They must consider the existence of the internet when writing their games. This isn't exclusive to RPGs, this is just something that people need to consider when writing their game. If they are going to consider the internet and players interacting with each other in their games, then they need to consider aspects of PvP. One of the possible choices is to not include it at all. Ditto for letting people play together. It's not a requirement, but it is a consideration.
MMORPGs are RPGs where "playing together" is a given. In that environment, PvP must be considered, even if the decision is to not include it. Including PvP does not make an MMORPG something other than an MMORPG. Including PvP in an RPG would not turn that RPG into something other than an RPG.
Ultima Online was the first game where the term "MMORPG" was used. Ultima Online is the original template for MMORPGs. Ultima Online included PvP as a major game play mechanic when released. PvP as a game play mechanic is a common or core mechanic to consider when writing an MMORPG.
Computer RPGs were written from or even copied from PnP RPGs. PnP RPGs included PvP as a game mechanic, and if they didn't, players certainly introduced it. PvP has been a part of RPGs longer than computer RPGs have existed. Where it's possible for players to interact with each other in-game, PvP is something is considered, even if the choice is to make it impossible.
Again, I didnt say it has no place or cannot be included, but to call a game predicated on PVP an RPG/MMORPG is not even close to accurate. PnP is a VERY different beast than computer gaming. When computer RPGs and Console RPGs came out there was no PVP...to this day there still isnt, EVEN with co-op modes. Why do you think that is? Could it be that makers of these games know who their audience is?
That's silly. Console RPGs didn't have PvP because it was impossible or because there were so few people who networked their systems together, it wasn't feasible to program that stuff in there. As soon as it was possible to network that stuff together, PvP became an option.
MMORPGs literally came into existence with PvP baked in.
PvP has always been a consideration of games and video games. RPGs are no exception to this.
Then why isn't there pvp included in any RPG's on computer consoles? At least any i know of? You can skirt this anyway you want, but there is an absolute.
They must consider the existence of the internet when writing their games. This isn't exclusive to RPGs, this is just something that people need to consider when writing their game. If they are going to consider the internet and players interacting with each other in their games, then they need to consider aspects of PvP. One of the possible choices is to not include it at all. Ditto for letting people play together. It's not a requirement, but it is a consideration.
MMORPGs are RPGs where "playing together" is a given. In that environment, PvP must be considered, even if the decision is to not include it. Including PvP does not make an MMORPG something other than an MMORPG. Including PvP in an RPG would not turn that RPG into something other than an RPG.
Ultima Online was the first game where the term "MMORPG" was used. Ultima Online is the original template for MMORPGs. Ultima Online included PvP as a major game play mechanic when released. PvP as a game play mechanic is a common or core mechanic to consider when writing an MMORPG.
Computer RPGs were written from or even copied from PnP RPGs. PnP RPGs included PvP as a game mechanic, and if they didn't, players certainly introduced it. PvP has been a part of RPGs longer than computer RPGs have existed. Where it's possible for players to interact with each other in-game, PvP is something is considered, even if the choice is to make it impossible.
Again, I didnt say it has no place or cannot be included, but to call a game predicated on PVP an RPG/MMORPG is not even close to accurate. PnP is a VERY different beast than computer gaming. When computer RPGs and Console RPGs came out there was no PVP...to this day there still isnt, EVEN with co-op modes. Why do you think that is? Could it be that makers of these games know who their audience is?
That's silly. Console RPGs didn't have PvP because it was impossible or because there were so few people who networked their systems together, it wasn't feasible to program that stuff in there. As soon as it was possible to network that stuff together, PvP became an option.
MMORPGs literally came into existence with PvP baked in.
PvP has always been a consideration of games and video games. RPGs are no exception to this.
Then why isn't there pvp included in any RPG's on computer consoles? At least any i know of? You can skirt this anyway you want, but there is an absolute.
One last point though, PvP and pking in games has to be done right. It has to be thought out and almost have the game planned around it being the center of focus, if not you run into the unbalanced griefing that most people hate. I fear this issue will be too much for most MMO developers to over come. not because it can't be done , but because it would require changing the way all MMO's are currently played. Really . Combat matrix / movement / hit allocation , the way death works , respawns , crowd control , so many things that it really would be a whole new genre of gaming unlike any we have seen to date.
Oh how i would love to see one , but much like a sasquatch , i might be waiting a while before i do.
One last point though, PvP and pking in games has to be done right. It has to be thought out and almost have the game planned around it being the center of focus, if not you run into the unbalanced griefing that most people hate. I fear this issue will be too much for most MMO developers to over come. not because it can't be done , but because it would require changing the way all MMO's are currently played. Really . Combat matrix / movement / hit allocation , the way death works , respawns , crowd control , so many things that it really would be a whole new genre of gaming unlike any we have seen to date.
Oh how i would love to see one , but much like a sasquatch , i might be waiting a while before i do.
[mod edit]
I loved Anarchy Online and if you thought anything was easy about that, you are crazy. I hate PVP and anything that would consitute a player being able to negatively effect my gaming experience (by the design of the game)
On the other hand you are very wrong in your assumptions.
Yes ... Pkers bring the anti-pkers but no its never balanced and it will never will be. To reach balance every force should have equal counter force. If you agree with that and further the analogy you'll see that it is never balanced.
Even worse, most PKers are wussies and mostly attack you in the back while you fight, say, 10 mobs that got you down to 50% hp and they make the free kill, until you go back to payback but they're long gone because yeah ... doing actual pvp requires some balls, in a matter of speaking.
I've played plenty of Lineage 2, I've been Pked a lot, I've Pked a lot, it is never a good game feature and most certainly it does not add to the thrill of the game. If you plan on shooting someone you should at least look like someone that's going to shoot at me.
Lineage 2 had it splendidly, the PKers had those red names and were hunted like those medieval witches to be burned out alive.
More games need to import those systems. L2 wasn't a paradise for PKers, it was paradise for PvPers. You could've chosen if you wish to fight or not. And if you didn't but still got killed, oh well ... you just feel better because you know that the guy who killed you is kind of fucked. Red names and all that :P
What you are assuming though, op ... that Pkers running rampant is a good thing is a complete fallacy. Nobody likes those 12 year olds running around naked and overleveled just to kill you and go on with their lives unpunished by a game system.
... I mean, its not like you run around the streets in real life, shooting people up just because you felt like it right? You have the police, the law that is ready to make your life a misery for as much as punching the random person. I think it should be like that in games. PKing if available, should be only a last resort. It adds nothing to any game anyway.
I'm a ladder player, I always go fighting for ranks and I have no problem whatsoever with pvp regardless of level in basically any game. 12 year old pricks still bug me though.
They must consider the existence of the internet when writing their games. This isn't exclusive to RPGs, this is just something that people need to consider when writing their game. If they are going to consider the internet and players interacting with each other in their games, then they need to consider aspects of PvP. One of the possible choices is to not include it at all. Ditto for letting people play together. It's not a requirement, but it is a consideration.
MMORPGs are RPGs where "playing together" is a given. In that environment, PvP must be considered, even if the decision is to not include it. Including PvP does not make an MMORPG something other than an MMORPG. Including PvP in an RPG would not turn that RPG into something other than an RPG.
Ultima Online was the first game where the term "MMORPG" was used. Ultima Online is the original template for MMORPGs. Ultima Online included PvP as a major game play mechanic when released. PvP as a game play mechanic is a common or core mechanic to consider when writing an MMORPG.
Computer RPGs were written from or even copied from PnP RPGs. PnP RPGs included PvP as a game mechanic, and if they didn't, players certainly introduced it. PvP has been a part of RPGs longer than computer RPGs have existed. Where it's possible for players to interact with each other in-game, PvP is something is considered, even if the choice is to make it impossible.
Again, I didnt say it has no place or cannot be included, but to call a game predicated on PVP an RPG/MMORPG is not even close to accurate. PnP is a VERY different beast than computer gaming. When computer RPGs and Console RPGs came out there was no PVP...to this day there still isnt, EVEN with co-op modes. Why do you think that is? Could it be that makers of these games know who their audience is?
That's silly. Console RPGs didn't have PvP because it was impossible or because there were so few people who networked their systems together, it wasn't feasible to program that stuff in there. As soon as it was possible to network that stuff together, PvP became an option.
MMORPGs literally came into existence with PvP baked in.
PvP has always been a consideration of games and video games. RPGs are no exception to this.
Then why isn't there pvp included in any RPG's on computer consoles? At least any i know of? You can skirt this anyway you want, but there is an absolute.
You might need to be a little more descriptive when you are talking about "computer consoles". Are you talking about console game systems that largely did not interact with computer networks, or are you talking about personal computers like the Commodore 64 that only interacted with purpose built networks? Are you talking about modern personal computers that starting in the mid-90s interacted with the internet and signaled the beginning and rise of multiplayer RPGs with PvP?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
In a PvP MMO, you can possibly be ganked by 10 people against you.
In League of Legends, it's always 3 vs 3.
In a PvP MMO, someone else can have a huge advantage over you just because they're higher level or got some rare gear drops from a PvE monster.
In Halo, everyone starts on the same footing for each match.
In a PvP MMO, you usually have to do tons of unrelated activities like PvE or crafting to be on similar footing to others.
In Street Fighter 2, you don't have to do that junk.
Honestly, it's not rocket science why PvP-Centric MMOs don't draw enough players for decent profits (unless they're using a business model that's hunting for whales.). Most players that truly love actual real and fair competition (and not have to deal with lame boring EXP and gear grinds just to keep up with everyone else) will find it better in other genres.
They must consider the existence of the internet when writing their games. This isn't exclusive to RPGs, this is just something that people need to consider when writing their game. If they are going to consider the internet and players interacting with each other in their games, then they need to consider aspects of PvP. One of the possible choices is to not include it at all. Ditto for letting people play together. It's not a requirement, but it is a consideration.
MMORPGs are RPGs where "playing together" is a given. In that environment, PvP must be considered, even if the decision is to not include it. Including PvP does not make an MMORPG something other than an MMORPG. Including PvP in an RPG would not turn that RPG into something other than an RPG.
Ultima Online was the first game where the term "MMORPG" was used. Ultima Online is the original template for MMORPGs. Ultima Online included PvP as a major game play mechanic when released. PvP as a game play mechanic is a common or core mechanic to consider when writing an MMORPG.
Computer RPGs were written from or even copied from PnP RPGs. PnP RPGs included PvP as a game mechanic, and if they didn't, players certainly introduced it. PvP has been a part of RPGs longer than computer RPGs have existed. Where it's possible for players to interact with each other in-game, PvP is something is considered, even if the choice is to make it impossible.
Again, I didnt say it has no place or cannot be included, but to call a game predicated on PVP an RPG/MMORPG is not even close to accurate. PnP is a VERY different beast than computer gaming. When computer RPGs and Console RPGs came out there was no PVP...to this day there still isnt, EVEN with co-op modes. Why do you think that is? Could it be that makers of these games know who their audience is?
That's silly. Console RPGs didn't have PvP because it was impossible or because there were so few people who networked their systems together, it wasn't feasible to program that stuff in there. As soon as it was possible to network that stuff together, PvP became an option.
MMORPGs literally came into existence with PvP baked in.
PvP has always been a consideration of games and video games. RPGs are no exception to this.
Then why isn't there pvp included in any RPG's on computer consoles? At least any i know of? You can skirt this anyway you want, but there is an absolute.
You might need to be a little more descriptive when you are talking about "computer consoles". Are you talking about console game systems that largely did not interact with computer networks, or are you talking about personal computers like the Commodore 64 that only interacted with purpose built networks? Are you talking about modern personal computers that starting in the mid-90s interacted with the internet and signaled the beginning and rise of multiplayer RPGs with PvP?
Im talking about any RPG that has ever been released. Not MMO's that claim to be RPG's that are full out PVP. Again, my point is that they are putting themselves in the incorrect genre.
Mass Effect, The Witcher, Divinity, Wasteland 2, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age, Deus Ex....etc, etc...No option for PVP...if they knew it was SO popular in the RPG community, why didn't they add it??
Type one is the WoW people. These people are use to getting everything easy in a nice safe "player/ family friendly" environment.They want easy non thinking rinse and repeat type questing. They want to be max lvl in two days - two weeks. If their MMO has an end game, they want it to be a nice easy zerg fight, without any thinking or skill involved and make sure that boss drops gear for everyone, cause god knows i shouldn't have to do that fight more then once to get what i need. These people don't want one character that actually took time and effort to get where they are. No no, let's all have 8 max lvl toons with all the "end game" loot, because that's a way better experience right ?
Type two is the Old School Everquest type of people. These are the people who want vast worlds that are not easily traveled. Who want quest's that require thought, effort and investigation to solve, not just go to the pre-highlighted area on your pre-filled in map. These are people who want to take down super tough raid mob's ( that god forbid might only be able to be killed once per server) and feel like they have accomplished something with their friends that few people on the server (if any) have been able to do. People who don't care if they ever lvl another toon because they are so proud and connected to what they have accomplished with their main , that the idea of leveling another character is equal to cheating on their spouse.
How does this apply to Pking ?
Type One are the people who cry when anything interferes with them getting what they want as quick as they want it, wich is everything right now. To them , they should only have to deal with another player in a pvp setting when THEY want to , when THEY set the terms and when THEY are confident THEY won't die and if THEY do die, it must be because the other persons gear/ skills/ spells are too OP and should be NERFED.
Type two simply views PKing as just another challenge and this time it's against a thinking , tactics changing , possibly more powerful opponent.
You will never see a game that makes both of these groups happy, because they are the exact opposite of each. You can't create and environment where both fire and water can thrive and be happy at the same time in the same place.
So in conclusion. Type one got 10 million people to play their game because it was easy. That's it. It's easy. So them and their lil snot nosed brats can play the game together ( aww what a precious moment) and actually think/feel like they are accomplish something.
So because 10 million people are bitches and don't like anything that might actually be challenging or take time. The industry followed the literal easy money and now just makes games for the vagina's. Even though all attempts to recreate the giant carebear world witch is WoW have failed, leave it to the so called experts to continue to release triple A failures in their attempt to get some of that easy / family friendly money.
One last point though, PvP and pking in games has to be done right. It has to be thought out and almost have the game planned around it being the center of focus, if not you run into the unbalanced griefing that most people hate. I fear this issue will be too much for most MMO developers to over come. not because it can't be done , but because it would require changing the way all MMO's are currently played. Really . Combat matrix / movement / hit allocation , the way death works , respawns , crowd control , so many things that it really would be a whole new genre of gaming unlike any we have seen to date.
Oh how i would love to see one , but much like a sasquatch , i might be waiting a while before i do.
yeah, because EQ was all about PVP...
I loved Anarchy Online and if you thought anything was easy about that, you are crazy. I hate PVP and anything that would consitute a player being able to negatively effect my gaming experience (by the design of the game)
No EQ wasn't all about pvp. But it's wasn't a hold your hand carebear world either. When pvp was introduced it was by far some of the most hardcore PvP in any MMO at the time.
Ask for your comment about hating anything that would negatively effect your gaming experience all i have to say is yup , you are the perfect example of a TYPE ONE PLAYER.
and id probably say you are a type 3 player:
I need to feel good about myself in game and make everyone else feel like a turd.
Type one is the WoW people. These people are use to getting everything easy in a nice safe "player/ family friendly" environment.They want easy non thinking rinse and repeat type questing. They want to be max lvl in two days - two weeks. If their MMO has an end game, they want it to be a nice easy zerg fight, without any thinking or skill involved and make sure that boss drops gear for everyone, cause god knows i shouldn't have to do that fight more then once to get what i need. These people don't want one character that actually took time and effort to get where they are. No no, let's all have 8 max lvl toons with all the "end game" loot, because that's a way better experience right ?
Type two is the Old School Everquest type of people. These are the people who want vast worlds that are not easily traveled. Who want quest's that require thought, effort and investigation to solve, not just go to the pre-highlighted area on your pre-filled in map. These are people who want to take down super tough raid mob's ( that god forbid might only be able to be killed once per server) and feel like they have accomplished something with their friends that few people on the server (if any) have been able to do. People who don't care if they ever lvl another toon because they are so proud and connected to what they have accomplished with their main , that the idea of leveling another character is equal to cheating on their spouse.
How does this apply to Pking ?
Type One are the people who cry when anything interferes with them getting what they want as quick as they want it, wich is everything right now. To them , they should only have to deal with another player in a pvp setting when THEY want to , when THEY set the terms and when THEY are confident THEY won't die and if THEY do die, it must be because the other persons gear/ skills/ spells are too OP and should be NERFED.
Type two simply views PKing as just another challenge and this time it's against a thinking , tactics changing , possibly more powerful opponent.
You will never see a game that makes both of these groups happy, because they are the exact opposite of each. You can't create and environment where both fire and water can thrive and be happy at the same time in the same place.
So in conclusion. Type one got 10 million people to play their game because it was easy. That's it. It's easy. So them and their lil snot nosed brats can play the game together ( aww what a precious moment) and actually think/feel like they are accomplish something.
So because 10 million people are bitches and don't like anything that might actually be challenging or take time. The industry followed the literal easy money and now just makes games for the vagina's. Even though all attempts to recreate the giant carebear world witch is WoW have failed, leave it to the so called experts to continue to release triple A failures in their attempt to get some of that easy / family friendly money.
One last point though, PvP and pking in games has to be done right. It has to be thought out and almost have the game planned around it being the center of focus, if not you run into the unbalanced griefing that most people hate. I fear this issue will be too much for most MMO developers to over come. not because it can't be done , but because it would require changing the way all MMO's are currently played. Really . Combat matrix / movement / hit allocation , the way death works , respawns , crowd control , so many things that it really would be a whole new genre of gaming unlike any we have seen to date.
Oh how i would love to see one , but much like a sasquatch , i might be waiting a while before i do.
yeah, because EQ was all about PVP...
I loved Anarchy Online and if you thought anything was easy about that, you are crazy. I hate PVP and anything that would consitute a player being able to negatively effect my gaming experience (by the design of the game)
No EQ wasn't all about pvp. But it's wasn't a hold your hand carebear world either. When pvp was introduced it was by far some of the most hardcore PvP in any MMO at the time.
Ask for your comment about hating anything that would negatively effect your gaming experience all i have to say is yup , you are the perfect example of a TYPE ONE PLAYER.
and id probably say you are a type 3 player:
I need to feel good about myself in game and make everyone else feel like a turd.
I normally play a cleric type class and send most my time helping people. So yeah , spot on assumption there pal.
Type one is the WoW people. These people are use to getting everything easy in a nice safe "player/ family friendly" environment.They want easy non thinking rinse and repeat type questing. They want to be max lvl in two days - two weeks. If their MMO has an end game, they want it to be a nice easy zerg fight, without any thinking or skill involved and make sure that boss drops gear for everyone, cause god knows i shouldn't have to do that fight more then once to get what i need. These people don't want one character that actually took time and effort to get where they are. No no, let's all have 8 max lvl toons with all the "end game" loot, because that's a way better experience right ?
Type two is the Old School Everquest type of people. These are the people who want vast worlds that are not easily traveled. Who want quest's that require thought, effort and investigation to solve, not just go to the pre-highlighted area on your pre-filled in map. These are people who want to take down super tough raid mob's ( that god forbid might only be able to be killed once per server) and feel like they have accomplished something with their friends that few people on the server (if any) have been able to do. People who don't care if they ever lvl another toon because they are so proud and connected to what they have accomplished with their main , that the idea of leveling another character is equal to cheating on their spouse.
How does this apply to Pking ?
Type One are the people who cry when anything interferes with them getting what they want as quick as they want it, wich is everything right now. To them , they should only have to deal with another player in a pvp setting when THEY want to , when THEY set the terms and when THEY are confident THEY won't die and if THEY do die, it must be because the other persons gear/ skills/ spells are too OP and should be NERFED.
Type two simply views PKing as just another challenge and this time it's against a thinking , tactics changing , possibly more powerful opponent.
You will never see a game that makes both of these groups happy, because they are the exact opposite of each. You can't create and environment where both fire and water can thrive and be happy at the same time in the same place.
So in conclusion. Type one got 10 million people to play their game because it was easy. That's it. It's easy. So them and their lil snot nosed brats can play the game together ( aww what a precious moment) and actually think/feel like they are accomplish something.
So because 10 million people are bitches and don't like anything that might actually be challenging or take time. The industry followed the literal easy money and now just makes games for the vagina's. Even though all attempts to recreate the giant carebear world witch is WoW have failed, leave it to the so called experts to continue to release triple A failures in their attempt to get some of that easy / family friendly money.
One last point though, PvP and pking in games has to be done right. It has to be thought out and almost have the game planned around it being the center of focus, if not you run into the unbalanced griefing that most people hate. I fear this issue will be too much for most MMO developers to over come. not because it can't be done , but because it would require changing the way all MMO's are currently played. Really . Combat matrix / movement / hit allocation , the way death works , respawns , crowd control , so many things that it really would be a whole new genre of gaming unlike any we have seen to date.
Oh how i would love to see one , but much like a sasquatch , i might be waiting a while before i do.
yeah, because EQ was all about PVP...
I loved Anarchy Online and if you thought anything was easy about that, you are crazy. I hate PVP and anything that would consitute a player being able to negatively effect my gaming experience (by the design of the game)
No EQ wasn't all about pvp. But it's wasn't a hold your hand carebear world either. When pvp was introduced it was by far some of the most hardcore PvP in any MMO at the time.
Ask for your comment about hating anything that would negatively effect your gaming experience all i have to say is yup , you are the perfect example of a TYPE ONE PLAYER.
and id probably say you are a type 3 player:
I need to feel good about myself in game and make everyone else feel like a turd.
I still suspect he might be a Type 1 player just pretending to be a Type 2 player in order to make actual Type 2 players look bad.
Cause like, seriously, he called others "vaginas" in his post, for crying out loud.
I normally play a cleric type class and send most my time helping people. So yeah , spot on assumption there pal.
And I've been a tank, raid leader, guild leader, guild officer, wrote guides, wrote strats, love a challenge....I'm only trying to level your playing field
Type one is the WoW people. These people are use to getting everything easy in a nice safe "player/ family friendly" environment.They want easy non thinking rinse and repeat type questing. They want to be max lvl in two days - two weeks. If their MMO has an end game, they want it to be a nice easy zerg fight, without any thinking or skill involved and make sure that boss drops gear for everyone, cause god knows i shouldn't have to do that fight more then once to get what i need. These people don't want one character that actually took time and effort to get where they are. No no, let's all have 8 max lvl toons with all the "end game" loot, because that's a way better experience right ?
Type two is the Old School Everquest type of people. These are the people who want vast worlds that are not easily traveled. Who want quest's that require thought, effort and investigation to solve, not just go to the pre-highlighted area on your pre-filled in map. These are people who want to take down super tough raid mob's ( that god forbid might only be able to be killed once per server) and feel like they have accomplished something with their friends that few people on the server (if any) have been able to do. People who don't care if they ever lvl another toon because they are so proud and connected to what they have accomplished with their main , that the idea of leveling another character is equal to cheating on their spouse.
How does this apply to Pking ?
Type One are the people who cry when anything interferes with them getting what they want as quick as they want it, wich is everything right now. To them , they should only have to deal with another player in a pvp setting when THEY want to , when THEY set the terms and when THEY are confident THEY won't die and if THEY do die, it must be because the other persons gear/ skills/ spells are too OP and should be NERFED.
Type two simply views PKing as just another challenge and this time it's against a thinking , tactics changing , possibly more powerful opponent.
You will never see a game that makes both of these groups happy, because they are the exact opposite of each. You can't create and environment where both fire and water can thrive and be happy at the same time in the same place.
So in conclusion. Type one got 10 million people to play their game because it was easy. That's it. It's easy. So them and their lil snot nosed brats can play the game together ( aww what a precious moment) and actually think/feel like they are accomplish something.
So because 10 million people are bitches and don't like anything that might actually be challenging or take time. The industry followed the literal easy money and now just makes games for the vagina's. Even though all attempts to recreate the giant carebear world witch is WoW have failed, leave it to the so called experts to continue to release triple A failures in their attempt to get some of that easy / family friendly money.
One last point though, PvP and pking in games has to be done right. It has to be thought out and almost have the game planned around it being the center of focus, if not you run into the unbalanced griefing that most people hate. I fear this issue will be too much for most MMO developers to over come. not because it can't be done , but because it would require changing the way all MMO's are currently played. Really . Combat matrix / movement / hit allocation , the way death works , respawns , crowd control , so many things that it really would be a whole new genre of gaming unlike any we have seen to date.
Oh how i would love to see one , but much like a sasquatch , i might be waiting a while before i do.
yeah, because EQ was all about PVP...
I loved Anarchy Online and if you thought anything was easy about that, you are crazy. I hate PVP and anything that would consitute a player being able to negatively effect my gaming experience (by the design of the game)
No EQ wasn't all about pvp. But it's wasn't a hold your hand carebear world either. When pvp was introduced it was by far some of the most hardcore PvP in any MMO at the time.
Ask for your comment about hating anything that would negatively effect your gaming experience all i have to say is yup , you are the perfect example of a TYPE ONE PLAYER.
and id probably say you are a type 3 player:
I need to feel good about myself in game and make everyone else feel like a turd.
I still suspect he might be a Type 1 player just pretending to be a Type 2 player in order to make actual Type 2 players look bad.
Cause like, seriously, he called others "vaginas" in his post, for crying out loud.
I "call" it like i see it. Can you think of a better term to call those type of people. I don't know where you are from , but where i'm from if you don't have balls ... then you have a ..
Type one is the WoW people. These people are use to getting everything easy in a nice safe "player/ family friendly" environment.They want easy non thinking rinse and repeat type questing. They want to be max lvl in two days - two weeks. If their MMO has an end game, they want it to be a nice easy zerg fight, without any thinking or skill involved and make sure that boss drops gear for everyone, cause god knows i shouldn't have to do that fight more then once to get what i need. These people don't want one character that actually took time and effort to get where they are. No no, let's all have 8 max lvl toons with all the "end game" loot, because that's a way better experience right ?
Type two is the Old School Everquest type of people. These are the people who want vast worlds that are not easily traveled. Who want quest's that require thought, effort and investigation to solve, not just go to the pre-highlighted area on your pre-filled in map. These are people who want to take down super tough raid mob's ( that god forbid might only be able to be killed once per server) and feel like they have accomplished something with their friends that few people on the server (if any) have been able to do. People who don't care if they ever lvl another toon because they are so proud and connected to what they have accomplished with their main , that the idea of leveling another character is equal to cheating on their spouse.
How does this apply to Pking ?
Type One are the people who cry when anything interferes with them getting what they want as quick as they want it, wich is everything right now. To them , they should only have to deal with another player in a pvp setting when THEY want to , when THEY set the terms and when THEY are confident THEY won't die and if THEY do die, it must be because the other persons gear/ skills/ spells are too OP and should be NERFED.
Type two simply views PKing as just another challenge and this time it's against a thinking , tactics changing , possibly more powerful opponent.
You will never see a game that makes both of these groups happy, because they are the exact opposite of each. You can't create and environment where both fire and water can thrive and be happy at the same time in the same place.
So in conclusion. Type one got 10 million people to play their game because it was easy. That's it. It's easy. So them and their lil snot nosed brats can play the game together ( aww what a precious moment) and actually think/feel like they are accomplish something.
So because 10 million people are bitches and don't like anything that might actually be challenging or take time. The industry followed the literal easy money and now just makes games for the vagina's. Even though all attempts to recreate the giant carebear world witch is WoW have failed, leave it to the so called experts to continue to release triple A failures in their attempt to get some of that easy / family friendly money.
One last point though, PvP and pking in games has to be done right. It has to be thought out and almost have the game planned around it being the center of focus, if not you run into the unbalanced griefing that most people hate. I fear this issue will be too much for most MMO developers to over come. not because it can't be done , but because it would require changing the way all MMO's are currently played. Really . Combat matrix / movement / hit allocation , the way death works , respawns , crowd control , so many things that it really would be a whole new genre of gaming unlike any we have seen to date.
Oh how i would love to see one , but much like a sasquatch , i might be waiting a while before i do.
You're confusing Hardcore PvE with PvP.
EQ had/has hardcore PvE. The players I knew and still do know in EQ want their challenge to be against computer controlled opponents. Most don't care about PvP or dueling at all. Our idea of players influencing our playtime is how well of a team we can be together, not how they looked over their shoulder to avoid some random asshat.
But, in a way you are right. Most(not all) players I know who started in games like EQ, UO and DAoC prefer to roll with the punches. Players who started in WoW or later think that if they whine long enough and become the vocal minority, their opinions will change the world/game/whatever.
I'm one of those guys who hates PK games. Literally loathes it. I started in Everquest and if I play PvP games, which I still do, I don't mix my MMO with it. I do play Archeage at the moment, but not for much longer, and when I do, it's mostly traderuns and fishing with friends. The PK'ers are driving my friends and myself away because they insist that my group is playing the game wrong by trying to be decent people to each other.
I normally play a cleric type class and send most my time helping people. So yeah , spot on assumption there pal.
And I've been a tank, raid leader, guild leader, guild officer, wrote guides, wrote strats, love a challenge....I'm only trying to level your playing field
Hey good for you , but i didn't ask for your resume. I got all the information i needed about you from your " i hate anything that negatively impacts my gaming experience" comment.
Type one is the WoW people. These people are use to getting everything easy in a nice safe "player/ family friendly" environment.They want easy non thinking rinse and repeat type questing. They want to be max lvl in two days - two weeks. If their MMO has an end game, they want it to be a nice easy zerg fight, without any thinking or skill involved and make sure that boss drops gear for everyone, cause god knows i shouldn't have to do that fight more then once to get what i need. These people don't want one character that actually took time and effort to get where they are. No no, let's all have 8 max lvl toons with all the "end game" loot, because that's a way better experience right ?
Type two is the Old School Everquest type of people. These are the people who want vast worlds that are not easily traveled. Who want quest's that require thought, effort and investigation to solve, not just go to the pre-highlighted area on your pre-filled in map. These are people who want to take down super tough raid mob's ( that god forbid might only be able to be killed once per server) and feel like they have accomplished something with their friends that few people on the server (if any) have been able to do. People who don't care if they ever lvl another toon because they are so proud and connected to what they have accomplished with their main , that the idea of leveling another character is equal to cheating on their spouse.
How does this apply to Pking ?
Type One are the people who cry when anything interferes with them getting what they want as quick as they want it, wich is everything right now. To them , they should only have to deal with another player in a pvp setting when THEY want to , when THEY set the terms and when THEY are confident THEY won't die and if THEY do die, it must be because the other persons gear/ skills/ spells are too OP and should be NERFED.
Type two simply views PKing as just another challenge and this time it's against a thinking , tactics changing , possibly more powerful opponent.
You will never see a game that makes both of these groups happy, because they are the exact opposite of each. You can't create and environment where both fire and water can thrive and be happy at the same time in the same place.
So in conclusion. Type one got 10 million people to play their game because it was easy. That's it. It's easy. So them and their lil snot nosed brats can play the game together ( aww what a precious moment) and actually think/feel like they are accomplish something.
So because 10 million people are bitches and don't like anything that might actually be challenging or take time. The industry followed the literal easy money and now just makes games for the vagina's. Even though all attempts to recreate the giant carebear world witch is WoW have failed, leave it to the so called experts to continue to release triple A failures in their attempt to get some of that easy / family friendly money.
One last point though, PvP and pking in games has to be done right. It has to be thought out and almost have the game planned around it being the center of focus, if not you run into the unbalanced griefing that most people hate. I fear this issue will be too much for most MMO developers to over come. not because it can't be done , but because it would require changing the way all MMO's are currently played. Really . Combat matrix / movement / hit allocation , the way death works , respawns , crowd control , so many things that it really would be a whole new genre of gaming unlike any we have seen to date.
Oh how i would love to see one , but much like a sasquatch , i might be waiting a while before i do.
You're confusing Hardcore PvE with PvP.
EQ had/has hardcore PvE. The players I knew and still do know in EQ want their challenge to be against computer controlled opponents. Most don't care about PvP or dueling at all. Our idea of players influencing our playtime is how well of a team we can be together, not how they looked over their shoulder to avoid some random asshat.
But, in a way you are right. Most(not all) players I know who started in games like EQ, UO and DAoC prefer to roll with the punches. Players who started in WoW or later think that if they whine long enough and become the vocal minority, their opinions will change the world/game/whatever.
I'm one of those guys who hates PK games. Literally loathes it. I started in Everquest and if I play PvP games, which I still do, I don't mix my MMO with it. I do play Archeage at the moment, but not for much longer, and when I do, it's mostly traderuns and fishing with friends. The PK'ers are driving my friends and myself away because they insist that my group is playing the game wrong by trying to be decent people to each other.
See thank you, i think you get it. I am not saying PKing is for everyone or that any game to date has done it right. I am just saying that it boils down to two very different types of gamer's and what type of game they want to see / play.
I "call" it like i see it. Can you think of a better term to call those type of people. I don't know where you are from , but where i'm from if you don't have balls ... then you have a ..
Oh Im sure you are Mr. Balls 'O Mighty himself...video game balls don't equate to real life balls...you want to see what real life balls looks like come to one of my shows...here is the info:
I "call" it like i see it. Can you think of a better term to call those type of people. I don't know where you are from , but where i'm from if you don't have balls ... then you have a ..
Oh Im sure you are Mr. Balls 'O Mighty himself...video game balls don't equate to real life balls...you want to see what real life balls looks like come to one of my shows...here is the info:
My balls do clank when i walk and can make my dickies a lil too tight fitting. But i would honestly love to see / hear your band. I always love finding new music and there hasn't been a mosh pit invented that's too scary for me. Got baptised in blood or popped my first pit cherry (how ever you want to word it ) back in the early 90's at a Slayer / Suicidal Tendencies show , i am always down for a rowdy time.
I "call" it like i see it. Can you think of a better term to call those type of people. I don't know where you are from , but where i'm from if you don't have balls ... then you have a ..
Oh Im sure you are Mr. Balls 'O Mighty himself...video game balls don't equate to real life balls...you want to see what real life balls looks like come to one of my shows...here is the info:
My balls do clank when i walk and can make my dickies a lil too tight fitting. But i would honestly love to see / hear your band. I always love finding new music and there hasn't been a mosh pit invented that's too scary for me. Got baptised in blood or popped my first pit cherry (how ever you want to word it ) back in the early 90's at a Slayer / Suicidal Tendencies show , i am always down for a rowdy time.
LOL...Im always siked to see new faces! Slayer is always a very fun pit!
They must consider the existence of the internet when writing their games. This isn't exclusive to RPGs, this is just something that people need to consider when writing their game. If they are going to consider the internet and players interacting with each other in their games, then they need to consider aspects of PvP. One of the possible choices is to not include it at all. Ditto for letting people play together. It's not a requirement, but it is a consideration.
MMORPGs are RPGs where "playing together" is a given. In that environment, PvP must be considered, even if the decision is to not include it. Including PvP does not make an MMORPG something other than an MMORPG. Including PvP in an RPG would not turn that RPG into something other than an RPG.
Ultima Online was the first game where the term "MMORPG" was used. Ultima Online is the original template for MMORPGs. Ultima Online included PvP as a major game play mechanic when released. PvP as a game play mechanic is a common or core mechanic to consider when writing an MMORPG.
Computer RPGs were written from or even copied from PnP RPGs. PnP RPGs included PvP as a game mechanic, and if they didn't, players certainly introduced it. PvP has been a part of RPGs longer than computer RPGs have existed. Where it's possible for players to interact with each other in-game, PvP is something is considered, even if the choice is to make it impossible.
Again, I didnt say it has no place or cannot be included, but to call a game predicated on PVP an RPG/MMORPG is not even close to accurate. PnP is a VERY different beast than computer gaming. When computer RPGs and Console RPGs came out there was no PVP...to this day there still isnt, EVEN with co-op modes. Why do you think that is? Could it be that makers of these games know who their audience is?
That's silly. Console RPGs didn't have PvP because it was impossible or because there were so few people who networked their systems together, it wasn't feasible to program that stuff in there. As soon as it was possible to network that stuff together, PvP became an option.
MMORPGs literally came into existence with PvP baked in.
PvP has always been a consideration of games and video games. RPGs are no exception to this.
Then why isn't there pvp included in any RPG's on computer consoles? At least any i know of? You can skirt this anyway you want, but there is an absolute.
You might need to be a little more descriptive when you are talking about "computer consoles". Are you talking about console game systems that largely did not interact with computer networks, or are you talking about personal computers like the Commodore 64 that only interacted with purpose built networks? Are you talking about modern personal computers that starting in the mid-90s interacted with the internet and signaled the beginning and rise of multiplayer RPGs with PvP?
Im talking about any RPG that has ever been released. Not MMO's that claim to be RPG's that are full out PVP. Again, my point is that they are putting themselves in the incorrect genre.
*Steps Back*
Single Player RPGs do not have PvP because they are single player games.
Multiplayer RPGs, starting with MUDs and MMORPGs include PvP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The hard line is that games with PKing that make things easy for the greifing asshats make less money. Because they drive off the players who don't like that sort of thing. Players who have access to a lot of alternatives nowadays. While there are lots of niche areas for people who like different playstyles, as a developer you have to match your expenditures to your income. And player loss is player loss.
No one in my local gaming group will play those PK type games anymore, and that's a lot of subscriptions being lost there. I think it is more representative of general gaming field as well.
That's pretty debateable dont you think? PvP adds a lot of replay value to a game, rather than hit lvl 100, gg.
The majority of the top games making lots of money, do in fact have some form of pvp for a reason.
I just dont like having my hands tied whenever I log in, to me it's not that thrilling or fun.
My ideal game was UO pre-trammel, nothing has quite matched the experience since....I think the best games of the past had mix of pvp/pve elements, diablo 1-2, UO, etc....
They have some FORM of PvP, but not the UO pre-trammel form you desire. As stated in the post you're saying is debateable, PKing makes less money.
Ironically, your mentioned ideal game is a prime example of this. The UO devs have stated repeatedly that trammel saved UO (from a business end) and their private numbers and data made that VERY clear.
That's complete nonsense, trammel was followed by an exodus and the game faded away slowly. It was a tipping point for me personally, but it was never as good.
I bet 99% of the UO players you ask what went wrong, and trammel is the answer.
No, only vocal people like you would say Trammel as the answer, and you and all those other pro-felucca guys when I was still active in UO many years ago just kept on screaming and screaming that and thinking you were in the majority when the simple fact was you guys were just really good at screaming on the forums. I was there and saw and talked with tons of other people in-game who said Trammel was better (presumably they didn't post about it much on the forums because people who are actually happy with a game normally don't post that much about it), and the devs have stated repeatedly that they had the numbers to prove it (even if they never presented those numbers). Even publically known numbers support Trammel (as stated by a different reply in this thread)
Besides, for most UO players that I asked what went wrong long ago, Age of Shadows is the answer.
It is, however, important to note that UO is still alive today despite being ONE OF THE OLDEST MMOS IN EXISTANCE, so it's arguable/possibly that nothing really went THAT wrong in the first place.
Any dev who really wants to make money off of PvP is better off making a balanced competitive game without the "only wants to PvP if they have an advantage" gear-race or zerg-fest (you can't zerg someone in League of Legends with 10 players vs 2. You could do that just fine in Felucca UO or whatever else).
Alternatively, they're better off making a whaling PvP game where people do money fights with each other (most Facebook games end up falling into this category).
The profitability of an open-world PvP game without whaling has already been shown to be nigh-nonexistant long ago (or, if it does exist, Eve probably has the entire niche. Honestly I'm not sure even that counts because Eve could be considered a whaling PvP game of sorts too, albeit with a twist. Just how many of those subscriptions are unique people instead of alternate accounts, anyways?)
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Vocal minority or not, I think Trammel killed the game for lots of people even if it did peak in subscribers around the same time.
PvP is essential for me, so if I see it's not in the RPG, I typically don't even play it. That alone is proof there's money in pvp. You seem to have your mind wrapped around profits, whereas I'm simply looking for a great game.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Vocal minority or not, I think Trammel killed the game for lots of people even if it did peak in subscribers around the same time.
Quick factual correction:
Subscribers peaked 3 years after trammel, not around the same time. For more reference's sake, as you can see from the charts, UO was around 3 years old when Trammel first came out (and at that point, its subscription growth rate was apparently just about to decrease to 0). Subscriber numbers wouldn't peak until 3 years later after that. Although the "peak" was actually only slightly higher than UO's "levelled out" subscription numbers. Basically, UO had practically stopped growing, then Trammel came out, UO's subscriber numbers almost doubled in a year showing a huge growth increase compared to what it was shortly before trammel, and then they stayed there for 3 years, finally increasing a little bit more at the end.
...and then WoW came out. LOL. I'm trying to remember if Age of Shadows was around that time or earlier (if AoS came later, then that'll prove nothing because... well, WoW. Come to think about it, I'm pretty sure WoW came first from my memory of that era. AoS was likely developed in reaction to it). So I guess if anything "killed" UO, it was WoW.
I think lots of MMOs would love if they had some thing they could do to double their subscribers in the span of a year and keep that retention for 3 years+ (or whenever another WoW comes along to kill it). Then again, the (perfectly valid) lesson they probably got from that was "don't even bother starting with no-alternate-option open world PvP in the first place"
PvP in a LEVEL BASED mmo is just makes no sense. Killing someone 10 levels lower then me that can not put up an EQUAL fight is just something that is way out of balance. Add to that the fact that most mmo's just do not have proper mechanics to make it fun. Even though I have played many an mmo that had some form of pvp, I have not found one that I have ever enjoyed or thought was well thought out.
It really all depends on the game and how one sees the game's objectives.
In truth, you never want "a fair fight" in the context of winning because there is supposedly "stuff at stake".
In any war, no commander ever said "damn, we could set up a sneak attack and then overwhelm them with our forces but that just wouldn't be fair".
If a game/game world is about winning and territory control, and control of resources then in no way do you want "a fair fight" but you want to use your tactics and ability to win.
Where the "fair" part comes in is that every player/guild should be able to rise above their station and have the ability to better themselves and their position. Otherwie no one will want to play once the mega-guild gets to power. Their needs to be some balance to allow the little guy, if they are smart, to overcome.
Because, in the end, you are never going to get "a fair fight". even if there wasn't any leveling or "better weapons/protections" someone is going to be better than you. They just are.
Technically, one could look at leveling and getting better weapons as a way to shore up weaknesses and give one a fighting chance. Of course, that's never the case and there are people who are just going to be good AND have better weapons and better protections.
If one needs to win the logically you are going to set yourself up to win. I think the challenge for developers is the balance of allowing players to fight with not only their brawn (gear, weapons, levels) but also with tactics and strategy.
And that seems to be where most games "fall down".
Additionally, I imagine there aren't many players who can compete on all levels and game developers aren't going to make games that cost a LOT of money just for a few players who can compete. So one of the reasons for gear and levels and "random numbers".
As one forum poster put it in some thread "I'm not the one who is fighting it's my character who is fighting and their levels and gear are what I'm working on being the best".
And that goes back to the whole "role play game" aspect.
I think you miss my point. When someone has NOT A CHANCE to compete, it is not even a competition. Sure, max level versus max level is fine. You have the "rock, paper, scissors" effect and those are things that (on an indiviual combat level) will go back and forth until you have a winner.
And, here we are talking about a game and not real life. It is not a simulation so comparing real life examples wins no points. And yes, everyone wants to set themselves up to win. But, it is not a win when there is absolutely no chance for competition by the opponent. It is a massacre perhaps..but not a win.
If you want to use a "real life" example, look at it this way. It is like sending in the 101st Airborne Division to wipeout to every man women and child a completely unarmed group of farmers. The 101st would not even consider doing such by the way. If those same farmers were all armed with weapons that could be a tactical/strategic challenge, then things would be different. In game terms, it is like the max level (the 101st) going against a level 1 player (the unarmed farmers). The only person "enjoying themselves" at that point is the max level....but I really see no reason as the outcome is ALWAYS going to be the same.
So, I stand by what I said before...pvp in a level based mmo is just not worth the time.
Comments
Then why isn't there pvp included in any RPG's on computer consoles? At least any i know of? You can skirt this anyway you want, but there is an absolute.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes . . . .
[mod edit]
One last point though, PvP and pking in games has to be done right. It has to be thought out and almost have the game planned around it being the center of focus, if not you run into the unbalanced griefing that most people hate. I fear this issue will be too much for most MMO developers to over come. not because it can't be done , but because it would require changing the way all MMO's are currently played. Really . Combat matrix / movement / hit allocation , the way death works , respawns , crowd control , so many things that it really would be a whole new genre of gaming unlike any we have seen to date.
Oh how i would love to see one , but much like a sasquatch , i might be waiting a while before i do.
[mod edit]
I loved Anarchy Online and if you thought anything was easy about that, you are crazy. I hate PVP and anything that would consitute a player being able to negatively effect my gaming experience (by the design of the game)
You raise some fair points I'll give you that.
On the other hand you are very wrong in your assumptions.
Yes ... Pkers bring the anti-pkers but no its never balanced and it will never will be. To reach balance every force should have equal counter force. If you agree with that and further the analogy you'll see that it is never balanced.
Even worse, most PKers are wussies and mostly attack you in the back while you fight, say, 10 mobs that got you down to 50% hp and they make the free kill, until you go back to payback but they're long gone because yeah ... doing actual pvp requires some balls, in a matter of speaking.
I've played plenty of Lineage 2, I've been Pked a lot, I've Pked a lot, it is never a good game feature and most certainly it does not add to the thrill of the game. If you plan on shooting someone you should at least look like someone that's going to shoot at me.
Lineage 2 had it splendidly, the PKers had those red names and were hunted like those medieval witches to be burned out alive.
More games need to import those systems. L2 wasn't a paradise for PKers, it was paradise for PvPers. You could've chosen if you wish to fight or not. And if you didn't but still got killed, oh well ... you just feel better because you know that the guy who killed you is kind of fucked. Red names and all that :P
What you are assuming though, op ... that Pkers running rampant is a good thing is a complete fallacy. Nobody likes those 12 year olds running around naked and overleveled just to kill you and go on with their lives unpunished by a game system.
... I mean, its not like you run around the streets in real life, shooting people up just because you felt like it right? You have the police, the law that is ready to make your life a misery for as much as punching the random person. I think it should be like that in games. PKing if available, should be only a last resort. It adds nothing to any game anyway.
I'm a ladder player, I always go fighting for ranks and I have no problem whatsoever with pvp regardless of level in basically any game. 12 year old pricks still bug me though.
You might need to be a little more descriptive when you are talking about "computer consoles". Are you talking about console game systems that largely did not interact with computer networks, or are you talking about personal computers like the Commodore 64 that only interacted with purpose built networks? Are you talking about modern personal computers that starting in the mid-90s interacted with the internet and signaled the beginning and rise of multiplayer RPGs with PvP?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
In a PvP MMO, you can possibly be ganked by 10 people against you.
In League of Legends, it's always 3 vs 3.
In a PvP MMO, someone else can have a huge advantage over you just because they're higher level or got some rare gear drops from a PvE monster.
In Halo, everyone starts on the same footing for each match.
In a PvP MMO, you usually have to do tons of unrelated activities like PvE or crafting to be on similar footing to others.
In Street Fighter 2, you don't have to do that junk.
Honestly, it's not rocket science why PvP-Centric MMOs don't draw enough players for decent profits (unless they're using a business model that's hunting for whales.). Most players that truly love actual real and fair competition (and not have to deal with lame boring EXP and gear grinds just to keep up with everyone else) will find it better in other genres.
Im talking about any RPG that has ever been released. Not MMO's that claim to be RPG's that are full out PVP. Again, my point is that they are putting themselves in the incorrect genre.
and id probably say you are a type 3 player:
I need to feel good about myself in game and make everyone else feel like a turd.
I normally play a cleric type class and send most my time helping people. So yeah , spot on assumption there pal.
I still suspect he might be a Type 1 player just pretending to be a Type 2 player in order to make actual Type 2 players look bad.
Cause like, seriously, he called others "vaginas" in his post, for crying out loud.
And I've been a tank, raid leader, guild leader, guild officer, wrote guides, wrote strats, love a challenge....I'm only trying to level your playing field
I "call" it like i see it. Can you think of a better term to call those type of people. I don't know where you are from , but where i'm from if you don't have balls ... then you have a ..
You're confusing Hardcore PvE with PvP.
EQ had/has hardcore PvE. The players I knew and still do know in EQ want their challenge to be against computer controlled opponents. Most don't care about PvP or dueling at all. Our idea of players influencing our playtime is how well of a team we can be together, not how they looked over their shoulder to avoid some random asshat.
But, in a way you are right. Most(not all) players I know who started in games like EQ, UO and DAoC prefer to roll with the punches. Players who started in WoW or later think that if they whine long enough and become the vocal minority, their opinions will change the world/game/whatever.
I'm one of those guys who hates PK games. Literally loathes it. I started in Everquest and if I play PvP games, which I still do, I don't mix my MMO with it. I do play Archeage at the moment, but not for much longer, and when I do, it's mostly traderuns and fishing with friends. The PK'ers are driving my friends and myself away because they insist that my group is playing the game wrong by trying to be decent people to each other.
Hey good for you , but i didn't ask for your resume. I got all the information i needed about you from your " i hate anything that negatively impacts my gaming experience" comment.
See thank you, i think you get it. I am not saying PKing is for everyone or that any game to date has done it right. I am just saying that it boils down to two very different types of gamer's and what type of game they want to see / play.
Oh Im sure you are Mr. Balls 'O Mighty himself...video game balls don't equate to real life balls...you want to see what real life balls looks like come to one of my shows...here is the info:
https://www.facebook.com/events/291711617702065/ my band is the Aristokoks...Ill be sure to tell everyone to take it easy on you cuz you have the biggest balls in the land....
My balls do clank when i walk and can make my dickies a lil too tight fitting. But i would honestly love to see / hear your band. I always love finding new music and there hasn't been a mosh pit invented that's too scary for me. Got baptised in blood or popped my first pit cherry (how ever you want to word it ) back in the early 90's at a Slayer / Suicidal Tendencies show , i am always down for a rowdy time.
LOL...Im always siked to see new faces! Slayer is always a very fun pit!
*Steps Back*
Single Player RPGs do not have PvP because they are single player games.
Multiplayer RPGs, starting with MUDs and MMORPGs include PvP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Vocal minority or not, I think Trammel killed the game for lots of people even if it did peak in subscribers around the same time.
PvP is essential for me, so if I see it's not in the RPG, I typically don't even play it. That alone is proof there's money in pvp. You seem to have your mind wrapped around profits, whereas I'm simply looking for a great game.
Quick factual correction:
Subscribers peaked 3 years after trammel, not around the same time. For more reference's sake, as you can see from the charts, UO was around 3 years old when Trammel first came out (and at that point, its subscription growth rate was apparently just about to decrease to 0). Subscriber numbers wouldn't peak until 3 years later after that. Although the "peak" was actually only slightly higher than UO's "levelled out" subscription numbers. Basically, UO had practically stopped growing, then Trammel came out, UO's subscriber numbers almost doubled in a year showing a huge growth increase compared to what it was shortly before trammel, and then they stayed there for 3 years, finally increasing a little bit more at the end.
...and then WoW came out. LOL. I'm trying to remember if Age of Shadows was around that time or earlier (if AoS came later, then that'll prove nothing because... well, WoW. Come to think about it, I'm pretty sure WoW came first from my memory of that era. AoS was likely developed in reaction to it). So I guess if anything "killed" UO, it was WoW.
I think lots of MMOs would love if they had some thing they could do to double their subscribers in the span of a year and keep that retention for 3 years+ (or whenever another WoW comes along to kill it). Then again, the (perfectly valid) lesson they probably got from that was "don't even bother starting with no-alternate-option open world PvP in the first place"
I think you miss my point. When someone has NOT A CHANCE to compete, it is not even a competition. Sure, max level versus max level is fine. You have the "rock, paper, scissors" effect and those are things that (on an indiviual combat level) will go back and forth until you have a winner.
And, here we are talking about a game and not real life. It is not a simulation so comparing real life examples wins no points. And yes, everyone wants to set themselves up to win. But, it is not a win when there is absolutely no chance for competition by the opponent. It is a massacre perhaps..but not a win.
If you want to use a "real life" example, look at it this way. It is like sending in the 101st Airborne Division to wipeout to every man women and child a completely unarmed group of farmers. The 101st would not even consider doing such by the way. If those same farmers were all armed with weapons that could be a tactical/strategic challenge, then things would be different. In game terms, it is like the max level (the 101st) going against a level 1 player (the unarmed farmers). The only person "enjoying themselves" at that point is the max level....but I really see no reason as the outcome is ALWAYS going to be the same.
So, I stand by what I said before...pvp in a level based mmo is just not worth the time.
Let's party like it is 1863!