experience are crawling with cutthroats who know where you used to go, what you used to do, what you used to seek there, and how to use this knowledge to catch you and inflict death on you. They aren't going to wait for you to get ready. They aren't going to play fair. They aren't going to care if a particular move or tactic is too devastating if they catch you with it. Your only way around it is to learn them- learn where they are, learn what they're after, learn what they're going to do, and prepare yourself ahead of time. And no matter how well-prepared you are for what's out there- you are still going to die. There is no way out of Law #1. Whether it's at the hands of someone at the top picking you off just because you're there, whether it's a group of players lower than you who gang up and tear you apart, whether it's an even-con, similar class who just happens to get that last shot in before you, whether it's some punk who sucker-punches you right after a tough fight, or whether it's someone whom you thought had no chance in hell who happens to get lucky, you're going to be killed. If this bothers you, you made a mistake.
Law of the Jungle #2: This isn't a PvE server
You can't play the same game you played when they weren't after you. The skill and tactics that were good enough before because of its effectiveness against the mindless MOBs isn't worth squat- you have to outfit yourself with your most dreaded foes in mind being actual players who are out to kill you. You can't just trot over to your favorite hunting grounds to knock out that quest anymore and hope for the best. They know that those spots attract people who still think that they're playing the same game, and they will be waiting for you. (See Law #1) You have to forget everything you learned on the PvE servers, and be prepared to learn it all over again. There are new rules for how to get a level. There are new rules for where to hunt, and there are new rules for which routes to take through the lands. If it's something that many people used to do or where many people used to go, it is now bait that will lead many people to their deaths. If you thought that you were going to play the same route you played before on PvE except that you can kill people now, you made a mistake.
Law of the Jungle #3: Cover your rear
All players have advantages in certain situations. If you find yourself in one of these situations and you aren't the player in question, see Law #1. So, such-and-such can take you down solo if they get the jump on you, if all they do is X and Y? Well, yes. That's what they do, and you were there. The essence of pvp is that all players have advantages and weaknesses, and the way you overcome these weaknesses is by grouping with someone who can complement them. You're not here to run around solo and have a fair, balanced even 1v1 match against everyone you meet. That's not PvP, that's dueling. Running around alone isn't something you have the right to do. This is not, nor should it be, a game where you always stand a fair chance. There's more to PvP than who has what nuke or how many hitpoints or what dps rate is. PvP is about knowing everything you can do and how it works, not just what numbers popped up when you fought mobs before. If you can't fight them, learn how to. If you can't learn and expect others to change everything around to suit you, you made a mistake. Learn, Adapt, and Grow; if you can't do that then you're not cut out for this.
Law of the Jungle #4: Success is measured by survival
Any idiot can PK another, that doesn't make them skilled. Your skill isn't determined by how many people of what level you can take on. And the little punk who ran away, or avoided you altogether, he's not a coward, he's smart. Just because you pvp someone doesn't mean you have the right to kill them. You have to earn that kill. If they get away, they survived. If they fight back too hard and you're outmatched, sticking around and letting them have you isn't brave or honorable, it's stupid. Make them earn it! If you can get away, you deserved to. If you can't out-damage them because they are jumping around and dodging your attacks, it's not unfair- they're just thinking ahead of you. Don't lower your defenses just because you think that extra bit of dps that you used to get against mobs is going to turn the tide- because you're thinking in terms of a kill you haven't earned yet and not thinking with survival in mind. It takes time, patience, and smarts to figure out all the little tricks, tactics, and moves that help you survive in PvP. It's not about killing- it's about depriving your enemy of the kill. If this isn't your primary thought when planning every last detail of your character , see Law #1. You aren't a good PvPer because of who you fight and which fights you win, you are a good PvPer depending on your overall level of preparation and how many times you can count that that preparation saves your rear.
Law of the Jungle #5: You are never going to be a god
Too many people have had that time when you have those cute little adolescent fantasies about being a powerful, unstoppable killing machine with the title of Overlord while wielding the shiniest, largest and most phallic weapon in the universe and laying out every single foe you happen to encounter through sheer invincibility. It ain't gonna happen- ever. (See Law #1) PvP isn't for people who like to play single-player games in godmode. You didn't come here to be godlike, you came here to embrace mortality. You aren't just here to kill other players- you came here to give them permission to kill you, to utilize advantages over you, to take advantage of your weaknesses, to leave you broken and bleeding while they dance on your corpse. If you came here planning on becoming the all-powerful king of the hill that no one can topple, you made a mistake. Coming here means the players are going to be after you more than ever. You will never be safe again. The safe servers are still where you left them.
Law of the Jungle #6: It's still just a game
Playing on a PvP server doesn't take cojones. It doesn't take an iron will, or an asbestos stomach. It doesn't make you a man. You're still a geek just like the rest of us, it's just a lot more difficult. If it's too hard, too frustrating, too unfair, too immature, too cutthroat, too inconvenient, or if you're just not that good at it or if you think that so-and-so shouldn't be doing such-and-such because it "ruins" your fun, then it's not for you. You're here if you enjoy what you're playing. PvP is what it is. It's MEAN. And if someone PKs you and dances on you corpse while you are on your way to turn in a quest, or whatever else it may be that spoiled your plans, well, you either suck it up and keep playing or you're on the wrong server. It's only "griefing" if you let it give you grief. If you can't laugh it off, you're the problem. If you're not having fun, you made a mistake. There's no shame in playing on the PvE servers if that's more your cup of tea, we're all here to play games, and the game you play isn't a reflection on your status as a human being. But PvP is a different game. If you could go live in a beach house with central air and plasma-screen TV's for the same price, why would you move into a shack with no plumbing or power and complain about the leak in the roof? You have to want to live in this shack. Don't expect them to turn it into a carebears' resort, they've already built those for you.
----------------
If the developers listen to these rules the PvP will be awesome. If not then well who knows but it won't be the "good" kind of PvP I enjoy.
I've played Eve for 2 years, nearly all of that in nullsec, flown with some of the best FCs in the game, I have always look for a conflict and content and I have had less than a dozen "good fights" in that game.
Sov warfare is dull grind, rest of it is ganking to a varying degree. Eve is the quintessential game for gank warfare. For example, goons do not engage if they do not have at least 2:1 odds. They don't do even fights and they have the numbers to pull it off. They don't need to be good, they just need to bring more people.
Its not fun for goons and its not fun for their opponents either. Then I hear this drivel "this simulates real war" ... no it doesn't. Its a game! Wars, in games, are started by people who are bored. It can never simulate real war, and falling short of real war, what it devolves into is not fun for great many people.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Imagine reaching a dark and terrifying borderland where danger and death lurk behind every corner.
Now imagine reaching a dark and terrifying borderland where danger and death lurk behind every corner, however you have a bag of unlimited extra lives with you.
Consential PvP takes away the danger and fear of traversing trough PvP areas. And that feeling of danger and fear is exactly the thing that adds the most to a PvP game. It also takes away the feeling of justice, because if you decide to flag, then you will quickly notice that the majority of other players won't be flagged unless they outnumber or outlevel you, making a person brave enough to flag themselves a never ending freekill.
Exactly. If EQ Next is going to have PvP (and I think it will) let it happen on Red servers. As for me I will play on a PvE server and enjoy myself I want no part of the above.
Games are entertainment - they are supposed to be fun. They can be war-themed, many are, but at the end of the day, they are games. War is not fun. It is everything but. And they are not started because someone got bored (vast majority at least weren't).
Non-consentual PvP is not war. It is not even close. The same people who claim that are the ones who think grinding signatures and anomalies in Eve is "exploration". Or spawn camping "baddies" in Fall of Mankind is "keeping the peace". Don't be that guy.
The idea that the metagame in Eve is war or simulates war is a joke. At the end of the day it is just a game, and that makes all the difference.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
to me, the pvp being "meaningful" is FAR more important than it being "consensual".
meaningful, again to me, meaning that something is at stake over the outcome rather than just one person won and one person lost. (i know, that alone is a motivator for some people but not me)
EX: in eve where a pvp battle might determine ownership of a system (a zone in eve)
this is the essence of pvp in an mmo to me; this is even though in eve the pvp is in a grey area between non consensual and consensual (there are areas in eve where you get punished for PK to the point where it rarely happens).
thanks for reading.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
Your post seems to be an expression of a very common misconception, or better: a very common but IMO too restricted way of looking at PvP.
The actual fighting is only a very small part of PvP. It is merely the culmination of all the other aspects. Just like the actual shot is only a very small part of hunting and comes only after all the preparations, the tracking, the luring, the choice of time and spot, the exploit of the surroundings, landscape, weather, the training and use of dogs etc.
And still most people reduce PvP to the actual fight and complain about it being "unfair". Well if you want fair fights there is no way around an Arena like GW2 sPvP.
But for me that isn't enough. It is a boring and dull grind.
And now EvE. The art of PvP shows not in the actual fights alone, but in the preparation. All the fun is in the metagame which gives you nearly limitless possibilities. There are quite some ways to avoid the gank scenario and also it can be exploited for more fun when you get some friends and bumrush them.
Chess players don't complain about the rules and try to impose their own idea of how a game should be played on the pieces, but if chess was an MMO players would probably complain about white having an unfair advantage and whine on the game forums that the movement of the Knights is totally OP and the Queen should be taken out (only for the opponent of course) and some would probably also complain that their King got ganked by some no life basement dweller.
But FFA games and chess have one thing in common: Preparation is much more important than a single match or fight which is only an expression of your understanding of the game at a certain point in time.
Btw. regarding the argument that FFA games are not financially feasible because of being elitist... Not true. EvE and even UO tell otherwise. PvP games do not tank because of the FFA PvP but because thery are just bad games. FFA PVP alone without a sandbox, deep economy etc. doesn't cut it. You need the whole package to have a good game, otherwise there is no emergent gameplay and the self fufilling prophecy of gank and destroy happens.
In less deep games or themeparks non consensual PvP is at least a bit of flavour. I am quite happy when it is restricted to PvP servers in such games since then there is less complaining, but even then there is usually a vocal minority starting to hardcore whine instead of just choosing a PvE server. Tera was a disgusting example of that.
Dark Age of Camelot.
The best faction vs faction game ever made
has pve areas and area's of faction vs faction fighting
all fighting is consensual..you go into certain clearly identified areas where fighting can occur.Best faction vs faction game ever made.
well .. if other players don't want non-consensual pvp in a MMO, then you are out of luck. You can force others to play with you in ways they are not having fun.
Oh, please... I know as much about the metagame as you. And it doesn't have enough mechanics outside combat to make it interesting. I know my way around Eve so you can spare me the usual gibberish. Its a game just like any other and suffers from, among its own, much of the same shortcomings many other games do.
My view is not restriced. I am looking at the game as a whole and finding it unsatisfactory. You're the one saying there's no preparation or grander metagame behind consensual PvP or competitive PvP. The fact that you made such a pejorative comment about those games shows that you're quite ignorant about the matter.
[mod edit]
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The meaningfulness of an engagement is entirely subjective and a separate matter. You can decide the fate of a fortress, a town, a mine, a province, a star system or a space station through either non-consensual or consensual way.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
To me, consensual and non-consensual (open-world PvP) must come hand in hand. One without the other can cause imbalances.
On one hand, with only consensual PvP, there is no thrill of leveling in the world and always being on your guard for any threat from another player. It adds another level to the game that is necessary for any MMO imo.
On the other hand, with only open world PvP, it turns into a big gank/zerg fest that's only enjoyable for the winning side until the other decides to /ragequit. Then there is nothing.
Balance is the best bet imo. One without the other is bad news.
±MeDiC±
yeah. And "meaningful" is subjective. For example, a story mission in STO is meaningful to trekkies, but may appearing as just "kill x quests" to others.
Ownership of a system in EVE always seemed to me like a trite reason for PvP. It just never seemed like a very meaningful accomplishment to me, Blowing up other people's stuff just seemed like such a wasteful way to accomplish anything.