no pvpv here. i dont like the idea to harm another people in any kind.
but were all sheeps or wolfs. some just like to eat and be happy, other wanna hunt and kill.
PvP is not about harming anyone else. Though that is the ignorant assumption the writer of this article has based it on. You need to open your mind and learn a little more about what PvP actually is and why people who like it do so. Read my post above if your interested in exploring a different point of view and not just boxing yourself into some prejudiced view of something you haven't experienced or understand.
Actually it is, it harms someone mentally and cause mental stress. I acknowledge that fact when I PK. We should not ignore that fact just because it suits our needs, however, it will only make me act in moderation when PKing.
P.S. Wolves also want to eat and be happy, that is why they hunt. However, gankers don't kill for food, gankers kill for fun. Just to correct the technicality issue there.
Uhm, except that this is a GAME and not RL where wolves hunt for survival.
An in any GAME the loser may get mentally hurt as not many like to lose. So keep a suitable perspective when you are talking about pvp in a GAME.
I love fighting in real life. I love fighting in game, I love making peoples games hell and grief them. I don't PvP I PK.
Ok, these are the (small) minority of rejects that the article think is representive of PvPers. They are not so please dont use sociopaths like this as how people who like PvP in MMORPGs are like. And as he said himself, he is not a PvPer but a PK which, for me, is equivalent to griefer and represent people that have some mental issue that gives them satisfaction when hurting other people.
Those people exist in RL and then ofcourse also in game but, I repeat, NOT representive of how people are (in RL or in games).
but brainless ganking and forcing his own will to other players ( NO QUESTING FOR YOU HERE! ) is no fun at all ! its just retarded...
I fail to see how this is retarded. If you do not wish to risk being PKed then please play a game/server that does not allow PKing or PvP.
You fail to see how it is retarded because you have some mental issues where you get satisfaction from hurting other people, believe it is called sadism, but for normal, non sadistic people, it is retarded.
PKing is not the same as PvP but rather a subset of it.
The simple answer is "less and less in MMOs these days".
EVE is about the only game out there now where there is any real point to engaging in PvP. (Okay, maybe Darkfall - but the game is such garbage otherwise I never felt inclined to even look) I gather from what is said that Aion may be a step in the right direction, similar to old DAoC...but again no real interest in the game due to world design/other issues.
Pretty much everyone else has utterly pointless PvP that might as well be dueling circles or fight club night. Occasionally amusing, but no sense of accomplishment or significant territory/resource control.
So if I want PvP...I go play WW2Online...otherwise I am back to playing MMOs for the PvE content if anything.
The simple answer is "less and less in MMOs these days". EVE is about the only game out there now where there is any real point to engaging in PvP. (Okay, maybe Darkfall - but the game is such garbage otherwise I never felt inclined to even look) I gather from what is said that Aion may be a step in the right direction, similar to old DAoC...but again no real interest in the game due to world design/other issues. Pretty much everyone else has utterly pointless PvP that might as well be dueling circles or fight club night. Occasionally amusing, but no sense of accomplishment or significant territory/resource control. So if I want PvP...I go play WW2Online...otherwise I am back to playing MMOs for the PvE content if anything.
And what purpose does the PvE content have? It is as static as PvP is, in most games.
Only difference is that PvE is predictable and manageable where as PvP is alot less so because your opponent is not a computer script.
You get death threats, that's incredible. Some people really need to step back and look at their lives if they chose to play something that makes them this angry. Not sure you'd be laughing if one of them turned up on your doorstep though :0
Why is that incredible? People get upset about all kinds of things. When I was young I somtimes used to throw the joystick at the wall when losing.
So death threats, being a bit extreme, is just a reaction of anger. Very doubtful if many would actually carry out those death threats. Think it only happened once in South Korea in Lineage 1 where a group of people found and beat up some kid sitting at internet cafe who had pked them.
Originally posted by Yamota Why is that incredible? People get upset about all kinds of things. When I was young I somtimes used to throw the joystick at the wall when losing. So death threats, being a bit extreme, is just a reaction of anger. Very doubtful if many would actually carry out those death threats. Think it only happened once in South Korea in Lineage 1 where a group of people found and beat up some kid sitting at internet cafe who had pked them.
I would consider death threats extreme, yes, incredible even.
I'm sorry you don't like me using the word incredible. I personally think it is. I use the word subjectively of course.
I think it's a pity that the anonymous nature of the Internet seams to encourage people to interract with others this way.
Originally posted by Yamota PKing is not the same as PvP but rather a subset of it.
Its not even a subset, since its not about fighting others, its just racking up the most frags you can; in other words, if its not a fight you can possibly lose, theres no actual VERSUS. Simple litmus test: If you claim you 'PvP' because its more challenging/interesting/etc than any mob AI, but go out of your way to pick encounters that are even easier/less challenging/more boring, youre not a real PvPer. (that came out sounding alot more Foxworthy-an than I intended...)
Well some games have great pvp like eve you best know what your doing. Other game like LOTRO have the worst pvp in the world. If one side starts wining the other side logs off until hour later.
Sometimes I pvp, but honestly I don't play games to pvp there is no reward in it other than to have the one up on the guy you just owned.
PKing is not the same as PvP but rather a subset of it.
Its not even a subset, since its not about fighting others, its just racking up the most frags you can; in other words, if its not a fight you can possibly lose, theres no actual VERSUS. Simple litmus test: If you claim you 'PvP' because its more challenging/interesting/etc than any mob AI, but go out of your way to pick encounters that are even easier/less challenging/more boring, youre not a real PvPer. (that came out sounding alot more Foxworthy-an than I intended...)
A very good point against those who claim that PvP=PK. I never could understand where they get their kicks from slaughtering lowbies...
Tho a distinction should be made between "ganking" and "ambushing". I feel that if you do kill someone who cannot defend himself in an open PvP environment then it is still PvP rather than PK - since ambushes and stealth are a part of the game and you can do the same to the offender. Otherwise all PvP would be formalized 1v1 in order to keep things "fair". Imo it is all in the way the game is set up. You can have a game with ambushing without ganking - for example cutting off enemy respawn lines in DAoC, chasing off mining thieves in EVE etc.
My favorite fantasy MMO PVP was Shadowbane followed by DAoC then UO. Even though they were often rubber band fests what made Shadowbane pvp so much fun was the amount of skin everyone had in battles be they small scale or large scale. Yet you could quickly recover from a loss, well at least on the macro level you could recover a destroyed town if the guild alliance that took you out didnt constantly harass you.
I don't enjoy engaging in PvP, generally, but I relish its existence, if that makes any sense. I avoid it when possible, but the fact that it is possible, that it is something I ought to be wary of, improves a game for me.
Not that it doesn't also have ways of seriously hampering my enjoyment, as well.
I find it extremely interesting that while losing a ship and/or a clone in EVE is a great loss of investment, particularly for lone wolves or small clique leaders such as myself, I'm able to take the heavy blow very stoically compared to the much less costly defeats in Age of Conan. I don't entirely understand why, but in EVE I've always felt like I deserve anything I get, that every defeat is rational (if not respectable), while in Age of Conan I've just felt abused.
Favorites: EQ, EVE | Playing: None. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CU, Pantheon
I do not know how many people covered what I am going to type about but it is something that has been lost over time from UO to today's games.
There is one single reason why there are little if any death penalties for the modern, popular MMO's, the grind. The grind is leveling, gear, realm, faction, etc. Players have to sepnd a lot of time, effort and energy usually getting to the right level, gear layout and pvp rank to compete with others and since the game market has always been dominated by the casual gamer, many of them and game developers feel there has to be a tradeoff in order to entice subscribers to play and to retain them.
The first few games I played after muds, mushs and text based games began to disappear were for a company I later worked with, Kesmai/Gamestorm. I played MPBT, Air Warrior, Aliens, Legends of Kesmai and Ultima Online. MPBT and Air Warrior were good games and MPBT was headed in a good direction until EA bought Gamesotrm and was entirely pvp/faction v. faction. UO though is the key to it all and what balanced penalties for death vs. a grind in game to get to the point of being able to compete.
In UO gear did matter but most gear used in pvp was not always the top of the line gear you spent months grinding in a raid to get. Levels were non-existent because it was a skill based system where players actually did improve their chracters by simply fighting each other.
Perhaps if pvp is going to attempt a comeback as it once was, then the elements that supported harsh death penalties needs to come back with it. Do not let gear dictate combat, allow skills your character has do it.
But there are also other issues why harsh death penalties can not be really put in and succeed today as well. The forement is the amount of cheats available. When competition gets heavier people of all ages turn to "downloaded skills" in order to make themselves feel better and beat others. No current system is able to stop even a small portion of these.
The other main issue is that pvp games have always failed. UO had to put in the non-pvp side of UO to stem the loss of players. Once they did that and each pure pvp game failed it showed that there just is not enough of a customer base to support a pvp only based game. Then when you have to add the elements needed to attract players you add to the grind and thus have to remove penalties of pvp.
You will never has a pvp game that has harsh death penalties with a huge customer base as long as grinding, gear and levels are the required things needed to compete in pvp. I think DAoC and Warhammer were/are on track with the fundamental concept of what it takes to have a pvp centric game but lack the skill and ability to put it all together.
Originally posted by CastorHoS You will never has a pvp game that has harsh death penalties with a huge customer base as long as grinding, gear and levels are the required things needed to compete in pvp. I think DAoC and Warhammer were/are on track with the fundamental concept of what it takes to have a pvp centric game but lack the skill and ability to put it all together.
QFT. And your complete analysis of PvP development in mmos is pretty spot on.
Harsh death penalties = death of PvP, especially open PvP. EVE online might be able to sustain it because of the highly social nature of the game (the corp can pay for your cheap new ship if you die) but for us casuals who are not that keen to burden ourselves with guild politics this is unacceptable - we simply cannot afford it. The worst that can happen tor PvP in a game is to give it harsh death penalties that can only be compensated with PvE. Imo this is the root of the many failures in PvP mmo genre - and most tellingly the ones that profess to be the "hardcore PvP" in which you end up doing LESS PvP than in the "casuals". When I want to PvP I want to PvP - I don't want to be forced to PvE so I might eventually get a chance to PvP.
Originally posted by Yamota And what purpose does the PvE content have? It is as static as PvP is, in most games. Only difference is that PvE is predictable and manageable where as PvP is alot less so because your opponent is not a computer script.
PvE content can have a (albeit very small) skill challenge, it can simply be a well written theme park, it can just be amusing or pretty. PvE content/raiding with a few friends can be entertaining...otherwise why would anyone be playing these games at all?
I *prefer* meaningful PvP, but why frustrate myself looking for it in games that simply don't deliver? I like games like EVE with real gain and loss in PvP; meaningful territory and resource control. Depth and variety, not lemming like meaningless BGs, duels or ganks.
Yeah sure, 1vs1 (or small group) can be fun, challenging, competitive etc even when there is no point, but for how long? If there is no significant effect to winning or losing other than some meaningless points ranking system or forum epeen, what's the point after a while?
Right or wrong people are always defined by the most radical members of their community.
That goes for both sides. Pvpers think that those of us who choose not to are just pussies who are scared. Pvers think that most pvpers are violence for pleasure seeking psychopaths.
Games like WAR and WoW are really showing how much games are folding into the center. The fringes are disapearing. Games like EQ where there really was no pvp to speak of ( on normal servers) or games like UO which was crazy gank fest. These kind of games probably won't exist at all in 10 years.
Originally posted by Yamota And what purpose does the PvE content have? It is as static as PvP is, in most games. Only difference is that PvE is predictable and manageable where as PvP is alot less so because your opponent is not a computer script.
PvE content can have a (albeit very small) skill challenge, it can simply be a well written theme park, it can just be amusing or pretty. PvE content/raiding with a few friends can be entertaining...otherwise why would anyone be playing these games at all?
I *prefer* meaningful PvP, but why frustrate myself looking for it in games that simply don't deliver? I like games like EVE with real gain and loss in PvP; meaningful territory and resource control. Depth and variety, not lemming like meaningless BGs, duels or ganks.
Yeah sure, 1vs1 (or small group) can be fun, challenging, competitive etc even when there is no point, but for how long? If there is no significant effect to winning or losing other than some meaningless points ranking system or forum epeen, what's the point after a while?
The joy of play? Some of us still play games for fun rather than to "collect all the cards." I might sound a bit harsh but I do mostly agree with you. EVE online is, i feel, the greatest PvP game at the moment exactly because it does give this sense of social accomplishment - you impact the game world with your actions, whether PvP or PvE. However it is this forcedsocial requirement that i object to. Imo EVE would function just as well if not infinitely better without harsh individual death penalties. But that's just me and I'm a casual gamer.. casual in the sense that when I play I want to PLAY, not do guild politics and/or grind some asteroids.
Nice article, however your not telling me anything I dont already know, nor providing any unique insight. Its like your just echoing what is common knowledge.
If that article is representative of what is "common knowledge" then there is no wonder PvP mmos are in the state they are now. I might be better off with online FPSs and board games. I suggest you read up a bit more on the thread - some of the comments here make much more sense what the OP kindly unloaded on us.
I'm sorry but I do not get the same basic pleasure from a "bar-room brawl" or generally harming the other (which are not the activities I do indulge in) as from a good game of chess or a fencing match. The OP article is soo widly off the mark in his "psychological analysis" of what he terms PvP it's not even funny - some competetive sports, board games and such might open his horizons considerably. It's just sad and he should stick to his Nintendo PvE and leave us PvP-ers alone.
I prefer to pvp as you are playing against a thinking peron, well most of the time you are. They adapt, change tactics, get help, and you have to watch your back.
All NPC's in every game are scripted and after two or three times you know exactly what the NPC is going to do.
I am not really into dueling as there is always that class that is a counter to yours. RVR is where it is at for me.
As others have pointed out. DAOC was without a doubt the best form of pvp that could be found. At least in the beginning. There was nothing like going out with your group/guild or heck even solo or with a partner. Action could always be found. With the additions of New Frontiers they definetely lost there edge. For whatever eason mythic then went and completely ruined WAR, not just with the way they implemented rvr "lakes" but by adding capture the flag mechanics.
I hate forced PvP hate it with a frothing blinding fury. If a game has forced PvP like UO did (where you can be ganked for just lumberjacking a few feet outside town) they loose a costomer. If i'm going to PVP i want it to be option not "oh well your playing so that means your pvpin"
I hate forced PvP hate it with a frothing blinding fury. If a game has forced PvP like UO did (where you can be ganked for just lumberjacking a few feet outside town) they loose a costomer. If i'm going to PVP i want it to be option not "oh well your playing so that means your pvpin"
It's only forced if someone is at the game store and makes you purchase the game.
Basically you prefer consensual pvp or pve and pvp zones separated.
Comments
PvP is not about harming anyone else. Though that is the ignorant assumption the writer of this article has based it on. You need to open your mind and learn a little more about what PvP actually is and why people who like it do so. Read my post above if your interested in exploring a different point of view and not just boxing yourself into some prejudiced view of something you haven't experienced or understand.
Actually it is, it harms someone mentally and cause mental stress. I acknowledge that fact when I PK. We should not ignore that fact just because it suits our needs, however, it will only make me act in moderation when PKing.
P.S. Wolves also want to eat and be happy, that is why they hunt. However, gankers don't kill for food, gankers kill for fun. Just to correct the technicality issue there.
Uhm, except that this is a GAME and not RL where wolves hunt for survival.
An in any GAME the loser may get mentally hurt as not many like to lose. So keep a suitable perspective when you are talking about pvp in a GAME.
My gaming blog
You get death threats, that's incredible.
Some people really need to step back and look at their lives if they chose to play something that makes them this angry.
Not sure you'd be laughing if one of them turned up on your doorstep though :0
Ok, these are the (small) minority of rejects that the article think is representive of PvPers. They are not so please dont use sociopaths like this as how people who like PvP in MMORPGs are like. And as he said himself, he is not a PvPer but a PK which, for me, is equivalent to griefer and represent people that have some mental issue that gives them satisfaction when hurting other people.
Those people exist in RL and then ofcourse also in game but, I repeat, NOT representive of how people are (in RL or in games).
My gaming blog
I fail to see how this is retarded. If you do not wish to risk being PKed then please play a game/server that does not allow PKing or PvP.
You fail to see how it is retarded because you have some mental issues where you get satisfaction from hurting other people, believe it is called sadism, but for normal, non sadistic people, it is retarded.
PKing is not the same as PvP but rather a subset of it.
My gaming blog
The simple answer is "less and less in MMOs these days".
EVE is about the only game out there now where there is any real point to engaging in PvP. (Okay, maybe Darkfall - but the game is such garbage otherwise I never felt inclined to even look) I gather from what is said that Aion may be a step in the right direction, similar to old DAoC...but again no real interest in the game due to world design/other issues.
Pretty much everyone else has utterly pointless PvP that might as well be dueling circles or fight club night. Occasionally amusing, but no sense of accomplishment or significant territory/resource control.
So if I want PvP...I go play WW2Online...otherwise I am back to playing MMOs for the PvE content if anything.
And what purpose does the PvE content have? It is as static as PvP is, in most games.
Only difference is that PvE is predictable and manageable where as PvP is alot less so because your opponent is not a computer script.
My gaming blog
Why is that incredible? People get upset about all kinds of things. When I was young I somtimes used to throw the joystick at the wall when losing.
So death threats, being a bit extreme, is just a reaction of anger. Very doubtful if many would actually carry out those death threats. Think it only happened once in South Korea in Lineage 1 where a group of people found and beat up some kid sitting at internet cafe who had pked them.
My gaming blog
I pvp seeking for the glory that you could achive during the medieval times. The modern world has no place for this felling anymore.
I would consider death threats extreme, yes, incredible even.
I'm sorry you don't like me using the word incredible. I personally think it is. I use the word subjectively of course.
I think it's a pity that the anonymous nature of the Internet seams to encourage people to interract with others this way.
Its not even a subset, since its not about fighting others, its just racking up the most frags you can; in other words, if its not a fight you can possibly lose, theres no actual VERSUS. Simple litmus test: If you claim you 'PvP' because its more challenging/interesting/etc than any mob AI, but go out of your way to pick encounters that are even easier/less challenging/more boring, youre not a real PvPer. (that came out sounding alot more Foxworthy-an than I intended...)
Well some games have great pvp like eve you best know what your doing. Other game like LOTRO have the worst pvp in the world. If one side starts wining the other side logs off until hour later.
Sometimes I pvp, but honestly I don't play games to pvp there is no reward in it other than to have the one up on the guy you just owned.
Its not even a subset, since its not about fighting others, its just racking up the most frags you can; in other words, if its not a fight you can possibly lose, theres no actual VERSUS. Simple litmus test: If you claim you 'PvP' because its more challenging/interesting/etc than any mob AI, but go out of your way to pick encounters that are even easier/less challenging/more boring, youre not a real PvPer. (that came out sounding alot more Foxworthy-an than I intended...)
A very good point against those who claim that PvP=PK. I never could understand where they get their kicks from slaughtering lowbies...
Tho a distinction should be made between "ganking" and "ambushing". I feel that if you do kill someone who cannot defend himself in an open PvP environment then it is still PvP rather than PK - since ambushes and stealth are a part of the game and you can do the same to the offender. Otherwise all PvP would be formalized 1v1 in order to keep things "fair". Imo it is all in the way the game is set up. You can have a game with ambushing without ganking - for example cutting off enemy respawn lines in DAoC, chasing off mining thieves in EVE etc.
My favorite fantasy MMO PVP was Shadowbane followed by DAoC then UO. Even though they were often rubber band fests what made Shadowbane pvp so much fun was the amount of skin everyone had in battles be they small scale or large scale. Yet you could quickly recover from a loss, well at least on the macro level you could recover a destroyed town if the guild alliance that took you out didnt constantly harass you.
I don't enjoy engaging in PvP, generally, but I relish its existence, if that makes any sense. I avoid it when possible, but the fact that it is possible, that it is something I ought to be wary of, improves a game for me.
Not that it doesn't also have ways of seriously hampering my enjoyment, as well.
I find it extremely interesting that while losing a ship and/or a clone in EVE is a great loss of investment, particularly for lone wolves or small clique leaders such as myself, I'm able to take the heavy blow very stoically compared to the much less costly defeats in Age of Conan. I don't entirely understand why, but in EVE I've always felt like I deserve anything I get, that every defeat is rational (if not respectable), while in Age of Conan I've just felt abused.
I do not know how many people covered what I am going to type about but it is something that has been lost over time from UO to today's games.
There is one single reason why there are little if any death penalties for the modern, popular MMO's, the grind. The grind is leveling, gear, realm, faction, etc. Players have to sepnd a lot of time, effort and energy usually getting to the right level, gear layout and pvp rank to compete with others and since the game market has always been dominated by the casual gamer, many of them and game developers feel there has to be a tradeoff in order to entice subscribers to play and to retain them.
The first few games I played after muds, mushs and text based games began to disappear were for a company I later worked with, Kesmai/Gamestorm. I played MPBT, Air Warrior, Aliens, Legends of Kesmai and Ultima Online. MPBT and Air Warrior were good games and MPBT was headed in a good direction until EA bought Gamesotrm and was entirely pvp/faction v. faction. UO though is the key to it all and what balanced penalties for death vs. a grind in game to get to the point of being able to compete.
In UO gear did matter but most gear used in pvp was not always the top of the line gear you spent months grinding in a raid to get. Levels were non-existent because it was a skill based system where players actually did improve their chracters by simply fighting each other.
Perhaps if pvp is going to attempt a comeback as it once was, then the elements that supported harsh death penalties needs to come back with it. Do not let gear dictate combat, allow skills your character has do it.
But there are also other issues why harsh death penalties can not be really put in and succeed today as well. The forement is the amount of cheats available. When competition gets heavier people of all ages turn to "downloaded skills" in order to make themselves feel better and beat others. No current system is able to stop even a small portion of these.
The other main issue is that pvp games have always failed. UO had to put in the non-pvp side of UO to stem the loss of players. Once they did that and each pure pvp game failed it showed that there just is not enough of a customer base to support a pvp only based game. Then when you have to add the elements needed to attract players you add to the grind and thus have to remove penalties of pvp.
You will never has a pvp game that has harsh death penalties with a huge customer base as long as grinding, gear and levels are the required things needed to compete in pvp. I think DAoC and Warhammer were/are on track with the fundamental concept of what it takes to have a pvp centric game but lack the skill and ability to put it all together.
QFT. And your complete analysis of PvP development in mmos is pretty spot on.
Harsh death penalties = death of PvP, especially open PvP. EVE online might be able to sustain it because of the highly social nature of the game (the corp can pay for your cheap new ship if you die) but for us casuals who are not that keen to burden ourselves with guild politics this is unacceptable - we simply cannot afford it. The worst that can happen tor PvP in a game is to give it harsh death penalties that can only be compensated with PvE. Imo this is the root of the many failures in PvP mmo genre - and most tellingly the ones that profess to be the "hardcore PvP" in which you end up doing LESS PvP than in the "casuals". When I want to PvP I want to PvP - I don't want to be forced to PvE so I might eventually get a chance to PvP.
PvE content can have a (albeit very small) skill challenge, it can simply be a well written theme park, it can just be amusing or pretty. PvE content/raiding with a few friends can be entertaining...otherwise why would anyone be playing these games at all?
I *prefer* meaningful PvP, but why frustrate myself looking for it in games that simply don't deliver? I like games like EVE with real gain and loss in PvP; meaningful territory and resource control. Depth and variety, not lemming like meaningless BGs, duels or ganks.
Yeah sure, 1vs1 (or small group) can be fun, challenging, competitive etc even when there is no point, but for how long? If there is no significant effect to winning or losing other than some meaningless points ranking system or forum epeen, what's the point after a while?
Right or wrong people are always defined by the most radical members of their community.
That goes for both sides. Pvpers think that those of us who choose not to are just pussies who are scared. Pvers think that most pvpers are violence for pleasure seeking psychopaths.
Games like WAR and WoW are really showing how much games are folding into the center. The fringes are disapearing. Games like EQ where there really was no pvp to speak of ( on normal servers) or games like UO which was crazy gank fest. These kind of games probably won't exist at all in 10 years.
Yep, agreed.
My gaming blog
PvE content can have a (albeit very small) skill challenge, it can simply be a well written theme park, it can just be amusing or pretty. PvE content/raiding with a few friends can be entertaining...otherwise why would anyone be playing these games at all?
I *prefer* meaningful PvP, but why frustrate myself looking for it in games that simply don't deliver? I like games like EVE with real gain and loss in PvP; meaningful territory and resource control. Depth and variety, not lemming like meaningless BGs, duels or ganks.
Yeah sure, 1vs1 (or small group) can be fun, challenging, competitive etc even when there is no point, but for how long? If there is no significant effect to winning or losing other than some meaningless points ranking system or forum epeen, what's the point after a while?
The joy of play? Some of us still play games for fun rather than to "collect all the cards." I might sound a bit harsh but I do mostly agree with you. EVE online is, i feel, the greatest PvP game at the moment exactly because it does give this sense of social accomplishment - you impact the game world with your actions, whether PvP or PvE. However it is this forced social requirement that i object to. Imo EVE would function just as well if not infinitely better without harsh individual death penalties. But that's just me and I'm a casual gamer.. casual in the sense that when I play I want to PLAY, not do guild politics and/or grind some asteroids.
If that article is representative of what is "common knowledge" then there is no wonder PvP mmos are in the state they are now. I might be better off with online FPSs and board games. I suggest you read up a bit more on the thread - some of the comments here make much more sense what the OP kindly unloaded on us.
I'm sorry but I do not get the same basic pleasure from a "bar-room brawl" or generally harming the other (which are not the activities I do indulge in) as from a good game of chess or a fencing match. The OP article is soo widly off the mark in his "psychological analysis" of what he terms PvP it's not even funny - some competetive sports, board games and such might open his horizons considerably. It's just sad and he should stick to his Nintendo PvE and leave us PvP-ers alone.
I prefer to pvp as you are playing against a thinking peron, well most of the time you are. They adapt, change tactics, get help, and you have to watch your back.
All NPC's in every game are scripted and after two or three times you know exactly what the NPC is going to do.
I am not really into dueling as there is always that class that is a counter to yours. RVR is where it is at for me.
As others have pointed out. DAOC was without a doubt the best form of pvp that could be found. At least in the beginning. There was nothing like going out with your group/guild or heck even solo or with a partner. Action could always be found. With the additions of New Frontiers they definetely lost there edge. For whatever eason mythic then went and completely ruined WAR, not just with the way they implemented rvr "lakes" but by adding capture the flag mechanics.
I hate forced PvP hate it with a frothing blinding fury. If a game has forced PvP like UO did (where you can be ganked for just lumberjacking a few feet outside town) they loose a costomer. If i'm going to PVP i want it to be option not "oh well your playing so that means your pvpin"
It's only forced if someone is at the game store and makes you purchase the game.
Basically you prefer consensual pvp or pve and pvp zones separated.