Do you like open world PvP ?

delete5230

Do you like open world PvP ?
It's a matter of play style choice, it shouldn't be an argument it's a matter of preference.

I'm sure the answers is yes, no, or depends on the circumstances.

State your case here. 



My onion,
When a game is 95% PvE and 5% PvP, it works more naturally. 

Everyone is busy with their PvE content, but if you decide to do it's easily available. 

This is the trick to good PvP 
Vanilla World of Warcraft is the only one that got open world PvP right. 

Caffynated

It really depends on the game.

If there's a steep power curve where a few levels or gear advantage makes PvP hopelessly lopsided then it becomes a waste of time to participate. If there is a flat power curve where you are competitive with people way above and below your gear and character level, then it can be great. 

Good examples: Shadowbane and Eve

Lower level characters with weaker equipment are obviously at a power disadvantage against higher level and better geared players, but they're not helpless. There's potential to outplay even significant power level disadvantages.

Bad examples: WoW and BDO

In WoW a 2-3 level difference is almost insurmountable. 5+ is basically impossible for most classes (we won't talk about Roguecraft), especially casters who just have their spells resisted 90% of the time. In BDO it's not the level difference, but the gear gap. I can outplay someone badly, combo them for 10 seconds straight, and they just shrug it off, stand up and one shot me with a nearly instant attack. There's no point in participating in PvP in that kind of game outside of a controlled scenario where gear and level are largely equal. For WoW that's BGs and Arenas, and for BDO it's Node war and Siege where most players fight against people with similar gear to them.

delete5230

Rhoklaw said:

Due to the amount of games that are easily exploitable and the amount of people that cheat, absolutely and positively no. However, this only pertains to games that have any sort of grind or progression system. Thus FPS games are able to be dealt with as you can just stop playing when the cheaters show up and they won't have any impact on your gaming whatsoever.

If an mmorpg were HUGE, you can avoid exploitable.  Problem being mmorpgs are made small and claustrophobic. 

KnightFalz

No, I do not. As such, the only games that "get it right" in my view are those that allow those such as myself to opt out entirely while at the same time allowing those interested to opt in.

Ideally both would provide roughly the same in terms of reward so that the choice would be made entirely on one's personal inclination, rather than a situation where one feels compelled to do something not enjoyed for the extra benefits it provides.

KnightFalz

Rhoklaw said:

Due to the amount of games that are easily exploitable and the amount of people that cheat, absolutely and positively no. However, this only pertains to games that have any sort of grind or progression system. Thus FPS games are able to be dealt with as you can just stop playing when the cheaters show up and they won't have any impact on your gaming whatsoever.

Well, other than the impact on your gaming of it having to be stopped when the cheaters show up.

iixviiiix

Depend on reward and punishment . I don't join a game where ass***es win by default

Theocritus

I've never found one wehre I had any chance at all to compete and I don't really havea desire to kill other players.

kitarad

No thanks no interest.

alyndale

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Kyleran

delete5230 said:

Do you like open world PvP ?
It's a matter of play style choice, it shouldn't be an argument it's a matter of preference.

The game has to be non-claustrophobic

No because ONLY ONE GAME DID IT RIGHT…… Vanilla World of Warcraft, let me explain: 

Mainly because the world has to be large, "very large".   The very large world has to be 95% PvE with loads of PvE content.  The player needs to be focused on PvE because that’s the goal of the game. 

If you happen on to an opportunity to PvP you have a choice. It's a natural occurrence much like real life.

If the world is very large and full of content…… The 5 % is still a lot ! 

You can choose to be a bully and easily search out PvP, you can make a living off the 5%.  But with it only being 5% it can easily be avoided too. 

Only one game is large enough to handle it. 

You shouldn’t have to be a WoW fan, but it's the only large game, where 5% is HUGE !

Kidz.  Prior to WOW there were multiple MMORPGs with FFA open world PVP, often delivered by way of separate servers / with alternate rulesets for those so inclined to the playstyle.

Never terribly popular, especially after the reality of the power gap between players endemic to MMORPGs set in turning most into ghost towns and then being shut down.

However for a time there was magic to be found in such worlds, I played on DAOCs Mordered "red" server for about 2.5 years and is still one of my best MMORPG experiences.

You are actually right about having a lower population coupled with a large open world (DAOC was much bigger IMO, especially at the time of WOWs launch) is a benefit actually. 

This combination made it quite possible for a carebear like me to conduct his daily PVE activities mostly unmolested, especially with smart gameplay.

Still had the option to do open world PVP with my guild or clan when they were running together and do my own thing when not in the mood. 

It really is a shame you missed Mordred or any of the other great PVP servers during their heydays in EQ1, UO, AC (Darktide is a legend), Lineage 1 / 2, Tibia, Runescape, or even Shadowbane, which definitely had its great moments.

Slapshot1188

Yes.
But a game has to be properly designed to support it.  Simply slapping "Open World PvP" into a game that is not designed around it is an invitation to disaster.

To be successful there should NEVER be any "flags" as suggested by earlier posts.  Rules of engagement need to be clear.  No silly /PvP on /pvp off stuff.    If you see an enemy... no ambiguity about whether you can attack.

This doesn't mean there cannot be safe spaces or dedicated PvE areas.  As mentioned above, IMHO DAoC got it perfect.  ESO tried to capture that same concept but did not get there.  The original Darkness Falls concept was one of the greatest PvP implementations in MMORPG history.  A shared dungeon with great PvE resources (including raid bosses) that is also a PvP area but access to this area is limited to one faction at a time based on how the war goes.  Yet, at the same time you could safely level to 50 in your homeland and never even see an enemy player.   

Myrdynn

Asheron's Call had the best open world PVP ever

Viper482

If done right, like Ultima Online, I like it. I loathe free for all no consequences open world pvp with zero purpose. I do like a pvp ruleset that promotes roleplay like UO did.

Faction based pvp is cool too, at least there is an enemy you are supposed to kill. I don't consider that open world pvp really. 

Slapshot1188

Viper482 said:

If done right, like Ultima Online, I like it. I loathe free for all no consequences open world pvp with zero purpose. I do like a pvp ruleset that promotes roleplay like UO did.

Faction based pvp is cool too, at least there is an enemy you are supposed to kill. I don't consider that open world pvp really. 

Well it's open-world... but not FFA

Wizardry

If an rpg no,if a shooter then yes.
I do not want classes or ANY kind of unbalance,pvp has to be 100% balance aside from latency.

KnightFalz

Wargfoot said:

The problem has never been open world PvP.
The problem has been a lack of balance.

Unreal Tournament, the Battlefield Series, League of Legends - pick any number of games that are straight up PvP and they're popular.  The truth is, most people handle PvP and even enjoy it - the problem has always been balance.

Any game that features significant progression and has open world PvP is going to be a dumpster fire.

That is because people respond very poorly to uneven fights. Period.
It is no more complicated than that.

Strictly PvP games only attract those that wish to PvP, so it is no wonder that those that play them enjoy and handle it well.  Anyone with no interest in PvP won't have issues with them either, because they won't be playing them to begin with.

It is not an issue of balance alone. Some people just don't want PvP as part of their play experience, no matter how wonderfully balanced it may be.

NorseGod

Yes.

ultimateduck

YES, I think PvP is a necessary part of a good MMO, from character balancing to the economy of a game. Open world PvP is a bit subjective. DAoC had a pure PvE zone as well as a voluntary, "open world" PvP zone where you could also PvE. To me, this was the perfect balance. I don't know why the model hasn't been recreated.

Nebless

No or a better answer would be not really and that's because of the sheer number of A-hole's that think Pvp means max level's going around and 1 shotting newbies.

I've enjoyed it in 2 games.   SWG because the world was so big and open and you really had to go looking for fights, no chance of someone just hanging around newbie village to attack people as they stepped out the gate.

And Vendetta Online, pretty much the same concept.   Both games had dedicated Pvp area's in addition to the open world so you could run the open world part and feel the rush if you saw someone else or you could just go right to the war zone and dive in. 

Vermillion_Raventhal

I don't like it with power gaps. Why have competitive PvP that is not competitive?

Ltldogg

delete5230 said:

Do you like open world PvP ?

No.

Theocritus

Viper482 said:

If done right, like Ultima Online, I like it. I loathe free for all no consequences open world pvp with zero purpose. I do like a pvp ruleset that promotes roleplay like UO did.

Faction based pvp is cool too, at least there is an enemy you are supposed to kill. I don't consider that open world pvp really. 

See I didn't see UO as having a guideline....I left the gates of Brittain, I died...over and over and over....How is that ever fun for anyone other than the max level guy ganking?

Vermillion_Raventhal

Theocritus said:

Viper482 said:

If done right, like Ultima Online, I like it. I loathe free for all no consequences open world pvp with zero purpose. I do like a pvp ruleset that promotes roleplay like UO did.

Faction based pvp is cool too, at least there is an enemy you are supposed to kill. I don't consider that open world pvp really. 

See I didn't see UO as having a guideline....I left the gates of Brittain, I died...over and over and over....How is that ever fun for anyone other than the max level guy ganking?

I can only picture you avatar being PKed over and over.  How did you manage to die the same way over and over is the question?

Octagon7711

I'm a PvE player but have found some open world PvP games with excellent PvE content, so I stayed and played.  It pretty much depends on the escape mechanics in the game.    Love games that have an instant teleport skill or deep stealth skills, it gives me a choice most of the time.

Tamanous

Open world pvp is the only real pvp in a true MMORPG. It is meant to be a virtual world and that means all of the elements that support conflict.

If it doesn't work in open world, it's because the game isn't built correctly. This doesn't mean there can't be a non-pvp version of the game.