I guess agree to disagree, man, because to me, your side of this has no substance. That's not meant to be an insult or a lampoon, just an opinion. Maybe I'm missing something here entirely. I... am not going to dwell on it much.
edit: corrected "insult of a lampoon" to "insult or a lampoon"
...and all that's left for pvpers to pvp is themselves.
Oh, this just makes me frustrated. If you're playing a pvp game, you are a "pvper". There's none of this, "well I play the pvp game but I'm a crafter", "well, I play the pvp game but I'm a mascot". "Well I play the pvp game but I'm a bologna sandwich". No. No more of this. You're making up new rules to fit your argument and it's silly. Every person who plays a pvp game, (not a 'just consensual' pvp game, not just battleground or whatever you want to call the instances) knowing the game has open pvp, is a pvper!
No more of this "us vs them". You're a human. "The other guys" are human, regardless of how bestial you care to make them seem. You're all people playing a game, a pvp game. You know it, logging on, making a toon. There is no 'other guy who is a pvp guy' in a pvp game. If you are playing a pvp game, you are a pvp game player, or in short, a pvp'er. All you're doing with all of this is being a pvp'er with an identity crisis. lol. FFS if you don't like it, don't log on to a pvp game! Stop making dumb fake rules for everyone else. Your rules suck and they're as unnatural and twisted as a football bat. Knock it off!
You're confusing the point being made. The point is not people joining an OWPvP and not wanting to PvP. The point is having an OWPvP game to begin with. Many players do not want forced PvP. They do not mind having PvP in their games. They will even partake in it when they are in the mood for it. What they do not want is to be bothered with PvP when they are in relax mode entertaining themselves with the PvE content offered by the game. So that whereas it is fine for PvE players to have "consensual" PvP in their games, OWPvP players do not want to return the favor to PvE players by allowing them to have have unmolested PvE. In other words, whereas it is ok with PvE players to have "consensual" PvP, with the OWPvP crowd it is forced PvP or nothing at all.
wut? Come on. Don't play it, then. Simple. What is the point being made? If a game has open pvp, people who don't want to pvp can't contain themselves from buying the game and playing it?
"The point is having an OWPvP game to begin with."
What? What the hell, man. Are you doing a parody on my issue with developers who intentionally trigger impulsivity, like slot machines in casinos? I can show you relevant facts for this psychological manipulation. Are you saying there should be no open world pvp games, because psychologically, people who don't want to pvp just can't help themselves from buying it and trying to play it?
"They do not mind having PvP in their games. They will even partake in it when they are in the mood for it. What they do not want is to be bothered with PvP when they are in relax mode entertaining themselves with the PvE content offered by the game. "
WHAT? They don't make the rules like that. Seriously, let me illustrate another point... they are still pvping! They can't or won't operate within the confines and structure of the game so they go all manipulative and take the whole fight outside the game and make people conform to their wishes! That is messed up! It's not a messed up opinion, like, it's different than mine, it is a messed up manipulative behavior. Sit down to play monopoly with someone, nope, sorry, you're not allowed to build houses or a hotel there because I might land there and I just can't flippin handle landing there today because my day was so long and stressful and the boss was an asshole and I just can't take it right now I'm going to...
stop it. no. bad. boop you on the nose. quit it. just don't buy the games.
Relax dude.
Youre making this harder on yourself than it has to be. The PvE vs PvP debate for the PvE players has never been about not having any PvP at all. The argument has always been "consensual" PvP versus "non consensual" PvP, and it has always been during the development phase of a game, prior to its release. And that is because that is the time that everyone is fighting for the game to cater to their own preferences. Once a game has been released, it is King's X. A game is what it is, and those whom it does not cater to, after it has been released, will simply move along and not play.
I have never seen an argument where the PvE crowd is against any form of PvP. They are more than open to "consensual" PvP. Consensual PvP is inclusive. It is about affording a player options. There is nothing wrong with options. The more, the merrier. Non-consensual PvP, however, is exclusive. It limits options and forces a player to play a certain way.
There would be no debate if all games where designed as PvE with consensual PvP. None! No one is preventing developers from developing OWPvP, and players from playing them. They've been developed and released in the past. The OWPvP crowd plays them and PvE players stay away from them. That is not the issue. The debate is about having them at all.
There would otherwise be no debate.
First of all, it's incredibly naïve to say nobody complains or debates about optional PVP. In every game ever released since the beginning of time with optional PVP there has been plenty of crying from players who just don't want to get the hint. Don't want to die, don't go there! Don't want to get clone camped? Spawn somewhere else. These games are developed almost idiot proof these days and people will still complain that it's all too hard and inconvenient for them to stop playing for 2 minutes, think about what they're doing, and stop whatever it is that they're doing that got them killed. They will instead go back to that exact same spot, or do the exact same stupid thing and then whine when they die, again. It's the way it's always been with consensual PVP and the way it always will be.
Secondly, why is this even a debate about what games are being developed? Companies with the money and the expertise design the games, you as the consumer decided wether you want to buy them or not. And you're saying other people are making it harder on themselves than it has to be? [mod edit]
[mod edit]
The argument being made by you is one of camping. The only player that could possibly be complaining about camping in a "consensual" pvp game is a PvP player. In other words, PvE players who have not consented to PvP will not be flagged for PvP, they will therefore not be camped because they would be immune to it. The crying players you speak of are, therefore, the PvP players and lord knows they do their share of crying.
Again, there is,and will never be, an issue with PvE players having "consensual" PvP in games. And why should there be when if they do no consent it does not affect them in the least. If there is any argument to be made in consensual PvP games, it is not with the design of the game, it is because of the frustrations being brought about by PvP game play regardless of whether you are a PvE player consenting to PvP play, or a strictly PvP player.
...and all that's left for pvpers to pvp is themselves.
Oh, this just makes me frustrated. If you're playing a pvp game, you are a "pvper". There's none of this, "well I play the pvp game but I'm a crafter", "well, I play the pvp game but I'm a mascot". "Well I play the pvp game but I'm a bologna sandwich". No. No more of this. You're making up new rules to fit your argument and it's silly. Every person who plays a pvp game, (not a 'just consensual' pvp game, not just battleground or whatever you want to call the instances) knowing the game has open pvp, is a pvper!
No more of this "us vs them". You're a human. "The other guys" are human, regardless of how bestial you care to make them seem. You're all people playing a game, a pvp game. You know it, logging on, making a toon. There is no 'other guy who is a pvp guy' in a pvp game. If you are playing a pvp game, you are a pvp game player, or in short, a pvp'er. All you're doing with all of this is being a pvp'er with an identity crisis. lol. FFS if you don't like it, don't log on to a pvp game! Stop making dumb fake rules for everyone else. Your rules suck and they're as unnatural and twisted as a football bat. Knock it off!
You're confusing the point being made. The point is not people joining an OWPvP and not wanting to PvP. The point is having an OWPvP game to begin with. Many players do not want forced PvP. They do not mind having PvP in their games. They will even partake in it when they are in the mood for it. What they do not want is to be bothered with PvP when they are in relax mode entertaining themselves with the PvE content offered by the game. So that whereas it is fine for PvE players to have "consensual" PvP in their games, OWPvP players do not want to return the favor to PvE players by allowing them to have have unmolested PvE. In other words, whereas it is ok with PvE players to have "consensual" PvP, with the OWPvP crowd it is forced PvP or nothing at all.
wut? Come on. Don't play it, then. Simple. What is the point being made? If a game has open pvp, people who don't want to pvp can't contain themselves from buying the game and playing it?
"The point is having an OWPvP game to begin with."
What? What the hell, man. Are you doing a parody on my issue with developers who intentionally trigger impulsivity, like slot machines in casinos? I can show you relevant facts for this psychological manipulation. Are you saying there should be no open world pvp games, because psychologically, people who don't want to pvp just can't help themselves from buying it and trying to play it?
"They do not mind having PvP in their games. They will even partake in it when they are in the mood for it. What they do not want is to be bothered with PvP when they are in relax mode entertaining themselves with the PvE content offered by the game. "
WHAT? They don't make the rules like that. Seriously, let me illustrate another point... they are still pvping! They can't or won't operate within the confines and structure of the game so they go all manipulative and take the whole fight outside the game and make people conform to their wishes! That is messed up! It's not a messed up opinion, like, it's different than mine, it is a messed up manipulative behavior. Sit down to play monopoly with someone, nope, sorry, you're not allowed to build houses or a hotel there because I might land there and I just can't flippin handle landing there today because my day was so long and stressful and the boss was an asshole and I just can't take it right now I'm going to...
stop it. no. bad. boop you on the nose. quit it. just don't buy the games.
Relax dude.
Youre making this harder on yourself than it has to be. The PvE vs PvP debate for the PvE players has never been about not having any PvP at all. The argument has always been "consensual" PvP versus "non consensual" PvP, and it has always been during the development phase of a game, prior to its release. And that is because that is the time that everyone is fighting for the game to cater to their own preferences. Once a game has been released, it is King's X. A game is what it is, and those whom it does not cater to, after it has been released, will simply move along and not play.
I have never seen an argument where the PvE crowd is against any form of PvP. They are more than open to "consensual" PvP. Consensual PvP is inclusive. It is about affording a player options. There is nothing wrong with options. The more, the merrier. Non-consensual PvP, however, is exclusive. It limits options and forces a player to play a certain way.
There would be no debate if all games where designed as PvE with consensual PvP. None! No one is preventing developers from developing OWPvP, and players from playing them. They've been developed and released in the past. The OWPvP crowd plays them and PvE players stay away from them. That is not the issue. The debate is about having them at all.
There would otherwise be no debate.
First of all, it's incredibly naïve to say nobody complains or debates about optional PVP. In every game ever released since the beginning of time with optional PVP there has been plenty of crying from players who just don't want to get the hint. Don't want to die, don't go there! Don't want to get clone camped? Spawn somewhere else. These games are developed almost idiot proof these days and people will still complain that it's all too hard and inconvenient for them to stop playing for 2 minutes, think about what they're doing, and stop whatever it is that they're doing that got them killed. They will instead go back to that exact same spot, or do the exact same stupid thing and then whine when they die, again. It's the way it's always been with consensual PVP and the way it always will be.
Secondly, why is this even a debate about what games are being developed? Companies with the money and the expertise design the games, you as the consumer decided wether you want to buy them or not. And you're saying other people are making it harder on themselves than it has to be? You really like your irony rich with flavour.
[mod edit]
[mod edit] Every game has different PVP rule sets so the circumstances one finds themselves in and how they got there are going to vary. That does nothing to change the fact the PVE players often find themselves in PVP because they were trying to do something they shouldn't be doing unless they wanted to PVP. Like ESO going to Cyrodiil, or SWG participating in the GCW..etc. Many games have mechanics that are only available to PVPers and PVEers hate that so they try to be sneaky and get upset when they get caught. [mod edit]
...and all that's left for pvpers to pvp is themselves.
Oh, this just makes me frustrated. If you're playing a pvp game, you are a "pvper". There's none of this, "well I play the pvp game but I'm a crafter", "well, I play the pvp game but I'm a mascot". "Well I play the pvp game but I'm a bologna sandwich". No. No more of this. You're making up new rules to fit your argument and it's silly. Every person who plays a pvp game, (not a 'just consensual' pvp game, not just battleground or whatever you want to call the instances) knowing the game has open pvp, is a pvper!
No more of this "us vs them". You're a human. "The other guys" are human, regardless of how bestial you care to make them seem. You're all people playing a game, a pvp game. You know it, logging on, making a toon. There is no 'other guy who is a pvp guy' in a pvp game. If you are playing a pvp game, you are a pvp game player, or in short, a pvp'er. All you're doing with all of this is being a pvp'er with an identity crisis. lol. FFS if you don't like it, don't log on to a pvp game! Stop making dumb fake rules for everyone else. Your rules suck and they're as unnatural and twisted as a football bat. Knock it off!
You're confusing the point being made. The point is not people joining an OWPvP and not wanting to PvP. The point is having an OWPvP game to begin with. Many players do not want forced PvP. They do not mind having PvP in their games. They will even partake in it when they are in the mood for it. What they do not want is to be bothered with PvP when they are in relax mode entertaining themselves with the PvE content offered by the game. So that whereas it is fine for PvE players to have "consensual" PvP in their games, OWPvP players do not want to return the favor to PvE players by allowing them to have have unmolested PvE. In other words, whereas it is ok with PvE players to have "consensual" PvP, with the OWPvP crowd it is forced PvP or nothing at all.
wut? Come on. Don't play it, then. Simple. What is the point being made? If a game has open pvp, people who don't want to pvp can't contain themselves from buying the game and playing it?
"The point is having an OWPvP game to begin with."
What? What the hell, man. Are you doing a parody on my issue with developers who intentionally trigger impulsivity, like slot machines in casinos? I can show you relevant facts for this psychological manipulation. Are you saying there should be no open world pvp games, because psychologically, people who don't want to pvp just can't help themselves from buying it and trying to play it?
"They do not mind having PvP in their games. They will even partake in it when they are in the mood for it. What they do not want is to be bothered with PvP when they are in relax mode entertaining themselves with the PvE content offered by the game. "
WHAT? They don't make the rules like that. Seriously, let me illustrate another point... they are still pvping! They can't or won't operate within the confines and structure of the game so they go all manipulative and take the whole fight outside the game and make people conform to their wishes! That is messed up! It's not a messed up opinion, like, it's different than mine, it is a messed up manipulative behavior. Sit down to play monopoly with someone, nope, sorry, you're not allowed to build houses or a hotel there because I might land there and I just can't flippin handle landing there today because my day was so long and stressful and the boss was an asshole and I just can't take it right now I'm going to...
stop it. no. bad. boop you on the nose. quit it. just don't buy the games.
Relax dude.
Youre making this harder on yourself than it has to be. The PvE vs PvP debate for the PvE players has never been about not having any PvP at all. The argument has always been "consensual" PvP versus "non consensual" PvP, and it has always been during the development phase of a game, prior to its release. And that is because that is the time that everyone is fighting for the game to cater to their own preferences. Once a game has been released, it is King's X. A game is what it is, and those whom it does not cater to, after it has been released, will simply move along and not play.
I have never seen an argument where the PvE crowd is against any form of PvP. They are more than open to "consensual" PvP. Consensual PvP is inclusive. It is about affording a player options. There is nothing wrong with options. The more, the merrier. Non-consensual PvP, however, is exclusive. It limits options and forces a player to play a certain way.
There would be no debate if all games where designed as PvE with consensual PvP. None! No one is preventing developers from developing OWPvP, and players from playing them. They've been developed and released in the past. The OWPvP crowd plays them and PvE players stay away from them. That is not the issue. The debate is about having them at all.
There would otherwise be no debate.
First of all, it's incredibly naïve to say nobody complains or debates about optional PVP. In every game ever released since the beginning of time with optional PVP there has been plenty of crying from players who just don't want to get the hint. Don't want to die, don't go there! Don't want to get clone camped? Spawn somewhere else. These games are developed almost idiot proof these days and people will still complain that it's all too hard and inconvenient for them to stop playing for 2 minutes, think about what they're doing, and stop whatever it is that they're doing that got them killed. They will instead go back to that exact same spot, or do the exact same stupid thing and then whine when they die, again. It's the way it's always been with consensual PVP and the way it always will be.
Secondly, why is this even a debate about what games are being developed? Companies with the money and the expertise design the games, you as the consumer decided wether you want to buy them or not. And you're saying other people are making it harder on themselves than it has to be? You really like your irony rich with flavour.
[mod edit]
[mod edit] Every game has different PVP rule sets so the circumstances one finds themselves in and how they got there are going to vary. That does nothing to change the fact the PVE players often find themselves in PVP because they were trying to do something they shouldn't be doing unless they wanted to PVP. Like ESO going to Cyrodiil, or SWG participating in the GCW..etc. Many games have mechanics that are only available to PVPers and PVEers hate that so they try to be sneaky and get upset when they get caught. [mod edit]
Read the post carefully. If you do not consent to PvP, irregardless of the PvP rules sets, they do not apply to those who do not consent to PvP. If you consent to PvP, then you are a PvP player, not a PvE player, and you have no one to blame but yourself. You either consent to PvP or you do not, and when you do, you are a PvP player, not a PvE player. It is really quite simple.
...and all that's left for pvpers to pvp is themselves.
Oh, this just makes me frustrated. If you're playing a pvp game, you are a "pvper". There's none of this, "well I play the pvp game but I'm a crafter", "well, I play the pvp game but I'm a mascot". "Well I play the pvp game but I'm a bologna sandwich". No. No more of this. You're making up new rules to fit your argument and it's silly. Every person who plays a pvp game, (not a 'just consensual' pvp game, not just battleground or whatever you want to call the instances) knowing the game has open pvp, is a pvper!
No more of this "us vs them". You're a human. "The other guys" are human, regardless of how bestial you care to make them seem. You're all people playing a game, a pvp game. You know it, logging on, making a toon. There is no 'other guy who is a pvp guy' in a pvp game. If you are playing a pvp game, you are a pvp game player, or in short, a pvp'er. All you're doing with all of this is being a pvp'er with an identity crisis. lol. FFS if you don't like it, don't log on to a pvp game! Stop making dumb fake rules for everyone else. Your rules suck and they're as unnatural and twisted as a football bat. Knock it off!
You're confusing the point being made. The point is not people joining an OWPvP and not wanting to PvP. The point is having an OWPvP game to begin with. Many players do not want forced PvP. They do not mind having PvP in their games. They will even partake in it when they are in the mood for it. What they do not want is to be bothered with PvP when they are in relax mode entertaining themselves with the PvE content offered by the game. So that whereas it is fine for PvE players to have "consensual" PvP in their games, OWPvP players do not want to return the favor to PvE players by allowing them to have have unmolested PvE. In other words, whereas it is ok with PvE players to have "consensual" PvP, with the OWPvP crowd it is forced PvP or nothing at all.
wut? Come on. Don't play it, then. Simple. What is the point being made? If a game has open pvp, people who don't want to pvp can't contain themselves from buying the game and playing it?
"The point is having an OWPvP game to begin with."
What? What the hell, man. Are you doing a parody on my issue with developers who intentionally trigger impulsivity, like slot machines in casinos? I can show you relevant facts for this psychological manipulation. Are you saying there should be no open world pvp games, because psychologically, people who don't want to pvp just can't help themselves from buying it and trying to play it?
"They do not mind having PvP in their games. They will even partake in it when they are in the mood for it. What they do not want is to be bothered with PvP when they are in relax mode entertaining themselves with the PvE content offered by the game. "
WHAT? They don't make the rules like that. Seriously, let me illustrate another point... they are still pvping! They can't or won't operate within the confines and structure of the game so they go all manipulative and take the whole fight outside the game and make people conform to their wishes! That is messed up! It's not a messed up opinion, like, it's different than mine, it is a messed up manipulative behavior. Sit down to play monopoly with someone, nope, sorry, you're not allowed to build houses or a hotel there because I might land there and I just can't flippin handle landing there today because my day was so long and stressful and the boss was an asshole and I just can't take it right now I'm going to...
stop it. no. bad. boop you on the nose. quit it. just don't buy the games.
Relax dude.
Youre making this harder on yourself than it has to be. The PvE vs PvP debate for the PvE players has never been about not having any PvP at all. The argument has always been "consensual" PvP versus "non consensual" PvP, and it has always been during the development phase of a game, prior to its release. And that is because that is the time that everyone is fighting for the game to cater to their own preferences. Once a game has been released, it is King's X. A game is what it is, and those whom it does not cater to, after it has been released, will simply move along and not play.
I have never seen an argument where the PvE crowd is against any form of PvP. They are more than open to "consensual" PvP. Consensual PvP is inclusive. It is about affording a player options. There is nothing wrong with options. The more, the merrier. Non-consensual PvP, however, is exclusive. It limits options and forces a player to play a certain way.
There would be no debate if all games where designed as PvE with consensual PvP. None! No one is preventing developers from developing OWPvP, and players from playing them. They've been developed and released in the past. The OWPvP crowd plays them and PvE players stay away from them. That is not the issue. The debate is about having them at all.
There would otherwise be no debate.
First of all, it's incredibly naïve to say nobody complains or debates about optional PVP. In every game ever released since the beginning of time with optional PVP there has been plenty of crying from players who just don't want to get the hint. Don't want to die, don't go there! Don't want to get clone camped? Spawn somewhere else. These games are developed almost idiot proof these days and people will still complain that it's all too hard and inconvenient for them to stop playing for 2 minutes, think about what they're doing, and stop whatever it is that they're doing that got them killed. They will instead go back to that exact same spot, or do the exact same stupid thing and then whine when they die, again. It's the way it's always been with consensual PVP and the way it always will be.
Secondly, why is this even a debate about what games are being developed? Companies with the money and the expertise design the games, you as the consumer decided wether you want to buy them or not. And you're saying other people are making it harder on themselves than it has to be? You really like your irony rich with flavour.
[mod edit]
[mod edit] Every game has different PVP rule sets so the circumstances one finds themselves in and how they got there are going to vary. That does nothing to change the fact the PVE players often find themselves in PVP because they were trying to do something they shouldn't be doing unless they wanted to PVP. Like ESO going to Cyrodiil, or SWG participating in the GCW..etc. Many games have mechanics that are only available to PVPers and PVEers hate that so they try to be sneaky and get upset when they get caught. [mod edit]
I don't agree with your method of delivery.
But you are absolutely right... As the ambassador of PvP, I support this 100 percent.
...and all that's left for pvpers to pvp is themselves.
Oh, this just makes me frustrated. If you're playing a pvp game, you are a "pvper". There's none of this, "well I play the pvp game but I'm a crafter", "well, I play the pvp game but I'm a mascot". "Well I play the pvp game but I'm a bologna sandwich". No. No more of this. You're making up new rules to fit your argument and it's silly. Every person who plays a pvp game, (not a 'just consensual' pvp game, not just battleground or whatever you want to call the instances) knowing the game has open pvp, is a pvper!
No more of this "us vs them". You're a human. "The other guys" are human, regardless of how bestial you care to make them seem. You're all people playing a game, a pvp game. You know it, logging on, making a toon. There is no 'other guy who is a pvp guy' in a pvp game. If you are playing a pvp game, you are a pvp game player, or in short, a pvp'er. All you're doing with all of this is being a pvp'er with an identity crisis. lol. FFS if you don't like it, don't log on to a pvp game! Stop making dumb fake rules for everyone else. Your rules suck and they're as unnatural and twisted as a football bat. Knock it off!
You're confusing the point being made. The point is not people joining an OWPvP and not wanting to PvP. The point is having an OWPvP game to begin with. Many players do not want forced PvP. They do not mind having PvP in their games. They will even partake in it when they are in the mood for it. What they do not want is to be bothered with PvP when they are in relax mode entertaining themselves with the PvE content offered by the game. So that whereas it is fine for PvE players to have "consensual" PvP in their games, OWPvP players do not want to return the favor to PvE players by allowing them to have have unmolested PvE. In other words, whereas it is ok with PvE players to have "consensual" PvP, with the OWPvP crowd it is forced PvP or nothing at all.
wut? Come on. Don't play it, then. Simple. What is the point being made? If a game has open pvp, people who don't want to pvp can't contain themselves from buying the game and playing it?
"The point is having an OWPvP game to begin with."
What? What the hell, man. Are you doing a parody on my issue with developers who intentionally trigger impulsivity, like slot machines in casinos? I can show you relevant facts for this psychological manipulation. Are you saying there should be no open world pvp games, because psychologically, people who don't want to pvp just can't help themselves from buying it and trying to play it?
"They do not mind having PvP in their games. They will even partake in it when they are in the mood for it. What they do not want is to be bothered with PvP when they are in relax mode entertaining themselves with the PvE content offered by the game. "
WHAT? They don't make the rules like that. Seriously, let me illustrate another point... they are still pvping! They can't or won't operate within the confines and structure of the game so they go all manipulative and take the whole fight outside the game and make people conform to their wishes! That is messed up! It's not a messed up opinion, like, it's different than mine, it is a messed up manipulative behavior. Sit down to play monopoly with someone, nope, sorry, you're not allowed to build houses or a hotel there because I might land there and I just can't flippin handle landing there today because my day was so long and stressful and the boss was an asshole and I just can't take it right now I'm going to...
stop it. no. bad. boop you on the nose. quit it. just don't buy the games.
Relax dude.
Youre making this harder on yourself than it has to be. The PvE vs PvP debate for the PvE players has never been about not having any PvP at all. The argument has always been "consensual" PvP versus "non consensual" PvP, and it has always been during the development phase of a game, prior to its release. And that is because that is the time that everyone is fighting for the game to cater to their own preferences. Once a game has been released, it is King's X. A game is what it is, and those whom it does not cater to, after it has been released, will simply move along and not play.
I have never seen an argument where the PvE crowd is against any form of PvP. They are more than open to "consensual" PvP. Consensual PvP is inclusive. It is about affording a player options. There is nothing wrong with options. The more, the merrier. Non-consensual PvP, however, is exclusive. It limits options and forces a player to play a certain way.
There would be no debate if all games where designed as PvE with consensual PvP. None! No one is preventing developers from developing OWPvP, and players from playing them. They've been developed and released in the past. The OWPvP crowd plays them and PvE players stay away from them. That is not the issue. The debate is about having them at all.
There would otherwise be no debate.
First of all, it's incredibly naïve to say nobody complains or debates about optional PVP. In every game ever released since the beginning of time with optional PVP there has been plenty of crying from players who just don't want to get the hint. Don't want to die, don't go there! Don't want to get clone camped? Spawn somewhere else. These games are developed almost idiot proof these days and people will still complain that it's all too hard and inconvenient for them to stop playing for 2 minutes, think about what they're doing, and stop whatever it is that they're doing that got them killed. They will instead go back to that exact same spot, or do the exact same stupid thing and then whine when they die, again. It's the way it's always been with consensual PVP and the way it always will be.
Secondly, why is this even a debate about what games are being developed? Companies with the money and the expertise design the games, you as the consumer decided wether you want to buy them or not. And you're saying other people are making it harder on themselves than it has to be? You really like your irony rich with flavour.
[mod edit]
[mod edit] Every game has different PVP rule sets so the circumstances one finds themselves in and how they got there are going to vary. That does nothing to change the fact the PVE players often find themselves in PVP because they were trying to do something they shouldn't be doing unless they wanted to PVP. Like ESO going to Cyrodiil, or SWG participating in the GCW..etc. Many games have mechanics that are only available to PVPers and PVEers hate that so they try to be sneaky and get upset when they get caught. [mod edit]
Because conflict is at the heart of any type of PvP, consensual or otherwise, you are always going to have players that disagree about how it should be played or how unbalanced it is or how many gankers are ruining it for others.
These games pit player versus player both inside and outside of the game, as well evidenced by this very thread.
In pure PvE games there really isn't much discussion or concern about how others play the game, because it only concerns the specific player in each case. Hence PvE players will discuss the game and what they like and don't like about it. There are no shouting matches or insults towards other players in general, unless of course someone wants to get rid of a feature they don't like and another player does like. But that is also PvP in a way, because then you are attacking another person's enjoyment of the game.
I am the first to admit I am a bit of a pacifist (carebear). I don't like the idea of war or conflict. I don't like boasting over the misfortune of others either.
But people do have these tendencies ( in our nature as Frog says) and do derive some thrill or excitement from it. And that is a good thing too. We have these tendencies because we need them for survival.
But it is like war and peace. Some do enjoy living on the edge, in dangerous times or places. Others are content with order and rules, and civilized society. Can't have both at the same time, though.
It is either war or peace.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Originally posted by Randayn My issue isn't that there are PVP games...let it be, Im good with PVP servers (as long as there are PVE servers too). My issue is what's trending right now with developers is nothing BUT open world PVP. Even The Repop does not have an ONLY PVE server. Crowfall, Black Desert, Albion...list goes on...all look like really interesting games, but are no go for me since it's forced PVP. It's a frustration thing.
and your getting EQ:N + landmark, GW2 expansion, WoW expansions, life is feudal, shroud of the avatar, pantheon, final fantasy XIV expansion..the list goes on....i don't really see your point. hell there is exponential more money being spent on pve demographic.
also your COMPLETELY writing off games that are in pre alpha states(and you haven't tried) because it has one mechanic you dont like....thats pretty close minded.
...and all that's left for pvpers to pvp is themselves.
Oh, this just makes me frustrated. If you're playing a pvp game, you are a "pvper". There's none of this, "well I play the pvp game but I'm a crafter", "well, I play the pvp game but I'm a mascot". "Well I play the pvp game but I'm a bologna sandwich". No. No more of this. You're making up new rules to fit your argument and it's silly. Every person who plays a pvp game, (not a 'just consensual' pvp game, not just battleground or whatever you want to call the instances) knowing the game has open pvp, is a pvper!
No more of this "us vs them". You're a human. "The other guys" are human, regardless of how bestial you care to make them seem. You're all people playing a game, a pvp game. You know it, logging on, making a toon. There is no 'other guy who is a pvp guy' in a pvp game. If you are playing a pvp game, you are a pvp game player, or in short, a pvp'er. All you're doing with all of this is being a pvp'er with an identity crisis. lol. FFS if you don't like it, don't log on to a pvp game! Stop making dumb fake rules for everyone else. Your rules suck and they're as unnatural and twisted as a football bat. Knock it off!
You're confusing the point being made. The point is not people joining an OWPvP and not wanting to PvP. The point is having an OWPvP game to begin with. Many players do not want forced PvP. They do not mind having PvP in their games. They will even partake in it when they are in the mood for it. What they do not want is to be bothered with PvP when they are in relax mode entertaining themselves with the PvE content offered by the game. So that whereas it is fine for PvE players to have "consensual" PvP in their games, OWPvP players do not want to return the favor to PvE players by allowing them to have have unmolested PvE. In other words, whereas it is ok with PvE players to have "consensual" PvP, with the OWPvP crowd it is forced PvP or nothing at all.
wut? Come on. Don't play it, then. Simple. What is the point being made? If a game has open pvp, people who don't want to pvp can't contain themselves from buying the game and playing it?
"The point is having an OWPvP game to begin with."
What? What the hell, man. Are you doing a parody on my issue with developers who intentionally trigger impulsivity, like slot machines in casinos? I can show you relevant facts for this psychological manipulation. Are you saying there should be no open world pvp games, because psychologically, people who don't want to pvp just can't help themselves from buying it and trying to play it?
"They do not mind having PvP in their games. They will even partake in it when they are in the mood for it. What they do not want is to be bothered with PvP when they are in relax mode entertaining themselves with the PvE content offered by the game. "
WHAT? They don't make the rules like that. Seriously, let me illustrate another point... they are still pvping! They can't or won't operate within the confines and structure of the game so they go all manipulative and take the whole fight outside the game and make people conform to their wishes! That is messed up! It's not a messed up opinion, like, it's different than mine, it is a messed up manipulative behavior. Sit down to play monopoly with someone, nope, sorry, you're not allowed to build houses or a hotel there because I might land there and I just can't flippin handle landing there today because my day was so long and stressful and the boss was an asshole and I just can't take it right now I'm going to...
stop it. no. bad. boop you on the nose. quit it. just don't buy the games.
Relax dude.
Youre making this harder on yourself than it has to be. The PvE vs PvP debate for the PvE players has never been about not having any PvP at all. The argument has always been "consensual" PvP versus "non consensual" PvP, and it has always been during the development phase of a game, prior to its release. And that is because that is the time that everyone is fighting for the game to cater to their own preferences. Once a game has been released, it is King's X. A game is what it is, and those whom it does not cater to, after it has been released, will simply move along and not play.
I have never seen an argument where the PvE crowd is against any form of PvP. They are more than open to "consensual" PvP. Consensual PvP is inclusive. It is about affording a player options. There is nothing wrong with options. The more, the merrier. Non-consensual PvP, however, is exclusive. It limits options and forces a player to play a certain way.
There would be no debate if all games where designed as PvE with consensual PvP. None! No one is preventing developers from developing OWPvP, and players from playing them. They've been developed and released in the past. The OWPvP crowd plays them and PvE players stay away from them. That is not the issue. The debate is about having them at all.
There would otherwise be no debate.
First of all, it's incredibly naïve to say nobody complains or debates about optional PVP. In every game ever released since the beginning of time with optional PVP there has been plenty of crying from players who just don't want to get the hint. Don't want to die, don't go there! Don't want to get clone camped? Spawn somewhere else. These games are developed almost idiot proof these days and people will still complain that it's all too hard and inconvenient for them to stop playing for 2 minutes, think about what they're doing, and stop whatever it is that they're doing that got them killed. They will instead go back to that exact same spot, or do the exact same stupid thing and then whine when they die, again. It's the way it's always been with consensual PVP and the way it always will be.
Secondly, why is this even a debate about what games are being developed? Companies with the money and the expertise design the games, you as the consumer decided wether you want to buy them or not. And you're saying other people are making it harder on themselves than it has to be? You really like your irony rich with flavour.
[mod edit]
[mod edit] Every game has different PVP rule sets so the circumstances one finds themselves in and how they got there are going to vary. That does nothing to change the fact the PVE players often find themselves in PVP because they were trying to do something they shouldn't be doing unless they wanted to PVP. Like ESO going to Cyrodiil, or SWG participating in the GCW..etc. Many games have mechanics that are only available to PVPers and PVEers hate that so they try to be sneaky and get upset when they get caught. [mod edit]
Because conflict is at the heart of any type of PvP, consensual or otherwise, you are always going to have players that disagree about how it should be played or how unbalanced it is or how many gankers are ruining it for others.
These games pit player versus player both inside and outside of the game, as well evidenced by this very thread.
In pure PvE games there really isn't much discussion or concern about how others play the game, because it only concerns the specific player in each case. Hence PvE players will discuss the game and what they like and don't like about it. There are no shouting matches or insults towards other players in general, unless of course someone wants to get rid of a feature they don't like and another player does like. But that is also PvP in a way, because then you are attacking another person's enjoyment of the game.
I am the first to admit I am a bit of a pacifist (carebear). I don't like the idea of war or conflict. I don't like boasting over the misfortune of others either.
But people do have these tendencies ( in our nature as Frog says) and do derive some thrill or excitement from it. And that is a good thing too. We have these tendencies because we need them for survival.
But it is like war and peace. Some do enjoy living on the edge, in dangerous times or places. Others are content with order and rules, and civilized society. Can't have both at the same time, though.
It is either war or peace.
Well you make some fair points, but I do disagree with you on a number of items. First of all the whole notion that PVE server type games do not have interpersonal conflict or griefing or any of that stuff is in my direct experience completely false. I've seen players subjected to the worst kind of verbal harassment simply because they are maybe not the best at playing their class. And even being the "hardcore merciless PVPer" that I am, I have stood up for those people in those scenarios against "Hardcore carebears" because I just don't think it's right.
Not to mention the way a lot of tanks/healers act in PUG's, if people find me rude perhaps they'd like to go do a dungeon with people they don't know as a DPS class and come back and share their experience.
Also the practice of completely forgetting common courtesy is rampant on any PVE server. See a guy camping a mob that you need? Who cares if he's been there 30 minutes before you, what exactly is the punishment if you steal it from him? Nothing, one guy is mad at you, but has no tools to do anything about it. Risk vs reward says go ahead and take what you like.
I could go on for awhile, hostile guild take overs, disputes over guild names/character names/plots of land, contested raids. Crafter vs crafter. I've never played a game with an economy where inevitably some crafter does not make a post about how they undercut some well known guys goods and he bought them all and relisted them at his price, and a huge shit storm ensues. The very fact that EQ2 flames exits, in all it's hilarity, is this kinda stuff. There's a whole website dedicated to it in a game, that in all truth, is not all that populated to start with and most of it does not come from the PVP servers.
The only real reason why balance is more of a contested point on PVP servers or games is because balance directly affects people's livelihood. It's life or death. On a PVE server balance is largely irrelevant because classes aren't matched against each other, they're all matched against the same thing, the AI.
As I've said before I find the main difference between PVPers and those who abhor PVP on a generalized level, PVPers do deal with defeat, on a regular basis in almost all cases. Sure, nobody likes to die or be overpowered, but if you see someone complaining a lot about it, more than likely they are new to PVP. I think tasting defeat and being humbled by it is a good thing, and can encourage personal development. The hardest thing about competition is learning how to win. I'm not talking about how to beat your opponent, but how to handle winning. You get to a point where you understand that it's fleeting and you're not always going to wind up on top of the mountain, and you're better off not acting like an asshole about it.
These are things you will never learn in PVE. That's my opinion.
As someone who played a lot of UO back in the day, I actually didn't mind the concept of Trammel. It expanded the housing available and it helped expand the player base.
Although pre-trammel, even though UO had a high attrition rate, it was still growing at a steady pace - it was a tough world, but lots of people liked it. Perhaps if there was a more advanced tutorial system (or any) at that point in time, you may have a different result. You needed a mentor if you were going to even remotely enjoy the game.
The problem with Trammel was that it completely eliminated the entire risk vs. reward which was one of the key features in UO. You could now AFK macro or mine without fear of anything.
I played the game up until 2 years post Age of Shadows / Publish 16. That's ultimately what killed UO and ruined the game.
I wouldn't even consider ganking to be real PvP. So the whole premise is a bit skewed.
It's not the mind of the "PvP" crowd we are talking about when listing the worst case scenarios.
It's a small subset of gamers we are talking about, and calling them PvPers is giving them way too much credit. They are not looking for "PvP" when camping out in areas 20 levels below their own level in order to ruin some lowbie's day. They just want to grief.
As others have pointed out, these people exist everywhere, even on PvE servers, where they will also find ways to harass and grief people. They are not PvPers.
Open PvP just gives them more direct tools to do the griefing, so you will find a higher concentration of them in these types of settings.
Comments
I guess agree to disagree, man, because to me, your side of this has no substance. That's not meant to be an insult or a lampoon, just an opinion. Maybe I'm missing something here entirely. I... am not going to dwell on it much.
edit: corrected "insult of a lampoon" to "insult or a lampoon"
[mod edit]
The argument being made by you is one of camping. The only player that could possibly be complaining about camping in a "consensual" pvp game is a PvP player. In other words, PvE players who have not consented to PvP will not be flagged for PvP, they will therefore not be camped because they would be immune to it. The crying players you speak of are, therefore, the PvP players and lord knows they do their share of crying.
Again, there is,and will never be, an issue with PvE players having "consensual" PvP in games. And why should there be when if they do no consent it does not affect them in the least. If there is any argument to be made in consensual PvP games, it is not with the design of the game, it is because of the frustrations being brought about by PvP game play regardless of whether you are a PvE player consenting to PvP play, or a strictly PvP player.
[mod edit]
[mod edit] Every game has different PVP rule sets so the circumstances one finds themselves in and how they got there are going to vary. That does nothing to change the fact the PVE players often find themselves in PVP because they were trying to do something they shouldn't be doing unless they wanted to PVP. Like ESO going to Cyrodiil, or SWG participating in the GCW..etc. Many games have mechanics that are only available to PVPers and PVEers hate that so they try to be sneaky and get upset when they get caught. [mod edit]
Read the post carefully. If you do not consent to PvP, irregardless of the PvP rules sets, they do not apply to those who do not consent to PvP. If you consent to PvP, then you are a PvP player, not a PvE player, and you have no one to blame but yourself. You either consent to PvP or you do not, and when you do, you are a PvP player, not a PvE player. It is really quite simple.
[mod edit]
I don't agree with your method of delivery.
But you are absolutely right... As the ambassador of PvP, I support this 100 percent.
Because conflict is at the heart of any type of PvP, consensual or otherwise, you are always going to have players that disagree about how it should be played or how unbalanced it is or how many gankers are ruining it for others.
These games pit player versus player both inside and outside of the game, as well evidenced by this very thread.
In pure PvE games there really isn't much discussion or concern about how others play the game, because it only concerns the specific player in each case. Hence PvE players will discuss the game and what they like and don't like about it. There are no shouting matches or insults towards other players in general, unless of course someone wants to get rid of a feature they don't like and another player does like. But that is also PvP in a way, because then you are attacking another person's enjoyment of the game.
I am the first to admit I am a bit of a pacifist (carebear). I don't like the idea of war or conflict. I don't like boasting over the misfortune of others either.
But people do have these tendencies ( in our nature as Frog says) and do derive some thrill or excitement from it. And that is a good thing too. We have these tendencies because we need them for survival.
But it is like war and peace. Some do enjoy living on the edge, in dangerous times or places. Others are content with order and rules, and civilized society. Can't have both at the same time, though.
It is either war or peace.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
and your getting EQ:N + landmark, GW2 expansion, WoW expansions, life is feudal, shroud of the avatar, pantheon, final fantasy XIV expansion..the list goes on....i don't really see your point. hell there is exponential more money being spent on pve demographic.
also your COMPLETELY writing off games that are in pre alpha states(and you haven't tried) because it has one mechanic you dont like....thats pretty close minded.
Well you make some fair points, but I do disagree with you on a number of items. First of all the whole notion that PVE server type games do not have interpersonal conflict or griefing or any of that stuff is in my direct experience completely false. I've seen players subjected to the worst kind of verbal harassment simply because they are maybe not the best at playing their class. And even being the "hardcore merciless PVPer" that I am, I have stood up for those people in those scenarios against "Hardcore carebears" because I just don't think it's right.
Not to mention the way a lot of tanks/healers act in PUG's, if people find me rude perhaps they'd like to go do a dungeon with people they don't know as a DPS class and come back and share their experience.
Also the practice of completely forgetting common courtesy is rampant on any PVE server. See a guy camping a mob that you need? Who cares if he's been there 30 minutes before you, what exactly is the punishment if you steal it from him? Nothing, one guy is mad at you, but has no tools to do anything about it. Risk vs reward says go ahead and take what you like.
I could go on for awhile, hostile guild take overs, disputes over guild names/character names/plots of land, contested raids. Crafter vs crafter. I've never played a game with an economy where inevitably some crafter does not make a post about how they undercut some well known guys goods and he bought them all and relisted them at his price, and a huge shit storm ensues. The very fact that EQ2 flames exits, in all it's hilarity, is this kinda stuff. There's a whole website dedicated to it in a game, that in all truth, is not all that populated to start with and most of it does not come from the PVP servers.
The only real reason why balance is more of a contested point on PVP servers or games is because balance directly affects people's livelihood. It's life or death. On a PVE server balance is largely irrelevant because classes aren't matched against each other, they're all matched against the same thing, the AI.
As I've said before I find the main difference between PVPers and those who abhor PVP on a generalized level, PVPers do deal with defeat, on a regular basis in almost all cases. Sure, nobody likes to die or be overpowered, but if you see someone complaining a lot about it, more than likely they are new to PVP. I think tasting defeat and being humbled by it is a good thing, and can encourage personal development. The hardest thing about competition is learning how to win. I'm not talking about how to beat your opponent, but how to handle winning. You get to a point where you understand that it's fleeting and you're not always going to wind up on top of the mountain, and you're better off not acting like an asshole about it.
These are things you will never learn in PVE. That's my opinion.
As someone who played a lot of UO back in the day, I actually didn't mind the concept of Trammel. It expanded the housing available and it helped expand the player base.
Although pre-trammel, even though UO had a high attrition rate, it was still growing at a steady pace - it was a tough world, but lots of people liked it. Perhaps if there was a more advanced tutorial system (or any) at that point in time, you may have a different result. You needed a mentor if you were going to even remotely enjoy the game.
The problem with Trammel was that it completely eliminated the entire risk vs. reward which was one of the key features in UO. You could now AFK macro or mine without fear of anything.
I played the game up until 2 years post Age of Shadows / Publish 16. That's ultimately what killed UO and ruined the game.
I wouldn't even consider ganking to be real PvP. So the whole premise is a bit skewed.
It's not the mind of the "PvP" crowd we are talking about when listing the worst case scenarios.
It's a small subset of gamers we are talking about, and calling them PvPers is giving them way too much credit. They are not looking for "PvP" when camping out in areas 20 levels below their own level in order to ruin some lowbie's day. They just want to grief.
As others have pointed out, these people exist everywhere, even on PvE servers, where they will also find ways to harass and grief people. They are not PvPers.
Open PvP just gives them more direct tools to do the griefing, so you will find a higher concentration of them in these types of settings.
Sadly the few rotten eggs ruin the whole basket.
It is very common to do this sort of thing in an effort to evoke a response and find a good fight.
Its not always the case that people looking for PVP can just go out and immediately find it. This can be a way of drumming up business so to speak.
If you judge them and label them too harshly, decisively, or one dimensionally then you aren't really understanding them.
Granted, sometimes it is people who aren't actually wanting to fight. But we can't say for sure these people aren't there for pvp.