PVE MMO and servers are vastly more popular than PVP ones are.
If an open world PVP game is truly PVP, it means that 50% of the playerbase will get the short end of the stick, since they will statistically lose more fights than they will win them. At least part of this playerbase will end up leaving the game, which results in new players now becoming part of that 50% loser pool, which results in even more people leaving. Griefing probably just accelerates this process.
The way PVP works is flawed from the start, it divides the playerbase into losers and winners, which means it can never sustain itself.
Discuss.
Except most PvE MMOs do the exact same thing. You have the winners (those who keep up max raiding gear) and those that don't.
The only real difference is that PvP MMOs (when done right) force the players to earn their own achievements, while the PvE MMOs are designed to make the average player feel as powerful as possible. It's entirely a matter of preference.
Some gamers play games because they want to feel badass, but don't want the trouble of actually earning it. Others enjoy the challenge.
Originally posted by Sajman01 The whole concept of PvP in an MMO seems flawed to me. If you're interested in that style of gameplay isn't a MOBA a better option?
Could not agree more that this is probably the only way to do it.
On the MMO front: societies that promote interaction among individuals need plenty of rules and guardians of those rules in order to thrive and avoid the tragedy of the commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Hence, you can expect a PVP-oriented MMO to resemble real-life, with lots of rules and regulations and enforcement of such. That's a lot of overhead to ask out of an MMO, and it's questionable how many of the PVP-oriented players want all of that.
In fact, there just was a related thread bemoaning the lack of "survival of the fittest" MMOs that don't have all of these rules. If that's what those players really want, then like real-life, the most powerful residents of those worlds must move of their own accord to create some semblance of order that allows the weaker members to survive.
Originally posted by bcbully Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by DocBrodyWhy does every god damn MMO need to cater to carebears and have "options" and "choice", I could vomit when I read this old nonsense from developers. STOP MIXING UP PLAYSTYLES IN ONE AND THE SAME TITLE, do you hear me devs??Create 1 carebear MMO, next create 1 FFA PvAll MMO, put them in different boxes, profit.Seriously carebears need to GTFO of the next triple A title and go play the 374 other MMOs they ruined before.
Because there are more care bears. At the same time, there are many more people who are "care bears", but interested in PvP, but not in FFA PvP. It's a simple economic decision. This is definitely the case for people on this website. From the "Polls" features: Which is more important in an MMO, PvE or PvP? Opened: 02/19/2009 Respondents: 15483 PvP - 5.7% PvE - 14.8% PvP focus with a little PvE - 10.5% PvE focus with a little PvP - 34.8% Equal Parts PvE and PvP - 34.2% http://www.mmorpg.com/features.cfm/view/pollsI would have equal 5 years ago too. I still play both, but focus is pvp. Times have changed my friend, so are our mmorpgs. gogo FFA EQN!!!
Yeah, good luck with that. I really think if the game is FFA PvP, it's not going to be FFA PvP the way you think it's going to be FFA PvP. I think there's going to be a lot of "WTF?" happening when this game drops.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
PVE MMO and servers are vastly more popular than PVP ones are.
If an open world PVP game is truly PVP, it means that 50% of the playerbase will get the short end of the stick, since they will statistically lose more fights than they will win them. At least part of this playerbase will end up leaving the game, which results in new players now becoming part of that 50% loser pool, which results in even more people leaving. Griefing probably just accelerates this process.
The way PVP works is flawed from the start, it divides the playerbase into losers and winners, which means it can never sustain itself.
Discuss.
1, aren't you assuming that the same people will always win and always lose? Isn't more the truth that most people will both win and lose?
2, so what if there are winners and losers? You don't want to lose? play well. You want to keep winning? Learn to adapt, change and continually play well.
3, you assume that people playing on a pvp server or in a pvp game are "not ok" with pvp or losing.
That was my take away as well, and all I can say is, if a person has a problem with losing, the last place they should be is on a PVP server.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by DocBrodyWhy does every god damn MMO need to cater to carebears and have "options" and "choice", I could vomit when I read this old nonsense from developers. STOP MIXING UP PLAYSTYLES IN ONE AND THE SAME TITLE, do you hear me devs??Create 1 carebear MMO, next create 1 FFA PvAll MMO, put them in different boxes, profit.Seriously carebears need to GTFO of the next triple A title and go play the 374 other MMOs they ruined before.
Because there are more care bears. At the same time, there are many more people who are "care bears", but interested in PvP, but not in FFA PvP. It's a simple economic decision. This is definitely the case for people on this website. From the "Polls" features: Which is more important in an MMO, PvE or PvP? Opened: 02/19/2009 Respondents: 15483 PvP - 5.7% PvE - 14.8% PvP focus with a little PvE - 10.5% PvE focus with a little PvP - 34.8% Equal Parts PvE and PvP - 34.2% http://www.mmorpg.com/features.cfm/view/polls
I would have equal 5 years ago too. I still play both, but focus is pvp. Times have changed my friend, so are our mmorpgs. gogo FFA EQN!!!
Yeah, good luck with that. I really think if the game is FFA PvP, it's not going to be FFA PvP the way you think it's going to be FFA PvP. I think there's going to be a lot of "WTF?" happening when this game drops.
Heeey "not like i think" you trying slide out the back already?
Yep there will be righters and wrongers. Don't be on the wrong side of history!
PVE MMO and servers are vastly more popular than PVP ones are.
If an open world PVP game is truly PVP, it means that 50% of the playerbase will get the short end of the stick, since they will statistically lose more fights than they will win them. At least part of this playerbase will end up leaving the game, which results in new players now becoming part of that 50% loser pool, which results in even more people leaving. Griefing probably just accelerates this process.
The way PVP works is flawed from the start, it divides the playerbase into losers and winners, which means it can never sustain itself.
Discuss.
PvP is a competitive activity by nature. There are winners and loosers, its not going to be like those f***ing little league games that award trophies to everyone.
DAoC is really the only MMO I stuck a long time with, and the majority of the area of the game is PvE areas. If you took up the space used in PvE, it's like twice the size of the frontier and all the battlegrounds. I think the problem most MMOs have with PvP is they don't provide any real incentive to PvP. OOOO I can get 2628787 place after 5 years of playing nothing pvp? oh what fun. DAoC had a great system to make people want to PvP. Mythic turned thier players into realmists. Almost everyone that played DAoC hated the other side with such a passion, they really didn't have to add much more to get people to like to PvP. However, they also added the incentive of capture relics for your entire realm, you could capture and upgrade keeps/towers.
I think most developers think PvP and they automatically think it has to be on all the time. If you look at the entire community as a whole, the vast majority of players have spoken that they don't want full PvP. Go look at WoW's server populations. There's like 50x as many PvE servers full over PvP, especially in Asia.
It's not just WoW either, pretty much every MMO that has both PvE and PvP servers, the PvE servers always are by far more populated.
Originally posted by bcbully Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by bcbullyOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by DocBrodyWhy does every god damn MMO need to cater to carebears and have "options" and "choice", I could vomit when I read this old nonsense from developers. STOP MIXING UP PLAYSTYLES IN ONE AND THE SAME TITLE, do you hear me devs??Create 1 carebear MMO, next create 1 FFA PvAll MMO, put them in different boxes, profit.Seriously carebears need to GTFO of the next triple A title and go play the 374 other MMOs they ruined before.
Because there are more care bears. At the same time, there are many more people who are "care bears", but interested in PvP, but not in FFA PvP. It's a simple economic decision. This is definitely the case for people on this website. From the "Polls" features: Which is more important in an MMO, PvE or PvP? Opened: 02/19/2009 Respondents: 15483 PvP - 5.7% PvE - 14.8% PvP focus with a little PvE - 10.5% PvE focus with a little PvP - 34.8% Equal Parts PvE and PvP - 34.2% http://www.mmorpg.com/features.cfm/view/pollsI would have equal 5 years ago too. I still play both, but focus is pvp. Times have changed my friend, so are our mmorpgs. gogo FFA EQN!!!Yeah, good luck with that. I really think if the game is FFA PvP, it's not going to be FFA PvP the way you think it's going to be FFA PvP. I think there's going to be a lot of "WTF?" happening when this game drops.Heeey "not like i think" you trying slide out the back already?
Yep there will be righters and wrongers. Don't be on the wrong side of history!
op your logic is flawed!
* They haven't said anything specific about the game's mechanics. * EQ/2 has always been a PvE game. * The number of people who express a preference for FFA PvP is tiny compared to the number of people who express a preference for PvE or a combination of PvP and PvE. * The only specific thing is that EQN will be "New". FFA PvP as it was in UO, as it is in Eve and as it is in Darkfall would not be "New".
So if there is FFA PvP, it's not going to be the FFA PvP that people currently think of as FFA PvP. That's what I'm thinking anyway.
I think it would be funny, but cool, if EQN turned out to be setup like Minecraft, where people had their own personal servers, and could set the PvP to be the way they wanted.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Create 1 carebear MMO, next create 1 FFA PvAll MMO, put them in different boxes, profit.
Because publishers like to get as many people to play their games as possible and not only a small fantatical group of nuttbags.
Imagine, for one brief moment. You purchase a game under one title, pure pvp. Or a second game title, pure pve.
Six months later, players realize that they've purchased the same game, only marketed entirely seperately--one as "Hardcore Bloodbath Killgore", and the other as "Forest of Nevermore".
But since they play on different servers, they don't mix, and they don't have to constantly hate and insult each other.
Wow...it's almost like someone already had this idea and invented this separate servers thing for the some reason /gawk.
PVE MMO and servers are vastly more popular than PVP ones are.
If an open world PVP game is truly PVP, it means that 50% of the playerbase will get the short end of the stick, since they will statistically lose more fights than they will win them. At least part of this playerbase will end up leaving the game, which results in new players now becoming part of that 50% loser pool, which results in even more people leaving. Griefing probably just accelerates this process.
The way PVP works is flawed from the start, it divides the playerbase into losers and winners, which means it can never sustain itself.
Discuss.
1, aren't you assuming that the same people will always win and always lose? Isn't more the truth that most people will both win and lose?
2, so what if there are winners and losers? You don't want to lose? play well. You want to keep winning? Learn to adapt, change and continually play well.
3, you assume that people playing on a pvp server or in a pvp game are "not ok" with pvp or losing.
Exactly. There's also the matter of not everyone playing the PVP game. In EVE, there are a significant number of players who enjoy that the threat looms, but there is areasonable chance of avoidance or escape if prepared.
"The way PVP works is flawed from the start, it divides the playerbase into losers and winners, which means it can never sustain itself."
The NFL, NHL, PGA, NBA and many other organizations seem to do just fine.
CO, do you really do have trouble understanding that there are people capable of losing a competitive match/round/game without rage quitting?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
People are naturally competitive, so despite what the game your playing, if your playing an MMO, your competing to do something. Whether it is through direct PVP, raids, collecting in-game items etc.
Open world PVP gives an release, in return players tend to be stronger minded individuals. They expect grief tactics, and can deal with it. PVE gamers are caught off guard. Yes, I am talking about griefers in PVE. Individuals who steal loot or intentionally wipe a group on NPCs are common examples. You can try to police the game all you want, but any sort of misunderstanding or disagreement can turn into something ugly.
I speak of personal experience of where I have seen the most heartache being directed at me. I have destroyed assets belonging to many individuals in Eve, but the biggest reaction I received was from a PVE game of which I asked for banked assets (all of which I donated) to be locked for 3 days, until the group speaks with an individual who has been clearing out the bank. Bank was locked, but when said individual noticed what happened, he lost his pride and what happened next was unbelievable. The situation escalated to where IRL friends (who knew the guy for decades) lost contact with him for months. All over in-game items for leveling characters.
The only way to reduce the player drama element in games is reduce the player interaction, but that doesn't make much for an MMO does it?
I am not competitive in any way in an MMO. You're just wrong.
Originally posted by DocBrodyWhy does every god damn MMO need to cater to carebears and have "options" and "choice", I could vomit when I read this old nonsense from developers. STOP MIXING UP PLAYSTYLES IN ONE AND THE SAME TITLE, do you hear me devs??Create 1 carebear MMO, next create 1 FFA PvAll MMO, put them in different boxes, profit.Seriously carebears need to GTFO of the next triple A title and go play the 374 other MMOs they ruined before.
Because there are more care bears. At the same time, there are many more people who are "care bears", but interested in PvP, but not in FFA PvP. It's a simple economic decision. This is definitely the case for people on this website. From the "Polls" features: Which is more important in an MMO, PvE or PvP? Opened: 02/19/2009 Respondents: 15483 PvP - 5.7% PvE - 14.8% PvP focus with a little PvE - 10.5% PvE focus with a little PvP - 34.8% Equal Parts PvE and PvP - 34.2% http://www.mmorpg.com/features.cfm/view/polls
I would have equal 5 years ago too. I still play both, but focus is pvp. Times have changed my friend, so are our mmorpgs. gogo FFA EQN!!!
Yeah, good luck with that. I really think if the game is FFA PvP, it's not going to be FFA PvP the way you think it's going to be FFA PvP. I think there's going to be a lot of "WTF?" happening when this game drops.
Heeey "not like i think" you trying slide out the back already?
Yep there will be righters and wrongers. Don't be on the wrong side of history!
op your logic is flawed!
* They haven't said anything specific about the game's mechanics. * EQ/2 has always been a PvE game. * The number of people who express a preference for FFA PvP is tiny compared to the number of people who express a preference for PvE or a combination of PvP and PvE. * The only specific thing is that EQN will be "New". FFA PvP as it was in UO, as it is in Eve and as it is in Darkfall would not be "New".
So if there is FFA PvP, it's not going to be the FFA PvP that people currently think of as FFA PvP. That's what I'm thinking anyway.
I think it would be funny, but cool, if EQN turned out to be setup like Minecraft, where people had their own personal servers, and could set the PvP to be the way they wanted.
This is important. It shouldn't be different from what most have come to know.. Wushu is a big step step in the right direction. It's a truly civil FFA world. It's amazing what risk reward systems can do.
You just have to zone the PvP, its not rocket science. The new ideas that have been mentioned like Wushu are a way forward too. But PvP is sorted out best by physical barriers not reward systems, maybe a combination of the two would work well.
To me, pvp is about player vs player combat in a fair condition status meaning they should be of the same level and same tier of gears. Why do people want to be flagged for PVP on or off is because, if ur not ready for pvp and someone bounced on you whileyour pve-ing you dont call that pvp, thats just plain PK aka player killing. 1st, people play games to enjoy the time, not to be so pissed of because someone had pvp full looted him and make his day bad thruout. Ganking from a group of people on you is not pvp, thats called Gank. Being killed by a max level when your maybe only half his levelis not pvp, thats called Grief.
When A, a target attacks B, B must be able to fight back and whether winning or losing depends on the player skills. How can it a combat when its just a one sided damage inflicting scenario.
Take an example of a human crushing an ant with his finger, u call that fighting the ant??
So 1st pvp must be on a fair condition state, 2nd if pvp is not flagged on/off , playing the game will not be a enjoyable time anymore, because u cant choose when you want to be more adventurous and on high alert at all times. Why bother playing a game when it makes your day bad and you dont have an option to choose in that game.
It's not that pvp mmo's are flawed it's the generic mmo's that most people play that are flawed. Most mmo's and built upon older games that do the same thing there are zounds of games similar to cabal online for example. At the time the game was ok and the pvp in it was sort of unique but then as more similar games started to spawn it started revealing it's flaws as the playerbases grew then simply died out.
But there are exceptions to mmo's that the developers could copy (if not improve). Two of those games are Eve online and Atalntica online both offering a very unique world and pvp system. Where in eve online you can get both simple 1v1 battles you can at the same time get huge fleet battles or small gangs. And in atlantica you get the city battles (guild vs guild with up to 6 players last i played the game) , 1v1 in the championship (league pvp or something similar where you gain divisions and increased rewards) and ofc the griefing pvp(king judgement or similar) where a leader of an nation can directly pvp someone anywhere as long as they can find him.
Both games have pvp and both games have pve and they manage to combine both elements really well (in my opinion at least).
TL;DR It can be done. It has been done. I WANT IT.
Some have come close, EVE, DAOC, AC and a few others. We just need a dev team that understands PvP will always be a part of a great MMO.
Just need to integrate it with the PvE to create a kind of balance. So we don't end up with a large part of the population playing PvP and not doing any PvE, or the other way around.
To me, pvp is about player vs player combat in a fair condition status meaning they should be of the same level and same tier of gears. Why do people want to be flagged for PVP on or off is because, if ur not ready for pvp and someone bounced on you whileyour pve-ing you dont call that pvp, thats just plain PK aka player killing. 1st, people play games to enjoy the time, not to be so pissed of because someone had pvp full looted him and make his day bad thruout. Ganking from a group of people on you is not pvp, thats called Gank. Being killed by a max level when your maybe only half his levelis not pvp, thats called Grief.
When A, a target attacks B, B must be able to fight back and whether winning or losing depends on the player skills. How can it a combat when its just a one sided damage inflicting scenario.
Take an example of a human crushing an ant with his finger, u call that fighting the ant??
So 1st pvp must be on a fair condition state, 2nd if pvp is not flagged on/off , playing the game will not be a enjoyable time anymore, because u cant choose when you want to be more adventurous and on high alert at all times. Why bother playing a game when it makes your day bad and you dont have an option to choose in that game.
Forgive my subpar english.
Exactly. I deal with unpleasant people all day long, 5 or 6 days a week. The very LAST thing I want in a game is to have to deal with that.
PVE MMO and servers are vastly more popular than PVP ones are.
If an open world PVP game is truly PVP, it means that 50% of the playerbase will get the short end of the stick, since they will statistically lose more fights than they will win them. At least part of this playerbase will end up leaving the game, which results in new players now becoming part of that 50% loser pool, which results in even more people leaving. Griefing probably just accelerates this process.
The way PVP works is flawed from the start, it divides the playerbase into losers and winners, which means it can never sustain itself.
Discuss.
1, aren't you assuming that the same people will always win and always lose? Isn't more the truth that most people will both win and lose?
2, so what if there are winners and losers? You don't want to lose? play well. You want to keep winning? Learn to adapt, change and continually play well.
3, you assume that people playing on a pvp server or in a pvp game are "not ok" with pvp or losing.
Exactly. There's also the matter of not everyone playing the PVP game. In EVE, there are a significant number of players who enjoy that the threat looms, but there is areasonable chance of avoidance or escape if prepared.
"The way PVP works is flawed from the start, it divides the playerbase into losers and winners, which means it can never sustain itself."
The NFL, NHL, PGA, NBA and many other organizations seem to do just fine.
CO, do you really do have trouble understanding that there are people capable of losing a competitive match/round/game without rage quitting?
The problem is the sports analogy you are using - NFL, etc - the money comes from people WATCHING the sport. This is why teams that don't do well, lose fans and lose money. It would be the same if people would actually buy the game to watch the PvP, but since there is nothing like that - your analogy does not work. People buying/subscribing are playing and yes you lose players.
PVE MMO and servers are vastly more popular than PVP ones are.
If an open world PVP game is truly PVP, it means that 50% of the playerbase will get the short end of the stick, since they will statistically lose more fights than they will win them. At least part of this playerbase will end up leaving the game, which results in new players now becoming part of that 50% loser pool, which results in even more people leaving. Griefing probably just accelerates this process.
The way PVP works is flawed from the start, it divides the playerbase into losers and winners, which means it can never sustain itself.
Discuss.
1, aren't you assuming that the same people will always win and always lose? Isn't more the truth that most people will both win and lose?
2, so what if there are winners and losers? You don't want to lose? play well. You want to keep winning? Learn to adapt, change and continually play well.
3, you assume that people playing on a pvp server or in a pvp game are "not ok" with pvp or losing.
Exactly. There's also the matter of not everyone playing the PVP game. In EVE, there are a significant number of players who enjoy that the threat looms, but there is areasonable chance of avoidance or escape if prepared.
"The way PVP works is flawed from the start, it divides the playerbase into losers and winners, which means it can never sustain itself."
The NFL, NHL, PGA, NBA and many other organizations seem to do just fine.
CO, do you really do have trouble understanding that there are people capable of losing a competitive match/round/game without rage quitting?
The problem is the sports analogy you are using - NFL, etc - the money comes from people WATCHING the sport. This is why teams that don't do well, lose fans and lose money. It would be the same if people would actually buy the game to watch the PvP, but since there is nothing like that - your analogy does not work. People buying/subscribing are playing and yes you lose players.
That's a cute view and all, but are you really suggesting that people will stop golfing or playing baseball if they aren't getting paid to do so? Is that really where you're choosing to go here? I mean, doesn't that mean these sports would have died out a century or so ago? Why are parks still adding tennis courts and baseball fields?
You saw a couple acronyms and latched onto them without looking at the bigger picture.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Scot You just have to zone the PvP, its not rocket science. The new ideas that have been mentioned like Wushu are a way forward too. But PvP is sorted out best by physical barriers not reward systems, maybe a combination of the two would work well.
It works best when it is framed as an option. Push this button, and you will be taken to a battleground.
There is no reason to ram pvp down throats of those who don't want it. We are talking about entertainment here.
Originally posted by Scot You just have to zone the PvP, its not rocket science. The new ideas that have been mentioned like Wushu are a way forward too. But PvP is sorted out best by physical barriers not reward systems, maybe a combination of the two would work well.
It works best when it is framed as an option. Push this button, and you will be taken to a battleground.
There is no reason to ram pvp down throats of those who don't want it. We are talking about entertainment here.
I think it works best when you "push this button and will be taken to an instance." or a questing zone. Stop trying force quest down the throats of people who don't want it.
I think we've all had our share of fetch and kill quests, and the industry has taken notice. Risk, reward, and punishment, player driven systems.
PVE MMO and servers are vastly more popular than PVP ones are.
If an open world PVP game is truly PVP, it means that 50% of the playerbase will get the short end of the stick, since they will statistically lose more fights than they will win them. At least part of this playerbase will end up leaving the game, which results in new players now becoming part of that 50% loser pool, which results in even more people leaving. Griefing probably just accelerates this process.
The way PVP works is flawed from the start, it divides the playerbase into losers and winners, which means it can never sustain itself.
Discuss.
Where did you get this info?
If you look at the current top 10 most populated WoW servers, 8 are PVP servers.
Originally posted by Scot You just have to zone the PvP, its not rocket science. The new ideas that have been mentioned like Wushu are a way forward too. But PvP is sorted out best by physical barriers not reward systems, maybe a combination of the two would work well.
It works best when it is framed as an option. Push this button, and you will be taken to a battleground.
There is no reason to ram pvp down throats of those who don't want it. We are talking about entertainment here.
I think it works best when you "push this button and will be taken to an instance." or a questing zone. Stop trying force quest down the throats of people who don't want it.
I think we've all had our share of fetch and kill quests, and the industry has taken notice. Risk, reward, and punishment, player driven systems.
We are not talking about quests here ... but yes
Choices are good. That is why LFD is so popular. Quick choice of where to go dungeoning. And if you don't want quests, you can always hit a button and queue pvp.
That is why MP levels in D3 is a big success. Choices for difficulty options.
which .. lead me back to in this view, pvp should be an option, just like quests, dungeons, and difficulty levels.
Comments
Except most PvE MMOs do the exact same thing. You have the winners (those who keep up max raiding gear) and those that don't.
The only real difference is that PvP MMOs (when done right) force the players to earn their own achievements, while the PvE MMOs are designed to make the average player feel as powerful as possible. It's entirely a matter of preference.
Some gamers play games because they want to feel badass, but don't want the trouble of actually earning it. Others enjoy the challenge.
Could not agree more that this is probably the only way to do it.
On the MMO front: societies that promote interaction among individuals need plenty of rules and guardians of those rules in order to thrive and avoid the tragedy of the commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Hence, you can expect a PVP-oriented MMO to resemble real-life, with lots of rules and regulations and enforcement of such. That's a lot of overhead to ask out of an MMO, and it's questionable how many of the PVP-oriented players want all of that.
In fact, there just was a related thread bemoaning the lack of "survival of the fittest" MMOs that don't have all of these rules. If that's what those players really want, then like real-life, the most powerful residents of those worlds must move of their own accord to create some semblance of order that allows the weaker members to survive.
I would have equal 5 years ago too. I still play both, but focus is pvp. Times have changed my friend, so are our mmorpgs. gogo FFA EQN!!!
Yeah, good luck with that. I really think if the game is FFA PvP, it's not going to be FFA PvP the way you think it's going to be FFA PvP. I think there's going to be a lot of "WTF?" happening when this game drops.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That was my take away as well, and all I can say is, if a person has a problem with losing, the last place they should be is on a PVP server.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Heeey "not like i think" you trying slide out the back already?
Yep there will be righters and wrongers. Don't be on the wrong side of history!
op your logic is flawed!
PvP is a competitive activity by nature. There are winners and loosers, its not going to be like those f***ing little league games that award trophies to everyone.
DAoC is really the only MMO I stuck a long time with, and the majority of the area of the game is PvE areas. If you took up the space used in PvE, it's like twice the size of the frontier and all the battlegrounds. I think the problem most MMOs have with PvP is they don't provide any real incentive to PvP. OOOO I can get 2628787 place after 5 years of playing nothing pvp? oh what fun. DAoC had a great system to make people want to PvP. Mythic turned thier players into realmists. Almost everyone that played DAoC hated the other side with such a passion, they really didn't have to add much more to get people to like to PvP. However, they also added the incentive of capture relics for your entire realm, you could capture and upgrade keeps/towers.
I think most developers think PvP and they automatically think it has to be on all the time. If you look at the entire community as a whole, the vast majority of players have spoken that they don't want full PvP. Go look at WoW's server populations. There's like 50x as many PvE servers full over PvP, especially in Asia.
It's not just WoW either, pretty much every MMO that has both PvE and PvP servers, the PvE servers always are by far more populated.
I would have equal 5 years ago too. I still play both, but focus is pvp. Times have changed my friend, so are our mmorpgs. gogo FFA EQN!!!
Yeah, good luck with that. I really think if the game is FFA PvP, it's not going to be FFA PvP the way you think it's going to be FFA PvP. I think there's going to be a lot of "WTF?" happening when this game drops.
Heeey "not like i think" you trying slide out the back already?
Yep there will be righters and wrongers. Don't be on the wrong side of history!
op your logic is flawed!
* They haven't said anything specific about the game's mechanics.
* EQ/2 has always been a PvE game.
* The number of people who express a preference for FFA PvP is tiny compared to the number of people who express a preference for PvE or a combination of PvP and PvE.
* The only specific thing is that EQN will be "New". FFA PvP as it was in UO, as it is in Eve and as it is in Darkfall would not be "New".
So if there is FFA PvP, it's not going to be the FFA PvP that people currently think of as FFA PvP. That's what I'm thinking anyway.
I think it would be funny, but cool, if EQN turned out to be setup like Minecraft, where people had their own personal servers, and could set the PvP to be the way they wanted.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Imagine, for one brief moment. You purchase a game under one title, pure pvp. Or a second game title, pure pve.
Six months later, players realize that they've purchased the same game, only marketed entirely seperately--one as "Hardcore Bloodbath Killgore", and the other as "Forest of Nevermore".
But since they play on different servers, they don't mix, and they don't have to constantly hate and insult each other.
Wow...it's almost like someone already had this idea and invented this separate servers thing for the some reason /gawk.
Exactly. There's also the matter of not everyone playing the PVP game. In EVE, there are a significant number of players who enjoy that the threat looms, but there is areasonable chance of avoidance or escape if prepared.
"The way PVP works is flawed from the start, it divides the playerbase into losers and winners, which means it can never sustain itself."
The NFL, NHL, PGA, NBA and many other organizations seem to do just fine.
CO, do you really do have trouble understanding that there are people capable of losing a competitive match/round/game without rage quitting?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I am not competitive in any way in an MMO. You're just wrong.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Or the people who don't give a damn about keeping up with the Jones' and just have our own fun without dick waving to everyone else.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
This is important. It shouldn't be different from what most have come to know.. Wushu is a big step step in the right direction. It's a truly civil FFA world. It's amazing what risk reward systems can do.
Let's see what EQN can come up with.
To me, pvp is about player vs player combat in a fair condition status meaning they should be of the same level and same tier of gears. Why do people want to be flagged for PVP on or off is because, if ur not ready for pvp and someone bounced on you whileyour pve-ing you dont call that pvp, thats just plain PK aka player killing. 1st, people play games to enjoy the time, not to be so pissed of because someone had pvp full looted him and make his day bad thruout. Ganking from a group of people on you is not pvp, thats called Gank. Being killed by a max level when your maybe only half his levelis not pvp, thats called Grief.
When A, a target attacks B, B must be able to fight back and whether winning or losing depends on the player skills. How can it a combat when its just a one sided damage inflicting scenario.
Take an example of a human crushing an ant with his finger, u call that fighting the ant??
So 1st pvp must be on a fair condition state, 2nd if pvp is not flagged on/off , playing the game will not be a enjoyable time anymore, because u cant choose when you want to be more adventurous and on high alert at all times. Why bother playing a game when it makes your day bad and you dont have an option to choose in that game.
Forgive my subpar english.
It's not that pvp mmo's are flawed it's the generic mmo's that most people play that are flawed. Most mmo's and built upon older games that do the same thing there are zounds of games similar to cabal online for example. At the time the game was ok and the pvp in it was sort of unique but then as more similar games started to spawn it started revealing it's flaws as the playerbases grew then simply died out.
But there are exceptions to mmo's that the developers could copy (if not improve). Two of those games are Eve online and Atalntica online both offering a very unique world and pvp system. Where in eve online you can get both simple 1v1 battles you can at the same time get huge fleet battles or small gangs. And in atlantica you get the city battles (guild vs guild with up to 6 players last i played the game) , 1v1 in the championship (league pvp or something similar where you gain divisions and increased rewards) and ofc the griefing pvp(king judgement or similar) where a leader of an nation can directly pvp someone anywhere as long as they can find him.
Both games have pvp and both games have pve and they manage to combine both elements really well (in my opinion at least).
TL;DR It can be done. It has been done. I WANT IT.
Cheers.
Game devs just haven't done it right.
Some have come close, EVE, DAOC, AC and a few others. We just need a dev team that understands PvP will always be a part of a great MMO.
Just need to integrate it with the PvE to create a kind of balance. So we don't end up with a large part of the population playing PvP and not doing any PvE, or the other way around.
I have seen this in the last few MMOs.
Exactly. I deal with unpleasant people all day long, 5 or 6 days a week. The very LAST thing I want in a game is to have to deal with that.
The problem is the sports analogy you are using - NFL, etc - the money comes from people WATCHING the sport. This is why teams that don't do well, lose fans and lose money. It would be the same if people would actually buy the game to watch the PvP, but since there is nothing like that - your analogy does not work. People buying/subscribing are playing and yes you lose players.
That's a cute view and all, but are you really suggesting that people will stop golfing or playing baseball if they aren't getting paid to do so? Is that really where you're choosing to go here? I mean, doesn't that mean these sports would have died out a century or so ago? Why are parks still adding tennis courts and baseball fields?
You saw a couple acronyms and latched onto them without looking at the bigger picture.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It works best when it is framed as an option. Push this button, and you will be taken to a battleground.
There is no reason to ram pvp down throats of those who don't want it. We are talking about entertainment here.
I think it works best when you "push this button and will be taken to an instance." or a questing zone. Stop trying force quest down the throats of people who don't want it.
I think we've all had our share of fetch and kill quests, and the industry has taken notice. Risk, reward, and punishment, player driven systems.
Where did you get this info?
If you look at the current top 10 most populated WoW servers, 8 are PVP servers.
We are not talking about quests here ... but yes
Choices are good. That is why LFD is so popular. Quick choice of where to go dungeoning. And if you don't want quests, you can always hit a button and queue pvp.
That is why MP levels in D3 is a big success. Choices for difficulty options.
which .. lead me back to in this view, pvp should be an option, just like quests, dungeons, and difficulty levels.