Like in WoW, I liked the cities being sacked and doing little recon missions for my party. There was some sense of, if they win, we really did lose something. Even if it was just the griffon master:).
In SWG it wasn't the best IMO, but the guild wars were fun. Guild wars in SWG, if tehre was any confusion.
Anyway, I say it doesn't matter at all how many people like it. You arent forced to participate.
As far as ganking goes, if the game allows it, treat yourself to it now and again. It's more fun than ya might think.
They came from the sea and they came from the sky, Captain America is going to die!
Originally posted by fizzle322 Who cares what the percentage is.The only person whos opinion matters is the one playing the game.If its not a primarily open-pvp game, I'm not touching it.I would say the vast majority of carebears dont pvp because their egos are huge, they cant stand being beaten. They want to kill dumb AI all day long to feel better about the rest of their lives.PVPers enjoy a challenge./end
Wow! Thats harsh. I enjoy PvP myself, I also enjoy PvE. The problem I see with PvP os the level 60 warrior killing nothing but level 10 players. Thats the stuff people don't like about PvP. Sure in R/L it woulda happened, but then people are playing a game and they want to feel they are getting their money's worth. When you get idiots greifing, it makes more people go exclusively PvE. So to help the PvP need in games, everytime you see someone greifing, give him shit, or kill him yourself.
I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self. --Aristotle
Pour yourself a coffee, this is gonna be a long one.
If you don't feel like reading a lot, I'll sum it up: PvP in MMORPGs is a joke and not really PvP. If you want to know why I'm saying that, read on.
In real life, I've been in the military, I hunt, I play paintball and I've been involved in the martial arts for several years. I understand what drives people to compete. It's the need to better oneself. When it comes to games, I play FPS, RTS, TBS (Turn based Strategy), CCG (collectable Card Games), Racing, fighting, sports, and old school wargames like Squad Leader and Warhammer 40K.
I want to begin by pointing out that, in America at least, there is a culture of compitition that is centered around ego. Here in the States, I've always chalked it up to the attitude of Football and Professional Wrestling. You aren't a "man" unless you can kick other peoples ass and degrade them without fear of reprisal. If you're a starter on the Basketball team, the teachers rewrite your grades and you become exempt from being suspended or disciplined in any way. Oh yeah, and you can't get laid unless you're into some sport. You may be doomed to a life of pointless, dead end, factory work punctuated with alchoholism and wife beating, but if you're a quarterback life is sweet. At least until you graduate and get turned down from the NFL. Our culture promotes the macho insecure, "dick waving" bullshit that annoys most of us in online games. My view: you beat me in a video game, big shit.
If the Pkers were really about challenge, they'd be playing UT 2004, Mortal Kombat: Deception, Forza Motorsport, Madden 2007, Civ VI, Rome: Total War, Magic: The gathering Online, Yahoo chess, etc. Basically something where they might have a chance of losing. It's much easier to just grind up to the level cap and beat the hell out of lowbies. BTW, if UT isn't your thing, there's also America's Army, Ghost Recon, and Rainbow Six 3.
The problem with PvP in MMORPGs is the lack of player skill. Most of the time, RPG combat is nothing more than a comparison of numbers. This doesn't exclude a game from needing skill however, since a number of old school strategy games are pretty math intensive. However, MMORPGs have never acheived a sense of balance that you could find in games like Heroes of Might and Magic, Warlords, or Master of Orion. Most MMORPGs don't balance the play in such a way that a naturally skilled player can compete with someone that's invested 20+ hours a week for the last 24 monthes into a game right out of the gate. While a good strategy game may have many different types of units and upgrades, a "good" strategy game will generally not have one strategy that consistantly dominates the game. Chess is the perfect example of this. MMORPGs are plagued with "killer builds" and "l337 gear". To put it simply, someone that has played Civ for several years will be better than a newbie, but THE GAME ITSELF DOES NOT HANDICAP IN FAVOR OF THE EXPERIENCED PLAYER. MMORPGs almost always handicap PvP in the favor of players who have invested more time, whether they're really good at the game or not is unknownd because of this.
Does all of this mean that PvP can't be done in an MMORPG? Of course it doesn't. The problem isn't "carebears" or PKers. The problem is that a PvP MMORPG would have to be designed completely different than a conventional MMO. Designers would have to do some deep game theory analysis in order to maintain balance and make sure that there was not "perfect build" or unwinnable situations. In short, the game would have to make it so that the smarter / better player would always win and not the player with the most time / friends / gear. There is also the possibility of a an ending rather than an endgame. having the game played in rounds of several months or years with a new round opening a new chapter in the game based on the results of the last round. Or you could simply play the same scenario over and over again with bonuses going to the players that "won" the last round. Think of it as a really long version of Counter-Strike. Under this kind of game, permadeath would be a must.
Given, this is only one solution. But until MMOs are made with PvP in mind, from the beginning, I'll take my PvP to games that were created around PvP.
Originally posted by baff I very much agree PvP is a wanker magnet. It brings out the worst in people.
Yeah, but it seems to depend on the type of PvP. I never really noticed that effect in DAOC, but in EVE, it's part of what drove me away.
The difference? You can grief players in EVE, i.e. do things which serve no other purpose than to penalize your opponent, such as podding. In DAOC, there was hardly any griefing even possible, aside from people who tried to xp in the frontiers, so either the players it appeals to are less obnoxious, or it just doesn't bring it out of them the same way.
I prefer the sort of PvP where a player can just laugh at PvPer threats, and opt not to PvP. Really cuts down on the macho posturing bs.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Audition, an asian mmo has 50 million subscribers, with 500k concurrent users (do the google). It's a dancing game. That game has pvp, namely player vs. player dance-offs (if I understand it correctly). Would that make the answer 90% of mmo comunity digs pvp?
The largest MMO gaming communities offer card and puzzle games. They are played against other players, hence constituting pvp.
The real answer to your poll would be, that mmorpg (think wow, daoc, second life) are an insignifficant niche market in the huge ocean of online gaming. The definition of pvp within these scopes is irrelevant.
The actual apeal of killing in games is small, and looked at it from global gaming perspective, inexistant. So the poll should be rephrased as to how many people require diku-based (the original MUD that such games are based upon) games to include pvp.
I dunno, but me the COOPERATION aspect is what draw me to MMOs. When COMPETITION (especially PvP) take over the coopertive nature of the game, I lose all my interest.
When you oppose player(s) against player(s) at the core of your system, it would require quite a feat to actually make the cooperation prime over competition. Competition commands that the best rewards are only accessible to the winners of ***. But when losers are players you completely ruin the cooperative aspect of the game.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Comments
I like pvp if it's done well.
Like in WoW, I liked the cities being sacked and doing little recon missions for my party. There was some sense of, if they win, we really did lose something. Even if it was just the griffon master:).
In SWG it wasn't the best IMO, but the guild wars were fun. Guild wars in SWG, if tehre was any confusion.
Anyway, I say it doesn't matter at all how many people like it. You arent forced to participate.
As far as ganking goes, if the game allows it, treat yourself to it now and again. It's more fun than ya might think.
They came from the sea and they came from the sky, Captain America is going to die!
Wow! Thats harsh. I enjoy PvP myself, I also enjoy PvE. The problem I see with PvP os the level 60 warrior killing nothing but level 10 players. Thats the stuff people don't like about PvP. Sure in R/L it woulda happened, but then people are playing a game and they want to feel they are getting their money's worth. When you get idiots greifing, it makes more people go exclusively PvE. So to help the PvP need in games, everytime you see someone greifing, give him shit, or kill him yourself.
I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self.
--Aristotle
Pour yourself a coffee, this is gonna be a long one.
If you don't feel like reading a lot, I'll sum it up: PvP in MMORPGs is a joke and not really PvP. If you want to know why I'm saying that, read on.
In real life, I've been in the military, I hunt, I play paintball and I've been involved in the martial arts for several years. I understand what drives people to compete. It's the need to better oneself. When it comes to games, I play FPS, RTS, TBS (Turn based Strategy), CCG (collectable Card Games), Racing, fighting, sports, and old school wargames like Squad Leader and Warhammer 40K.
I want to begin by pointing out that, in America at least, there is a culture of compitition that is centered around ego. Here in the States, I've always chalked it up to the attitude of Football and Professional Wrestling. You aren't a "man" unless you can kick other peoples ass and degrade them without fear of reprisal. If you're a starter on the Basketball team, the teachers rewrite your grades and you become exempt from being suspended or disciplined in any way. Oh yeah, and you can't get laid unless you're into some sport. You may be doomed to a life of pointless, dead end, factory work punctuated with alchoholism and wife beating, but if you're a quarterback life is sweet. At least until you graduate and get turned down from the NFL. Our culture promotes the macho insecure, "dick waving" bullshit that annoys most of us in online games. My view: you beat me in a video game, big shit.
If the Pkers were really about challenge, they'd be playing UT 2004, Mortal Kombat: Deception, Forza Motorsport, Madden 2007, Civ VI, Rome: Total War, Magic: The gathering Online, Yahoo chess, etc. Basically something where they might have a chance of losing. It's much easier to just grind up to the level cap and beat the hell out of lowbies. BTW, if UT isn't your thing, there's also America's Army, Ghost Recon, and Rainbow Six 3.
The problem with PvP in MMORPGs is the lack of player skill. Most of the time, RPG combat is nothing more than a comparison of numbers. This doesn't exclude a game from needing skill however, since a number of old school strategy games are pretty math intensive. However, MMORPGs have never acheived a sense of balance that you could find in games like Heroes of Might and Magic, Warlords, or Master of Orion. Most MMORPGs don't balance the play in such a way that a naturally skilled player can compete with someone that's invested 20+ hours a week for the last 24 monthes into a game right out of the gate. While a good strategy game may have many different types of units and upgrades, a "good" strategy game will generally not have one strategy that consistantly dominates the game. Chess is the perfect example of this. MMORPGs are plagued with "killer builds" and "l337 gear". To put it simply, someone that has played Civ for several years will be better than a newbie, but THE GAME ITSELF DOES NOT HANDICAP IN FAVOR OF THE EXPERIENCED PLAYER. MMORPGs almost always handicap PvP in the favor of players who have invested more time, whether they're really good at the game or not is unknownd because of this.
Does all of this mean that PvP can't be done in an MMORPG? Of course it doesn't. The problem isn't "carebears" or PKers. The problem is that a PvP MMORPG would have to be designed completely different than a conventional MMO. Designers would have to do some deep game theory analysis in order to maintain balance and make sure that there was not "perfect build" or unwinnable situations. In short, the game would have to make it so that the smarter / better player would always win and not the player with the most time / friends / gear. There is also the possibility of a an ending rather than an endgame. having the game played in rounds of several months or years with a new round opening a new chapter in the game based on the results of the last round. Or you could simply play the same scenario over and over again with bonuses going to the players that "won" the last round. Think of it as a really long version of Counter-Strike. Under this kind of game, permadeath would be a must.
Given, this is only one solution. But until MMOs are made with PvP in mind, from the beginning, I'll take my PvP to games that were created around PvP.
Yeah, but it seems to depend on the type of PvP. I never really noticed that effect in DAOC, but in EVE, it's part of what drove me away.
The difference? You can grief players in EVE, i.e. do things which serve no other purpose than to penalize your opponent, such as podding. In DAOC, there was hardly any griefing even possible, aside from people who tried to xp in the frontiers, so either the players it appeals to are less obnoxious, or it just doesn't bring it out of them the same way.
I prefer the sort of PvP where a player can just laugh at PvPer threats, and opt not to PvP. Really cuts down on the macho posturing bs.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Define mmo first.
Audition, an asian mmo has 50 million subscribers, with 500k concurrent users (do the google). It's a dancing game. That game has pvp, namely player vs. player dance-offs (if I understand it correctly). Would that make the answer 90% of mmo comunity digs pvp?
The largest MMO gaming communities offer card and puzzle games. They are played against other players, hence constituting pvp.
The real answer to your poll would be, that mmorpg (think wow, daoc, second life) are an insignifficant niche market in the huge ocean of online gaming. The definition of pvp within these scopes is irrelevant.
The actual apeal of killing in games is small, and looked at it from global gaming perspective, inexistant. So the poll should be rephrased as to how many people require diku-based (the original MUD that such games are based upon) games to include pvp.
I dunno, but me the COOPERATION aspect is what draw me to MMOs. When COMPETITION (especially PvP) take over the coopertive nature of the game, I lose all my interest.
When you oppose player(s) against player(s) at the core of your system, it would require quite a feat to actually make the cooperation prime over competition. Competition commands that the best rewards are only accessible to the winners of ***. But when losers are players you completely ruin the cooperative aspect of the game.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren