I'm not sure, I think Isabelle is correct to say, PvP systems seem be "trending" towards designed better these days:
If you look at the major implementations of PvP:
1. Arena: eg LoL, TF2 -esque
2. Faction
3. Open-world
4. Have I missed one?
You realize that some mmorpg's need to compete with having a PvE game AND a sub-game pvp system that can be as popular and strategic as eg LoL etc. I think the pressure is there to improve this type of PvP in mmorpgs for the better. Namely 100% separation between the PvP system and the PvE character advancement system.
GW2, TSW are both going towards a 3-faction system and it surprises me another big mmorpg has not chosen to emulate DAOC sooner in this respect?
Open-world, I'm not sure about, again I'm surprised not more devs have emulated the EvE set-up which seems and sounds to be a very satisfactory implementation?
The problem with modern pvp is not the game so much as the players.
What some players can't seem to figure out is that there is nothing uber or epic about killing the same guy over and over who is at about half ablitiy due to have just died.
These players that can not sort this out are the same ones that want to call names and insult people because they don't want to pvp in this fashion yet, when it happens to them the first thing they do is rage quit.
The makers of the game are doing it for the money when people play the way mentioned above it makes people leave the game and cost the company money so naturally the company trys to limit or prevent this type of activity. Hence we have nothing to fight for.
in wow this was glaringly obvious when I started playing, the other faction would trundel 50+ players into the new player grinding area, these people would be a good 30-40 lvls above the people and often more . They would just stand there killing the quest givers and then complain that no one would fight them, ok lvl 40 moron, what exactly do you think a lvl 10 is going to do to you ?
The worst part was it did nothing for them, just intrupted other peoples ability to lvl, some of the very same people that may of later pvped but, could not get around the idiots camping the quest npc's. Granted they could have gone else where, that is what I did, the fact remains a game is suppose to be fun and this type of game play is fun for no one aside from those with the high school bully mentality.
On the other side of the coin if there was something for these people to fight for else where then they probaly would not be hammering on the low lvl quest npcs, even tho this method is an epic fail for forcing pvp people I think do it because they some how arrived at the conclusion that it will force people to fight them nvr mind who they think can in such a uneven match.
Now, there will be a few people who will answer this saying stupid things about how that is because I suck and all that garbage and those people are wrong. I actually enjoy pvp and am pretty good at it. I still play a little wow mainly out of a lack of anything else to do until SWTOR comes out and I tend to be in the top 5 for damage in battlegrounds even if the top 10 players are all the other faction I will normally be right up there in the middle of the damage board in the top 5.
The battlegrounds in wow are a different story tho not by much, you get more honor when you win, after you have won enough and have all the best gear they become pointless again until the next years armor comes out, same with arenas. At this point it breaks down to pointless just the same grind over and over and also causes people to leave.
so basically what we need is a system that gives people a reason to want to and then something to make it worth while which most games fail at.
The biggest thing I see these days (Other than lack luster PvP mechanics) are just with people themselves. MMO players in general are terrible at pvp. They get programmed to stand there, use a certain button sequence to kill a PvE mob and just stand there and do that over and over. To them the game is about getting gear, being the highest DPS possible, or whatever their specialty may be.
The biggest issue I see with players is how they pigeon hole themselves in even when they have options. And even then, they only thing they know is how to go through the same rotation of abilities that they do in PvE. This makes for horrible opponents. Most of the time, their characters are built for a singular purpose, and often don't function well as a whole. Being able to play as a group in PvP is a lost art in MMO's and a lot art to MMO players these days. I blame the dubbing down of the MMO genere on the success of WoW and the number of people copying their model. "Everyman's MMO". Players think they are good because they have certain gear, and in some MMO's that actually works. Gear is king, and it makes these people feel like they have gotten better at PvP because they do better now. Hate to tell you, most of them are still as terrible as they have alway's been.
The player skill gap isn't just with how a toon is built. It is also with how it is played. Slow reaction times, "clicking" of abilities, slow to move and react. Often times they are the players watching cool downs, not the battle it's self. Hate to tell you, but even with the best possible skill rotation and highest possible DPS, you are still going to get steamrolled by players that know how to actually watch the battle, know how to fight on the move, and in general can see what is going on, and where. The guys that have hotbars to arrange skills, but in normal play don't actually click the hotbars (Are you watching your mouse pointer, or watching the battle, and what people are doing?)
This gap in player skill has got me a bit depressed with PvP in MMO's as of late. Everyone thinks they are hardcore, but in reality, all they know is how to grind PvP like they grind mobs. They don't actually get better at the game, couldn't tell you how, or what abilities a person is using to kill them. Nor how to counter them. They simply stand there, grabbing a target and going through their rotation, trying to get some damage out, and if they are lucky kill somone.
Battle summary's are part to blame IMHO. Watching a character that thinks they are good because they are throwing out damage like crazy, only never to actually kill anyone with that damage. You can put a 500 damage dot on 20 people and do 10000 damage. But that dot isn't killing anyone. But do half that much damage to one person and they are dead, effectively reducing the power of the enemy team, as opposed to being shrugged off, but having a ton of damage on some meaningless scoreboard to show for it.
To me, the only way I can get good PvP is to be outnumbered. 6v20, 20v100.. I consider those even odds these days. I don't solo, I don't duel, I don't play an MMO to do such things.
And who am I to say these things? Just another gamer that has been doing this way too long.
I'd like to play on pvp servers, or pvp games, more often, but as I get older, I find I just don't have the patience for having my time wasted by some drooling mouth breather like I did back in the EQ, and DAoC, days. I don't mind being killed. That's part of the game, and in some ways, part of the fun. Dealing with sub-literate man-children, though? No thanks, I'll just log out, and play some Dwarf Fortress, or something.
The community itself, in general, is the other problem I have. Recently, I've been playing on the new AoC pvp server, and I had to close the general chat. It's the same in other games, with a couple exceptions. After 10+ years, a constant scroll of "ur a fag", and "Im doing ur mom" has lost it's allure. Interestingly enough, Darkfall has, out of all the pvp games, or servers, I've frequented lately, the least jackwagons in the community, as far as what I experienced. Perhaps it's a function of the lower population numbers compared to a pvp server in WoW, AoC, et all. If that is the case, would pvp games be better served by capping the populations on servers? I know there needs to be a critical mass of players for pvp to be sustainable, but at a certain point, you just get so many idiots that people get driven off anyway.
I agree that lotro's pvp is one of the best ideas (even thought it's not well-implemented. Folks always strive for balance (which is impossible) and in lotro the heroes are stronger but take longer to develop into a character you can pvp with while the monsters can jump right in (and most likely become fodder for months until they rank up). It's not the best but it works in that one thing that most pvp lacks: why are we killing each other? And Turbine has basically made a mess of it so it could be alot better but even so many log on religeously daily just in hope that a decent fight will break out. Turbine accidently hit upon something now if only they were smart enough to implement some key features instead of milking their pve cash cow to the nth level.
the best pvp in any game ive ever played has been open world pvp where you have something to fight for. sorry arenas and battlegrounds just never did it for me, because I did not feel a part of the world and there was nothing to fight over.
asherons call still to me has had the best pvp in any game ive every played. you could dodge spells if you were quick enough, you had to time your spell cast to make sure you hit and moving meant something other than exploiting a broken game mechanic that wow has. plus there were things to fight over, in ac we fought over our leveling dungeons, we had dungeons your guild would control or try to control to help people level and you had to defend them for that reason, it was great for pvp.
even wow when it first came out, what kept me in the game for the first year was fighting over the crossroads and tarren mill/southshore. back then when one of those places got attacked everyone responded to defend out of pride, cant let the stinking alliance take cross roads. then battlegrounds, pvp gear, arenas, same old carrot on the stick mentality and that was done. now pvp is next to useless in any game that pretty much comes out because there is nothing to fight over, just more gear or a instance based zone that never changes.
I agree Asherons Call was the best pvp i have ever had also. and just so people know, it wasnt just dungeons we fought over. You were NEVER safe in that game we fought over towns just so we could sell our loot, we hunted down peoples mules to try and get some good drops ( a mule was another character made to hold your items because there was no bank )
there was action everywhere, you made friends and backed each other up. you were fair game from level 1 and any level player could kill your ass and send you packing. I know alot of people dont like FFA pvp but it was really fun. There was NO CC to hold you back from being able to fight and kill multiple people at once, even people higher level than you.
but the best i think was being able to dodge magic and arrows cant understand why another game hasnt made a system like that.
Now imagine that, but with greater character customization, hundreds of player built cities complete with their own banks, vendors, fortresses, multi-level walls, guards, trainers .... now imagine that these player cities formed guilds, nations, alliances - all within the game system. They routinely went to war and destroyed one another's cities in battles from 10 v 10 to hundreds v. hundreds. The wars lasted months sometimes, the battles could last half a day.
That just scratches the surface of the PvP glory that was Shadowbane. This doesn't mention battles over resources, rune droppers, traditional open world PvP or the amazing lore.
If you didn't play Shadowbane during its prime you probably don't understand the real potential these games can have for player driven conflict.
the best pvp in any game ive ever played has been open world pvp where you have something to fight for. sorry arenas and battlegrounds just never did it for me, because I did not feel a part of the world and there was nothing to fight over.
asherons call still to me has had the best pvp in any game ive every played. you could dodge spells if you were quick enough, you had to time your spell cast to make sure you hit and moving meant something other than exploiting a broken game mechanic that wow has. plus there were things to fight over, in ac we fought over our leveling dungeons, we had dungeons your guild would control or try to control to help people level and you had to defend them for that reason, it was great for pvp.
even wow when it first came out, what kept me in the game for the first year was fighting over the crossroads and tarren mill/southshore. back then when one of those places got attacked everyone responded to defend out of pride, cant let the stinking alliance take cross roads. then battlegrounds, pvp gear, arenas, same old carrot on the stick mentality and that was done. now pvp is next to useless in any game that pretty much comes out because there is nothing to fight over, just more gear or a instance based zone that never changes.
I agree Asherons Call was the best pvp i have ever had also. and just so people know, it wasnt just dungeons we fought over. You were NEVER safe in that game we fought over towns just so we could sell our loot, we hunted down peoples mules to try and get some good drops ( a mule was another character made to hold your items because there was no bank )
there was action everywhere, you made friends and backed each other up. you were fair game from level 1 and any level player could kill your ass and send you packing. I know alot of people dont like FFA pvp but it was really fun. There was NO CC to hold you back from being able to fight and kill multiple people at once, even people higher level than you.
but the best i think was being able to dodge magic and arrows cant understand why another game hasnt made a system like that.
Now imagine that, but with greater character customization, hundreds of player built cities complete with their own banks, vendors, fortresses, multi-level walls, guards, trainers .... now imagine that these player cities formed guilds, nations, alliances - all within the game system. They routinely went to war and destroyed one another's cities in battles from 10 v 10 to hundreds v. hundreds. The wars lasted months sometimes, the battles could last half a day.
That just scratches the surface of the PvP glory that was Shadowbane. This doesn't mention battles over resources, rune droppers, traditional open world PvP or the amazing lore.
If you didn't play Shadowbane during its prime you probably don't understand the real potential these games can have for player driven conflict.
yeah i never played Shadowbane, but if it had a physics engine like AC were you could dodge magic and arrows and skill was the biggest factore NOT GEAR!! plus all those things you said then it sounds pretty epic.
That's why I'm hitching my hankering for Prime : Battle for Dominus. Three faction pvp intertwined with a crafting system that matters. This game shot out of the announcement gate only a short time ago, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that their aiming for a 2011 release. Granted it sounds great on paper, and we still need to see more gameplay video, but so far so good
I agree 100% about the objective based PvP. Deathmatches where the only goal is to kill the other players... That bores me to death. No pun intended. I like to have things to fight over. I want to fight for control of a hill, or over resources. Then there's elements like outflanking your enemies, or simply outthinking them, rather than just the fighting. And I like bigger groups, too. *Thinks back to the old school AV matches*
Important facts: 1. Free to Play games are poorly made. 2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals. 3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE. 4. Community is more important than you think.
I love Darkfall. Everything is exciting, even crafting, but you need to play smart.
First of all, for those coming from gear based games - gear is nothing after the first few days. It's a dime a dozen. It's not like someone grabs your giant glowing shoulder pads. There's no item shops and no unique ultra-powerful crap you get by grinding the same dungeon over and over.
Secondly - play smart - when you leave the safety of the city just take what you need, not everything you own. Go mine in your underwear.
In Darkfall you have to play intelligently, that's all there is to it. You can't freak out and mash buttons or you will die. If you hear someone riding up, hide. Players only see your name if they have their tiny little crosshairs on you - no tab or auto targeting. Dodging is valid, but you actually have to avoid the sword, not just hit a button.
I had a couple of overpowered jerks attack me as a noob. I got hit a couple of times, but scrambled up over the hill, made a zigzag pattern and hid behind a rock. I heard them walking around looking for me, but I didn't move at all so I wouldn't make a sound. They never found me, but the whole situation was probably the most exhilarating experience I've had in a game (MMO or not)
I, like you, started out primarily fighting artificial intelligence in MMORPGs and eventually found myself wanting. Only in my case, it was Ultima Online and the AI was no where near where some of the interesting boss fights are today.
With that said, I found that most people truely interested in the genere (virtual worlds not themeparks) tend to make that natural progression to PvP because its the ultimate AI, the ultimate challenge.....and is typically never the exact same encounter.
With that said, those folks that would be just as satisfied grinding for gear in a single player co-op experience than in a MMO....they probably won't give two minutes of thought on the subject.
Other than that, I agree with "most" of what you said. The main contention I have with your analysis is that "More bodies = PvP success". This isn't neccessarily true....atleast for those folks genuinely interested in PvP for the activity....not the ultimate gear reward from collecting PvP currency (as most modern MMOs seem to offer as a carrott to PvPing)
A great example of this is World of Warcraft and its battleground system. For those under a rock for the last 6 years, battlegrounds are instanced PvP scenarios that typically involve two teams fighting for control of strategic objectives on the map. Players are awared PvP currency called "Honor Points" for meerly PARTICIPATING. Of course you get a bonus amount of honor points if your team wins, or captured objectives in the match, or when you help kill a player.
Whats happend in WOW is that this PvP currency given for participating allows players to get EPIC gear for just queueing up for a battleground and going Semi-AFK for the duration of the map. It's an easier path to getting EPIC gear than putting in the time and effort of running dungeons, running raids, grinding reputation. It is the path of least resistance for gear.
So you get a bunch of people who have ZERO interest in winning a battleground match, queueing up for battlegrounds. These people are the people that PvP enthusiasts are tasked to group with and work with in takinb objectives and winning the match.......WAIT a minute, I forgot....they aren't interested in winning or playing the match as it was designed.
People genuinely interested in PvP quit in fustration and all that is left is the cesspool of "Pew Pewers" and AFKers running around like a bunch of baffons for 30 min. PURE PVP SUCCESS
You have to be REALLY CAREFUL when you start putting tangible rewards out there to boost participation in something. You may not be achieving the desired results you thought you were going to get.
the best pvp in any game ive ever played has been open world pvp where you have something to fight for. sorry arenas and battlegrounds just never did it for me, because I did not feel a part of the world and there was nothing to fight over.
I agree 100%. I HATE battlegrounds and want nothing to do with them. Give me open world PvP.
I know this was thrown around in there, but I had to second (or third/whatever) the notion for more than two factions. You know what... now that I think about it, WoW could benifit if they would just have some faction fractions and have a few from the horde and alliance break off and join together against the two. You'd have to have a reason and the lore would probably not allow it, but that actually may make me pick WoW up and try it again. I'm done with the this side vs. the other concept.
I also like the "fighting for something" not just gear idea that has been around for a long time, but ignored in most mmo's. Maybe if they implimented something like FFXI did with fighting monsters with your countries signit on and having the most influence in that area would spawn npc's that sold stuff (which wasn't great, but you could sell your rubish to them) and npc's that would tele you around. You could increase your control via killing mobs or other players. That sounds like a fun idea to me.
Ok, I am amending my previous post on the faction bit. They could try to do the single faction thing again, but they would need to have the ai not be stupid and take control and set up bases to defend from. The enemy would have to have bases where it would just be plain stupidity to attack so you would never be able to be rid of them. That would also create some hot zones where you know there would always be something to fight as well.
I think it could almost be done like in Rift... almost except that a single player may be able to do something about say... scouts of the enemy army. Maybe if you picked off enough you could finish the rest of it off as well. Rift for me was more randomly awkward. It was fun for a while, but it seemed to a little too random (yes I understand how unfair I am with that statement) and it seemed to lack purpose. Maybe if there wasn't two factions in that game it would have felt differently... not sure. Just tossing out another idea.
The largest flaw in MMO PvP however is one most players turn a blind eye to, while complaining about it in different discussions:
Slavery to The Grind, which establishes DENIAL of World PvP to 90% of the player population . . . . unless they level up.
Some points before I go on, and I'll look to keep this shorter as opposed to longer:
1) I LOVE PvP. Truly. I'm not a "carebear" who want's it all safe and comfy on a PvP server.
I love to mix it up, outsmart opponents, out strat them with predictive thinking (e.g. Where will they be coming from off rezz, where will they try to rezz and escape to, who's on my nemesis list and are they online so I can go hunting for them, etc.).
2) Gaming has been around for . . . millenia. Backgammon, a common mention for "the oldest" game in history, has roots back to around 3000 B.C. Why is this relevant here? Gaming has core attributes, no matter the game, established across thousands of years: Ability to participate, competition between one or more opponents, risk for all participants, conditions establishing win vs. loss, the fact Cheating gets you beaten or dead - meaning it's universally despised, etc.
However, with the introduction of MMOs we've somehow DEVOLVED as a gaming community (players and developers) by diverging from some basic, fundamental truths to presenting competative gaming to players. (e.g. denial of the ability to participate in a competative aspect), and the fact a huge number of players accept cheating in online games as tolerable or acceptable (apathy on this score).
3) People don't understand the nature of "Freedom", instead believing anarchy fits that bill.
So, pulling that into focus on the issue of PvP in MMOs:
MMOs that support open-level World PvP have established the most RESTRICTIVE paradigm for World PvP ever seen. Players are denied participation to PvP as a result of cap or near cap players given the ability to run around zones where their stats simply make them near invulnerable. In other words: No MMO based on a levelling paradigm should allow an outlet for removal of risk in PvP.
PvP bracketing of zones would establish the FREEDOM for all levels to engage in World PvP in the zones they are levelling through. There is vested interest in those places ("my place" - for now). As you level you gain the priveledge of advancing to the next bracket of zones.
Note I'm not suggesting people be banned from entering a zone. But from flagging for PvP within those zones if you've established level beyond that bracket. In other words: No ez-mode for you.
Many players however cry bloody murder with wet lips stretched wide pointed to the sky wailing "But that's RESTRICTED PvP!" . . . not realizing, or perhaps simply being disengenuous, that it's exactly the opposite. And can be objectively measured as such.
The biggest problem, in World PvP has always been:
1) It's denied all levels except the cap and near cap players because of the player dynamic that is established.
2) On a per-hour basis it devalues the game-play hours of someone with a few hours to spend a week to play by virtue of virtually eliminating the ability to participate, while fully rewarding someone with many hours a week to play, yet charges the same subscription fee for both. See point 1 just above.
3) Mini games and "arena craft" sessions don't count IMO. Those are nice as sidelines, often times tied to rep grinds. I'm talking free-form, open world PvP where people are free to wander about, going about their business, and run into "baddies" or not, in totally unpredictable and variable scenarios.
4) Development houses fail to implement bracketted ability to flag across their worlds, simply allowing "higher levels" to roll around maps squashing stuff, in service to slavery to "The Grind". It's an approach that is a False Positive on this score, and in the long run one of the factors contributing to erosion of re-play longevity for players.
Because PvP has the highest factor for cyclic replay in the World . . . if you are at the cap or near it.
5) Development houses fail to implement balancing exceptions to a bracketted World PvP paradigm, with relief valves for people that just want to kill anyone regardless of level. Say, for instance, primary Cities as FFA zones between factions. The balancing factor here for retention of the Risk Factor for the higher level is: Guards.
6) Development houses don't support paradigms, as described above, for retention of Risk and DAnger for everyone in a fight, instead simply falling back on the "level up" through the Grind".
In short: When you sub up with a game that touts PvP and World PvP as features, the ability to engage in that activity should be available to all players at level 1 on up, not choked off for 40, 50, 60, even 80 levels (depending on the game) due to establishment of an environment where lowbies are required to grind to the cap first, otherwise they are road kill.
I like a challenge and the ability to participate . . . at any level. That's what PvP is about, at each level all along the journey to the cap.
The truth is: "balancing" PvP, and all the convoluted yick-yacking about class changes to balnce it, reward requirements or not, etc ad-nauseum . . . are all chump-change issues in comparison. Need to be dealt with at some point, sure, but 2nd on the list.
It's likely the exception processing for boundaries is the difficult part for developers. How do you manage people who try to exploit boundary jumping between zones, etc.
Like anything else however, you sit down, recognize the mechanic's issue, and work up a solution method.
Comments
I'm not sure, I think Isabelle is correct to say, PvP systems seem be "trending" towards designed better these days:
If you look at the major implementations of PvP:
1. Arena: eg LoL, TF2 -esque
2. Faction
3. Open-world
4. Have I missed one?
You realize that some mmorpg's need to compete with having a PvE game AND a sub-game pvp system that can be as popular and strategic as eg LoL etc. I think the pressure is there to improve this type of PvP in mmorpgs for the better. Namely 100% separation between the PvP system and the PvE character advancement system.
GW2, TSW are both going towards a 3-faction system and it surprises me another big mmorpg has not chosen to emulate DAOC sooner in this respect?
Open-world, I'm not sure about, again I'm surprised not more devs have emulated the EvE set-up which seems and sounds to be a very satisfactory implementation?
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
The problem with modern pvp is not the game so much as the players.
What some players can't seem to figure out is that there is nothing uber or epic about killing the same guy over and over who is at about half ablitiy due to have just died.
These players that can not sort this out are the same ones that want to call names and insult people because they don't want to pvp in this fashion yet, when it happens to them the first thing they do is rage quit.
The makers of the game are doing it for the money when people play the way mentioned above it makes people leave the game and cost the company money so naturally the company trys to limit or prevent this type of activity. Hence we have nothing to fight for.
in wow this was glaringly obvious when I started playing, the other faction would trundel 50+ players into the new player grinding area, these people would be a good 30-40 lvls above the people and often more . They would just stand there killing the quest givers and then complain that no one would fight them, ok lvl 40 moron, what exactly do you think a lvl 10 is going to do to you ?
The worst part was it did nothing for them, just intrupted other peoples ability to lvl, some of the very same people that may of later pvped but, could not get around the idiots camping the quest npc's. Granted they could have gone else where, that is what I did, the fact remains a game is suppose to be fun and this type of game play is fun for no one aside from those with the high school bully mentality.
On the other side of the coin if there was something for these people to fight for else where then they probaly would not be hammering on the low lvl quest npcs, even tho this method is an epic fail for forcing pvp people I think do it because they some how arrived at the conclusion that it will force people to fight them nvr mind who they think can in such a uneven match.
Now, there will be a few people who will answer this saying stupid things about how that is because I suck and all that garbage and those people are wrong. I actually enjoy pvp and am pretty good at it. I still play a little wow mainly out of a lack of anything else to do until SWTOR comes out and I tend to be in the top 5 for damage in battlegrounds even if the top 10 players are all the other faction I will normally be right up there in the middle of the damage board in the top 5.
The battlegrounds in wow are a different story tho not by much, you get more honor when you win, after you have won enough and have all the best gear they become pointless again until the next years armor comes out, same with arenas. At this point it breaks down to pointless just the same grind over and over and also causes people to leave.
so basically what we need is a system that gives people a reason to want to and then something to make it worth while which most games fail at.
The biggest thing I see these days (Other than lack luster PvP mechanics) are just with people themselves. MMO players in general are terrible at pvp. They get programmed to stand there, use a certain button sequence to kill a PvE mob and just stand there and do that over and over. To them the game is about getting gear, being the highest DPS possible, or whatever their specialty may be.
The biggest issue I see with players is how they pigeon hole themselves in even when they have options. And even then, they only thing they know is how to go through the same rotation of abilities that they do in PvE. This makes for horrible opponents. Most of the time, their characters are built for a singular purpose, and often don't function well as a whole. Being able to play as a group in PvP is a lost art in MMO's and a lot art to MMO players these days. I blame the dubbing down of the MMO genere on the success of WoW and the number of people copying their model. "Everyman's MMO". Players think they are good because they have certain gear, and in some MMO's that actually works. Gear is king, and it makes these people feel like they have gotten better at PvP because they do better now. Hate to tell you, most of them are still as terrible as they have alway's been.
The player skill gap isn't just with how a toon is built. It is also with how it is played. Slow reaction times, "clicking" of abilities, slow to move and react. Often times they are the players watching cool downs, not the battle it's self. Hate to tell you, but even with the best possible skill rotation and highest possible DPS, you are still going to get steamrolled by players that know how to actually watch the battle, know how to fight on the move, and in general can see what is going on, and where. The guys that have hotbars to arrange skills, but in normal play don't actually click the hotbars (Are you watching your mouse pointer, or watching the battle, and what people are doing?)
This gap in player skill has got me a bit depressed with PvP in MMO's as of late. Everyone thinks they are hardcore, but in reality, all they know is how to grind PvP like they grind mobs. They don't actually get better at the game, couldn't tell you how, or what abilities a person is using to kill them. Nor how to counter them. They simply stand there, grabbing a target and going through their rotation, trying to get some damage out, and if they are lucky kill somone.
Battle summary's are part to blame IMHO. Watching a character that thinks they are good because they are throwing out damage like crazy, only never to actually kill anyone with that damage. You can put a 500 damage dot on 20 people and do 10000 damage. But that dot isn't killing anyone. But do half that much damage to one person and they are dead, effectively reducing the power of the enemy team, as opposed to being shrugged off, but having a ton of damage on some meaningless scoreboard to show for it.
To me, the only way I can get good PvP is to be outnumbered. 6v20, 20v100.. I consider those even odds these days. I don't solo, I don't duel, I don't play an MMO to do such things.
And who am I to say these things? Just another gamer that has been doing this way too long.
- Ice_Hole of OMG Im Drunk
I'd like to play on pvp servers, or pvp games, more often, but as I get older, I find I just don't have the patience for having my time wasted by some drooling mouth breather like I did back in the EQ, and DAoC, days. I don't mind being killed. That's part of the game, and in some ways, part of the fun. Dealing with sub-literate man-children, though? No thanks, I'll just log out, and play some Dwarf Fortress, or something.
The community itself, in general, is the other problem I have. Recently, I've been playing on the new AoC pvp server, and I had to close the general chat. It's the same in other games, with a couple exceptions. After 10+ years, a constant scroll of "ur a fag", and "Im doing ur mom" has lost it's allure. Interestingly enough, Darkfall has, out of all the pvp games, or servers, I've frequented lately, the least jackwagons in the community, as far as what I experienced. Perhaps it's a function of the lower population numbers compared to a pvp server in WoW, AoC, et all. If that is the case, would pvp games be better served by capping the populations on servers? I know there needs to be a critical mass of players for pvp to be sustainable, but at a certain point, you just get so many idiots that people get driven off anyway.
I agree that lotro's pvp is one of the best ideas (even thought it's not well-implemented. Folks always strive for balance (which is impossible) and in lotro the heroes are stronger but take longer to develop into a character you can pvp with while the monsters can jump right in (and most likely become fodder for months until they rank up). It's not the best but it works in that one thing that most pvp lacks: why are we killing each other? And Turbine has basically made a mess of it so it could be alot better but even so many log on religeously daily just in hope that a decent fight will break out. Turbine accidently hit upon something now if only they were smart enough to implement some key features instead of milking their pve cash cow to the nth level.
Now imagine that, but with greater character customization, hundreds of player built cities complete with their own banks, vendors, fortresses, multi-level walls, guards, trainers .... now imagine that these player cities formed guilds, nations, alliances - all within the game system. They routinely went to war and destroyed one another's cities in battles from 10 v 10 to hundreds v. hundreds. The wars lasted months sometimes, the battles could last half a day.
That just scratches the surface of the PvP glory that was Shadowbane. This doesn't mention battles over resources, rune droppers, traditional open world PvP or the amazing lore.
If you didn't play Shadowbane during its prime you probably don't understand the real potential these games can have for player driven conflict.
yeah i never played Shadowbane, but if it had a physics engine like AC were you could dodge magic and arrows and skill was the biggest factore NOT GEAR!! plus all those things you said then it sounds pretty epic.
That's why I'm hitching my hankering for Prime : Battle for Dominus. Three faction pvp intertwined with a crafting system that matters. This game shot out of the announcement gate only a short time ago, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that their aiming for a 2011 release. Granted it sounds great on paper, and we still need to see more gameplay video, but so far so good
I agree 100% about the objective based PvP. Deathmatches where the only goal is to kill the other players... That bores me to death. No pun intended. I like to have things to fight over. I want to fight for control of a hill, or over resources. Then there's elements like outflanking your enemies, or simply outthinking them, rather than just the fighting. And I like bigger groups, too. *Thinks back to the old school AV matches*
Important facts:
1. Free to Play games are poorly made.
2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals.
3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE.
4. Community is more important than you think.
I love Darkfall. Everything is exciting, even crafting, but you need to play smart.
First of all, for those coming from gear based games - gear is nothing after the first few days. It's a dime a dozen. It's not like someone grabs your giant glowing shoulder pads. There's no item shops and no unique ultra-powerful crap you get by grinding the same dungeon over and over.
Secondly - play smart - when you leave the safety of the city just take what you need, not everything you own. Go mine in your underwear.
In Darkfall you have to play intelligently, that's all there is to it. You can't freak out and mash buttons or you will die. If you hear someone riding up, hide. Players only see your name if they have their tiny little crosshairs on you - no tab or auto targeting. Dodging is valid, but you actually have to avoid the sword, not just hit a button.
I had a couple of overpowered jerks attack me as a noob. I got hit a couple of times, but scrambled up over the hill, made a zigzag pattern and hid behind a rock. I heard them walking around looking for me, but I didn't move at all so I wouldn't make a sound. They never found me, but the whole situation was probably the most exhilarating experience I've had in a game (MMO or not)
I, like you, started out primarily fighting artificial intelligence in MMORPGs and eventually found myself wanting. Only in my case, it was Ultima Online and the AI was no where near where some of the interesting boss fights are today.
With that said, I found that most people truely interested in the genere (virtual worlds not themeparks) tend to make that natural progression to PvP because its the ultimate AI, the ultimate challenge.....and is typically never the exact same encounter.
With that said, those folks that would be just as satisfied grinding for gear in a single player co-op experience than in a MMO....they probably won't give two minutes of thought on the subject.
Other than that, I agree with "most" of what you said. The main contention I have with your analysis is that "More bodies = PvP success". This isn't neccessarily true....atleast for those folks genuinely interested in PvP for the activity....not the ultimate gear reward from collecting PvP currency (as most modern MMOs seem to offer as a carrott to PvPing)
A great example of this is World of Warcraft and its battleground system. For those under a rock for the last 6 years, battlegrounds are instanced PvP scenarios that typically involve two teams fighting for control of strategic objectives on the map. Players are awared PvP currency called "Honor Points" for meerly PARTICIPATING. Of course you get a bonus amount of honor points if your team wins, or captured objectives in the match, or when you help kill a player.
Whats happend in WOW is that this PvP currency given for participating allows players to get EPIC gear for just queueing up for a battleground and going Semi-AFK for the duration of the map. It's an easier path to getting EPIC gear than putting in the time and effort of running dungeons, running raids, grinding reputation. It is the path of least resistance for gear.
So you get a bunch of people who have ZERO interest in winning a battleground match, queueing up for battlegrounds. These people are the people that PvP enthusiasts are tasked to group with and work with in takinb objectives and winning the match.......WAIT a minute, I forgot....they aren't interested in winning or playing the match as it was designed.
People genuinely interested in PvP quit in fustration and all that is left is the cesspool of "Pew Pewers" and AFKers running around like a bunch of baffons for 30 min. PURE PVP SUCCESS
You have to be REALLY CAREFUL when you start putting tangible rewards out there to boost participation in something. You may not be achieving the desired results you thought you were going to get.
I agree 100%. I HATE battlegrounds and want nothing to do with them. Give me open world PvP.
I know this was thrown around in there, but I had to second (or third/whatever) the notion for more than two factions. You know what... now that I think about it, WoW could benifit if they would just have some faction fractions and have a few from the horde and alliance break off and join together against the two. You'd have to have a reason and the lore would probably not allow it, but that actually may make me pick WoW up and try it again. I'm done with the this side vs. the other concept.
I also like the "fighting for something" not just gear idea that has been around for a long time, but ignored in most mmo's. Maybe if they implimented something like FFXI did with fighting monsters with your countries signit on and having the most influence in that area would spawn npc's that sold stuff (which wasn't great, but you could sell your rubish to them) and npc's that would tele you around. You could increase your control via killing mobs or other players. That sounds like a fun idea to me.
Ok, I am amending my previous post on the faction bit. They could try to do the single faction thing again, but they would need to have the ai not be stupid and take control and set up bases to defend from. The enemy would have to have bases where it would just be plain stupidity to attack so you would never be able to be rid of them. That would also create some hot zones where you know there would always be something to fight as well.
I think it could almost be done like in Rift... almost except that a single player may be able to do something about say... scouts of the enemy army. Maybe if you picked off enough you could finish the rest of it off as well. Rift for me was more randomly awkward. It was fun for a while, but it seemed to a little too random (yes I understand how unfair I am with that statement) and it seemed to lack purpose. Maybe if there wasn't two factions in that game it would have felt differently... not sure. Just tossing out another idea.
The largest flaw in MMO PvP however is one most players turn a blind eye to, while complaining about it in different discussions:
Slavery to The Grind, which establishes DENIAL of World PvP to 90% of the player population . . . . unless they level up.
Some points before I go on, and I'll look to keep this shorter as opposed to longer:
1) I LOVE PvP. Truly. I'm not a "carebear" who want's it all safe and comfy on a PvP server.
I love to mix it up, outsmart opponents, out strat them with predictive thinking (e.g. Where will they be coming from off rezz, where will they try to rezz and escape to, who's on my nemesis list and are they online so I can go hunting for them, etc.).
2) Gaming has been around for . . . millenia. Backgammon, a common mention for "the oldest" game in history, has roots back to around 3000 B.C. Why is this relevant here? Gaming has core attributes, no matter the game, established across thousands of years: Ability to participate, competition between one or more opponents, risk for all participants, conditions establishing win vs. loss, the fact Cheating gets you beaten or dead - meaning it's universally despised, etc.
However, with the introduction of MMOs we've somehow DEVOLVED as a gaming community (players and developers) by diverging from some basic, fundamental truths to presenting competative gaming to players. (e.g. denial of the ability to participate in a competative aspect), and the fact a huge number of players accept cheating in online games as tolerable or acceptable (apathy on this score).
3) People don't understand the nature of "Freedom", instead believing anarchy fits that bill.
So, pulling that into focus on the issue of PvP in MMOs:
MMOs that support open-level World PvP have established the most RESTRICTIVE paradigm for World PvP ever seen. Players are denied participation to PvP as a result of cap or near cap players given the ability to run around zones where their stats simply make them near invulnerable. In other words: No MMO based on a levelling paradigm should allow an outlet for removal of risk in PvP.
PvP bracketing of zones would establish the FREEDOM for all levels to engage in World PvP in the zones they are levelling through. There is vested interest in those places ("my place" - for now). As you level you gain the priveledge of advancing to the next bracket of zones.
Note I'm not suggesting people be banned from entering a zone. But from flagging for PvP within those zones if you've established level beyond that bracket. In other words: No ez-mode for you.
Many players however cry bloody murder with wet lips stretched wide pointed to the sky wailing "But that's RESTRICTED PvP!" . . . not realizing, or perhaps simply being disengenuous, that it's exactly the opposite. And can be objectively measured as such.
The biggest problem, in World PvP has always been:
1) It's denied all levels except the cap and near cap players because of the player dynamic that is established.
2) On a per-hour basis it devalues the game-play hours of someone with a few hours to spend a week to play by virtue of virtually eliminating the ability to participate, while fully rewarding someone with many hours a week to play, yet charges the same subscription fee for both. See point 1 just above.
3) Mini games and "arena craft" sessions don't count IMO. Those are nice as sidelines, often times tied to rep grinds. I'm talking free-form, open world PvP where people are free to wander about, going about their business, and run into "baddies" or not, in totally unpredictable and variable scenarios.
4) Development houses fail to implement bracketted ability to flag across their worlds, simply allowing "higher levels" to roll around maps squashing stuff, in service to slavery to "The Grind". It's an approach that is a False Positive on this score, and in the long run one of the factors contributing to erosion of re-play longevity for players.
Because PvP has the highest factor for cyclic replay in the World . . . if you are at the cap or near it.
5) Development houses fail to implement balancing exceptions to a bracketted World PvP paradigm, with relief valves for people that just want to kill anyone regardless of level. Say, for instance, primary Cities as FFA zones between factions. The balancing factor here for retention of the Risk Factor for the higher level is: Guards.
6) Development houses don't support paradigms, as described above, for retention of Risk and DAnger for everyone in a fight, instead simply falling back on the "level up" through the Grind".
In short: When you sub up with a game that touts PvP and World PvP as features, the ability to engage in that activity should be available to all players at level 1 on up, not choked off for 40, 50, 60, even 80 levels (depending on the game) due to establishment of an environment where lowbies are required to grind to the cap first, otherwise they are road kill.
I like a challenge and the ability to participate . . . at any level. That's what PvP is about, at each level all along the journey to the cap.
The truth is: "balancing" PvP, and all the convoluted yick-yacking about class changes to balnce it, reward requirements or not, etc ad-nauseum . . . are all chump-change issues in comparison. Need to be dealt with at some point, sure, but 2nd on the list.
IMO of course.
Wherever you go, there you are.
Final thought:
It's likely the exception processing for boundaries is the difficult part for developers. How do you manage people who try to exploit boundary jumping between zones, etc.
Like anything else however, you sit down, recognize the mechanic's issue, and work up a solution method.
Wherever you go, there you are.