Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Is PVP with no risk like Poker with no money ?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
2. Rewards or penalties should not be the reason people pvp. I mean people don't give the homeless food because they want other to see them as good people, but because they are good people who careless about criticism to do the right thing. However, if these people are only doing this for the benefit of being recognition then they never cared for the homeless to begin with. The same applies to those who wish to put rewards or penalties behind PvP. PvP and acknowledgement of the skill level should be the only reward we look forward too.
- CaptainRPG
3. Yes, it's personal choice. However, I (and other game companies) have seen that "risk rules" have more CONS then PROS making such pvp difficult, if not impossible, to implement in today's rpgs. Today's pvp is decided by CLASS, TEAMWORK THEN SKILL, the way it should be. MMORPG now carter to larger audiences and moreover, a general audience.
These guys who are bitching and moaning about how PvP has gotten worse are simply people who can't adjust to change and wish to MMORPG world to go back to dark ages of gaming where everything is exclusive. This view alone makes all of their arguments invalidate because they are trying to go backwards rather than forward in gaming advancement. They aren't trying to make EVERYONE HAPPY, they are trying to make THEMSELVES HAPPY by trying (and failing) to convience people to bring back a system of gaming that's long been outdate.
And no, I don't think MMORPG should make servers or option for incredibly small group of people because they wish to be ol'school deviants. Again, let's move on people, nothing to see and stop feeding the trolls.
3) There are personal rewards and group rewards. Most of the FFA PvP crowd seems obsessed with personal rewards rather than rewards that would benefit their guild and / or faction. In other words, they would rather get that uber sword of pwnage than capture a shrine that would give all the members of their faction +10 fire damage DPS on every attack.
4) There's this weird BDSM vibe that seems to infect these kinds of discussions. When you hear the anecdotal "evidence" these guys give, it's always about the thrill they got when winning. If it's about Risk vs. Reward, why don't we hear more about the inevitable losses that come with risk? – Jimmy_Scythe
I couldn't disagree with you more on every point. I will number my responses to each as you have numbered them to avoid confusion.
2. Acknowledgement of skill level is important, sure, but when you're in a game in which there are thousands of players on a single server, you can only bump in to the same people so many times (even at the highest level, new veterans emerge into the world each day). When do you get your recognition? When you start seeing players flee when they see you? When you beat the same player over and over, and they realize that you are better (that's fun for neither person)? Is it in-game displayed rankings (very rarely seen)? No.
The only recognition of my skill that I strive for is my own recognition of that skill. I like to know that I beat that person, whether that be by defeating him/her, hiding from him/her, or otherwise outsmarting him/her. But then again, what is the motivation for attaining this recognition of skill, when the game itself does not recognize it through concrete gains? Say there were a game completely based on PvP, and when the random mobs in the world killed you or when you killed them, you got nothing; would you ever kill the random mobs? No, it would be only an annoyance.
This following point not only follows from my answer to "2." but a previous post I saw (maybe even on page 1?) about WoW PvP: This type of mentality is what breeds the griefers of WoW, etc. There is no point to PvP, so the only reason these people do it is to annoy you, and since that's the goal of PvP, they've gotten very good at it. For the person being griefed, knowing that there is no point to the person doing that to you other than to annoy you only makes you hate the person for doing something just to be a jerk. If there were a reason the griefer did not want to grief you (say, the chance that you would kill him and get your gold back, plus his/hers), then after one kill the player would more than likely leave you alone (I did it many times in Everquest). When you give players a reason to PvP, it makes it a fact of life; knowing that you would do the same in the other's shoes. In fact, given a reason to kill a player, such as a gold drop, the PvPer would be BETTER OFF to leave you alone and go find another player to kill. Then, you have the chance to go somewhere else before he/she returns, level up quickly and move on, etc.
There is no such thing as a "fallout" from a game just because it provides PvP servers. Those people that don't like it simply join the PvE servers.
Lastly, you say in "2." that the aim of PvP should be to be recognized for your skill. In "3." you say that skill is the last determinant of success in PvP (I even consider being able to work in a team as skill, though in a different aspect). If proving skill is the aim, and skill is not the best determinant of success in PvP, then would you not agree PvP is broken (even in your own definition, which is a slightly toned-down version of what I would like to see in PvP)?
3. Who determines what a CON is and what a PRO is in PvP? The players, I hope. And each individual player is different. So why not provide different servers for different players based on what they decide the PROS and CONS are? Yes, it is DEFINITELY true that today's MMORPGs are no longer the vice of the select few 'hardcore' gamers: They DO in fact cater to millions of players worldwide, from all ages, societies, and interests. I can think of no better example than the giant that is WoW. And, as I said in my previous post (please read through it again, more carefully, there are many points you failed to answer to, and more that you simply ignored when writing your responses, which I have already answered to), I don't think initiating a more rewarding/dangerous PvP rule server would work in it; but this is not the case for other MMORPGs out there (or it at least doesn't have to be, as it didn't use to be). And if a wonderful, general-audience game DID include a PvP server, would they have any less of an audience? I fail to see how they would. They would simply have one more server that caters to a NEW audience. They would actually cater to a LARGER audience (ie me). We are trying to make EVERYBODY HAPPY. We are part of everybody, everybody else is happy, and they would be no less happy if there were one server for us, so more people would be happy. You have provided no logic to your conclusion. I said nothing about making games "exclusive" like in the "dark ages," I simply put forth the idea that there are players that would like to be heard when they ask for a PvP server, and that this idea should be looked in to. Please read my post again, because I said nothing about "moving backwards," I do not want to change what has been happening to MMORPGs, I simply want to add something to it that has maybe been forgotten.
In fact, I think our voices have been heard, with the developments of Warhammer Online and Age of Conan, which boasts about its tough PvP and mature player target audience.
3) Again, I disagree, you're arguing against another type of PvPer, if that type exists. I would be more than ecstatic to see a PvP system in which a guild gets points for guildmates' PKs; though even the smallest personal incentive is still necessary to keep each guildmate motivated, and a small penalty for being PKed is necessary to keep players competitive and alert, not giving up kills, or letting themselves be farmed, etc.
Besides that, if that type of player DOES exist, then why not give him/her a server of their own if there are enough of that type interested in one?
4) I have to laugh a little bit at your choice of last quote. Did you even read my post? The most prevalent subject of it was my discussion on THE THRILLS AND DANGER OF BEING KILLED. That's the best part! It keeps us hardcore gamers on the edges of our seat, more than any thrill/horror flick, because this time WE are the hunted, and WE make the decisions (honestly, who hides in the little closet when being chased by a smart killer?). I LOVE BEING KILLED AND LOSING SOMETHING I'VE WORKED HARD FOR. Otherwise, I just don't care.
Lastly, you keep on saying that it's not viable to do a PvP server... there are obviously enough people interested, just look at the thread posts. Even if the server is not FFA PvP (which, again, read my above post, I have not tried, and have a feeling I would not enjoy that extreme), then there would be a better place for those that like FFA PvP. In fact, a good strategy would be for game developers to determine what level of PvP most players like, and then make a server with a ruleset that caters to the majority of those persons without alienating other PvP lovers (so, make not a FFA server, but perhaps a server where you can loot all of the currency off of a player; that way you would have those players that like that style of PvP rules, as well as the FFA lovers; which I estimate would be a fairly large player-base).
You simply cannot argue against something that doesn't concern you. I agree that PvP with no risk/rewards is like poker with no money.
2. If rewards or trophies are the only thing keeping you from quiting the game then you never liked the game to begin with. The thrill of fighting is why I play and nothing. You should not be reward for playing and not achieving, but nor should players be reward for achieving as it would cause people to doubt their ability PvP. And yes, I've had players recognize me on the battlefield and some went out of their way to go one on one with me. The best reason for pvping was because I form bonds not only with my teammates, but with my opponent too. Respect was the reward we won for fighting each other. And I got respect from every person I defeated and with WoW and GW having over million of players that's a lot of respect to win.
And what's purpose of winning (or looting) the armor anyway? To prove that you are the best? How do I know you didn't ganked some level 50 character while he AFK at his computer? How do we know we know you didn't gank some guy whose connection went out. How do we know you didn't go in a pair or group to tank out a level 50 character for his gear. Looting or being rewarded doesn't tell me how good you are, but you spent an awful lot of time playing this game. People who wish to have rewards for their efforts, believe they'll gain respect.
BTW, I played GW and my guild rank 623th at the time. We played a team in the 98th rank and won. Does this mean I'm good? Does this mean my team is good? Nope, it means I (or we as a group) have achieve a better understanding and appreciating of our class and player abilities. Believe it or not, I cared not for the victory or the reward. Oh, yeah, the team IMed my Guild Master just so they could tell me I was the best person in tha group. (I was a mesmer)
3. Pros and Cons are decided by the gameplay itself, not the player because players will favor anything that gives them an advantage or a reward. If the game prevents most of the players from progressing for several different reason then the gameplay is flawed. Nobody will play a game or server where a "PLAYER" foothold or balance cannot be achieved, period. FFA games are always imbalanced and do not feature a easy learning curve, which is why so many players and developers avoid making such games.
In addition if CLASS and ITEMS are the deciding factor in games (like WOW, as you stated) nobody really earns my respect as a good pvper, full stop. All it means is that they had more time to raid/grind. This is probably why I can only recall guild members names from WOW yet I can recall around 12 names of players from both UO and AC (neither of which I have played in 3+ years) who I respected as really skilled pvpers; unfortunately 60% of them were RPK's and killed me often
2. The only people who enjoy FFA PVP would play on the FFA PVP server otherwise it's their own fault for selecting the wrong server type for their playstyle (assuming it's correctly labelled etc). You are wrong there, as AOC, WAR, and Vanguard have all shown that developers are starting to take us more seriously with a strong focus on PVP including dedicated servers for our playstyle. And if Darkfall comes we all will be well catered for, happy and hopefully content.
_________________
The above post is purely my opinion. If you disagree, that's your right. However, don't be an ass about it.
In addition if CLASS and ITEMS are the deciding factor in games (like WOW, as you stated) nobody really earns my respect as a good pvper, full stop. All it means is that they had more time to raid/grind. This is probably why I can only recall guild members names from WOW yet I can recall around 12 names of players from both UO and AC (neither of which I have played in 3+ years) who I respected as really skilled pvpers; unfortunately 60% of them were RPK's and killed me often
2. The only people who enjoy FFA PVP would play on the FFA PVP server otherwise it's their own fault for selecting the wrong server type for their playstyle (assuming it's correctly labelled etc). You are wrong there, as AOC, WAR, and Vanguard have all shown that developers are starting to take us more seriously with a strong focus on PVP including dedicated servers for our playstyle. And if Darkfall comes we all will be well catered for, happy and hopefully content. 1. You ride a rollcoaster, it's scary the first time, but as you start riding it over and over again, the experience dies a little each ride. The only way the ride could scare you is if the ride had more steep drops or gain more speed on turns. Pvpers who never lose, grow tired of PvP. Pvper give up trying to pvper at all. For these types of players, their rollcoaster only goes on way and has no dips or speedy curses.
However, Pvper like yourself who wins some and lose some thinks that where the fun is. Trust me, I've been there a couple of times in beginning of most games, but as you master your class and understand how other classes work, it becomes boring. And basing FFA server on the win/lose theory is stupid. The only way the server can stimulate that type of win/lose environment so it can give you that thrill-seeking experience, you would need top-notch players and low calibur players willing to play the game to keep you entertain. Top-notch players give you something to strive for and low calibur players are your victims and ego boosters.
2. You want the ultimate PvP experience PLAY HALO. Stop whining and moaning that MMORPG pvp sucks. There is a reason why they are call MMORPGs and not MMOPvPGs.
3. I don't care what you remember. I don't remember any of the team members or guild I ran with either. I only remember the experience and characers I ran into.
4. If the new players can't get into FFA servers, they won't play. If players can't abuse glitches or find paradoxes in the gameplay, people won't play. Too many times, FFA servers have imbalance issues and player-friendly issues. New players to the MMORPG market don't know what FFA server is and giving them a bad experience on the first day will give them a last impression that won't help your cause. Lineage II has player friendly issues in terms of it's PvP atmosphere.
Vanguard - one server
WAR - I'm already here bad reviews about the PvP.
AoC - I haven't heard what PvP will be like.
The movement in AoC is wasd with elder scrolls type combat including first person archery and grab moves, suggesting it will be more twitch-based than pressing "Attack target" and taking a sip of your coffee.
Then it's settled then!
Bring on the FFA servers!
Ah, but there's a catch-22 to this. As I've already stated, no prey = no play. Without a steady stream of unwilling victims, killers lose interest and leave the server. As much as you hate to drag money into this argument.... Would the cost of running an FFA PvP server cluster even be worth it considering that it'll just die out within a few months?
The main reason I support hardcore (FFA PvP with permadeath), softcore (FFA PvP), and normal (PvE only) servers is because I think that there should be options for everyone. However, if the game itself isn't geared toward FFA PvP from the very beginning, it will fail. If the game doesn't have an appeal beyond FFA PvP, it will fail. Eve works because it offers something to do other than gank other players in relative peace. UO also had town gaurds and a heavy emphasis on crafting. In both games, gear and money is pretty easy to come by. Asheron's Call and, as far as I know, Shadow bane was an exception to this rule. There wasn't much to do in either of these games than just grind and gank. As a result Darktide had the lowest population of all AC servers and Shadowbane is dead in the water.
Your attempt to sound bite this argument into the ground just doesn't work because there's more going on than first meets the eye. This is the difference between someone from a more traditional multiplayer background and the FFA PvP crowd. I've seen actual competition and not just the player vs. random number generator that most MMORPGs boil down to.
And who's saying the only appeal a FFA PVP game should have is PVP? We are discussing adding a FFA PVP ruleset to an already complete game. This means that all other features on the normal server will simply carry across, such as crafting, questing, diplomacy etc... and can even be argued that they are improved by the FFA ruleset.
Vanguard - FFA server at launch
AOC - FFA server at launch
WAR - heavy emphasis on PVP, FFA server being looked into (last i heard)
I suggest you both call all these developers up right away and inform them what a huge mistake they are making.
Now give it a rest, I'm not even going to bother checking back in this thread as it's turned into a meaningless spamfest with very little content.
Thanks.
I love how you and captain think you know 'better' than all the developers out there. Too bad developers actions speak louder than your words and theories, as does the poll in this thread.
Know better? My views on this come from experienced developers, the history of MMORPGs, and my own experiences working as staff on various MUDs and UO free shards. While I think that it's great that some devs are taking risks in this genre, I can see about a thousand things that can go wrong.
We are discussing adding a FFA PVP ruleset to an already complete game.
Stone soup doesn't always taste too good. Having said that, there are things that go together. Adding a trading sim to a space shooter and you have Elite. Add FPS to RTS and you get Savage, Natural Selection, and the version of Battlezone that was released on PC back in '98. Add FFA PvP to something like EQ and you get a prison rape train on newbies.
The only way this works is if you combine MMORPG with RTS. I'm thinking that AoC might actually be on to something there.
BTW, Warhammer online is RvR and not FFA PvP. You will not be able to loot your opponent. Instead, a random item will drop as though you just killed a monster.
I suggest you both call all these developers up right away and inform them what a huge mistake they are making.
I wouldn't call it a huge mistake. I would call it a minorly trivial mistake. So long as there enough people playing the game overall to turn a profit, the PvP servers can be completely empty. It's when the corporate bean counters come down and begin cutting corners that the empty servers get killed. And the counters will come.... eventually...
Now give it a rest, I'm not even going to bother checking back in this thread
Riiiiiggggghhhhhtttttt........
Remember, not all MMORPG's have the same PVP rules and so on.
You can put into place griefing rules and measures.
You can certainly put name requirements in as well, so as to not get silly names like the one you just mentioned.
In your case Cap, I think you've been burnt by PVP and as a result are now completley against it.
All i can say is, grow a thicker skin, but even if you don't, that's fine - just be aware, not all PVP is like the one that you experienced.
Please note I don't intend this post as a personal attack on you whatsoever.
Now bugger off
----
MMORPG's I've Played: World of Warcraft: 10/10 - Rappelz: 7/10 - Ragnarok Online: 8/10 - DnD Online: 2/10 - Runescape: 6/10 - LotR Online: 5/10 - Anarchy Online: 7/10 - CoV: 8/10 - Rohan Online: 8/10 - Guild Wars: 7/10 - Flyff: 8/10 - Warhammer Online: 8/10
My HARDCORE Story
I think most of the loudest opponents of FFA PVP are bothered by the fact that it doesn't fit into their conception of a MMORPG.
After all, if you put FFA PVP with full loot into a game like WoW or EQ2, item-centric raidgrind games, you'd have serious problems. To begin with, you'd have uber-equipped griefer guilds raping every newbie they can. On the off chance that one of their players got killed, the guild would have the resources to uber-equip them again in under a week. Before long, the game would be a veteran playground.
The problem is really finding a balance. If you make the game too friendly to ego masturbators who genuinely enjoy making other players miserable, you're just going to end up with another veteran playground with no new blood. You need to put systems into place to prevent such things, but such systems eventually interfere with the fun of open PVP if you take them far enough.
I personally think any PVP MMORPG has to be designed as a PVP game from the ground up. You should have plenty of choice in terms of gear and skills, and what you pick should make a big difference, but gear should be very easy to obtain. The top tier of items should only be slightly more powerful than the very easily obtainable stuff. I don't agree with full loot, either. Full loot only encourages griefers to take all of a person's gear and dump most of it. I think a good system is to make two classes of items: normal items which are easily obtained and can't be looted, and elite items which are 10% more powerful and are lootable. If you did that, people would never have to run around naked, but they do stand a chance to lose their best stuff.
Then please keep your unprofessional opinions to yourself. I have no problem with PvP as I pvp 50% time when I'm not questing in pve. However, like many people on this board, I know "risk rules" are full of sh!t. BTW, I've never really had bad PvP experience. The closest I've come to bad was a NWN PvP server were they had hardcore rules. I ended up being the person getting ganked and later became the ganker. Having been both sides of the stick, I can honestly say FFA play bullcrap, but hey as long as it keeps people like yourself off my server, I don't mind MMORPGs going out their way to make them.
Osc8r, you might to do yourself a favor and point out the irony rather than throw out re-used catch phrases. That would point the irony out a lot better.
I wasn't replying to anybody in particular. It's pointless to argue a topic based in personal preference, even if you're replying to a fallacious statement. I was merely stating how I think FFA PVP would best work. I wouldn't mind playing a game like the one I described. I'm sure a lot of the people in this thread wouldn't. After all, not even PVP'ers like to get set back a month by a bored veteran-turned-griefer who masturbates to making others miserable.