Originally posted by RakeeshPld In the end, I think that the solution that will make everyone the happiest is simply to specialize games. Games such as WAR and Darkfall look like they will, at least attempt, to provide all the PvP us “ruffians” would want, while hopefully other games will provided enjoyment for those who prefer the dungeon crawl.
There used to be tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands, and now millions of people who play MMORPG.
That's still chickenfeed. There are potentially BILLIONS of people who would like to play in a virtual world if it can meet their desires. But unless somebody can build a real-life Holodeck, trying to please disparate markets is simply a dilution of focus in an increasingly competative area. Segmentation - slicing off a potential market and making the best possible game to please a single group of players - will be the most lucrative path for future online games.
Why do questers and roleplayers want a game focused on them, while PvP'ers and raid-aholics are violently opposed to that idea? There is a REASON for that, and it's the same in both cases. I'll give you a clue: it's not because casual players get their self-esteem from a game and desperately need to feed off the knowledge that "leetz" are around.
Originally posted by kopema That's not just a coincidence. Frankly, anyone who thinks that a progressive roleplaying game can be a competitive sport does not understand either concept. The goals of the two types of games are completely contradictory. The goal of a role-playing game is to feel special and progressively more powerful. The goal of a competitive game is to make every player equal so they can compete on something like a fair basis.
That's just your oppinion, roleplay has nothing to do with feeling special and progressing it's about playing a role and as we are playing multiplayer rpg it's about interacting with other people thru that role. This interaction can be cooperative or competitive or both but nither kind exludes roleplay in any way.
First of all, good call, of course everyting I type constitutes my "opinion." That's trite but true. But what is the point of complaining about that? I suppose YOUR words are a divine Covenent etched in stone?
Seriously though, if you want to compete, then compete -- on a level playing field. But if you spend hundreds of hours, and/or get the help of dozens of people to build and equip a character so that you can "interact" with an actual human being who doesn't know you from Adam, and is just trying to play a game, then of course you aren't "roleplaying" a ravenous Orc - or anything else for that matter. You are sitting at your computer and actually BEING a jerk.
Yes, this topic has been addressed many times, with the same kind of replies.
The point I keep trying to make and rarely see addressed, is that if you have both PvE and PvP in the same game, you are going to have balancing problems. It doesn't matter that you don't have to PvP if you don't want to. Or that the PvP zones are separated, or whatever. Players still cry about imbalance if they want to PvP. And, it affects all players and the game style itself.
The players, maybe about 50%, who say they don't care, either don't realize the full impact of the balancing problem or they aren't serious game players. But, when the nerf bat hits, they all cry foul!
I know I'm not going to change anything by posting this; I'm just venting. But, if you read some of the articles by programmers, you will see they do see the problem and do look for ways to cope with it. I would just like to play a game where I don't have to deal with the extra problems PvP can bring. This doesn't mean I don't think PvP can be fun. In the right game and stated pre-release that it will be central to the game, players know what to expect and then have no justification for their whining about imbalance or nerfing. Of course, in an ideal situation, all that would be taken care of in the betas. The problem seems to be when PvP is added as an afterthought because some forum posters are demanding it.
If you want to see a game that stated full PvP, look at Shadowbane. How popular is that? In DAoC, the RvR was stated as being the end game, but wow was there constant nerfing once players started the RvR. I think that was the game that really brought out the problems that PvP can add. I guess almost every game grows whiskers in a few years, and gamers go on to the next big thing.
The point that is clear is that both these markets can coexist in one game
Totally disagree with pretty much everything in this "editiorial". When will developers learn, that if you put pirannahs and tadpoles in the one tank, there will only be pirannahs left. Stop trying to please the entire gaming public with 1 game, it's as stupid as trying to find balance.
If you want to see a game that stated full PvP, look at Shadowbane. How popular is that? In DAoC, the RvR was stated as being the end game, but wow was there constant nerfing once players started the RvR
The only reason games that specialise in PvP and dont get realy popular is because of hype and money. These sorts of games are usually made by small firms with small budgets trying to make a name for themselves. And since gamers are influenced by the internet and all the bigname 'PoP' sites, they dont get a look in. Its also to do with the fact that PvP evolved from PvE and they used a PvE leveling/play system and tried to slap a PvP label on it. Like people above have said you need to recreate the game from the ground up. Not just graphics or "abilities". Every part of the game is interconnected, nobody has made an attempt at changing more than about 5% of their game designs to create something new.
Edit: in my opinion the most innovative game to date is still UO. That may sound weird but its true.
Originally posted by Brynn If you want to see a game that stated full PvP, look at Shadowbane. How popular is that? In DAoC, the RvR was stated as being the end game, but wow was there constant nerfing once players started the RvR. I think that was the game that really brought out the problems that PvP can add.
Actually, I see RvR as a separate ADDITIONAL restraint on the PvE experiance, beyond the problems caused by PvP "balance."
By sealing a character off in a half, or a third or less, of the gameworld, that's a limitiation to the experience. I suppose you could restart a new character on the other "side" later, but once you've established a group of friends in your realm, why would you want to leave them? Wouldn't it be better to have twice (or three times) as many friends (and that many more zones) to choose from since day one?
I'd prefer a single, giant, contiguous sandbox where I can be all that much more free to choose the directions I want to head. It's a lot more confining in a low-budget game like DAoC than a mega-game like WoW (and Blizzard implemented it a bit more flexibly) but it's still there.
It's easy to say whatever game is out there is "good enough," but just take whichever game you like and imagine the adventuring, exploring, PvE content options available to a single character are nearly doubled or tripled - at zero additional development cost. That's a BiG DEAL.
PvP games are great, and if all the dozens of PvP/roleplaying games out there want to keep competing with each other for customers, that's entirely their business. But anybody who says that a roleplaying MMO can't be made without a PvP component -- and potentially made a lot more enjoyable -- is either blowing smoke or just has his eyes squeezed shut.
Originally posted by kopema PvP games are great, and if all the dozens of PvP/roleplaying games out there want to keep competing with each other for customers, that's entirely their business. But anybody who says that a roleplaying MMO can't be made without a PvP component -- and potentially made a lot more enjoyable -- is either blowing smoke or just has his eyes squeezed shut.
That's a point I tried to make in an earlier post.
Originally posted by kopema Originally posted by Mcgreag That's just your oppinion, roleplay has nothing to do with feeling special and progressing it's about playing a role and as we are playing multiplayer rpg it's about interacting with other people thru that role. This interaction can be cooperative or competitive or both but nither kind exludes roleplay in any way.
First of all, good call, of course everyting I type constitutes my "opinion." That's trite but true. But what is the point of complaining about that? I suppose YOUR words are a divine Covenent etched in stone? Seriously though, if you want to compete, then compete -- on a level playing field. But if you spend hundreds of hours, and/or get the help of dozens of people to build and equip a character so that you can "interact" with an actual human being who doesn't know you from Adam, and is just trying to play a game, then of course you aren't "roleplaying" a ravenous Orc - or anything else for that matter. You are sitting at your computer and actually BEING a jerk. What's with the hostility? You stated it as if it was a fact and you still do so I felt the need to correct you so none else here reads it and thinks it's the truth.
No my words are not divine covenant but they DO define role-play. What you are saying has nothing to do with pve vs pvp. If you don't interact you are paying 15$ a month for what is in all intent and purpose a single player game. In a pve only mmorpg you still have to spend the same time to build up that char so you can "interact" in a cooperative way. The interaction is still there. And most likely you have to think just as much about your build being balanced or you wont be accepted into pve groups as well.
Balance does not mean that everything is equal; if everything was equal there wouldn't be much point to play the mmorpg over an rts or fps or sport game. It doesn't have to be a level playing field, just as long as the differences are not too large. Balance just means there isn't 1 build that will always win against everything else, it isn't harder than that.
Pvp in an mmorpg is interesting from 2 perspectives, 1. The variation, because not everything is equal you won't go up against the same thing over and over. 2. The persistent environment, my wins and losses make a difference other than some place in a league.
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
Originally posted by Mayson However in this article I wanted to illicit a response that would invoke anger, frustration and discomfort. The reason for this is so that this could be discussed.
Your approach was worse than your grammar... if that is at all possible.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I'm not against PvP, I just don't like to do it. But it has it's place for the people that want to do it. I have seen it mentioned in game sites that PvPers are the minority of any game. I would like to see a real report and statistic of numbers for any game on how many people even do PvP. If it turns out that a very low number of people even play PvP then maybe developers need to acknowledge this.
I play City of Heroes where the PvP has leveled any PvP fight (as far as player level is concerned) which is great, but they put PvE rewards in a PvP zone so you can't really get to them before someone kills you. At any time there are only a handful of people in these PvP zones and the developers keep trying to shove PvP down our necks.
Pen and Paper RPGs are the basis of video game rpgs. When you had a group of people and a gamemaster, PvP was never an option and had harsh penalties for even thinking of harming another character. PvP works only in sports games, battlefield games and street fighter. Basically any game that is 100% PvP.
Would any MMO player be upset if developers took all the effort of building PvP and make better content? How about better economies or better skills? New classes? Where does PvP rank compared to those? Think about the player who says they'd rather see PvP than better content. Why are they even playing an online RPG?
Give a man fire and he''s warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he''s warm the rest of his life.
Originally posted by Netherbeast I have seen it mentioned in game sites that PvPers are the minority of any game. I would like to see a real report and statistic of numbers for any game on how many people even do PvP. If it turns out that a very low number of people even play PvP then maybe developers need to acknowledge this.
What difference would it really make anyway - even if it was 50%? Are game designers really so deluded by their own hype that every one of them believes he will get ALL the current and potential MMORPG market out there?
The key is to segment the market. Make the best PvP game you possibly can, OR make the best PvE game you possibly can. You can add content forever, but adding one feature that necessarily impacts another feature is a price you keep on paying for as long as the game exists.
Originally posted by Netherbeast At any time there are only a handful of people in these PvP zones and the developers keep trying to shove PvP down our necks.
I think developers insist on PvP for the same reason they insist on raiding. The so-called "permanent player" is the white elephant of the MMORPG industry: a beast that's so desired they lose sight of everything else in the never-ending quest to feed it.
There's always a tendency to pay way too much attention to the most vocal and rabid fans - and critics - of their games. It’s VERY easy to forget the more quiet and least demanding customers (who are therefore nearly always the highest profit margin.)
The developers naturally try to appease the squeakiest wheels. The characters become more bland as they are continually "balanced" to appease the PvP'ers, and the higher level challenges become hopelessly frustrating to someone not willing to commit to working the game as an unpaid fulltime job - complete with networking, appointments and a hierarchical command structure.
Meanwhile, questers, adventures, roleplayers and casual players simply pay their fees until the game becomes too frustrating and then, very quietly, quit - effectively excluded from a large amount of content.
A few years later, nearly all of the people trying to play a roleplaying game have been squeezed out and only the "hardcores" remain. New developers see that the hardcores have stuck with the game even when it became too Byzantine - or even downright abusive - for the casual players. They then decide that they desperately need the hardcore market.
But they're looking at it from the wrong end. The hardcores aren't the best customers because they stick with a game no one else wants to play. They're the worst customers because they MADE it that way.
You really hit the nail on head. I'd like to go as far and say the hardcore vocal minority is who spoils everything in life for the rest of us. Religion, politics, movie and games. Companies market to us with the minority in mind.
As far as games are concerned, there should be segmentation. If you can do pvp 100% then you have all the time and resources and none of the pve detractors to worry about. Not one person ever complained that Counterstrike didn't have a PvE element.
Give a man fire and he''s warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he''s warm the rest of his life.
Originally posted by Netherbeast I play City of Heroes where the PvP has leveled any PvP fight (as far as player level is concerned) which is great, but they put PvE rewards in a PvP zone so you can't really get to them before someone kills you. At any time there are only a handful of people in these PvP zones and the developers keep trying to shove PvP down our necks.
When I played Asheron's Call 2, we had this problem of a quest being in a PvP zone. Everytime a player stepped through the teleport there, they were pk'ed. It was so bad that the forum was full of posts about it, some for, most against. Finally, the developers had to do something about it, and they moved the teleport to a safe spot.
I should mention, when the teleport was moved, it took the fun out of PvP for some of those PvPers. It's beyond my comprehension why anyone could think that's fun, unless they are just plain bullies. Perhaps the bully was the leader and the rest were sheep, as is pretty common.
Originally posted by Netherbeast Pen and Paper RPGs are the basis of video game rpgs. When you had a group of people and a gamemaster, PvP was never an option and had harsh penalties for even thinking of harming another character.
Don't know which pen and paper rpgs you played or who where your gamemaster but in many campains I took part of friction within the group, people acting in their own self intrest instead of the groups intrest, which could lead to actuall combat with other group members, where common. Guess it was our gamemaster who enjoyed playing us out against each other
But you know what? Some of these campaigns are the best time I ever had role-playing, the ones I still remember 15 years later are the ones that included this player vs player conflict.
PVP are one of the most important aspect of role-play, it's the thing that brings out the actual role-play.
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
Wow... many people get angry IRL and Nearly PK the OP, over the idea of PVP. Ironic.
The type of PVP Keith is referring to is not what those of you who have never delved into true pvp think. It is not some angst filled player, killing you over and over and over and laughing histerycally. While this does occur, it is not PVP. The type the OP is speaking of is Guild vs guild type of combat. Not instanced, not organized. It is realistic. 20 people of one group taking on 15 to 100 others. Numbers are based on politics, battles are based on alliances, strategy, preparation, politics, leadership, and individual skill. In RL, war is not instanced, it is not without consequence, there is risk, reward, surprise, tactics, preparation, stress, joy, adrenaline rushes, politics, anger, sadness, and SOOOOO much more. TRUE PVP gives all of these. I have experienced it many times. WHAT A RUSH, win or lose. I am not a player who has to kill others, I do not care if i get killshots. I enjoy a concerted effort of my nation or guild and a strong, organized battle. The W column is what I enjoy. The rush! Its a drug that you are all refusing to try... just because you had a bad trip on a cheap imitation. Most of you are unknowing and unwilling to know the truth of PVP... I have played MANY MMOs. Many PVE games, quests and such. And While they are fun, they give little randomness to the moment. They give no adrenaline. I feel as if I am playing a single player PC game in a world of other players randomly thrown together. In TRUE PVP games, I feel as if I am alive within the battle, testing myself, failing or succeeding, both being tons of fun!
Great job Keith, keep up the work, and continue to stir the masses!
Doolin Dalton (And no this name has nothing to do with Dueling in PVP, its an Eagles song!)
Originally posted by doolin The type of PVP Keith is referring to is not what those of you who have never delved into true pvp think. It is not some angst filled player, killing you over and over and over and laughing histerycally. While this does occur, it is not PVP. The type the OP is speaking of is Guild vs guild type of combat. Not instanced, not organized. It is realistic. 20 people of one group taking on 15 to 100 others. ...
No, we understand perfectly: PK'ers roleplay serial killers; PvP'ers roleplay street gangs.
Congratulations on that step up in the world. But that doesn't have anything to do with what anyone here is talking about.
Originally posted by Mcgreag PVP are one of the most important aspect of role-play, it's the thing that brings out the actual role-play.
When someone PK's someone else, the ranking ladders do not take into account how artfully the player played his character. Nor does the combat engine take into account whether or not the player roleplays, or metagames.
To tell you the truth, the combat engine doesn't care one way or another if the person who PKs is playing a role, or is some trained dog just pressing buttons randomly. The only thing that matters in the end is that a combination of mashed buttons produced a result that can now be used to gain some sort of bragging rights.
But if PvP is so important to roleplay, we certainly haven't heard that it is. Twinks don't brag about what interesting characters they are. They brag about how good their win/loss ratios are, and how efficiently they can pwn. That's math though, and its something that is about as thrilling as reading a statistics textbook.
If twinks mashing buttons to get some gain is what roleplay is about, then it seems to me we don't need character customization anymore. Nor chat boxes and emotes. We don't need things like decorations, player housing, or non-combat content at all. If roleplay is nothing without PvP, then everything that is not about players antagonizing other players using combat math can be curtailed, or eliminated.
And you know what? You all are getting exactly that. Character customization, decorative things, and non-combat things are all rather poor, or afterthoughts, in the games coming out, and in the development already here. The Pvpers are all complaining that they are not being catered to, but all I see are developers tripping over themselves to placate your kind, by getting rid of all the things that breathe life into our characters, in favor of just pushing toons around to get higher on the rankings ladders.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Originally posted by doolin Wow... many people get angry IRL and Nearly PK the OP, over the idea of PVP. Ironic.
The type of PVP Keith is referring to is not what those of you who have never delved into true pvp think. It is not some angst filled player, killing you over and over and over and laughing histerycally. While this does occur, it is not PVP. The type the OP is speaking of is Guild vs guild type of combat. Not instanced, not organized. It is realistic. 20 people of one group taking on 15 to 100 others. Numbers are based on politics, battles are based on alliances, strategy, preparation, politics, leadership, and individual skill. In RL, war is not instanced, it is not without consequence, there is risk, reward, surprise, tactics, preparation, stress, joy, adrenaline rushes, politics, anger, sadness, and SOOOOO much more. TRUE PVP gives all of these. I have experienced it many times. WHAT A RUSH, win or lose. I am not a player who has to kill others, I do not care if i get killshots. I enjoy a concerted effort of my nation or guild and a strong, organized battle. The W column is what I enjoy. The rush! Its a drug that you are all refusing to try... just because you had a bad trip on a cheap imitation. Most of you are unknowing and unwilling to know the truth of PVP... I have played MANY MMOs. Many PVE games, quests and such. And While they are fun, they give little randomness to the moment. They give no adrenaline. I feel as if I am playing a single player PC game in a world of other players randomly thrown together. In TRUE PVP games, I feel as if I am alive within the battle, testing myself, failing or succeeding, both being tons of fun!
Great job Keith, keep up the work, and continue to stir the masses!
Doolin Dalton (And no this name has nothing to do with Dueling in PVP, its an Eagles song!)
That's great that you enjoy it, but what does your character enjoy?
I enjoy those same things, but I enjoy fleshing out real characters even more, and living a virtual life. Creating a work of fiction with the tools I have, and putting him or her in a game with others doing the same thing.
I think what is really missing from this debate is the notion of what "player versus player" implies. It implies a contest between two players, more than it is a contest between two characters. To you, a character is just a tool designed to get the "W" column. That's all fine and good, but many of us are coming at this from a MUD angle, and want to create living characters with motives all their own.
To me and other roleplayers, a character has a life of its own.
Maybe I just sound crazy to you, but others here will know what I am saying. It is not my place as a player to decide what my character should do. My character doesn't serve my needs, as much as I serve my character's needs.
That's why PvP for the most part doesn't work for the reasons I am playing these games. It implies that the players are more important than the characters they play, and that the game world is not character-driven, but player-driven.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Spectacular article, and in serious contrast to some other posts, I think you used all the terms correctly. However, I am also VERY pro-PvP in every game I play.
and to quote raccoon
"Until they do fix all the glaring issues with PvP, I won't play it. And if a game is ever stupid enough to enforce PvP on players that would rather just do quests and RP, then I won't be purchasing it."
Beatnik... The PVP i am speaking of does not involve one on one PVP, instanced, set up or ambushed. It does not involve a small group of people battling in teams. It involves fleshing out a nation, a ruler, his council, the crest, the purpose and function of that nation, the location of cities, the fortification of strongholds, the politics of the nation, and so on. I also flesh out my characters, often writing stories of their battles, making movies of their triumphs along with their nation, and do tend to RP. So, not only am I building my character, I am designing my alter ego, and allying myself with others, setting bonds for my pixelated self... I am embellishing my character with a nation of like minded players and characters who enjoy large battles against unpredictable persons and their pixelated beings. My main in all games is Doolin... my DnD character is Doolin, I have notebooks of sketches and short stories of Doolin and my other favorite characters.
Unlike another Naysayer's comment, NOT ALL PVPers are serial killer RPers or street gang RPers... I chose to RP a 3 dimensional integral part of a nation, and serve my role as a spy, assassin, and scout. Do I only RP, NO. I pvp as part of the game, my character kills to defend himself and his nation, as well as to further the quest of his nation's power. So, for those of you who are close minded against PVP, you are stereotyping all of those who enjoy PVP into one lump of adolescents with a bad attitude and too much free time. I am a 27 year old father of 2, a teacher, and a part time author. I know a few doctors, lawyers, and military officers who have played games with me and enjoy PVP in the same way as myself. Keith as well as myself is not trying to force you to PVP... Perhaps if minds are opened and stereotypes lifted, you will no longer hate and fear what you do not understand.
Originally posted by doolin ... Perhaps if minds are opened and stereotypes lifted, you will no longer hate and fear what you do not understand.
Fine; I'm ok with that: all of we people who disagree with you may well be hateful, close-minded and dense. I mean, presupposing that your statement is true, then it only stands to reason that we would have no way to know except to wait for an enlightened person to tell us, right?
But unfortunately, even allowing for recursion, your logic still has a flaw in it: just because people don't LIKE you doesn't always necessarily mean they don't UNDERSTAND you. Of course that's certainly one potential explanation, but the fact that you seem to ignore the possibility that there could be another doesn't really bode all that well for your claim to be the most "open-minded" being among us.
Griefing can be wider than that. If let's say player A, B and C ganks player D. Player D for any reason was not wanting to PvP and find this unacceptable. Player D know how to ruin players A, B and C gaming experience. This is also griefing, however in this case, this griefing is debatable, since it is hard to say it is unfair. Is it? If the player to start with was playing in PvE?
I know that myself would "grief" anyone that gank me while I was not PvPing, but achieving some PvE stuff, no matter if the zone is PvP enabled or not, and this in anyway I can. Ranging from finding friends and hunting them back and utilising "legal" tools to pure bad attitude and including any "illegal tools" provided in the game, such as spamming someone until they DC, teleporting them, training them and so on.
Personnally I don't see this lack of PvP-love as pride. Thinking it is pride is not understanding why I play in the first place. I can't care less to lose/win at another player hand, especially if they are more numerous than me, as long as it doesn't affect my PvE progression. See, I could do PvP, however I looooove PvE and I don't see any reason to do any form of PvP as long as I can earn more in PvE. PvP is a secondary gameplay to me. See, in the first games invented, there was also team games and many, such as races, are not PvP...as the other racers are not affecting you negatively, they try to do better than you. Assuming that every player not involved in PvP is for pride reactions is missing all the cooperatives/competitives players, and they are quite numerous. Be them achievers like me or socialisers.
Althought the article is interesting, it generalisation fails to encompass many players.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Originally posted by doolin Perhaps if minds are opened and stereotypes lifted, you will no longer hate and fear what you do not understand.
Look, its real easy to dress up PvP to make it out to be something it isn't when talking about it on the boards like this.
But you, I, and everyone here know what guild vs guild PvP really is like. It is a bunch of people named "Achilles Mephisto," or "Death Hunter," or something equally cliche, who get a Ventrillo server, fart into mics, tell everyone who has an issue to "quit whining," and post stuff like some FRAPS or screenshots to prove how honorable they are when they PvP.
But you know, I realized something Doolin. All the nations, all the leaders, all the crests, and all the bluster starts to look the same, no matter what guild you look at, and no matter what guild vs guild game you want to look at. Believe me, I know about it when I was in SWG, and played that sort of game. It got really boring, and I just wanted to tell a story about a rodian smuggler who had a unique story to tell, and who wasn't going to be defined by his guild.
So I don't PvP anymore as a team player on Vent, because frankly, it all starts to look the same, whether you are in SWG, WoW, EVE, or Lineage II. It is boring to me, and the game's enjoyment always took a backseat to PvP at the level that guild vs guild requires.
Maybe the reason you always play as Doolin is because you can't contemplate playing anything else but a PvPer who likes the "W" more than he likes telling a story.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Originally posted by Beatnik59 But you, I, and everyone here know what guild vs guild PvP really is like. It is a bunch of people named "Achilles Mephisto," or "Death Hunter," or something equally cliche, who get a Ventrillo server, fart into mics, tell everyone who has an issue to "quit whining," and post stuff like some FRAPS or screenshots to prove how honorable they are when they PvP.
And there's not a darned thing in the world wrong with any of that. As long as it's a completely SEPERATE activity from playing a role-playing game.
The people who want to mind their own business and quest, level, etc. would be perfectly happy doing that if no PvP'er or PK'er had ever even been born.
But the PvP'ers and PK'ers are all in perfect agreement that it is absolutely vital that PvE'ers be included in the same game with them. And they try to claim there's no connection here?
Comments
There used to be tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands, and now millions of people who play MMORPG.
That's still chickenfeed. There are potentially BILLIONS of people who would like to play in a virtual world if it can meet their desires. But unless somebody can build a real-life Holodeck, trying to please disparate markets is simply a dilution of focus in an increasingly competative area. Segmentation - slicing off a potential market and making the best possible game to please a single group of players - will be the most lucrative path for future online games.
Why do questers and roleplayers want a game focused on them, while PvP'ers and raid-aholics are violently opposed to that idea? There is a REASON for that, and it's the same in both cases. I'll give you a clue: it's not because casual players get their self-esteem from a game and desperately need to feed off the knowledge that "leetz" are around.
That's just your oppinion, roleplay has nothing to do with feeling special and progressing it's about playing a role and as we are playing multiplayer rpg it's about interacting with other people thru that role. This interaction can be cooperative or competitive or both but nither kind exludes roleplay in any way.
First of all, good call, of course everyting I type constitutes my "opinion." That's trite but true. But what is the point of complaining about that? I suppose YOUR words are a divine Covenent etched in stone?
Seriously though, if you want to compete, then compete -- on a level playing field. But if you spend hundreds of hours, and/or get the help of dozens of people to build and equip a character so that you can "interact" with an actual human being who doesn't know you from Adam, and is just trying to play a game, then of course you aren't "roleplaying" a ravenous Orc - or anything else for that matter. You are sitting at your computer and actually BEING a jerk.
Yes, this topic has been addressed many times, with the same kind of replies.
The point I keep trying to make and rarely see addressed, is that if you have both PvE and PvP in the same game, you are going to have balancing problems. It doesn't matter that you don't have to PvP if you don't want to. Or that the PvP zones are separated, or whatever. Players still cry about imbalance if they want to PvP. And, it affects all players and the game style itself.
The players, maybe about 50%, who say they don't care, either don't realize the full impact of the balancing problem or they aren't serious game players. But, when the nerf bat hits, they all cry foul!
I know I'm not going to change anything by posting this; I'm just venting. But, if you read some of the articles by programmers, you will see they do see the problem and do look for ways to cope with it. I would just like to play a game where I don't have to deal with the extra problems PvP can bring. This doesn't mean I don't think PvP can be fun. In the right game and stated pre-release that it will be central to the game, players know what to expect and then have no justification for their whining about imbalance or nerfing. Of course, in an ideal situation, all that would be taken care of in the betas. The problem seems to be when PvP is added as an afterthought because some forum posters are demanding it.
If you want to see a game that stated full PvP, look at Shadowbane. How popular is that? In DAoC, the RvR was stated as being the end game, but wow was there constant nerfing once players started the RvR. I think that was the game that really brought out the problems that PvP can add. I guess almost every game grows whiskers in a few years, and gamers go on to the next big thing.
The point that is clear is that both these markets can coexist in one game
Totally disagree with pretty much everything in this "editiorial". When will developers learn, that if you put pirannahs and tadpoles in the one tank, there will only be pirannahs left. Stop trying to please the entire gaming public with 1 game, it's as stupid as trying to find balance.
If you want to see a game that stated full PvP, look at Shadowbane. How popular is that? In DAoC, the RvR was stated as being the end game, but wow was there constant nerfing once players started the RvR
The only reason games that specialise in PvP and dont get realy popular is because of hype and money. These sorts of games are usually made by small firms with small budgets trying to make a name for themselves. And since gamers are influenced by the internet and all the bigname 'PoP' sites, they dont get a look in. Its also to do with the fact that PvP evolved from PvE and they used a PvE leveling/play system and tried to slap a PvP label on it. Like people above have said you need to recreate the game from the ground up. Not just graphics or "abilities". Every part of the game is interconnected, nobody has made an attempt at changing more than about 5% of their game designs to create something new.
Edit: in my opinion the most innovative game to date is still UO. That may sound weird but its true.
Actually, I see RvR as a separate ADDITIONAL restraint on the PvE experiance, beyond the problems caused by PvP "balance."
By sealing a character off in a half, or a third or less, of the gameworld, that's a limitiation to the experience. I suppose you could restart a new character on the other "side" later, but once you've established a group of friends in your realm, why would you want to leave them? Wouldn't it be better to have twice (or three times) as many friends (and that many more zones) to choose from since day one?
I'd prefer a single, giant, contiguous sandbox where I can be all that much more free to choose the directions I want to head. It's a lot more confining in a low-budget game like DAoC than a mega-game like WoW (and Blizzard implemented it a bit more flexibly) but it's still there.
It's easy to say whatever game is out there is "good enough," but just take whichever game you like and imagine the adventuring, exploring, PvE content options available to a single character are nearly doubled or tripled - at zero additional development cost. That's a BiG DEAL.
PvP games are great, and if all the dozens of PvP/roleplaying games out there want to keep competing with each other for customers, that's entirely their business. But anybody who says that a roleplaying MMO can't be made without a PvP component -- and potentially made a lot more enjoyable -- is either blowing smoke or just has his eyes squeezed shut.
Seriously though, if you want to compete, then compete -- on a level playing field. But if you spend hundreds of hours, and/or get the help of dozens of people to build and equip a character so that you can "interact" with an actual human being who doesn't know you from Adam, and is just trying to play a game, then of course you aren't "roleplaying" a ravenous Orc - or anything else for that matter. You are sitting at your computer and actually BEING a jerk.
What's with the hostility? You stated it as if it was a fact and you still do so I felt the need to correct you so none else here reads it and thinks it's the truth.
No my words are not divine covenant but they DO define role-play. What you are saying has nothing to do with pve vs pvp. If you don't interact you are paying 15$ a month for what is in all intent and purpose a single player game. In a pve only mmorpg you still have to spend the same time to build up that char so you can "interact" in a cooperative way. The interaction is still there. And most likely you have to think just as much about your build being balanced or you wont be accepted into pve groups as well.
Balance does not mean that everything is equal; if everything was equal there wouldn't be much point to play the mmorpg over an rts or fps or sport game. It doesn't have to be a level playing field, just as long as the differences are not too large. Balance just means there isn't 1 build that will always win against everything else, it isn't harder than that.
Pvp in an mmorpg is interesting from 2 perspectives, 1. The variation, because not everything is equal you won't go up against the same thing over and over. 2. The persistent environment, my wins and losses make a difference other than some place in a league.
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I play City of Heroes where the PvP has leveled any PvP fight (as far as player level is concerned) which is great, but they put PvE rewards in a PvP zone so you can't really get to them before someone kills you. At any time there are only a handful of people in these PvP zones and the developers keep trying to shove PvP down our necks.
Pen and Paper RPGs are the basis of video game rpgs. When you had a group of people and a gamemaster, PvP was never an option and had harsh penalties for even thinking of harming another character. PvP works only in sports games, battlefield games and street fighter. Basically any game that is 100% PvP.
Would any MMO player be upset if developers took all the effort of building PvP and make better content? How about better economies or better skills? New classes? Where does PvP rank compared to those? Think about the player who says they'd rather see PvP than better content. Why are they even playing an online RPG?
Give a man fire and he''s warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he''s warm the rest of his life.
What difference would it really make anyway - even if it was 50%? Are game designers really so deluded by their own hype that every one of them believes he will get ALL the current and potential MMORPG market out there?
The key is to segment the market. Make the best PvP game you possibly can, OR make the best PvE game you possibly can. You can add content forever, but adding one feature that necessarily impacts another feature is a price you keep on paying for as long as the game exists.
Originally posted by Netherbeast At any time there are only a handful of people in these PvP zones and the developers keep trying to shove PvP down our necks.
I think developers insist on PvP for the same reason they insist on raiding. The so-called "permanent player" is the white elephant of the MMORPG industry: a beast that's so desired they lose sight of everything else in the never-ending quest to feed it.
There's always a tendency to pay way too much attention to the most vocal and rabid fans - and critics - of their games. It’s VERY easy to forget the more quiet and least demanding customers (who are therefore nearly always the highest profit margin.)
The developers naturally try to appease the squeakiest wheels. The characters become more bland as they are continually "balanced" to appease the PvP'ers, and the higher level challenges become hopelessly frustrating to someone not willing to commit to working the game as an unpaid fulltime job - complete with networking, appointments and a hierarchical command structure.
Meanwhile, questers, adventures, roleplayers and casual players simply pay their fees until the game becomes too frustrating and then, very quietly, quit - effectively excluded from a large amount of content.
A few years later, nearly all of the people trying to play a roleplaying game have been squeezed out and only the "hardcores" remain. New developers see that the hardcores have stuck with the game even when it became too Byzantine - or even downright abusive - for the casual players. They then decide that they desperately need the hardcore market.
But they're looking at it from the wrong end. The hardcores aren't the best customers because they stick with a game no one else wants to play. They're the worst customers because they MADE it that way.
You really hit the nail on head. I'd like to go as far and say the hardcore vocal minority is who spoils everything in life for the rest of us. Religion, politics, movie and games. Companies market to us with the minority in mind.
As far as games are concerned, there should be segmentation. If you can do pvp 100% then you have all the time and resources and none of the pve detractors to worry about. Not one person ever complained that Counterstrike didn't have a PvE element.
Give a man fire and he''s warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he''s warm the rest of his life.
Nicely posted, kopema.
When I played Asheron's Call 2, we had this problem of a quest being in a PvP zone. Everytime a player stepped through the teleport there, they were pk'ed. It was so bad that the forum was full of posts about it, some for, most against. Finally, the developers had to do something about it, and they moved the teleport to a safe spot.
I should mention, when the teleport was moved, it took the fun out of PvP for some of those PvPers. It's beyond my comprehension why anyone could think that's fun, unless they are just plain bullies. Perhaps the bully was the leader and the rest were sheep, as is pretty common.
But you know what? Some of these campaigns are the best time I ever had role-playing, the ones I still remember 15 years later are the ones that included this player vs player conflict.
PVP are one of the most important aspect of role-play, it's the thing that brings out the actual role-play.
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
Wow... many people get angry IRL and Nearly PK the OP, over the idea of PVP. Ironic.
The type of PVP Keith is referring to is not what those of you who have never delved into true pvp think. It is not some angst filled player, killing you over and over and over and laughing histerycally. While this does occur, it is not PVP. The type the OP is speaking of is Guild vs guild type of combat. Not instanced, not organized. It is realistic. 20 people of one group taking on 15 to 100 others. Numbers are based on politics, battles are based on alliances, strategy, preparation, politics, leadership, and individual skill. In RL, war is not instanced, it is not without consequence, there is risk, reward, surprise, tactics, preparation, stress, joy, adrenaline rushes, politics, anger, sadness, and SOOOOO much more. TRUE PVP gives all of these. I have experienced it many times. WHAT A RUSH, win or lose. I am not a player who has to kill others, I do not care if i get killshots. I enjoy a concerted effort of my nation or guild and a strong, organized battle. The W column is what I enjoy. The rush! Its a drug that you are all refusing to try... just because you had a bad trip on a cheap imitation. Most of you are unknowing and unwilling to know the truth of PVP... I have played MANY MMOs. Many PVE games, quests and such. And While they are fun, they give little randomness to the moment. They give no adrenaline. I feel as if I am playing a single player PC game in a world of other players randomly thrown together. In TRUE PVP games, I feel as if I am alive within the battle, testing myself, failing or succeeding, both being tons of fun!
Great job Keith, keep up the work, and continue to stir the masses!
Doolin Dalton (And no this name has nothing to do with Dueling in PVP, its an Eagles song!)
No, we understand perfectly: PK'ers roleplay serial killers; PvP'ers roleplay street gangs.
Congratulations on that step up in the world. But that doesn't have anything to do with what anyone here is talking about.
When someone PK's someone else, the ranking ladders do not take into account how artfully the player played his character. Nor does the combat engine take into account whether or not the player roleplays, or metagames.
To tell you the truth, the combat engine doesn't care one way or another if the person who PKs is playing a role, or is some trained dog just pressing buttons randomly. The only thing that matters in the end is that a combination of mashed buttons produced a result that can now be used to gain some sort of bragging rights.
But if PvP is so important to roleplay, we certainly haven't heard that it is. Twinks don't brag about what interesting characters they are. They brag about how good their win/loss ratios are, and how efficiently they can pwn. That's math though, and its something that is about as thrilling as reading a statistics textbook.
If twinks mashing buttons to get some gain is what roleplay is about, then it seems to me we don't need character customization anymore. Nor chat boxes and emotes. We don't need things like decorations, player housing, or non-combat content at all. If roleplay is nothing without PvP, then everything that is not about players antagonizing other players using combat math can be curtailed, or eliminated.
And you know what? You all are getting exactly that. Character customization, decorative things, and non-combat things are all rather poor, or afterthoughts, in the games coming out, and in the development already here. The Pvpers are all complaining that they are not being catered to, but all I see are developers tripping over themselves to placate your kind, by getting rid of all the things that breathe life into our characters, in favor of just pushing toons around to get higher on the rankings ladders.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
That's great that you enjoy it, but what does your character enjoy?
I enjoy those same things, but I enjoy fleshing out real characters even more, and living a virtual life. Creating a work of fiction with the tools I have, and putting him or her in a game with others doing the same thing.
I think what is really missing from this debate is the notion of what "player versus player" implies. It implies a contest between two players, more than it is a contest between two characters. To you, a character is just a tool designed to get the "W" column. That's all fine and good, but many of us are coming at this from a MUD angle, and want to create living characters with motives all their own.
To me and other roleplayers, a character has a life of its own.
Maybe I just sound crazy to you, but others here will know what I am saying. It is not my place as a player to decide what my character should do. My character doesn't serve my needs, as much as I serve my character's needs.
That's why PvP for the most part doesn't work for the reasons I am playing these games. It implies that the players are more important than the characters they play, and that the game world is not character-driven, but player-driven.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
and to quote raccoon
"Until they do fix all the glaring issues with PvP, I won't play it. And if a game is ever stupid enough to enforce PvP on players that would rather just do quests and RP, then I won't be purchasing it."
I would.
Beatnik... The PVP i am speaking of does not involve one on one PVP, instanced, set up or ambushed. It does not involve a small group of people battling in teams. It involves fleshing out a nation, a ruler, his council, the crest, the purpose and function of that nation, the location of cities, the fortification of strongholds, the politics of the nation, and so on. I also flesh out my characters, often writing stories of their battles, making movies of their triumphs along with their nation, and do tend to RP. So, not only am I building my character, I am designing my alter ego, and allying myself with others, setting bonds for my pixelated self... I am embellishing my character with a nation of like minded players and characters who enjoy large battles against unpredictable persons and their pixelated beings. My main in all games is Doolin... my DnD character is Doolin, I have notebooks of sketches and short stories of Doolin and my other favorite characters.
Unlike another Naysayer's comment, NOT ALL PVPers are serial killer RPers or street gang RPers... I chose to RP a 3 dimensional integral part of a nation, and serve my role as a spy, assassin, and scout. Do I only RP, NO. I pvp as part of the game, my character kills to defend himself and his nation, as well as to further the quest of his nation's power. So, for those of you who are close minded against PVP, you are stereotyping all of those who enjoy PVP into one lump of adolescents with a bad attitude and too much free time. I am a 27 year old father of 2, a teacher, and a part time author. I know a few doctors, lawyers, and military officers who have played games with me and enjoy PVP in the same way as myself. Keith as well as myself is not trying to force you to PVP... Perhaps if minds are opened and stereotypes lifted, you will no longer hate and fear what you do not understand.
Thanks,
Doolin
Fine; I'm ok with that: all of we people who disagree with you may well be hateful, close-minded and dense. I mean, presupposing that your statement is true, then it only stands to reason that we would have no way to know except to wait for an enlightened person to tell us, right?
But unfortunately, even allowing for recursion, your logic still has a flaw in it: just because people don't LIKE you doesn't always necessarily mean they don't UNDERSTAND you. Of course that's certainly one potential explanation, but the fact that you seem to ignore the possibility that there could be another doesn't really bode all that well for your claim to be the most "open-minded" being among us.
Griefing can be wider than that. If let's say player A, B and C ganks player D. Player D for any reason was not wanting to PvP and find this unacceptable. Player D know how to ruin players A, B and C gaming experience. This is also griefing, however in this case, this griefing is debatable, since it is hard to say it is unfair. Is it? If the player to start with was playing in PvE?
I know that myself would "grief" anyone that gank me while I was not PvPing, but achieving some PvE stuff, no matter if the zone is PvP enabled or not, and this in anyway I can. Ranging from finding friends and hunting them back and utilising "legal" tools to pure bad attitude and including any "illegal tools" provided in the game, such as spamming someone until they DC, teleporting them, training them and so on.
Personnally I don't see this lack of PvP-love as pride. Thinking it is pride is not understanding why I play in the first place. I can't care less to lose/win at another player hand, especially if they are more numerous than me, as long as it doesn't affect my PvE progression. See, I could do PvP, however I looooove PvE and I don't see any reason to do any form of PvP as long as I can earn more in PvE. PvP is a secondary gameplay to me. See, in the first games invented, there was also team games and many, such as races, are not PvP...as the other racers are not affecting you negatively, they try to do better than you. Assuming that every player not involved in PvP is for pride reactions is missing all the cooperatives/competitives players, and they are quite numerous. Be them achievers like me or socialisers.
Althought the article is interesting, it generalisation fails to encompass many players.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Look, its real easy to dress up PvP to make it out to be something it isn't when talking about it on the boards like this.
But you, I, and everyone here know what guild vs guild PvP really is like. It is a bunch of people named "Achilles Mephisto," or "Death Hunter," or something equally cliche, who get a Ventrillo server, fart into mics, tell everyone who has an issue to "quit whining," and post stuff like some FRAPS or screenshots to prove how honorable they are when they PvP.
But you know, I realized something Doolin. All the nations, all the leaders, all the crests, and all the bluster starts to look the same, no matter what guild you look at, and no matter what guild vs guild game you want to look at. Believe me, I know about it when I was in SWG, and played that sort of game. It got really boring, and I just wanted to tell a story about a rodian smuggler who had a unique story to tell, and who wasn't going to be defined by his guild.
So I don't PvP anymore as a team player on Vent, because frankly, it all starts to look the same, whether you are in SWG, WoW, EVE, or Lineage II. It is boring to me, and the game's enjoyment always took a backseat to PvP at the level that guild vs guild requires.
Maybe the reason you always play as Doolin is because you can't contemplate playing anything else but a PvPer who likes the "W" more than he likes telling a story.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
And there's not a darned thing in the world wrong with any of that. As long as it's a completely SEPERATE activity from playing a role-playing game.
The people who want to mind their own business and quest, level, etc. would be perfectly happy doing that if no PvP'er or PK'er had ever even been born.
But the PvP'ers and PK'ers are all in perfect agreement that it is absolutely vital that PvE'ers be included in the same game with them. And they try to claim there's no connection here?