PvP has a purpose in Darkfall. If someone pisses you off, you can kill them. You can kill and take everything on a person. You can conquer a city or hamlet. You can exert control over an area to control access to mob spawns. One character, so reputation is important.
So I can confidently say that PvP has purpose in Darkfall. What about your game?
I want to develop my character via PVP like say you kill someone then you get skill unlocks and stuff like the SWG Jedi Force Ranks but if you're killed then you lose XP and lose skills. So it's something that once you get the rank you wont always keep it because you might get killed by a better player who takes the rank off you.
Battles versus real players are way more interesting than vs scripted stuff.
Ideally yes, but I see lots of people in PvP as dumb as the typical AI mob.
Yeah gotta agree here ^^, but still if u are one of the best u mostly fight along/vs the best ppl, and anyway those mobs aka players ar still more enjoyable to kill than a simple mob since u have in mind that it's a player.
The issue is a bit more complicated, as you basically have two groups of players:
Those who feel the "meaning" of PVP is in capturing territory, resources, or items. Those who feel "meaning" is making decisions that matter during the fight.
They're separate groups because thus far few games have mixed the elements well.
So you're saying that for some people, the reason they are fighting is so they can make decisions about the fight?
I don't follow.
There are two types of PvP in MMOs, which are separated by the effects.
The first type of PvP is conflict, and deals with an outcome that has an effect on the gameworld. Two sides confliciting over possession of land or resources fits in this category, as it has a lasting impact on the game. In this example, PvP is the means of conflict resolution and is used as a tool. This type is essentially Warfare.
In the second type, PvP isn't the means, it's the whole point. Dueling and arenas fit here because there is no conflict to be resolved (and therefore no argument of possession). The incentive is usually competition and can be ranking, leader boards, items, points, or just plain fun.
What someone means when they say that "PvP has purpose", it depends because meaning is relative. "Purpose" most likely means some material entity, whether it be an item, access to resources, or land, rather than some achievement or ranking.
The first type of PvP (warfare), seems way more interesting if you ask me.
"Look down at me and you see a fool, Look up at me and you see a God, Look straight at me and you see yourself." - Charles Manson
The issue is a bit more complicated, as you basically have two groups of players:
Those who feel the "meaning" of PVP is in capturing territory, resources, or items. Those who feel "meaning" is making decisions that matter during the fight.
They're separate groups because thus far few games have mixed the elements well.
So you're saying that for some people, the reason they are fighting is so they can make decisions about the fight?
I don't follow.
He's saying that people have differing views of the term "meaningful PvP".
One example:
PvP that is has very simple combat mechanics but a very complex, world-affecting result. When you kill someone, you can steal all their stuff. You can kill everyone in the area and claim their lands. You can raid their castles and burn them to the ground.
But to kill another player, you just target them and spam 1 ability until they die.
Another example:
PvP that has very complex combat mechanics but a very simple, shallow result. When you kill someone, they respawn.
But to kill another player involves an extremely complex system of offensive, defensive and counter abilities. It takes months to learn the nuances of the system.
Both could be considered "meaningful" but for very different reasons.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
So you're saying that for some people, the reason they are fighting is so they can make decisions about the fight? I don't follow. He's saying that people have differing views of the term "meaningful PvP". One example: PvP that is has very simple combat mechanics but a very complex, world-affecting result. When you kill someone, you can steal all their stuff. You can kill everyone in the area and claim their lands. You can raid their castles and burn them to the ground. But to kill another player, you just target them and spam 1 ability until they die. Another example: PvP that has very complex combat mechanics but a very simple, shallow result. When you kill someone, they respawn. But to kill another player involves an extremely complex system of offensive, defensive and counter abilities. It takes months to learn the nuances of the system. Both could be considered "meaningful" but for very different reasons.
I get what you are saying, the comparison is Impact of Combat vs Implementation of Combat. That isn't however the point of the topic, which is the purpose of combat.
I was defining types of PvP based on the Impacts of combat, implementation is a whole nother topic.
"Look down at me and you see a fool, Look up at me and you see a God, Look straight at me and you see yourself." - Charles Manson
Holding world structures/objectives, or territorial warfare. If you have to earn the best land by fighting for it, it has meaning.
Totally agree, also in WAR and WoW, holding certain areas gave all the players of that area a damage or xp buff. Some pvp games let you claim territory that has desirable materials for crafting or dungeons with tasty loot. LOTRO has, by far, the dumbest pvp ever. (Player versus Monster Player)
Originally posted by Boton I get what you are saying, the comparison is Impact of Combat vs Implementation of Combat. That isn't however the point of the topic, which is the purpose of combat. I was defining types of PvP based on the Impacts of combat, implementation is a whole nother topic.
Well the discussion is PVP's purpose, and I described two purposes: winning rewards, and the experience of fun combat.
Remember that the majority of successful PVP games out there have little to no rewards. Their "purpose" is fun combat. (Dawn of War, Modern Warfare 2, TF2, Counterstrike, Battlefield 2, Heroes of Newerth.) And fun combat in these games is the result of player decisions ("decisions" includes things like deciding to move your crosshair 2mm to the left to get that headshot. Player skill is a measure of decisionmaking ability.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Axehilt Originally posted by Boton I get what you are saying, the comparison is Impact of Combat vs Implementation of Combat. That isn't however the point of the topic, which is the purpose of combat. I was defining types of PvP based on the Impacts of combat, implementation is a whole nother topic.
The topic was meaningful PVP. PVP has meaning to me when my decisions during combat have meaning. If you argue this topic is only about the outputs (results) of PVP, that merely forces me to point out that one of the outputs of PVP is fun. Which goes back to my earlier post: making meaningful decisions during a fight is the way many players have fun in PVP.
And MMOs still get this wrong today.
I agree with you though. If and when they finally get it right, it will rule. Just hasn't happened yet for me.
To those who have found a fun PvP game in an MMO, I'm happy for you. I just expect more. And "they" deliver less and less every time to me.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
I get what you are saying, the comparison is Impact of Combat vs Implementation of Combat. That isn't however the point of the topic, which is the purpose of combat.
I was defining types of PvP based on the Impacts of combat, implementation is a whole nother topic.
The topic was meaningful PVP. PVP has meaning to me when my decisions during combat have meaning.
If you argue this topic is only about the outputs (results) of PVP, that merely forces me to point out that one of the outputs of PVP is fun. Which goes back to my earlier post: making meaningful decisions during a fight is the way many players have fun in PVP.
And MMOs still get this wrong today.
I agree with you though. If and when they finally get it right, it will rule. Just hasn't happened yet for me.
To those who have found a fun PvP game in an MMO, I'm happy for you. I just expect more. And "they" deliver less and less every time to me.
Aha! I knew someone could quote me before I re-wrote my post. :P
But yeah, I've basically given up on most MMORPG PVP (but not MMO PVP; important distinction) because they're basically designed to have many non-skill factors mucking up gameplay. But I don't find it enjoyable to lose (or win even) as a result of non-skill factors. So for me I only dabble in MMORPG PVP, and stick mostly to PVE.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm not much of a pvp'er but the important part of PvP for me is the contribution it makes to the community dynamic. A game where ALL the players are on the same side? Bleah! If you're making a game in a persistent world context that has combat but you don't let the players fight, is just too artificially contrived for me to feel right. PvP adds a thrill, sense of danger and meaning just by existing. It doesn't necessarily have to have a need beyond that though nice if it does and implemented properly.
Most PvE centric games are overly glorified single-player rpg's that others get eye-candied into paying a monthly fee for. /shrug
Originally posted by Axehilt Originally posted by Gestankfaust
Originally posted by Axehilt
Originally posted by Boton I get what you are saying, the comparison is Impact of Combat vs Implementation of Combat. That isn't however the point of the topic, which is the purpose of combat. I was defining types of PvP based on the Impacts of combat, implementation is a whole nother topic.
The topic was meaningful PVP. PVP has meaning to me when my decisions during combat have meaning. If you argue this topic is only about the outputs (results) of PVP, that merely forces me to point out that one of the outputs of PVP is fun. Which goes back to my earlier post: making meaningful decisions during a fight is the way many players have fun in PVP.
And MMOs still get this wrong today. I agree with you though. If and when they finally get it right, it will rule. Just hasn't happened yet for me. To those who have found a fun PvP game in an MMO, I'm happy for you. I just expect more. And "they" deliver less and less every time to me.
Aha! I knew someone could quote me before I re-wrote my post. :P But yeah, I've basically given up on most MMORPG PVP (but not MMO PVP; important distinction) because they're basically designed to have many non-skill factors mucking up gameplay. But I don't find it enjoyable to lose (or win even) as a result of non-skill factors. So for me I only dabble in MMORPG PVP, and stick mostly to PVE.
LOL!!
Thanks for the giggle...
PvP won't be enjoyable until they make "you" the victor once again. "You" have to matter once more. What "you" do has to make "you" feel awesome. Period.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Originally posted by Gestankfaust PvP won't be enjoyable until they make "you" the victor once again. "You" have to matter once more. What "you" do has to make "you" feel awesome. Period.
Well yeah, everyone wants that -- World PVPer and Competion PVPer alike. It's just that each group has their own definition of "mattering" (world PVPers in tangible reward, competition PVPers in fun as a result of deep combat.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Aha! I knew someone could quote me before I re-wrote my post. :P But yeah, I've basically given up on most MMORPG PVP (but not MMO PVP; important distinction) because they're basically designed to have many non-skill factors mucking up gameplay. But I don't find it enjoyable to lose (or win even) as a result of non-skill factors. So for me I only dabble in MMORPG PVP, and stick mostly to PVE.
This is just how I feel about typical MMO combat, and why I don't play them. Not because I don't like the genre, but because very game that comes out seems to rely so heavily on gear and spamming abilities to the point where there is no skill or thought involved. It becomes a matter of how long you play and less about how you know your character and your understanding of the game.
About meaningful combat and fun combat, I don't think it has to be one or the other. Singleplayer games have done this, Mount and Blade being a prime example. It seems that MMO developers just don't spend enough time on the basic, day to day mechanics of the player. Interesting combat and meaningful combat, are way more important to me than an extra 40 hours of "content"
"Look down at me and you see a fool, Look up at me and you see a God, Look straight at me and you see yourself." - Charles Manson
- Killing players (not NPCs) give rewards, like a secondary leveling system (Realm Points / renown).
- Holding areas give access to resources (eg. you hold a keep in a zone, which unlocks the nearby mind that has extra good materials needed for crafting some of the good gear - or perhaps unlocking a dungeon with ph4t l00t).
- Simply PvP-enabled areas with desirable, but limited resources so the guys who kill the other guys can harvest these resources. Resources can be crafting materials or simply mobs with improved loot drops or xp.
I agree that first and foremost PvP must be fun to do. Otherwise it becomes a "grind".
The issue is a bit more complicated, as you basically have two groups of players:
Those who feel the "meaning" of PVP is in capturing territory, resources, or items. Those who feel "meaning" is making decisions that matter during the fight.
They're separate groups because thus far few games have mixed the elements well.
So you're saying that for some people, the reason they are fighting is so they can make decisions about the fight?
I don't follow.
There are two types of PvP in MMOs, which are separated by the effects.
The first type of PvP is conflict, and deals with an outcome that has an effect on the gameworld. Two sides confliciting over possession of land or resources fits in this category, as it has a lasting impact on the game. In this example, PvP is the means of conflict resolution and is used as a tool. This type is essentially Warfare.
In the second type, PvP isn't the means, it's the whole point. Dueling and arenas fit here because there is no conflict to be resolved (and therefore no argument of possession). The incentive is usually competition and can be ranking, leader boards, items, points, or just plain fun.
What someone means when they say that "PvP has purpose", it depends because meaning is relative. "Purpose" most likely means some material entity, whether it be an item, access to resources, or land, rather than some achievement or ranking.
The first type of PvP (warfare), seems way more interesting if you ask me.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as you make it out to be. Let's take, for instance, an actual military battle following the U.S. Army chain of command. All of these will have different motivations and views of a given battle:
A sergeant leading a squad, interested in things at the 9-10 man level.
A lieutenant leading a platoon, interested in things at the 16-44 man level.
A captain leading a company, interested in things at the 62-190 man level.
A lieutenant colonel leading a battalion, interested in things at the 300-1000 man level.
A colonel leading a brigade, interested in things at the 3,000-5,000 man level.
A major general leading a division, interested in things at the 10,000-15,000 man level.
A lieutenant general leading a corps, interested in things at the 20,000 to 45,000 man level.
A commander in chief leading an army, interested in things at the 50,000+ man level.
PvP without Purpose: Take WoW for example: PvP in WoW has not the slightest influence on the "Warcraft-World". Its always something that you could also do, besides Raiding or...? (is there something else to do in WoW??). Battlegrounds or Arena is like Counterstrike or Team Fortress only with fantasy gear. Agreed: Its much more fun because I can play with my char which I geared up and leveled for months. So there is a larger connection to my char than in Shooters like CS or TF2. But the principle is the same.
Wether you win or loose: nobody cares. There is nothing to loose and hardly anything to win besides some "abstract" points, which you have to farm, in order to get some better gear.
PvP with purpose: Take Ultima Online for example.
Faction wars: Faction Wars are much more fun, because there really is an impact on the world (set taxes, set up vendors, craft faction weapons etc.)
Champions: Shortly: Kill the champ and get some powerscrolls which enhance your stats or skills permanently. You can not get them otherwise:
And perhaps - up to now - the best incentive for OPEN PvP: IDOCs!
IDOCs are player houses which are In Danger Of Collapsing (because Account wasnt payed). You can estimate the time when house will collapse. Once the house collapse, EVERYTHING inside is free for all to loot. You can imagine, there are quite large batlles when it comes to large houses full of stuff like castles or keeps.
-> Best OPEN PVP-System ever! (And keep in mind, UO is from 1997; Up to now noone was able to create something similar!
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as you make it out to be. Let's take, for instance, an actual military battle following the U.S. Army chain of command. All of these will have different motivations and views of a given battle:
A sergeant leading a squad, interested in things at the 9-10 man level. A lieutenant leading a platoon, interested in things at the 16-44 man level. A captain leading a company, interested in things at the 62-190 man level. A lieutenant colonel leading a battalion, interested in things at the 300-1000 man level. A colonel leading a brigade, interested in things at the 3,000-5,000 man level. A major general leading a division, interested in things at the 10,000-15,000 man level. A lieutenant general leading a corps, interested in things at the 20,000 to 45,000 man level. A commander in chief leading an army, interested in things at the 50,000+ man level.
All those different positions have different jobs which exist for maximum efficiency and effectiveness, but the big picture is the same, and the organization doesn't change it.
"Look down at me and you see a fool, Look up at me and you see a God, Look straight at me and you see yourself." - Charles Manson
Comments
Battles versus real players are way more interesting than vs scripted stuff.
PvP has a purpose in Darkfall.
If someone pisses you off, you can kill them.
You can kill and take everything on a person.
You can conquer a city or hamlet.
You can exert control over an area to control access to mob spawns.
One character, so reputation is important.
So I can confidently say that PvP has purpose in Darkfall. What about your game?
Ideally yes, but I see lots of people in PvP as dumb as the typical AI mob.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
But it's a pain for me to play that game
I want to develop my character via PVP like say you kill someone then you get skill unlocks and stuff like the SWG Jedi Force Ranks but if you're killed then you lose XP and lose skills. So it's something that once you get the rank you wont always keep it because you might get killed by a better player who takes the rank off you.
Ideally yes, but I see lots of people in PvP as dumb as the typical AI mob.
Yeah gotta agree here ^^, but still if u are one of the best u mostly fight along/vs the best ppl, and anyway those mobs aka players ar still more enjoyable to kill than a simple mob since u have in mind that it's a player.
So you're saying that for some people, the reason they are fighting is so they can make decisions about the fight?
I don't follow.
There are two types of PvP in MMOs, which are separated by the effects.
The first type of PvP is conflict, and deals with an outcome that has an effect on the gameworld. Two sides confliciting over possession of land or resources fits in this category, as it has a lasting impact on the game. In this example, PvP is the means of conflict resolution and is used as a tool. This type is essentially Warfare.
In the second type, PvP isn't the means, it's the whole point. Dueling and arenas fit here because there is no conflict to be resolved (and therefore no argument of possession). The incentive is usually competition and can be ranking, leader boards, items, points, or just plain fun.
What someone means when they say that "PvP has purpose", it depends because meaning is relative. "Purpose" most likely means some material entity, whether it be an item, access to resources, or land, rather than some achievement or ranking.
The first type of PvP (warfare), seems way more interesting if you ask me.
"Look down at me and you see a fool, Look up at me and you see a God, Look straight at me and you see yourself." - Charles Manson
Capturing territory is a big one for me.
The Official God FAQ
So you're saying that for some people, the reason they are fighting is so they can make decisions about the fight?
I don't follow.
He's saying that people have differing views of the term "meaningful PvP".
One example:
PvP that is has very simple combat mechanics but a very complex, world-affecting result. When you kill someone, you can steal all their stuff. You can kill everyone in the area and claim their lands. You can raid their castles and burn them to the ground.
But to kill another player, you just target them and spam 1 ability until they die.
Another example:
PvP that has very complex combat mechanics but a very simple, shallow result. When you kill someone, they respawn.
But to kill another player involves an extremely complex system of offensive, defensive and counter abilities. It takes months to learn the nuances of the system.
Both could be considered "meaningful" but for very different reasons.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
I get what you are saying, the comparison is Impact of Combat vs Implementation of Combat. That isn't however the point of the topic, which is the purpose of combat.
I was defining types of PvP based on the Impacts of combat, implementation is a whole nother topic.
"Look down at me and you see a fool, Look up at me and you see a God, Look straight at me and you see yourself." - Charles Manson
Totally agree, also in WAR and WoW, holding certain areas gave all the players of that area a damage or xp buff. Some pvp games let you claim territory that has desirable materials for crafting or dungeons with tasty loot. LOTRO has, by far, the dumbest pvp ever. (Player versus Monster Player)
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire
Well the discussion is PVP's purpose, and I described two purposes: winning rewards, and the experience of fun combat.
Remember that the majority of successful PVP games out there have little to no rewards. Their "purpose" is fun combat. (Dawn of War, Modern Warfare 2, TF2, Counterstrike, Battlefield 2, Heroes of Newerth.) And fun combat in these games is the result of player decisions ("decisions" includes things like deciding to move your crosshair 2mm to the left to get that headshot. Player skill is a measure of decisionmaking ability.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The topic was meaningful PVP. PVP has meaning to me when my decisions during combat have meaning.
If you argue this topic is only about the outputs (results) of PVP, that merely forces me to point out that one of the outputs of PVP is fun. Which goes back to my earlier post: making meaningful decisions during a fight is the way many players have fun in PVP.
And MMOs still get this wrong today.
I agree with you though. If and when they finally get it right, it will rule. Just hasn't happened yet for me.
To those who have found a fun PvP game in an MMO, I'm happy for you. I just expect more. And "they" deliver less and less every time to me.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
The topic was meaningful PVP. PVP has meaning to me when my decisions during combat have meaning.
If you argue this topic is only about the outputs (results) of PVP, that merely forces me to point out that one of the outputs of PVP is fun. Which goes back to my earlier post: making meaningful decisions during a fight is the way many players have fun in PVP.
And MMOs still get this wrong today.
I agree with you though. If and when they finally get it right, it will rule. Just hasn't happened yet for me.
To those who have found a fun PvP game in an MMO, I'm happy for you. I just expect more. And "they" deliver less and less every time to me.
Aha! I knew someone could quote me before I re-wrote my post. :P
But yeah, I've basically given up on most MMORPG PVP (but not MMO PVP; important distinction) because they're basically designed to have many non-skill factors mucking up gameplay. But I don't find it enjoyable to lose (or win even) as a result of non-skill factors. So for me I only dabble in MMORPG PVP, and stick mostly to PVE.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Most PvE centric games are overly glorified single-player rpg's that others get eye-candied into paying a monthly fee for. /shrug
The topic was meaningful PVP. PVP has meaning to me when my decisions during combat have meaning.
If you argue this topic is only about the outputs (results) of PVP, that merely forces me to point out that one of the outputs of PVP is fun. Which goes back to my earlier post: making meaningful decisions during a fight is the way many players have fun in PVP.
And MMOs still get this wrong today.
I agree with you though. If and when they finally get it right, it will rule. Just hasn't happened yet for me.
To those who have found a fun PvP game in an MMO, I'm happy for you. I just expect more. And "they" deliver less and less every time to me.
Aha! I knew someone could quote me before I re-wrote my post. :P
But yeah, I've basically given up on most MMORPG PVP (but not MMO PVP; important distinction) because they're basically designed to have many non-skill factors mucking up gameplay. But I don't find it enjoyable to lose (or win even) as a result of non-skill factors. So for me I only dabble in MMORPG PVP, and stick mostly to PVE.
LOL!!
Thanks for the giggle...
PvP won't be enjoyable until they make "you" the victor once again. "You" have to matter once more. What "you" do has to make "you" feel awesome. Period.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Well yeah, everyone wants that -- World PVPer and Competion PVPer alike. It's just that each group has their own definition of "mattering" (world PVPers in tangible reward, competition PVPers in fun as a result of deep combat.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is just how I feel about typical MMO combat, and why I don't play them. Not because I don't like the genre, but because very game that comes out seems to rely so heavily on gear and spamming abilities to the point where there is no skill or thought involved. It becomes a matter of how long you play and less about how you know your character and your understanding of the game.
About meaningful combat and fun combat, I don't think it has to be one or the other. Singleplayer games have done this, Mount and Blade being a prime example. It seems that MMO developers just don't spend enough time on the basic, day to day mechanics of the player. Interesting combat and meaningful combat, are way more important to me than an extra 40 hours of "content"
"Look down at me and you see a fool, Look up at me and you see a God, Look straight at me and you see yourself." - Charles Manson
Some stuff I'd like to see from PvP:
- Killing players (not NPCs) give rewards, like a secondary leveling system (Realm Points / renown).
- Holding areas give access to resources (eg. you hold a keep in a zone, which unlocks the nearby mind that has extra good materials needed for crafting some of the good gear - or perhaps unlocking a dungeon with ph4t l00t).
- Simply PvP-enabled areas with desirable, but limited resources so the guys who kill the other guys can harvest these resources. Resources can be crafting materials or simply mobs with improved loot drops or xp.
I agree that first and foremost PvP must be fun to do. Otherwise it becomes a "grind".
So you're saying that for some people, the reason they are fighting is so they can make decisions about the fight?
I don't follow.
There are two types of PvP in MMOs, which are separated by the effects.
The first type of PvP is conflict, and deals with an outcome that has an effect on the gameworld. Two sides confliciting over possession of land or resources fits in this category, as it has a lasting impact on the game. In this example, PvP is the means of conflict resolution and is used as a tool. This type is essentially Warfare.
In the second type, PvP isn't the means, it's the whole point. Dueling and arenas fit here because there is no conflict to be resolved (and therefore no argument of possession). The incentive is usually competition and can be ranking, leader boards, items, points, or just plain fun.
What someone means when they say that "PvP has purpose", it depends because meaning is relative. "Purpose" most likely means some material entity, whether it be an item, access to resources, or land, rather than some achievement or ranking.
The first type of PvP (warfare), seems way more interesting if you ask me.
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as you make it out to be. Let's take, for instance, an actual military battle following the U.S. Army chain of command. All of these will have different motivations and views of a given battle:
PvP without Purpose: Take WoW for example: PvP in WoW has not the slightest influence on the "Warcraft-World". Its always something that you could also do, besides Raiding or...? (is there something else to do in WoW??). Battlegrounds or Arena is like Counterstrike or Team Fortress only with fantasy gear. Agreed: Its much more fun because I can play with my char which I geared up and leveled for months. So there is a larger connection to my char than in Shooters like CS or TF2. But the principle is the same.
Wether you win or loose: nobody cares. There is nothing to loose and hardly anything to win besides some "abstract" points, which you have to farm, in order to get some better gear.
PvP with purpose: Take Ultima Online for example.
Faction wars: Faction Wars are much more fun, because there really is an impact on the world (set taxes, set up vendors, craft faction weapons etc.)
Champions: Shortly: Kill the champ and get some powerscrolls which enhance your stats or skills permanently. You can not get them otherwise:
And perhaps - up to now - the best incentive for OPEN PvP: IDOCs!
IDOCs are player houses which are In Danger Of Collapsing (because Account wasnt payed). You can estimate the time when house will collapse. Once the house collapse, EVERYTHING inside is free for all to loot. You can imagine, there are quite large batlles when it comes to large houses full of stuff like castles or keeps.
-> Best OPEN PVP-System ever! (And keep in mind, UO is from 1997; Up to now noone was able to create something similar!
All those different positions have different jobs which exist for maximum efficiency and effectiveness, but the big picture is the same, and the organization doesn't change it.
"Look down at me and you see a fool, Look up at me and you see a God, Look straight at me and you see yourself." - Charles Manson