Because it is counter-intuitive to what the PVP players say they want.
The vast majority of PVP players say they want to have skill deciding the outcome in PVP contests. What sort of progression are you proposing that wouldn't make the character's or their gear more powerful? Where's the carrot to keep players playing?
Ah, there is the problem as I see it. So far PvP has often been been a means to get to some juicy PvE elements (like quests, gear, good exp spots and so on) or they have been more or less meaningless, in effect like FPS PvP.
So the challenge I guess is to create a PvP MMORPG where the outcome of the battle matters in a way to keep you playing. One way to do that I think is to have "resources" in the landscape and these resources give you the opportunity to create new powerful items or to building components for cities and cities in turn give you some other advantage, like special mounts or whatever. Not sure, but there should be possible to have a PvP MMORPG with an incentive to keep playing (beside the FPS type "just because" reason).
You just gave a PERFECT description of a single player game. MMO's would be greatly improved by removing all the PvE kiddies from their games. They can stick with single player games instead.
Neon, lol, honestly man the more you post the more I laugh. I mean, jeez, by the law of averages you should say something intelligent just on sheer volume, but it hasn't happened yet.
Anyhow, heh, with that out of the way, you do realize that removing the PVE kiddies would kill the genre, right, as they make up the vast majority of players? Yes?
Don't believe me? Take a look at the player numbers for what are considered PVP-centric games. What does Darkfall have, 20k subs? What about Shadowbane....oh never mind. Aion? Remains to be seen, and its not even a full-blown pvp game. EVE? Probably the best of the bunch with a couple hundred thousand, not all of whom take part in pvp.
But yeah, go ahead and remove the PVE kiddies, then you PVP types really will be going to FPS titles, because there will be no more mmorpgs.
/rolleyes
Ok, first of all I agree that the majority of MMORPG players are PvE players but that does not mean that there isn't a market for PvP focused games. WAR was advertised as being a PvP (RvR) game and Darkfall, which you mentioned, had over 300k registered for playing the beta. The reason why it was such a failure is not because of the PvP element but rather because the game, from gfx to combat, was terrible.
That being said, looking at upcoming titles like Mortal Online, there certainly is a demand for PvP MMORPGs so I dont think that is the issue. The issue is rather to have some PvP that has a meaning, rather than just FPS style meaningless PvP. Eve as you mention is such a game, I would bet the majority of people in that game does not engage in PvE, as it gives you no exp or advance your character in any meaningful way beside giving you some credits. So I would say that Eve is a successful PvP centered MMORPG where PvE is purely optional. More such games are needed...
Finally, keep in mind that I did not mean we should remove PvE entirely, as even PvP players like myself, sometimes want to test some new skills/equipment on PvE mobs, just that it should be entirely optional in the sense that it is not required for you to engage in it to advance your character.
You've got it backwards if you think PvP is the means to advancing PvE. Rarely do games actually give you anything of value in PvP to advance your PvE - It's always the other way around. People PvE as a means of making themselves competitive for PvP. PvP is ultimately the highest form of end game content available, it's dynamicly changing content where your opponents have intelligence capable of adapting. DAoC was a horrible PvE game, but the PvP made the month long grind worthwhile. Even in WoW you'll frequently find people saying their ultimate goal is to be competitive in PvP, and raiding is just a means to that end.
There's a lot of buzz generated around PvP. People want it. It's often something that gets hyped up a lot in the pre-release phase of an MMO, but ultimately they all fail to deliver; Either because their commitment to PvP was shallow from the beginning, or because the money handlers got cold feet and decided the game should just focus on being a PvE grinder using "proven" mechanics.
WAR was advertised as a PvP MMO, but it utterly failed in execution. I think EA got an identity crisis halfway through and the project lost it's way.
AoC was originally advertised as a PvP heavy MMO, but utterly failed to deliver on any of it's features or promises and didn't even have a basic complete PvE component.
Darkfall was the first MMO since shadowbane to truly attempt a PvP based MMO, but suffers from the same problem it did: Low cost, leading to poor production values. Shadowbane was never a failure of concept as much as it was too outdated in it's execution to interest a wider audience. Darkfall's major execution failing is that in the end they tacked on a ridiculous and mind numbing PvE grind, in a fit of horrendously bad design judgement, which actually prevents people from enjoying or participating in the PvP (even though they themselves tried to say the game had no grind when it was in development. Obviously they lost their way, got cold feet and lost faith in the ability of their dynamic PvP and city building system to support the game on it's own. And that hesitation is ultimately going to be what kills them).
Star Wars The Old Republic tried to emphasize the "War" in their name when questioned about PvP, but this is something I've seen before so I don't have much faith that they will deliver anything more than instanced arenas, if at all. But the mere fact that they are trying to pretend PvP is important, or at least not inisgnificant, speaks to the fact that PvP means a lot in an MMO. Even for those who primarily want PvE, a lot of them ultimately have the goal in mind of being able to take what they've worked to build and pit it against others in a meaningful way.
But I understand an avatar played through Guild Wars upto the level of the instant start avatar is more powerful? Therefore leveling up is the best for PvP.
People keep bringing up how UO worked pretty well as a MMO with free-for-all PvP, but they're overlooking a very important point. Ultima Online was still very much a roleplaying game, only this time, it was one you could play simultaneously with others, and yes, even engage in combat with other players. That wasn't the focus, though. The focus was that it was, at its heart, a roleplaying game, and the target audience were roleplaying game fans-- specifically Ultima players, as the series had and still has quite the following. The MMO "landscape" was vastly different then, since... well, there really wasn't one.
Roleplaying games are about character development. They're about having an avatar that is a seperate entity from the one controlling it, with various levels of characteristics such as strength, intelligence, constitution, dexterity, agility, wisdom, etc. that make up the character. The very nature of "roleplaying" is taking on the persona of your character, with all it's designated strengths and weaknesses, and leveraging these things against obstacles.
Roleplaying games were a distinct genre, as were shooters. People played both games, but there was that understanding with the player that these are two distinct categories and are played differently. Shooters were about running around an destroying your opponents in various gruesome and spectacular ways (which made for very fun and cathartic frustration releases after particularly shitty days at work. I speak from experience here. ). Conversely, roleplaying games-- even those in which combat figured pretty prominently-- were slower paced, more cerebral, and were the playground of ... well, for lack of a better term, the nerdy brainiacs. I also speak from experience here, so I mean this in the best possible way.
Somewhere along the lines, some marketing genius saw the overwhelming popularity of shooters, and in a move to attract a wider audience (and thus more sales/subscriptions) roleplaying games started becoming more visceral and shedding the reliance on player stats in favor of player skill. Where a roleplayer's skill used to be more of a type of strategic skill on how best to maneuver their character through the world based on it's abilities and handicaps, it started morphing into how fast the player could click his mouse. The very definition of roleplaying game shifted to mean "a game with a role you play" (which is extremely nebulous because it could pretty much describe everything. Mario games are now RPGs because you take on the role of an Italian plumber, Halo is a RPG now because you take on the role of Masterchief, etc.)
Some of us old school RPers are bitter now because of this. It's not personal, and we can't really blame you guys who play MMOs solely for the PvP content. You're just a target of marketing. Meanwhile, we more laid back old school RPers have to put a face on our "enemy", and it's really easy to find some drooling retard who just so happens to be a PvP nut and hold him up as the posterchild for all of PvP and totally demonize him. It's also fun, too, because the actual drooling retards provide great forum entertainment.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
People keep bringing up how UO worked pretty well as a MMO with free-for-all PvP, but they're overlooking a very important point. Ultima Online was still very much a roleplaying game, only this time, it was one you could play simultaneously with others, and yes, even engage in combat with other players. That wasn't the focus, though. The focus was that it was, at its heart, a roleplaying game, and the target audience were roleplaying game fans-- specifically Ultima players, as the series had and still has quite the following. The MMO "landscape" was vastly different then, since... well, there really wasn't one. Roleplaying games are about character development. They're about having an avatar that is a seperate entity from the one controlling it, with various levels of characteristics such as strength, intelligence, constitution, dexterity, agility, wisdom, etc. that make up the character. The very nature of "roleplaying" is taking on the persona of your character, with all it's designated strengths and weaknesses, and leveraging these things against obstacles. Roleplaying games were a distinct genre, as were shooters. People played both games, but there was that understanding with the player that these are two distinct categories and are played differently. Shooters were about running around an destroying your opponents in various gruesome and spectacular ways (which made for very fun and cathartic frustration releases after particularly shitty days at work. I speak from experience here. ). Conversely, roleplaying games-- even those in which combat figured pretty prominently-- were slower paced, more cerebral, and were the playground of ... well, for lack of a better term, the nerdy brainiacs. I also speak from experience here, so I mean this in the best possible way. Somewhere along the lines, some marketing genius saw the overwhelming popularity of shooters, and in a move to attract a wider audience (and thus more sales/subscriptions) roleplaying games started becoming more visceral and shedding the reliance on player stats in favor of player skill. Where a roleplayer's skill used to be more of a type of strategic skill on how best to maneuver their character through the world based on it's abilities and handicaps, it started morphing into how fast the player could click his mouse. The very definition of roleplaying game shifted to mean "a game with a role you play" (which is extremely nebulous because it could pretty much describe everything. Mario games are now RPGs because you take on the role of an Italian plumber, Halo is a RPG now because you take on the role of Masterchief, etc.) Some of us old school RPers are bitter now because of this. It's not personal, and we can't really blame you guys who play MMOs solely for the PvP content. You're just a target of marketing. Meanwhile, we more laid back old school RPers have to put a face on our "enemy", and it's really easy to find some drooling retard who just so happens to be a PvP nut and hold him up as the posterchild for all of PvP and totally demonize him. It's also fun, too, because the actual drooling retards provide great forum entertainment.
Not sure what you are trying to say but RP and PvP are not in conflict with each other. FPS and RPG are, or what you say Shooter games, since in RPG you develop your character over time and it is your characters skills, and not only your skills as a player, that decide how powerful you are.
But I think we are digressing from the focus of this thread. What I am saying is that RPG games and PvP can mix together where instead of advancing your character through PvE you advance it through PvP. To my knowledge only a handful of games has tried that, WAR being one. However, and I may be wrong since it was a while ago I played it, I dont see Guild Wars as one since it just gives you and option to max out your character from start, instead of leveling him through PvE. Advancing your character solely though PvP is not an option there.
So basically my question is: Why are there so few that allows you to advance your character solely through PvP? Should not be so hard; I kill a PvE mob and get exp or I kill a PC and get exp. Only problem I see is abusing the system by allowing one to be repteadly killed, but that was handled pretty good in WAR where u get less exp for someone recently killed.
Not sure what you are trying to say but RP and PvP are not in conflict with each other. FPS, or what you say Shooter games, since in RPG you develop your character over time and it is your characters skills, and not only your skills as a player, that decide how powerful you are.
Throughout this thread, there seems to be a runningtheme of PVEers vs. PVPers. I was just offering a possible perspective on why that's so. I think there is a fear that the more a game focuses on straight up player versus player, the less of a chance there will be for actual roleplaying, which includes both the character stats advancement AND the social aspects. I'll reiterate an example I posted in another thread for illustration.
If someone is hellbent on fighting another person to test his mettle, what context is there in the world? If they're warring factions, say a dark elf vs. a high elf, the context is self evident. They're playing out the roles pre-assigned to them by an established state of war that exists between the races. Therefore, no diplomacy will work. Why even try? Just duke it out and may the better fighter prove victorious.
Now take a FFA game, where players of the same faction can attack and kill eachother. Is there a context? Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that there is none, and the aggressor is just attacking because the player controlling him is just feeling froggy and wants to fight. Let's also assume that the aggressor isn't into the social aspects of roleplay. He could are less about player interaction, unless it involves steel on flesh. The one being attacked, on the other hand, is a roleplayer, and is playing in character-- perhaps gathering materials for crafting. He's minding his own business, not looking for a fight. The aggressor attacks, and the victim tries his best to reason with him. "I'm not looking for a fight! I come in peace!", etc. The aggressor ignores all this, or more likely, responds with "LOLNERD!" and then wins a decidedly one-sided fight. To add insult to injury, he teabags the victim, which serves NO PURPOSE IN ANY GAME other than being "for the lulz".
I set up some specific parameters there, like both parties being in the same faction, and the PvPer being out to kill for the hell of it, but this is so common that it can't be ignored. This is why there's such a schism between RPers and PVPers. This is why the RPers would rather stick with PVE, because they know that if an AI opponent attacks them, there is a rhyme and reason. Sure, you can't negotiate with an NPC, but you can try to outrun them with a possibility of success if things go south.
The point of all this? If PvPers would stop acting like douchenuggets, perhaps they'd get a little more love from the original target audiences of MMORPGs. Untill then, as long as they keep acting like stereotypical FPS players, they're going to be encouraged to go back to them. I know that not all PvPers are like this, but those who are really kill it for you guys.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Not sure what you are trying to say but RP and PvP are not in conflict with each other. FPS, or what you say Shooter games, since in RPG you develop your character over time and it is your characters skills, and not only your skills as a player, that decide how powerful you are.
Throughout this thread, there seems to be a runningtheme of PVEers vs. PVPers. I was just offering a possible perspective on why that's so. I think there is a fear that the more a game focuses on straight up player versus player, the less of a chance there will be for actual roleplaying, which includes both the character stats advancement AND the social aspects. I'll reiterate an example I posted in another thread for illustration.
If someone is hellbent on fighting another person to test his mettle, what context is there in the world? If they're warring factions, say a dark elf vs. a high elf, the context is self evident. They're playing out the roles pre-assigned to them by an established state of war that exists between the races. Therefore, no diplomacy will work. Why even try? Just duke it out and may the better fighter prove victorious.
Now take a FFA game, where players of the same faction can attack and kill eachother. Is there a context? Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that there is none, and the aggressor is just attacking because the player controlling him is just feeling froggy and wants to fight. Let's also assume that the aggressor isn't into the social aspects of roleplay. He could are less about player interaction, unless it involves steel on flesh. The one being attacked, on the other hand, is a roleplayer, and is playing in character-- perhaps gathering materials for crafting. He's minding his own business, not looking for a fight. The aggressor attacks, and the victim tries his best to reason with him. "I'm not looking for a fight! I come in peace!", etc. The aggressor ignores all this, or more likely, responds with "LOLNERD!" and then wins a decidedly one-sided fight. To add insult to injury, he teabags the victim, which serves NO PURPOSE IN ANY GAME other than being "for the lulz".
I set up some specific parameters there, like both parties being in the same faction, and the PvPer being out to kill for the hell of it, but this is so common that it can't be ignored. This is why there's such a schism between RPers and PVPers. This is why the RPers would rather stick with PVE, because they know that if an AI opponent attacks them, there is a rhyme and reason. Sure, you can't negotiate with an NPC, but you can try to outrun them with a possibility of success if things go south.
The point of all this? If PvPers would stop acting like douchenuggets, perhaps they'd get a little more love from the original target audiences of MMORPGs. Untill then, as long as they keep acting like stereotypical FPS players, they're going to be encouraged to go back to them. I know that not all PvPers are like this, but those who are really kill it for you guys.
I think you have a very skewed, and negative, view on MMORPG PvPers. Not all are out just to kill other people and if you have played games like Asherons Call on Darktide server you would see that intricit political relationships between guilds will build up, between hackers and non-hackers, random pks and honor guilds and so on. So there is plently of room for real roleplaying, rather than one forced on you by the devs by putting you in a specific faction (ala WoW or WAR).
Also the one that kill just for the sake of killing also play a role, as the bad guys which are killed on sight by many other clans. For example the game I am playing right now, Beyond Protocol, it is very possible for big empires to crush smaller ones but that is usually frown upon and doing that will give you a bad rep among other bigger empires out there.
So even though I see your point, there are alot of scum PvPers that just want to kill other people for no reason, there is also a huge potential for builing up intricate polical maps which are made entirely, or partially, by the players. Eve corp vs corp and alliance of corps vs alliance of corps is another examply of that.
But in a "free" PvP world, which is a requirement for an FFA PvP environment, you can't really get rid of the scum that enjoy griefing. It is an element that you just need to deal with. However it is the responsibility of the devs of the game to create an environment where griefing is not easy, as it unfourtanetely is in games like Darkfall. For example in Asherons Call you had an overhead radar where it shown all players that may potentially kill you as red dots and if you were alert you could, largely, avoid being griefed.
Not sure what you are trying to say but RP and PvP are not in conflict with each other. FPS, or what you say Shooter games, since in RPG you develop your character over time and it is your characters skills, and not only your skills as a player, that decide how powerful you are.
Throughout this thread, there seems to be a runningtheme of PVEers vs. PVPers. I was just offering a possible perspective on why that's so. I think there is a fear that the more a game focuses on straight up player versus player, the less of a chance there will be for actual roleplaying, which includes both the character stats advancement AND the social aspects. I'll reiterate an example I posted in another thread for illustration.
If someone is hellbent on fighting another person to test his mettle, what context is there in the world? If they're warring factions, say a dark elf vs. a high elf, the context is self evident. They're playing out the roles pre-assigned to them by an established state of war that exists between the races. Therefore, no diplomacy will work. Why even try? Just duke it out and may the better fighter prove victorious.
Now take a FFA game, where players of the same faction can attack and kill eachother. Is there a context? Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that there is none, and the aggressor is just attacking because the player controlling him is just feeling froggy and wants to fight. Let's also assume that the aggressor isn't into the social aspects of roleplay. He could are less about player interaction, unless it involves steel on flesh. The one being attacked, on the other hand, is a roleplayer, and is playing in character-- perhaps gathering materials for crafting. He's minding his own business, not looking for a fight. The aggressor attacks, and the victim tries his best to reason with him. "I'm not looking for a fight! I come in peace!", etc. The aggressor ignores all this, or more likely, responds with "LOLNERD!" and then wins a decidedly one-sided fight. To add insult to injury, he teabags the victim, which serves NO PURPOSE IN ANY GAME other than being "for the lulz".
I set up some specific parameters there, like both parties being in the same faction, and the PvPer being out to kill for the hell of it, but this is so common that it can't be ignored. This is why there's such a schism between RPers and PVPers. This is why the RPers would rather stick with PVE, because they know that if an AI opponent attacks them, there is a rhyme and reason. Sure, you can't negotiate with an NPC, but you can try to outrun them with a possibility of success if things go south.
The point of all this? If PvPers would stop acting like douchenuggets, perhaps they'd get a little more love from the original target audiences of MMORPGs. Untill then, as long as they keep acting like stereotypical FPS players, they're going to be encouraged to go back to them. I know that not all PvPers are like this, but those who are really kill it for you guys.
I think you have a very skewed, and negative, view on MMORPG PvPers. Not all are out just to kill other people and if you have played games like Asherons Call on Darktide server you would see that intricit political relationships between guilds will build up, between hackers and non-hackers, random pks and honor guilds and so on. So there is plently of room for real roleplaying, rather than one forced on you by the devs by putting you in a specific faction (ala WoW or WAR).
Also the one that kill just for the sake of killing also play a role, as the bad guys which are killed on sight by many other clans. For example the game I am playing right now, Beyond Protocol, it is very possible for big empires to crush smaller ones but that is usually frown upon and doing that will give you a bad rep among other bigger empires out there.
So even though I see your point, there are alot of scum PvPers that just want to kill other people for no reason, there is also a huge potential for builing up intricate polical maps which are made entirely, or partially, by the players. Eve corp vs corp and alliance of corps vs alliance of corps is another examply of that.
But in a "free" PvP world, which is a requirement for an FFA PvP environment, you can't really get rid of the scum that enjoy griefing. It is an element that you just need to deal with. However it is the responsibility of the devs of the game to create an environment where griefing is not easy, as it unfourtanetely is in games like Darkfall. For example in Asherons Call you had an overhead radar where it shown all players that may potentially kill you as red dots and if you were alert you could, largely, avoid being griefed.
I'll admit, my view is pretty broad, but like I said, I know that not all PvPers are scum. In fact, I agree with you on many points. I'm eagerly awaiting Mortal Online, so that should tell you something. I'm just abit cynical about people, despite a developer's best intentions for a game. My ideal PvP enabled game would be one where the community establishes some type of contextual law and order system-- one where sociopathic behavior that is acted out outside of the game's context would be treated as aberrant and subject to consequences. I don't want to deny enjoyment to PvPers. Instead, I would like for PvRers to understand that in a game that sets out to create a society in which people interact, there are severe consequences for griefing. On this, I believe we both can agree.
It's not like, for example, preventing an assasin-type character from carrying out his line of work. In this case, if an assasin character plans out a strategy for his kill after researching his mark, finally executing the kill in an ingenius fashion, while managing to get away, he should be recognized for his skill. That's not the same as the playground beatdown behavior of griefers, which should result in serious backlash against the perpetrators.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
I have no doubt that a decent PVP oriented MMO will one day flourish. There is a market for it. There are some serious challenges that need to be overcome:
1 - Progression. How do you have character progression without creating imbalance between noobs/oldtimers and casuals/hardcores. If you create cookie cutter characters and make everyone the same you just became a fantasy style FPS (Legends of Might & Magic for example). If you provide a sandbox world and allow players to build then you end up with a PVE element that defines characters. I am not saying this is impossible just difficult.
2 - Fragmented PVP market. There is a large pvp market but it breaks down into niches that are often mutually exclusive. One example would be FFA PVPers and RvR or consentual PVPers. Obviously you can't have both on the same shard. The same goes for death penalty as some prefer none or mild inconvenience and others want a huge impact including loot.
These 2 issues is what is holding up a serious MMO PVP contender.
My vote would be for a Battletech type MMO as the options for group and FFA are there and balance/progression would be handled through mech size.
You make a fair point. Currently, general mmo mechanics don't support the system you are advocating. In general, you are simply advocating a fps in mmo form. I have little doubt that some day a few games will be made to satisfy your market segment.
People keep bringing up how UO worked pretty well as a MMO with free-for-all PvP, but they're overlooking a very important point. Ultima Online was still very much a roleplaying game, only this time, it was one you could play simultaneously with others, and yes, even engage in combat with other players. That wasn't the focus, though. The focus was that it was, at its heart, a roleplaying game, and the target audience were roleplaying game fans-- specifically Ultima players, as the series had and still has quite the following. The MMO "landscape" was vastly different then, since... well, there really wasn't one. Roleplaying games are about character development. They're about having an avatar that is a seperate entity from the one controlling it, with various levels of characteristics such as strength, intelligence, constitution, dexterity, agility, wisdom, etc. that make up the character. The very nature of "roleplaying" is taking on the persona of your character, with all it's designated strengths and weaknesses, and leveraging these things against obstacles. Roleplaying games were a distinct genre, as were shooters. People played both games, but there was that understanding with the player that these are two distinct categories and are played differently. Shooters were about running around an destroying your opponents in various gruesome and spectacular ways (which made for very fun and cathartic frustration releases after particularly shitty days at work. I speak from experience here. ). Conversely, roleplaying games-- even those in which combat figured pretty prominently-- were slower paced, more cerebral, and were the playground of ... well, for lack of a better term, the nerdy brainiacs. I also speak from experience here, so I mean this in the best possible way. Somewhere along the lines, some marketing genius saw the overwhelming popularity of shooters, and in a move to attract a wider audience (and thus more sales/subscriptions) roleplaying games started becoming more visceral and shedding the reliance on player stats in favor of player skill. Where a roleplayer's skill used to be more of a type of strategic skill on how best to maneuver their character through the world based on it's abilities and handicaps, it started morphing into how fast the player could click his mouse. The very definition of roleplaying game shifted to mean "a game with a role you play" (which is extremely nebulous because it could pretty much describe everything. Mario games are now RPGs because you take on the role of an Italian plumber, Halo is a RPG now because you take on the role of Masterchief, etc.) Some of us old school RPers are bitter now because of this. It's not personal, and we can't really blame you guys who play MMOs solely for the PvP content. You're just a target of marketing. Meanwhile, we more laid back old school RPers have to put a face on our "enemy", and it's really easy to find some drooling retard who just so happens to be a PvP nut and hold him up as the posterchild for all of PvP and totally demonize him. It's also fun, too, because the actual drooling retards provide great forum entertainment.
Not sure what you are trying to say but RP and PvP are not in conflict with each other. FPS and RPG are, or what you say Shooter games, since in RPG you develop your character over time and it is your characters skills, and not only your skills as a player, that decide how powerful you are.
But I think we are digressing from the focus of this thread. What I am saying is that RPG games and PvP can mix together where instead of advancing your character through PvE you advance it through PvP. To my knowledge only a handful of games has tried that, WAR being one.
I think you probably caught more of "whatever it was" they were trying to say.. because it made absolutely no sense to me.
"roleplaying games started becoming more visceral and shedding the reliance on player stats in favor of player skill. Where a roleplayer's skill used to be more of a type of strategic skill on how best to maneuver their character through the world based on it's abilities and handicaps,"
What?
The only difference between UO and later MMO's... Is that player skill and knowledge of how that game worked were THE key factor of UO. From EQ on the games were about "gear" and "abilities".
In fact going back to RPG's the entire essence of RPG's going waaay back to Wizardry Proving Grounds of The Mad Overlord... was GEAR.. "cool items"... The Blade Cusinart or w/e thing you happened to find. Forgive me if I mis-spell much of this as its been a few decades to say the least.
From the other person:
"But I think we are digressing from the focus of this thread. What I am saying is that RPG games and PvP can mix together where instead of advancing your character through PvE you advance it through PvP."
I actually believe you should always be able to do both.
The biggest problem with games in my opinion .. well at least MMO's.
Was the entire shift to Raiding (uber gear), Abilities (Realm Abilities, Alternate Abilities etc) and having absolutely NO requirement to learn the game. That's what I call the herd mentality.
In UO player crafted gear was pretty much as good as it got. Say in 1997-98 at least... Yes there was Invuln Armor or Vanq Weapons and I would always gladly sell them to other PvP people who wanted to pay a premium.. as in my experience they gave you no advantage at all in combat.
In UO you could have 10 people try to gank you.. and if they didn't understand the game and you had taken the time to "learn". You actually had a very good chance of beating all 10...
In a game like DAoC if 10 people attack you that followed the herd/zerg to get the best gear in the game and ramp up their RA's... you are most likely going to die..
This is what I mean about the shift in game design and this is something I have talked about for a loooong time.
In UO PvP was fun (for me), crafting was fun and I even ran a vendor (for the five years I played .. sales never slowed down). There was so much to do... and you were never forced to do any of it.
Your skills raised from pvp, pve or even dueling.. you got items from looting other players (or lost them) etc It actually was pretty beneficial to make friends...
So beyond even just the focus of this thread .. yes imho the entire direction of game design took a wrong turn in March of 1999 and never looked back (at least for MMO design).
PvP would perhaps be able to be a "sell" more easily in the market.. if people thought they could win.. based on their ability to play.. as opposed to their ability to login often enough and be lucky enough to get all that uber gear...
Why did gear ever become the factor of who wins pvp?
I think I stated earlier... if they want to return to a core structure of MMO design that makes sense.. I have absolutely no problem with a much higher involvement of PvP.
However, in reality... a game really does need to allow people to play the way they want to.. in some degree... which is why I think you need law and lawless areas... and the ability to advance through pve AND pvp... equally. Oh and yes if you walk over the line into the "waste lands" you better be ready for the vultures that will come...
In Todays Game's you have not the Time to RP much. Your Friends and you aswell are too busy killing the same Mob over and over for exp items and epeen dominance. Todays mmorpg are about optimizing your Avatar to make him the perfect grinding mashine and everything thats not in line with this will be cut. Its now about to reach max level fast getting the über gear and reading all Quests on a Game Wiki bevorehand to make it fast and easy trough.
You are not longer recognized as an Avatar who is played to his attributes and his selfmade RP Background you are recognized now as the Player behind the Avatar who tryes to excell in Level and gear and compete with the others about the top places in a epeen Top100 List of "best" players.
In Todays Game's you have not the Time to RP much. Your Friends and you aswell are too busy killing the same Mob over and over for exp items and epeen dominance. Todays mmorpg are about optimizing your Avatar to make him the perfect grinding mashine and everything thats not in line with this will be cut. Its now about to reach max level fast getting the über gear and reading all Quests on a Game Wiki bevorehand to make it fast and easy trough. You are not longer recognized as an Avatar who is played to his attributes and his selfmade RP Background you are recognized now as the Player behind the Avatar who tryes to excell in Level and gear and compete with the others about the top places in a epeen Top100 List of "best" players.
It is sad though that todays games have become lets dress my toon up like princess Barbie so I can run around saying " lookey meh imma superno0b."
I do hope that people get tired of thier pixellated "dress up" so we can get back to the "beat each other down like the dog who stole the Tv guide" and have fun again. I mean seriously though, wouldn;t it be easier for these kids to raid their mom's closet to play dress up?
all games should follow these rules:
1. no item is worthless.
2. all items have decent stat bonuses.
3. All games should have pvp and pve areas and neither are dependant on the other. Equal equpment and xp for doing either one. That way neither forces the other to participate in the others activities. If they want to fine, if they don;t fine. No forced anything, let the players decide.
I usually try to avoid PvP in any MMO I play. "Carebear"? Sure....
There was a game that was released that targetted just the PvP audience. It was called Fury. It failed miserably. I think the MMO genre will never have a game focused on just PvP. It wouldn't sell. Even games that have promised a lot of PvP, like War, AoC and DF aren't doing too well. The only game I know of that is doing well in the PvP genre is EvE, and guess what? It has PvE elements. In order for a PvP game to do well, it has to have PvE elements.
When Darkfall was released one of the big complaints was that it didn't have any PvE, and that, after a while, the PvP got boring. This is just an example.
You're right, there should be a pure PvP MMO available, along with many other types of MMO's. But what you're probably gonna hear is that you'll 'force players to PvP', and that you ' only care about what you want'. Too bad.
We already have them, they're called FPS. I always think it's funny that people show up in the MMO scene and then explain exactly why they don't want to play an MMO. If they don't like what MMOs are, GO PLAY SOMETHING ELSE!
Oh the hypocrisy is grand with this one. Telling someone else they are in the wrong genre because they dont like one aspect of the game, yet he complains about grouping when there's an entire genre of games that caters to his need to solo, single player RPGs.
Comments
Ah, there is the problem as I see it. So far PvP has often been been a means to get to some juicy PvE elements (like quests, gear, good exp spots and so on) or they have been more or less meaningless, in effect like FPS PvP.
So the challenge I guess is to create a PvP MMORPG where the outcome of the battle matters in a way to keep you playing. One way to do that I think is to have "resources" in the landscape and these resources give you the opportunity to create new powerful items or to building components for cities and cities in turn give you some other advantage, like special mounts or whatever. Not sure, but there should be possible to have a PvP MMORPG with an incentive to keep playing (beside the FPS type "just because" reason).
My gaming blog
You just gave a PERFECT description of a single player game. MMO's would be greatly improved by removing all the PvE kiddies from their games. They can stick with single player games instead.
Neon, lol, honestly man the more you post the more I laugh. I mean, jeez, by the law of averages you should say something intelligent just on sheer volume, but it hasn't happened yet.
Anyhow, heh, with that out of the way, you do realize that removing the PVE kiddies would kill the genre, right, as they make up the vast majority of players? Yes?
Don't believe me? Take a look at the player numbers for what are considered PVP-centric games. What does Darkfall have, 20k subs? What about Shadowbane....oh never mind. Aion? Remains to be seen, and its not even a full-blown pvp game. EVE? Probably the best of the bunch with a couple hundred thousand, not all of whom take part in pvp.
But yeah, go ahead and remove the PVE kiddies, then you PVP types really will be going to FPS titles, because there will be no more mmorpgs.
/rolleyes
Ok, first of all I agree that the majority of MMORPG players are PvE players but that does not mean that there isn't a market for PvP focused games. WAR was advertised as being a PvP (RvR) game and Darkfall, which you mentioned, had over 300k registered for playing the beta. The reason why it was such a failure is not because of the PvP element but rather because the game, from gfx to combat, was terrible.
That being said, looking at upcoming titles like Mortal Online, there certainly is a demand for PvP MMORPGs so I dont think that is the issue. The issue is rather to have some PvP that has a meaning, rather than just FPS style meaningless PvP. Eve as you mention is such a game, I would bet the majority of people in that game does not engage in PvE, as it gives you no exp or advance your character in any meaningful way beside giving you some credits. So I would say that Eve is a successful PvP centered MMORPG where PvE is purely optional. More such games are needed...
Finally, keep in mind that I did not mean we should remove PvE entirely, as even PvP players like myself, sometimes want to test some new skills/equipment on PvE mobs, just that it should be entirely optional in the sense that it is not required for you to engage in it to advance your character.
My gaming blog
Guildwars lets you start off any character at max level for PvP.
But that's what happens when you focus on just making a game fun instead of trying to bleed player's wallets every month.
You've got it backwards if you think PvP is the means to advancing PvE. Rarely do games actually give you anything of value in PvP to advance your PvE - It's always the other way around. People PvE as a means of making themselves competitive for PvP. PvP is ultimately the highest form of end game content available, it's dynamicly changing content where your opponents have intelligence capable of adapting. DAoC was a horrible PvE game, but the PvP made the month long grind worthwhile. Even in WoW you'll frequently find people saying their ultimate goal is to be competitive in PvP, and raiding is just a means to that end.
There's a lot of buzz generated around PvP. People want it. It's often something that gets hyped up a lot in the pre-release phase of an MMO, but ultimately they all fail to deliver; Either because their commitment to PvP was shallow from the beginning, or because the money handlers got cold feet and decided the game should just focus on being a PvE grinder using "proven" mechanics.
WAR was advertised as a PvP MMO, but it utterly failed in execution. I think EA got an identity crisis halfway through and the project lost it's way.
AoC was originally advertised as a PvP heavy MMO, but utterly failed to deliver on any of it's features or promises and didn't even have a basic complete PvE component.
Darkfall was the first MMO since shadowbane to truly attempt a PvP based MMO, but suffers from the same problem it did: Low cost, leading to poor production values. Shadowbane was never a failure of concept as much as it was too outdated in it's execution to interest a wider audience. Darkfall's major execution failing is that in the end they tacked on a ridiculous and mind numbing PvE grind, in a fit of horrendously bad design judgement, which actually prevents people from enjoying or participating in the PvP (even though they themselves tried to say the game had no grind when it was in development. Obviously they lost their way, got cold feet and lost faith in the ability of their dynamic PvP and city building system to support the game on it's own. And that hesitation is ultimately going to be what kills them).
Star Wars The Old Republic tried to emphasize the "War" in their name when questioned about PvP, but this is something I've seen before so I don't have much faith that they will deliver anything more than instanced arenas, if at all. But the mere fact that they are trying to pretend PvP is important, or at least not inisgnificant, speaks to the fact that PvP means a lot in an MMO. Even for those who primarily want PvE, a lot of them ultimately have the goal in mind of being able to take what they've worked to build and pit it against others in a meaningful way.
But I understand an avatar played through Guild Wars upto the level of the instant start avatar is more powerful? Therefore leveling up is the best for PvP.
People keep bringing up how UO worked pretty well as a MMO with free-for-all PvP, but they're overlooking a very important point. Ultima Online was still very much a roleplaying game, only this time, it was one you could play simultaneously with others, and yes, even engage in combat with other players. That wasn't the focus, though. The focus was that it was, at its heart, a roleplaying game, and the target audience were roleplaying game fans-- specifically Ultima players, as the series had and still has quite the following. The MMO "landscape" was vastly different then, since... well, there really wasn't one.
Roleplaying games are about character development. They're about having an avatar that is a seperate entity from the one controlling it, with various levels of characteristics such as strength, intelligence, constitution, dexterity, agility, wisdom, etc. that make up the character. The very nature of "roleplaying" is taking on the persona of your character, with all it's designated strengths and weaknesses, and leveraging these things against obstacles.
Roleplaying games were a distinct genre, as were shooters. People played both games, but there was that understanding with the player that these are two distinct categories and are played differently. Shooters were about running around an destroying your opponents in various gruesome and spectacular ways (which made for very fun and cathartic frustration releases after particularly shitty days at work. I speak from experience here.
). Conversely, roleplaying games-- even those in which combat figured pretty prominently-- were slower paced, more cerebral, and were the playground of ... well, for lack of a better term, the nerdy brainiacs. I also speak from experience here, so I mean this in the best possible way.
Somewhere along the lines, some marketing genius saw the overwhelming popularity of shooters, and in a move to attract a wider audience (and thus more sales/subscriptions) roleplaying games started becoming more visceral and shedding the reliance on player stats in favor of player skill. Where a roleplayer's skill used to be more of a type of strategic skill on how best to maneuver their character through the world based on it's abilities and handicaps, it started morphing into how fast the player could click his mouse. The very definition of roleplaying game shifted to mean "a game with a role you play" (which is extremely nebulous because it could pretty much describe everything. Mario games are now RPGs because you take on the role of an Italian plumber, Halo is a RPG now because you take on the role of Masterchief, etc.)
Some of us old school RPers are bitter now because of this. It's not personal, and we can't really blame you guys who play MMOs solely for the PvP content. You're just a target of marketing. Meanwhile, we more laid back old school RPers have to put a face on our "enemy", and it's really easy to find some drooling retard who just so happens to be a PvP nut and hold him up as the posterchild for all of PvP and totally demonize him. It's also fun, too, because the actual drooling retards provide great forum entertainment.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Not sure what you are trying to say but RP and PvP are not in conflict with each other. FPS and RPG are, or what you say Shooter games, since in RPG you develop your character over time and it is your characters skills, and not only your skills as a player, that decide how powerful you are.
But I think we are digressing from the focus of this thread. What I am saying is that RPG games and PvP can mix together where instead of advancing your character through PvE you advance it through PvP. To my knowledge only a handful of games has tried that, WAR being one. However, and I may be wrong since it was a while ago I played it, I dont see Guild Wars as one since it just gives you and option to max out your character from start, instead of leveling him through PvE. Advancing your character solely though PvP is not an option there.
So basically my question is: Why are there so few that allows you to advance your character solely through PvP? Should not be so hard; I kill a PvE mob and get exp or I kill a PC and get exp. Only problem I see is abusing the system by allowing one to be repteadly killed, but that was handled pretty good in WAR where u get less exp for someone recently killed.
My gaming blog
Throughout this thread, there seems to be a runningtheme of PVEers vs. PVPers. I was just offering a possible perspective on why that's so. I think there is a fear that the more a game focuses on straight up player versus player, the less of a chance there will be for actual roleplaying, which includes both the character stats advancement AND the social aspects. I'll reiterate an example I posted in another thread for illustration.
If someone is hellbent on fighting another person to test his mettle, what context is there in the world? If they're warring factions, say a dark elf vs. a high elf, the context is self evident. They're playing out the roles pre-assigned to them by an established state of war that exists between the races. Therefore, no diplomacy will work. Why even try? Just duke it out and may the better fighter prove victorious.
Now take a FFA game, where players of the same faction can attack and kill eachother. Is there a context? Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that there is none, and the aggressor is just attacking because the player controlling him is just feeling froggy and wants to fight. Let's also assume that the aggressor isn't into the social aspects of roleplay. He could are less about player interaction, unless it involves steel on flesh. The one being attacked, on the other hand, is a roleplayer, and is playing in character-- perhaps gathering materials for crafting. He's minding his own business, not looking for a fight. The aggressor attacks, and the victim tries his best to reason with him. "I'm not looking for a fight! I come in peace!", etc. The aggressor ignores all this, or more likely, responds with "LOLNERD!" and then wins a decidedly one-sided fight. To add insult to injury, he teabags the victim, which serves NO PURPOSE IN ANY GAME other than being "for the lulz".
I set up some specific parameters there, like both parties being in the same faction, and the PvPer being out to kill for the hell of it, but this is so common that it can't be ignored. This is why there's such a schism between RPers and PVPers. This is why the RPers would rather stick with PVE, because they know that if an AI opponent attacks them, there is a rhyme and reason. Sure, you can't negotiate with an NPC, but you can try to outrun them with a possibility of success if things go south.
The point of all this? If PvPers would stop acting like douchenuggets, perhaps they'd get a little more love from the original target audiences of MMORPGs. Untill then, as long as they keep acting like stereotypical FPS players, they're going to be encouraged to go back to them. I know that not all PvPers are like this, but those who are really kill it for you guys.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Throughout this thread, there seems to be a runningtheme of PVEers vs. PVPers. I was just offering a possible perspective on why that's so. I think there is a fear that the more a game focuses on straight up player versus player, the less of a chance there will be for actual roleplaying, which includes both the character stats advancement AND the social aspects. I'll reiterate an example I posted in another thread for illustration.
If someone is hellbent on fighting another person to test his mettle, what context is there in the world? If they're warring factions, say a dark elf vs. a high elf, the context is self evident. They're playing out the roles pre-assigned to them by an established state of war that exists between the races. Therefore, no diplomacy will work. Why even try? Just duke it out and may the better fighter prove victorious.
Now take a FFA game, where players of the same faction can attack and kill eachother. Is there a context? Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that there is none, and the aggressor is just attacking because the player controlling him is just feeling froggy and wants to fight. Let's also assume that the aggressor isn't into the social aspects of roleplay. He could are less about player interaction, unless it involves steel on flesh. The one being attacked, on the other hand, is a roleplayer, and is playing in character-- perhaps gathering materials for crafting. He's minding his own business, not looking for a fight. The aggressor attacks, and the victim tries his best to reason with him. "I'm not looking for a fight! I come in peace!", etc. The aggressor ignores all this, or more likely, responds with "LOLNERD!" and then wins a decidedly one-sided fight. To add insult to injury, he teabags the victim, which serves NO PURPOSE IN ANY GAME other than being "for the lulz".
I set up some specific parameters there, like both parties being in the same faction, and the PvPer being out to kill for the hell of it, but this is so common that it can't be ignored. This is why there's such a schism between RPers and PVPers. This is why the RPers would rather stick with PVE, because they know that if an AI opponent attacks them, there is a rhyme and reason. Sure, you can't negotiate with an NPC, but you can try to outrun them with a possibility of success if things go south.
The point of all this? If PvPers would stop acting like douchenuggets, perhaps they'd get a little more love from the original target audiences of MMORPGs. Untill then, as long as they keep acting like stereotypical FPS players, they're going to be encouraged to go back to them. I know that not all PvPers are like this, but those who are really kill it for you guys.
I think you have a very skewed, and negative, view on MMORPG PvPers. Not all are out just to kill other people and if you have played games like Asherons Call on Darktide server you would see that intricit political relationships between guilds will build up, between hackers and non-hackers, random pks and honor guilds and so on. So there is plently of room for real roleplaying, rather than one forced on you by the devs by putting you in a specific faction (ala WoW or WAR).
Also the one that kill just for the sake of killing also play a role, as the bad guys which are killed on sight by many other clans. For example the game I am playing right now, Beyond Protocol, it is very possible for big empires to crush smaller ones but that is usually frown upon and doing that will give you a bad rep among other bigger empires out there.
So even though I see your point, there are alot of scum PvPers that just want to kill other people for no reason, there is also a huge potential for builing up intricate polical maps which are made entirely, or partially, by the players. Eve corp vs corp and alliance of corps vs alliance of corps is another examply of that.
But in a "free" PvP world, which is a requirement for an FFA PvP environment, you can't really get rid of the scum that enjoy griefing. It is an element that you just need to deal with. However it is the responsibility of the devs of the game to create an environment where griefing is not easy, as it unfourtanetely is in games like Darkfall. For example in Asherons Call you had an overhead radar where it shown all players that may potentially kill you as red dots and if you were alert you could, largely, avoid being griefed.
My gaming blog
Throughout this thread, there seems to be a runningtheme of PVEers vs. PVPers. I was just offering a possible perspective on why that's so. I think there is a fear that the more a game focuses on straight up player versus player, the less of a chance there will be for actual roleplaying, which includes both the character stats advancement AND the social aspects. I'll reiterate an example I posted in another thread for illustration.
If someone is hellbent on fighting another person to test his mettle, what context is there in the world? If they're warring factions, say a dark elf vs. a high elf, the context is self evident. They're playing out the roles pre-assigned to them by an established state of war that exists between the races. Therefore, no diplomacy will work. Why even try? Just duke it out and may the better fighter prove victorious.
Now take a FFA game, where players of the same faction can attack and kill eachother. Is there a context? Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that there is none, and the aggressor is just attacking because the player controlling him is just feeling froggy and wants to fight. Let's also assume that the aggressor isn't into the social aspects of roleplay. He could are less about player interaction, unless it involves steel on flesh. The one being attacked, on the other hand, is a roleplayer, and is playing in character-- perhaps gathering materials for crafting. He's minding his own business, not looking for a fight. The aggressor attacks, and the victim tries his best to reason with him. "I'm not looking for a fight! I come in peace!", etc. The aggressor ignores all this, or more likely, responds with "LOLNERD!" and then wins a decidedly one-sided fight. To add insult to injury, he teabags the victim, which serves NO PURPOSE IN ANY GAME other than being "for the lulz".
I set up some specific parameters there, like both parties being in the same faction, and the PvPer being out to kill for the hell of it, but this is so common that it can't be ignored. This is why there's such a schism between RPers and PVPers. This is why the RPers would rather stick with PVE, because they know that if an AI opponent attacks them, there is a rhyme and reason. Sure, you can't negotiate with an NPC, but you can try to outrun them with a possibility of success if things go south.
The point of all this? If PvPers would stop acting like douchenuggets, perhaps they'd get a little more love from the original target audiences of MMORPGs. Untill then, as long as they keep acting like stereotypical FPS players, they're going to be encouraged to go back to them. I know that not all PvPers are like this, but those who are really kill it for you guys.
I think you have a very skewed, and negative, view on MMORPG PvPers. Not all are out just to kill other people and if you have played games like Asherons Call on Darktide server you would see that intricit political relationships between guilds will build up, between hackers and non-hackers, random pks and honor guilds and so on. So there is plently of room for real roleplaying, rather than one forced on you by the devs by putting you in a specific faction (ala WoW or WAR).
Also the one that kill just for the sake of killing also play a role, as the bad guys which are killed on sight by many other clans. For example the game I am playing right now, Beyond Protocol, it is very possible for big empires to crush smaller ones but that is usually frown upon and doing that will give you a bad rep among other bigger empires out there.
So even though I see your point, there are alot of scum PvPers that just want to kill other people for no reason, there is also a huge potential for builing up intricate polical maps which are made entirely, or partially, by the players. Eve corp vs corp and alliance of corps vs alliance of corps is another examply of that.
But in a "free" PvP world, which is a requirement for an FFA PvP environment, you can't really get rid of the scum that enjoy griefing. It is an element that you just need to deal with. However it is the responsibility of the devs of the game to create an environment where griefing is not easy, as it unfourtanetely is in games like Darkfall. For example in Asherons Call you had an overhead radar where it shown all players that may potentially kill you as red dots and if you were alert you could, largely, avoid being griefed.
I'll admit, my view is pretty broad, but like I said, I know that not all PvPers are scum. In fact, I agree with you on many points. I'm eagerly awaiting Mortal Online, so that should tell you something. I'm just abit cynical about people, despite a developer's best intentions for a game. My ideal PvP enabled game would be one where the community establishes some type of contextual law and order system-- one where sociopathic behavior that is acted out outside of the game's context would be treated as aberrant and subject to consequences. I don't want to deny enjoyment to PvPers. Instead, I would like for PvRers to understand that in a game that sets out to create a society in which people interact, there are severe consequences for griefing. On this, I believe we both can agree.
It's not like, for example, preventing an assasin-type character from carrying out his line of work. In this case, if an assasin character plans out a strategy for his kill after researching his mark, finally executing the kill in an ingenius fashion, while managing to get away, he should be recognized for his skill. That's not the same as the playground beatdown behavior of griefers, which should result in serious backlash against the perpetrators.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
I have no doubt that a decent PVP oriented MMO will one day flourish. There is a market for it. There are some serious challenges that need to be overcome:
1 - Progression. How do you have character progression without creating imbalance between noobs/oldtimers and casuals/hardcores. If you create cookie cutter characters and make everyone the same you just became a fantasy style FPS (Legends of Might & Magic for example). If you provide a sandbox world and allow players to build then you end up with a PVE element that defines characters. I am not saying this is impossible just difficult.
2 - Fragmented PVP market. There is a large pvp market but it breaks down into niches that are often mutually exclusive. One example would be FFA PVPers and RvR or consentual PVPers. Obviously you can't have both on the same shard. The same goes for death penalty as some prefer none or mild inconvenience and others want a huge impact including loot.
These 2 issues is what is holding up a serious MMO PVP contender.
My vote would be for a Battletech type MMO as the options for group and FFA are there and balance/progression would be handled through mech size.
You make a fair point. Currently, general mmo mechanics don't support the system you are advocating. In general, you are simply advocating a fps in mmo form. I have little doubt that some day a few games will be made to satisfy your market segment.
Not sure what you are trying to say but RP and PvP are not in conflict with each other. FPS and RPG are, or what you say Shooter games, since in RPG you develop your character over time and it is your characters skills, and not only your skills as a player, that decide how powerful you are.
But I think we are digressing from the focus of this thread. What I am saying is that RPG games and PvP can mix together where instead of advancing your character through PvE you advance it through PvP. To my knowledge only a handful of games has tried that, WAR being one.
I think you probably caught more of "whatever it was" they were trying to say.. because it made absolutely no sense to me.
"roleplaying games started becoming more visceral and shedding the reliance on player stats in favor of player skill. Where a roleplayer's skill used to be more of a type of strategic skill on how best to maneuver their character through the world based on it's abilities and handicaps,"
What?
The only difference between UO and later MMO's... Is that player skill and knowledge of how that game worked were THE key factor of UO. From EQ on the games were about "gear" and "abilities".
In fact going back to RPG's the entire essence of RPG's going waaay back to Wizardry Proving Grounds of The Mad Overlord... was GEAR.. "cool items"... The Blade Cusinart or w/e thing you happened to find. Forgive me if I mis-spell much of this as its been a few decades to say the least.
From the other person:
"But I think we are digressing from the focus of this thread. What I am saying is that RPG games and PvP can mix together where instead of advancing your character through PvE you advance it through PvP."
I actually believe you should always be able to do both.
The biggest problem with games in my opinion .. well at least MMO's.
Was the entire shift to Raiding (uber gear), Abilities (Realm Abilities, Alternate Abilities etc) and having absolutely NO requirement to learn the game. That's what I call the herd mentality.
In UO player crafted gear was pretty much as good as it got. Say in 1997-98 at least... Yes there was Invuln Armor or Vanq Weapons and I would always gladly sell them to other PvP people who wanted to pay a premium.. as in my experience they gave you no advantage at all in combat.
In UO you could have 10 people try to gank you.. and if they didn't understand the game and you had taken the time to "learn". You actually had a very good chance of beating all 10...
In a game like DAoC if 10 people attack you that followed the herd/zerg to get the best gear in the game and ramp up their RA's... you are most likely going to die..
This is what I mean about the shift in game design and this is something I have talked about for a loooong time.
In UO PvP was fun (for me), crafting was fun and I even ran a vendor (for the five years I played .. sales never slowed down). There was so much to do... and you were never forced to do any of it.
Your skills raised from pvp, pve or even dueling.. you got items from looting other players (or lost them) etc It actually was pretty beneficial to make friends...
So beyond even just the focus of this thread .. yes imho the entire direction of game design took a wrong turn in March of 1999 and never looked back (at least for MMO design).
PvP would perhaps be able to be a "sell" more easily in the market.. if people thought they could win.. based on their ability to play.. as opposed to their ability to login often enough and be lucky enough to get all that uber gear...
Why did gear ever become the factor of who wins pvp?
I think I stated earlier... if they want to return to a core structure of MMO design that makes sense.. I have absolutely no problem with a much higher involvement of PvP.
However, in reality... a game really does need to allow people to play the way they want to.. in some degree... which is why I think you need law and lawless areas... and the ability to advance through pve AND pvp... equally. Oh and yes if you walk over the line into the "waste lands" you better be ready for the vultures that will come...
/shrug
In Todays Game's you have not the Time to RP much. Your Friends and you aswell are too busy killing the same Mob over and over for exp items and epeen dominance. Todays mmorpg are about optimizing your Avatar to make him the perfect grinding mashine and everything thats not in line with this will be cut. Its now about to reach max level fast getting the über gear and reading all Quests on a Game Wiki bevorehand to make it fast and easy trough.
You are not longer recognized as an Avatar who is played to his attributes and his selfmade RP Background you are recognized now as the Player behind the Avatar who tryes to excell in Level and gear and compete with the others about the top places in a epeen Top100 List of "best" players.
What Synola said is sadly spot on.
It is sad though that todays games have become lets dress my toon up like princess Barbie so I can run around saying " lookey meh imma superno0b."
I do hope that people get tired of thier pixellated "dress up" so we can get back to the "beat each other down like the dog who stole the Tv guide" and have fun again.
I mean seriously though, wouldn;t it be easier for these kids to raid their mom's closet to play dress up?
all games should follow these rules:
1. no item is worthless.
2. all items have decent stat bonuses.
3. All games should have pvp and pve areas and neither are dependant on the other. Equal equpment and xp for doing either one. That way neither forces the other to participate in the others activities. If they want to fine, if they don;t fine. No forced anything, let the players decide.
I usually try to avoid PvP in any MMO I play. "Carebear"? Sure....
There was a game that was released that targetted just the PvP audience. It was called Fury. It failed miserably. I think the MMO genre will never have a game focused on just PvP. It wouldn't sell. Even games that have promised a lot of PvP, like War, AoC and DF aren't doing too well. The only game I know of that is doing well in the PvP genre is EvE, and guess what? It has PvE elements. In order for a PvP game to do well, it has to have PvE elements.
When Darkfall was released one of the big complaints was that it didn't have any PvE, and that, after a while, the PvP got boring. This is just an example.
We already have them, they're called FPS. I always think it's funny that people show up in the MMO scene and then explain exactly why they don't want to play an MMO. If they don't like what MMOs are, GO PLAY SOMETHING ELSE!
Oh the hypocrisy is grand with this one. Telling someone else they are in the wrong genre because they dont like one aspect of the game, yet he complains about grouping when there's an entire genre of games that caters to his need to solo, single player RPGs.