I still hold out hope that with some creative systems to discourage the worst of the PvP behaviors we could have a good game with great PvE , group content as well as Open World PvP interaction, contested resources, guild wars,etc...
It really depends on what you consider to be "worst of PvP behaviour", and how far you think "discouragement" should go.
Personally, the "worst PvP behaviour" does not bother me if it is rare. It is the small annoying PvP that bothers me and which is why I prefer consensual PvP games. I treat PvE content as a puzzle to solve and PvP interrupts that. It's like trying to solve a Sudoku but your little brother keeps interrupting you so you can watch him make a funny face. You'll humor him for a while but at some point you just want to finish your damn Sudoku. Some people can multi task well enough to keep going while also dealing with the distraction but for me I prefer to concentrate on the task at hand.
So to me, the only satisfactory way to "discourge" someone who attacks me while I am doing non-PvP stuff is to enact a penalty that will be severe enough that he does not do it again for a long time. Most non-consensual PvPer would quit rather than endure such penalties.
I do not believe a compromise solution is possible because neither side would find a compromise fun enough to stick with the game.
I have always been a predominantly PVE focused player who dabbles in PVP (and often enjoys it) now and again. Advanced, difficult and even punishing AI is something that I ( and I think a lot of players like me) would welcome. AI will never (hopefully) be vindictive or grief for the sheer, misguided joy of it though.
PVP can be some of the most fun gameplay out there but it unfortunately enables a lot of awful behavior and I would never look disparagingly at someone who doesn't want to spend their leisure time dealing with that. At the end of the day the best punishments for griefing in these systems amount to a loss or additional expenditure of time and, unfortunately, a lot of people who indulge in this style of "play" have far to much of that on their hands already.
So? Either the idea itself is bad, so it is very hard to do properly. Either case, the market has moved on to other ideas.
You mean the very same market that moved on to Dumbed Down Theampark games and 8 years later has proclaimed Sandboxes and Virtual worlds are the future.... the furture for some younger players but many of us old timers were playing the original MMOs, Sandbox / Virtual worlds, before Themparks were invented
Important disclaimer **I am not looking to troll , I am just commenting how sensitive this subject matter is**
As long as I have been an active member of this community, and its longer than the picture shows...I am still surprised how polarizing the subject of pvp is.
Asking a pve'r to talk about pvp is akin to putting salt and lemon into an open cut.
So, if you've been around for a while, simply consider the source of the original post and it all makes sense.
^ Oh I know
I still can't help but wonder, if generally speaking, the typical "non vocal" mmo player hates PvP as much as the vocal minority here do, or to be fair, LOVES PvP as much as the other vocal minority here.
Based off my own experience, I have never had a quarter of the shit happen to me that many of the PVE'rs claim. It makes me think, that time has multiplied and exaggerated the unpleasant experience.
I wonder if the anti pvp "pve'rs" were taught how to be good....would they like it?
Shit...if people can be free of their LIFE LONG HORRENDOUS fear of flying in a half an hour.....I'm sure I could get PVE'rs to switch teams !!
Important disclaimer **I am not looking to troll , I am just commenting how sensitive this subject matter is**
As long as I have been an active member of this community, and its longer than the picture shows...I am still surprised how polarizing the subject of pvp is.
Asking a pve'r to talk about pvp is akin to putting salt and lemon into an open cut.
So, if you've been around for a while, simply consider the source of the original post and it all makes sense.
^ Oh I know
I still can't help but wonder, if generally speaking, the typical "non vocal" mmo player hates PvP as much as the vocal minority here do, or to be fair, LOVES PvP as much as the other vocal minority here.
Based off my own experience, I have never had a quarter of the shit happen to me that many of the PVE'rs claim. It makes me think, that time has multiplied and exaggerated the unpleasant experience.
I wonder if the anti pvp "pve'rs" were taught how to be good....would they like it?
Shit...if people can be free of their LIFE LONG HORRENDOUS fear of flying in a half an hour.....I'm sure I could get PVE'rs to switch teams !!
What you are asking is if you can "teach" people to like something. Perhaps but I think they would have to be interested in it in the first place. And thinking that you can some how teach someone to be good probably isn't going to work most of the time either. If they were going to be good they most likely would have a keen interest and would learn things on there own. Then there are the physical and mental limitations that many of us ordinary, non pvp, players have. It could be slow reflexes or an inability to think under pressure. You can take the average Joe gamer and probably improve his game a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean he will be good at it, or that he will like it even when he is more skilled at it.
And thats the big misconception PvP players seem to have. Oh if you only knew the thrill of hunting and being hunted by another player!! Oh the joy, the rapture!!!
Uh....no. We do know what it is like and we don't like it. Or some may like it a little but not all the time. So in other words you can no more "teach" someone to like PvP any more than I could teach you to like being a carebear!
Oh, if only I could teach poor Joe to stop and smell these roses!! But all he wants to do is kill, kill, kill.......
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
It takes 82,944 processors, 40 minutes in order to simulate 1 second of brain activity. So I doubt Enemy AI are even close to achieving that.
As for advanced AI, it isn't about making it more human, but the idea of building intelligence into a system that can adapt to players, scaling and making dynamic choices.
Current gaming technology uses something called one direction scripting, dungeons and events can only play out in single vertical progression. Branches, such as GW2 dungeons, are determine by a single variable, players' vote. This isn't dynamic, not even close, most players call this linear progression.
Now compare to PvP, the difference is that the enemies are controlled by another player, but you are still bound by the system, you cannot do more than what the system has been designed for, and currently, that ceiling is very easily reached.
Because of biggest emphasis on balance, PvP is actually even more limited than PvE. Every player need to stand on a legitimate chance of success, in order to create genuine competition, instead of 'ganks'. Basically think of it this way, if you put two players against each other, they will think of every possible way to break the system, therefore enforcing a higher restriction is needed, and that often affect the PvE side of things, because the game needs to feel unified.
As for advanced AI, if the game world is more reactive to the players, therefore making choices on its own indirectly based on player actions, that is the direction of AI. Evil forces won't just continuously attacking this one targeted base, put will try to evade and attack surrounding area base on its own judgement. They will build strategy base on the highest chance of success.
If you look from this angle, future PvE can be more interesting than PvP because PvP will focus on systems that is restricted by balance issues and exploits, whereas PvE, systems will focus on empowering the players to make greater decisions.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW? As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by HolophonistOriginally posted by PurutzilPvP honestly isn't that 'difficult' or 'skill based' as people love to claim. In the end, you are versing a character with exactly the same limitations as you. PvE has in its prime form the ability to be vastly more difficult, having far more crazy mechanics behind it that PvP falls drastically short in comparison to being able to pull off. This only becomes more true looking at the meat of PvP essencially being down to "CC/heal/pound away". Games have done better on this end with more games coming out that do take more skill (action games with aiming) though its not exactly up to par with what PvE can accomplish and its unlikely it ever will.PvP is often times fixated on 'cheaping' out the enemy, a reason I despise it and LOVE countering that noob ganker who can't play worth crap trying to do it. PvE on the other hand is designed away from limitations, having abilities and mechanics that would be OP for players to mimic that can be vastly more dangerous without relying on 'cheap' elements such as stun locking or other rather lack luster tools.
This is literally the opposite of reality. I've never ever played a game that had pve that was harder than the most difficult pvp I've run into.Sure you technically could make a monster that's almost impossible to beat, but that's exactly the kind of thing non-pvp crowd people like to complain about: an uneven fight.Also, whatever the most difficult pve you can think of is, somebody has beaten it and it took them less time and effort than people put into pvp games.Look at at starcraft... Korean kids are basically chained to computers for 14 hours a day for years, practicing the game. And some of them still get destroyed by other players.If what you're saying is true, why are all the competitive games pvp focused? Where are the pve games at mlg et al? Why are there speedruns of incredibly difficult games like dark souls? Because competing against humans is more difficult. If you're talking about match based PvP, sure. The difficulty is designed to match players against other players who are as good. OW PvP is a different story. The whole point is to win, and without the restrictions of match based PvP, stacking the deck with more players or only attacking weaker players is a valid strategy. If the AI is more intelligent, players can expect something much more similar to match based PvP, but in the open world. Of course, it all depends on the AI, doesn't it? To be honest, it wouldn't matter if the AI were only marginally better than existing AI systems. The players who prefer a choice when to engage in world PvP are still going to prefer that choice. So are you suggesting that the mobs you'd be fighting in these "harder" pve games are always of an equal level to you? never higher? And they never outnumber you? You're saying that pvp games don't count as being harder than pve games because people will try to create advantages for themselves. How is that different from a mob having 10x your hp or whatever?
You are being deliberately obtuse to try and brute force your way to an end point that says, "Intelligent AI = OW PvP". If you are truly incapable of knowing the difference between AI, intelligent or not, and OW PvP then most of this discussion has been over your head, and can't have been very much fun.
Several people have explained the difference between players being the antagonists and the AI being the antagonists. I thought I had explained it up there, but I'll lay it out again just to see what happens.
Players, throughout the history of MMORPG more often than not prefer PvE with optional PvP to OW PvP. When players do engage in PvP, far more players engage in match based PvP with an expectation of roughly equal odds.
OW PvP, by design, does not allow for roughly equal odds. It is inherently unfair because humans will stack the deck in their favor if they can. More intelligent AI can give the experience of something like match based PvP, without going over into inherently unfair game play. AI will have the added bonus of not breaking character, win or lose.
Not breaking character is probably more important than the combat aspects of the AI. If the AI can actually have desires and make decisions, then it creates a more convincing illusion that the world the players are in is a real thing, and not just a stage play. Even if the AI has weak combat skills compared to players, creating a consistent narrative for the player will give the players satisfaction.
But again, I feel like I need to say that it depends on the developer's implementation. Story Bricks is a cool system, but that doesn't mean SOE is going to do a good job with it. They may not create a living world. It might only be slightly better than WoW's quest givers with exclamation points over their heads. We won't know until the game actually releases.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Margulis Hey OP - if it's the same thing, which you're trying so hard to convince everyone of, why don't you just play PvE from now on? I mean it's the same thing right, so you should have no problem with that.
I see this major push lately for High Advanced AI for NPC.
but if the NPC get too advanced wouldn't they function like a real human?
in other words, PLAYER VS PLAYER,,,,,,,?
but I was under the impression that PvErs don't like a heavy dose of PvP in their face all the time.
but advanced AI that mimics actual intelligence would be just that same thing. Constant PvP.
So why do you want that?
Not at all. I do not think about any NPC being really evil. This is possible only with real people.
Arthas character in Northrend was pretty evil. he would even kill low level players who were foolish to attack him during quest.
It's evil to kill the person that decided to suddenly start stabbing you?
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
Nah, better AI doesn't always mean smarter or blood thirsty. Without significant death penalties and potential for loss, people don't act realistically in MMOs. Where a real scenario would result in surrender to save your life, players will just fight to the death and act as though there are no consequences.
NPCs on the other hand can be forced to consider these realistic elements. Also some NPCs may roam and hunt opportunistic ally, rather than only seeking a fight. Others might be dim witted but fight in numbers. PvP just can't cover all those experiences.
That being said, I hope there is owpvp with meaningful alignments, factions and penalties.
Originally posted by lizardbones Several people have explained the difference between players being the antagonists and the AI being the antagonists.
The most striking one is that NPC antagonists are there to create a positive game experience for the player that encounters them. Player antagonists are there to create a positive game experience for themselves, which many times conflicts with what would create a positive game experience for the other player.
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
Important disclaimer **I am not looking to troll , I am just commenting how sensitive this subject matter is**
As long as I have been an active member of this community, and its longer than the picture shows...I am still surprised how polarizing the subject of pvp is.
Asking a pve'r to talk about pvp is akin to putting salt and lemon into an open cut.
So, if you've been around for a while, simply consider the source of the original post and it all makes sense.
^ Oh I know
I still can't help but wonder, if generally speaking, the typical "non vocal" mmo player hates PvP as much as the vocal minority here do, or to be fair, LOVES PvP as much as the other vocal minority here.
Based off my own experience, I have never had a quarter of the shit happen to me that many of the PVE'rs claim. It makes me think, that time has multiplied and exaggerated the unpleasant experience.
I wonder if the anti pvp "pve'rs" were taught how to be good....would they like it?
Shit...if people can be free of their LIFE LONG HORRENDOUS fear of flying in a half an hour.....I'm sure I could get PVE'rs to switch teams !!
What you are asking is if you can "teach" people to like something. Perhaps but I think they would have to be interested in it in the first place. And thinking that you can some how teach someone to be good probably isn't going to work most of the time either. If they were going to be good they most likely would have a keen interest and would learn things on there own. Then there are the physical and mental limitations that many of us ordinary, non pvp, players have. It could be slow reflexes or an inability to think under pressure. You can take the average Joe gamer and probably improve his game a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean he will be good at it, or that he will like it even when he is more skilled at it.
And thats the big misconception PvP players seem to have. Oh if you only knew the thrill of hunting and being hunted by another player!! Oh the joy, the rapture!!!
Uh....no. We do know what it is like and we don't like it. Or some may like it a little but not all the time. So in other words you can no more "teach" someone to like PvP any more than I could teach you to like being a carebear!
Oh, if only I could teach poor Joe to stop and smell these roses!! But all he wants to do is kill, kill, kill.......
That's a fair point. I can see how 'some' might feel that way. I don't care for RTS games. But you wont hear me respond to the thought of RTS with the same anger that many of the pver's have shown in this thread..
Their verbage shows how they feel. It's not just a mild disdain.That comes from something that happened.
I am not suggesting that I could teach someone to like PvP, but I could remove the negative response. If that wasn't there then who knows.
Tell me about your relationship with your mother -Freud :P
Comments
Exactly.
I just pointed out that they haven't been tried though.
It really depends on what you consider to be "worst of PvP behaviour", and how far you think "discouragement" should go.
Personally, the "worst PvP behaviour" does not bother me if it is rare. It is the small annoying PvP that bothers me and which is why I prefer consensual PvP games. I treat PvE content as a puzzle to solve and PvP interrupts that. It's like trying to solve a Sudoku but your little brother keeps interrupting you so you can watch him make a funny face. You'll humor him for a while but at some point you just want to finish your damn Sudoku. Some people can multi task well enough to keep going while also dealing with the distraction but for me I prefer to concentrate on the task at hand.
So to me, the only satisfactory way to "discourge" someone who attacks me while I am doing non-PvP stuff is to enact a penalty that will be severe enough that he does not do it again for a long time. Most non-consensual PvPer would quit rather than endure such penalties.
I do not believe a compromise solution is possible because neither side would find a compromise fun enough to stick with the game.
I have always been a predominantly PVE focused player who dabbles in PVP (and often enjoys it) now and again. Advanced, difficult and even punishing AI is something that I ( and I think a lot of players like me) would welcome. AI will never (hopefully) be vindictive or grief for the sheer, misguided joy of it though.
PVP can be some of the most fun gameplay out there but it unfortunately enables a lot of awful behavior and I would never look disparagingly at someone who doesn't want to spend their leisure time dealing with that. At the end of the day the best punishments for griefing in these systems amount to a loss or additional expenditure of time and, unfortunately, a lot of people who indulge in this style of "play" have far to much of that on their hands already.
You mean the very same market that moved on to Dumbed Down Theampark games and 8 years later has proclaimed Sandboxes and Virtual worlds are the future.... the furture for some younger players but many of us old timers were playing the original MMOs, Sandbox / Virtual worlds, before Themparks were invented
^ Oh I know
I still can't help but wonder, if generally speaking, the typical "non vocal" mmo player hates PvP as much as the vocal minority here do, or to be fair, LOVES PvP as much as the other vocal minority here.
Based off my own experience, I have never had a quarter of the shit happen to me that many of the PVE'rs claim. It makes me think, that time has multiplied and exaggerated the unpleasant experience.
I wonder if the anti pvp "pve'rs" were taught how to be good....would they like it?
Shit...if people can be free of their LIFE LONG HORRENDOUS fear of flying in a half an hour.....I'm sure I could get PVE'rs to switch teams !!
What you are asking is if you can "teach" people to like something. Perhaps but I think they would have to be interested in it in the first place. And thinking that you can some how teach someone to be good probably isn't going to work most of the time either. If they were going to be good they most likely would have a keen interest and would learn things on there own. Then there are the physical and mental limitations that many of us ordinary, non pvp, players have. It could be slow reflexes or an inability to think under pressure. You can take the average Joe gamer and probably improve his game a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean he will be good at it, or that he will like it even when he is more skilled at it.
And thats the big misconception PvP players seem to have. Oh if you only knew the thrill of hunting and being hunted by another player!! Oh the joy, the rapture!!!
Uh....no. We do know what it is like and we don't like it. Or some may like it a little but not all the time. So in other words you can no more "teach" someone to like PvP any more than I could teach you to like being a carebear!
Oh, if only I could teach poor Joe to stop and smell these roses!! But all he wants to do is kill, kill, kill.......
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
It takes 82,944 processors, 40 minutes in order to simulate 1 second of brain activity. So I doubt Enemy AI are even close to achieving that.
As for advanced AI, it isn't about making it more human, but the idea of building intelligence into a system that can adapt to players, scaling and making dynamic choices.
Current gaming technology uses something called one direction scripting, dungeons and events can only play out in single vertical progression. Branches, such as GW2 dungeons, are determine by a single variable, players' vote. This isn't dynamic, not even close, most players call this linear progression.
Now compare to PvP, the difference is that the enemies are controlled by another player, but you are still bound by the system, you cannot do more than what the system has been designed for, and currently, that ceiling is very easily reached.
Because of biggest emphasis on balance, PvP is actually even more limited than PvE. Every player need to stand on a legitimate chance of success, in order to create genuine competition, instead of 'ganks'. Basically think of it this way, if you put two players against each other, they will think of every possible way to break the system, therefore enforcing a higher restriction is needed, and that often affect the PvE side of things, because the game needs to feel unified.
As for advanced AI, if the game world is more reactive to the players, therefore making choices on its own indirectly based on player actions, that is the direction of AI. Evil forces won't just continuously attacking this one targeted base, put will try to evade and attack surrounding area base on its own judgement. They will build strategy base on the highest chance of success.
If you look from this angle, future PvE can be more interesting than PvP because PvP will focus on systems that is restricted by balance issues and exploits, whereas PvE, systems will focus on empowering the players to make greater decisions.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
If you're talking about match based PvP, sure. The difficulty is designed to match players against other players who are as good. OW PvP is a different story. The whole point is to win, and without the restrictions of match based PvP, stacking the deck with more players or only attacking weaker players is a valid strategy. If the AI is more intelligent, players can expect something much more similar to match based PvP, but in the open world. Of course, it all depends on the AI, doesn't it? To be honest, it wouldn't matter if the AI were only marginally better than existing AI systems. The players who prefer a choice when to engage in world PvP are still going to prefer that choice.
So are you suggesting that the mobs you'd be fighting in these "harder" pve games are always of an equal level to you? never higher? And they never outnumber you? You're saying that pvp games don't count as being harder than pve games because people will try to create advantages for themselves. How is that different from a mob having 10x your hp or whatever?
You are being deliberately obtuse to try and brute force your way to an end point that says, "Intelligent AI = OW PvP". If you are truly incapable of knowing the difference between AI, intelligent or not, and OW PvP then most of this discussion has been over your head, and can't have been very much fun.
Several people have explained the difference between players being the antagonists and the AI being the antagonists. I thought I had explained it up there, but I'll lay it out again just to see what happens.
Players, throughout the history of MMORPG more often than not prefer PvE with optional PvP to OW PvP. When players do engage in PvP, far more players engage in match based PvP with an expectation of roughly equal odds.
OW PvP, by design, does not allow for roughly equal odds. It is inherently unfair because humans will stack the deck in their favor if they can. More intelligent AI can give the experience of something like match based PvP, without going over into inherently unfair game play. AI will have the added bonus of not breaking character, win or lose.
Not breaking character is probably more important than the combat aspects of the AI. If the AI can actually have desires and make decisions, then it creates a more convincing illusion that the world the players are in is a real thing, and not just a stage play. Even if the AI has weak combat skills compared to players, creating a consistent narrative for the player will give the players satisfaction.
But again, I feel like I need to say that it depends on the developer's implementation. Story Bricks is a cool system, but that doesn't mean SOE is going to do a good job with it. They may not create a living world. It might only be slightly better than WoW's quest givers with exclamation points over their heads. We won't know until the game actually releases.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
High AI (human like if it in a dream) wasn't make a player vs player game
What difference between PVP and PVE with high AI are in PVE , when it end . there are no more trouble left.
But it PVP , do you think it ready end in peaceful way?
Dealing with human player are more annoying than NPC AI , and some time it even cause real life trouble for those who can't control themselves .
?
?
? ?
?
?
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Arthas character in Northrend was pretty evil. he would even kill low level players who were foolish to attack him during quest.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
It's evil to kill the person that decided to suddenly start stabbing you?
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
NPCs on the other hand can be forced to consider these realistic elements. Also some NPCs may roam and hunt opportunistic ally, rather than only seeking a fight. Others might be dim witted but fight in numbers. PvP just can't cover all those experiences.
That being said, I hope there is owpvp with meaningful alignments, factions and penalties.
The most striking one is that NPC antagonists are there to create a positive game experience for the player that encounters them. Player antagonists are there to create a positive game experience for themselves, which many times conflicts with what would create a positive game experience for the other player.
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
That's a fair point. I can see how 'some' might feel that way. I don't care for RTS games. But you wont hear me respond to the thought of RTS with the same anger that many of the pver's have shown in this thread..
Their verbage shows how they feel. It's not just a mild disdain.That comes from something that happened.
I am not suggesting that I could teach someone to like PvP, but I could remove the negative response. If that wasn't there then who knows.
Tell me about your relationship with your mother -Freud :P
But he still did other evil things.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design