Alts: If they run and hide to an alt, the threatenting character is no longer around, so what's the problem? A character should, and CAN only be subject to any kind of justice if they're online anyway. What's the difference between logging out or using an alt? Either way there is no threat and no way to deal with it.
PvP rules: There should be no magical spy camera watching over every player marking down who PKed who, to give everyone reputations. It should be different though if a guard saw it, THEN they'd have an excuse to mark you as notorious, but if you're in a deserted wasteland with nobody else around, you should take responsibility for being there in the first place.
All open PvP proponents being griefers: Nobody is saying they want to be a griefer themselves. We are just saying we enjoy the thrill of playing in a world where anything can happen.
Any penalty should be within the context of the game, such as a guard seeing you and attacking you, or becoming notorious with guards in general and being attacked on sight.
PvP proponents are arguing for open PvP because they want a consistent and logical world, free from any artificial "bandaid" rules, complete with reward AND risk, not because they enjoy annoying people for the sake of it.
Again, to restate:
1. If you have an open PvP system it forces everyone to PvP. That is not fair for those folks who do not wish to PvP. PvPers, by advocating an open PvP system, essentially are advocating forcing PvP on every player.
Well if you have an open PvE system, it's not fair to those folks who do not wish to PvE. Ever consider someone else's point of view?
Having said that, PvE content is necessary, AS IS PvP: Again, this isn't a matter of PvP vs. PvE. It's a matter of PvE proponents being anti-PvP. PvP proponents never seek to remove PvE as PvE proponents do seek to remove PvP. Sure, by including open PvP you may be allowing people to risk engaging in it at one point, but by removing it completely you confine everyone to ONLY PvE. How is this any more fair than removing PvE completely and confining everyone to PvP? Why the double standard?
Maybe some people think that because I said PvE should be a means to an end and not an end itself, that I'm suggesting that PvP be the end. Well I'm not. I think an end should be defined by the player themselves, and to acheive this a dynamic world is required. That way one person's end could simply be hunting mobs, another's could be PvPing, and another's could be taking over large amounts of land to mine resources for their ingame weapon making business. In a dynamic world with no artificial restrictions, all these things are possible.
Originally posted by Gabs Alts: If they run and hide to an alt, the threatenting character is no longer around, so what's the problem? A character should, and CAN only be subject to any kind of justice if they're online anyway. What's the difference between logging out or using an alt? Either way there is no threat and no way to deal with it. ---Honestly there is some logic to this. But I can see both sides of this issue. PvP rules: There should be no magical spy camera watching over every player marking down who PKed who, to give everyone reputations. It should be different though if a guard saw it, THEN they'd have an excuse to mark you as notorious, but if you're in a deserted wasteland with nobody else around, you should take responsibility for being there in the first place. ---I would agree with this if its in the context of the lore of the game. Some Sci-Fi games COULD have that spy camera. All open PvP proponents being griefers: Nobody is saying they want to be a griefer themselves. We are just saying we enjoy the thrill of playing in a world where anything can happen. ---Actually some ARE saying they want to be griefers, just without calling themselves a griefer. Any penalty should be within the context of the game, such as a guard seeing you and attacking you, or becoming notorious with guards in general and being attacked on sight. ---Within the context of the game could easily be a "reputation" that restricts town support and makes you KOS to NPCs, including guards, or leads to bounties on your head. PvP proponents are arguing for open PvP because they want a consistent and logical world, free from any artificial "bandaid" rules, complete with reward AND risk, not because they enjoy annoying people for the sake of it. ---Once again, I know for a fact that many PvPers do involve themselves in it purely to "enjoy annyoing people for the sake of it". And I am not saying everyone, for I don't and I know others that don't. But I am aware of the large contingent of PvPers that have just that in mind.
Again, to restate:
1. If you have an open PvP system it forces everyone to PvP. That is not fair for those folks who do not wish to PvP. PvPers, by advocating an open PvP system, essentially are advocating forcing PvP on every player.
Well if you have an open PvE system, it's not fair to those folks who do not wish to PvE. Ever consider someone else's point of view?
---Uh, you said PvE was essential to any MMORPG below. So whats the point of this? If you don't want to do quests and get gear, etc why are you playing these games? There are many games out there that are pure PvP that have no PvE in them at all. So if you play any MMORPG no one is forcing you to PvE, its a major part of the game. That being said, I think PvP should be an integral part of any successful long lasting MMORPG.
Having said that, PvE content is necessary, AS IS PvP: Again, this isn't a matter of PvP vs. PvE. It's a matter of PvE proponents being anti-PvP. PvP proponents never seek to remove PvE as PvE proponents do seek to remove PvP. Sure, by including open PvP you may be allowing people to risk engaging in it at one point, but by removing it completely you confine everyone to ONLY PvE. How is this any more fair than removing PvE completely and confining everyone to PvP? Why the double standard?
---It's simple. A MMORPG can exist without PvP. It would suck in my opinion, but it could exist. A MMORPG cannot exist without PvE. They have games like them, and they aren't called MMORPGs. It's not a double standard. It's the nature of the thing.
Maybe some people think that because I said PvE should be a means to an end and not an end itself, that I'm suggesting that PvP be the end. Well I'm not. I think an end should be defined by the player themselves, and to acheive this a dynamic world is required. That way one person's end could simply be hunting mobs, another's could be PvPing, and another's could be taking over large amounts of land to mine resources for their ingame weapon making business. In a dynamic world with no artificial restrictions, all these things are possible.
---I completely agree with the above paragraph.
All the above comments in RED or with a --- are my takes.
________________________________
Everything born must die. All that is, will come to ruin. This is the essence of Doom. So sayeth the Doomsayer.
I may not have any right to participate in this conversation, as I only read the first page and the last one but.....
Why I play MMOGs for PvE content:
I understand the concept of PvP. I understand the need for it in games because there are many in those games that enjoy it. I don't. The reason is very simple, I'm not a skilled enough player to survive long, or enjoy an open PvP environment.
I play MMOG's for the community, and because I very much enjoy tradeskilling (I didn't think I would) I enjoy building things for other chars to look at/use/whack the baddies with. I played D2, and I was moderately good at it, but it adversely affected my opinion of PvP because of Uber-goons that would eat you, spit out the metal bits, and camp your corpse. I find ZERO enjoyment in that, and if I'm playing a game, I'd like to enjoy it
Also I play with my wife, and she likes big games better than D2, too
Well. there's my 4 cents worth. happy hunting all (whether that be the mobs or your friends)
"We aren't going to ... Period. End of statement."
I remember a monster invasion from my MUD days; it wasn't fun because of the actual invasion. Plenty of single player RPGs have scenes of monsters coming into town. It was special because you were fighting alongside real players who shared the same goal, and were experiencing the same story and excitement.
PvE can be fun. It can even be fun in the long run. Devs up to this point, have given NPC mobs half-assed AI, and stale storylines where there is no real threat by the mobs. Everquest style is not the epitomy of sophistication for PvE. As for the "point" to PvE, it's just for fun. Or if your sense of disbelief is good enough, it's to save the world/city/schoolbus of kids, and to experience an adventure much like you do in a book or movie.
Exactly, its like playing a movie, great point Genjing. And for FUN. If you are unable to get your kicks at all through PvE content, gaming must kinda suck for you. No wonder you're here and not in some game. PvP is HELLA fun too but it's nice when theres a point to it, besides just causing grief.
Sometimes i just love the in game interaction w/ other players. I also love co-op questing with friends...to me, their is nothin better than bashing some drake skulls in guild wars w/ my close friends. I'm not good enough at PvP and dont have enough experience to enjoy it. I just love how MMOG's are set up. I like the trading, and the feeling of making a life in the game w/ something to work for. I have never been a huge PvP fan and I dont think I ever will. So play on yall...if any of you want to join me in guild wars, whisp Relic Klowd or Kodiak Hammermill
1- I can group with others, better then in any non-MMO setting.
2- I can ''compete'' friendly with others, trying to do better then they do...and so can they with me.
3- MMOs have more long term focus, if I look for a game with a long term focus, non-MMO are just WAY backward.
I could return the question, why do you hide your L33T PvP skill behind PvE earned edges? A real PvPers will want pure PvP, not earning lame ass edge by killing low AI mobs then having no real PvP challenge.
For me, any game need:
- FUN.
- PvE challenges.
- A way to compare and compete nicely(non-PvP, like racing if you want) with others.
- Ability to play NOW, which neither PvP nor raiding or grouping can assure me, thereby why Solo need to be nice as well...if you make solo lame, you just lost me right away.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Uh, you said PvE was essential to any MMORPG below. So whats the point of this? If you don't want to do quests and get gear, etc why are you playing these games? There are many games out there that are pure PvP that have no PvE in them at all. So if you play any MMORPG no one is forcing you to PvE, its a major part of the game. That being said, I think PvP should be an integral part of any successful long lasting MMORPG.
It was just a hypothetical example to demonstrate the double standard that exists when PvEers accuse PvP proponents of being selfish. Not everything I say is necessarily my opinion. I'm trying to be objective here.
It's simple. A MMORPG can exist without PvP. It would suck in my opinion, but it could exist. A MMORPG cannot exist without PvE. They have games like them, and they aren't called MMORPGs. It's not a double standard. It's the nature of the thing.
I disagree. An MMORPG that has the inability to attack non players would survive just the same as one with the inability to attack players. Would either be realistic, or complete? No.
I especially want to reemphasise the following paragraph: Maybe some people think that because I said PvE should be a means to an end and not an end itself, that I'm suggesting that PvP be the end. Well I'm not. I think an end should be defined by the player themselves, and to acheive this a dynamic world is required. That way one person's end could simply be hunting mobs, another's could be PvPing, and another's could be taking over large amounts of land to mine resources for their ingame weapon making business. In a dynamic world with no artificial restrictions, all these things are possible.
The point is that no matter what you enjoy, it is not only possible, but required, given correct balancing, to include all of the fundamental elements, including both PvP and PvE to create a complete MMOG.
It's not a matter of intolerance on behalf of the PvP proponents. In fact, the intolerance towards PvP amonsgt the PvE obsessors has successfully been demonstrated in this thread. I want to know why it would be SUCH a loss to the PvE obsessors to include open PvP. As I said, PvP proponents never seek to remove PvE as PvE proponents do PvP.
PvE proponents can go on to perpetuate game after game that is identical, incomplete, and made inconsistent by artificial "bandaid" rules, but I don't consider that a proper persistent MMOG.
Originally posted by Gabs Alts: If they run and hide to an alt, the threatenting character is no longer around, so what's the problem? A character should, and CAN only be subject to any kind of justice if they're online anyway. What's the difference between logging out or using an alt? Either way there is no threat and no way to deal with it. PvP rules: There should be no magical spy camera watching over every player marking down who PKed who, to give everyone reputations. It should be different though if a guard saw it, THEN they'd have an excuse to mark you as notorious, but if you're in a deserted wasteland with nobody else around, you should take responsibility for being there in the first place. All open PvP proponents being griefers: Nobody is saying they want to be a griefer themselves. We are just saying we enjoy the thrill of playing in a world where anything can happen. Any penalty should be within the context of the game, such as a guard seeing you and attacking you, or becoming notorious with guards in general and being attacked on sight. PvP proponents are arguing for open PvP because they want a consistent and logical world, free from any artificial "bandaid" rules, complete with reward AND risk, not because they enjoy annoying people for the sake of it.
Again, to restate:
PvE content is necessary, AS IS PvP: Again, this isn't a matter of PvP vs. PvE. It's a matter of PvE proponents being anti-PvP. PvP proponents never seek to remove PvE as PvE proponents do seek to remove PvP. Sure, by including open PvP you may be allowing people to risk engaging in it at one point, but by removing it completely you confine everyone to ONLY PvE. How is this any more fair than removing PvE completely and confining everyone to PvP? Why the double standard?
LOL! man... the awnser to your question is quite simple. pvper's can and do interupt "grief" some people's playing time. since when has a pve'er interupted a pvper's playing time? thats exactly why they complain about pvpers. going with your twisted logic is like saying " oh.. this is a smoking section could you please not eat while i smoke?" well maybe not quite the same but you see where im going with this dont you? also u said pvp content is necissary? since when? lol pve content is however or there would be no way to progress. again i am a pvper and i do see where your comming from on alot of your points but im sorry to say but there are more people that like to just pve (some that might like to pvp a little) that the hardcore pvper like you and me. i dont see what the big deal is anyways.... people that want to play a hardcore pvp game will and people that dont want to pvp wont play it. its just like a few other people said... if you wanna play a game with just pvp no pve content there are plenty of fps games out there to chose from
All the questions are fair enough, Problem is there is no true answer. For some people something about it just clicks and they like it, there are reasons but none someone who doesnt agree would understand, dont say you should or shouldnt do this or that because remember some people dont even like gaming. How would it feel for them to say you shouldnt like gaming, and have no real way to respond because they simply wouldnt agree and youd be fighting a pointless battle.
I'm pro for both. more for PvE but PvP has it's place. when I'm challeged and killed during PvP it just makes me adjust my character for future PvP to get my revenge and it helps if in a game where pickpocketing is present to swip a few items from the guy who killed you before...hmm sux that you don't have those heal pots or your missing your weap...lol
It's simple. A MMORPG can exist without PvP. It would suck in my opinion, but it could exist. A MMORPG cannot exist without PvE. They have games like them, and they aren't called MMORPGs. It's not a double standard. It's the nature of the thing.
I disagree. An MMORPG that has the inability to attack non players would survive just the same as one with the inability to attack players. Would either be realistic, or complete? No.
--- I guess its possible. Players could only get exp from killing players. All gear could be crafted gear or store bought from merchants instead of drops. Not sure how money would be generated. Maybe crafting stuff or collecting materials and selling to vendors. But, questing and storyline would be hard pressed to have any depth whatsoever. Only quests like go kill X amounts of other players. So in the end I don't think it would have any lasting playability. But, its an interesting concept. Still I don't think it would hold my attention for long.
I think the market has proven that PvE is more important to the development and longetivity of a game than PvP is. So I think it should be given more emphasis. But both are required to make a game truly great. But I stand by my opinion that OPEN PvP without serious repercusions is detrimental to any MMORPG. Not from a purely game point of view, but that of the players. People in that community don't have the ability to be responsible enough not to have it turn into a grief-fest.
I don't see where PvEers have gone on some sorta quest to end all PvP in games. I am a PvPer and I don't feel targeted in any way. To me it always seems like the PvP crowd is the one starting things with posts like your original one and derogetory name calling like "carebear". If you think so or not, thats exactly what it is.
________________________________
Everything born must die. All that is, will come to ruin. This is the essence of Doom. So sayeth the Doomsayer.
Originally posted by Gabs I disagree. An MMORPG that has the inability to attack non players would survive just the same as one with the inability to attack players. Would either be realistic, or complete? No.
Unfortunately, reality disagrees with you. There's 600,000 people (including me) who play FFXI and think there's nothing terribly bad about an MMORPG with essentially no PvP (Ballista is great fun, but it's a side game, not really part of the main MMORPG--and it wasn't even part of the initial release). Nobody I'm aware of plays an MMORPG with no PvE; if they do, it's not in any significant numbers.
I especially want to reemphasise the following paragraph:Maybe some people think that because I said PvE should be a means to an end and not an end itself, that I'm suggesting that PvP be the end. Well I'm not. I think an end should be defined by the player themselves, and to acheive this a dynamic world is required. That way one person's end could simply be hunting mobs, another's could be PvPing, and another's could be taking over large amounts of land to mine resources for their ingame weapon making business. In a dynamic world with no artificial restrictions, all these things are possible.
No, they're not. In FFA PvP, you play PvP. All the time. Because if you don't, you die. And when you come up against a well-organized griefer band (and you will), you die anyways. Over and over and over again.
The point is that no matter what you enjoy, it is not only possible, but required, given correct balancing, to include all of the fundamental elements, including both PvP and PvE to create a complete MMOG.
"Required"? Of course not. There is ample proof that it is not in the slightest required that an MMORPG have PvP. "Possible"? Yes. And part of the necessary balancing is restricting PvP in some fashion.
It's not a matter of intolerance on behalf of the PvP proponents. In fact, the intolerance towards PvP amonsgt the PvE obsessors has successfully been demonstrated in this thread. I want to know why it would be SUCH a loss to the PvE obsessors to include open PvP. As I said, PvP proponents never seek to remove PvE as PvE proponents do PvP.
You've been told why open PvP doesn't work. Over and over. You ignore it. You don't want to know it. What you really want is for us to say, "My God, Gabs, you're right! Open PvP *does* work, and it's the only way to go! We must all immediately go and insist that our MMORPGs provide it. Thank you for opening our eyes!"
PvE proponents can go on to perpetuate game after game that is identical, incomplete, and made inconsistent by artificial "bandaid" rules, but I don't consider that a proper persistent MMOG.
Well, the vast majority of MMORPG players disagree with you.
Originally posted by Gabs Sure, by including open PvP you may be allowing people to risk engaging in it at one point, but by removing it completely you confine everyone to ONLY PvE. How is this any more fair than removing PvE completely and confining everyone to PvP? Why the double standard?
No.
If you have a system which allows "consensual" PvP, the PvPers still get to PvP against other people who *want* to PvP -- that's not a system where there is "ONLY PvE", it's a system where the PvP is consensual in the sense that those who do not wish to participate in it are not forced to participate in it. You've set up a false dichotomy: the issue isn't "all PvE" versus "all PvP", but rather, "PvE with consensual PvP" versus "all PvP". If PvP is consensual, it's still there for those who want to PvP, whereas if you make PvP non-consensual it's mandatory for everyone playing the game. A consensual PvP allows PvPers to PvP against other PvPers, but this NEVER SEEMS TO BE GOOD ENOUGH for the PvPers because they specifically want to do things that a consensual PvP system doesn't allow them to do: namely, grief, gank and attack players who don't want to PvP.
Originally posted by Novaseeker Originally posted by Gabs Sure, by including open PvP you may be allowing people to risk engaging in it at one point, but by removing it completely you confine everyone to ONLY PvE. How is this any more fair than removing PvE completely and confining everyone to PvP? Why the double standard?
No.
If you have a system which allows "consensual" PvP, the PvPers still get to PvP against other people who *want* to PvP -- that's not a system where there is "ONLY PvE", it's a system where the PvP is consensual in the sense that those who do not wish to participate in it are not forced to participate in it. You've set up a false dichotomy: the issue isn't "all PvE" versus "all PvP", but rather, "PvE with consensual PvP" versus "all PvP". If PvP is consensual, it's still there for those who want to PvP, whereas if you make PvP non-consensual it's mandatory for everyone playing the game. A consensual PvP allows PvPers to PvP against other PvPers, but this NEVER SEEMS TO BE GOOD ENOUGH for the PvPers because they specifically want to do things that a consensual PvP system doesn't allow them to do: namely, grief, gank and attack players who don't want to PvP.
Well said
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
I know this may not make sense to some of you but that takes away the immersion of the game and allows people again to exploit it. For example let's say that you have a "pvp flag" that can be turned on and off. When you don't want to pvp you turn it off and when you do you turn it on. Now let's say that you piss the hell out of someone by keep killing his mobs, and you know that you're in the wrong. You turn off your pvp flag because you just want to be a jerk. How is this fair? The point of pvp isn't to grief, it's to allow justice and the ability to have a responsibility for one's actions. It often accounts for players playing in a more mature manner simply because of the fact that they know that if they don't... I'll be coming after your ass.
Originally posted by Apocal I know this may not make sense to some of you but that takes away the immersion of the game and allows people again to exploit it. For example let's say that you have a "pvp flag" that can be turned on and off. When you don't want to pvp you turn it off and when you do you turn it on. Now let's say that you piss the hell out of someone by keep killing his mobs, and you know that you're in the wrong. You turn off your pvp flag because you just want to be a jerk. How is this fair?
It's not. But open PvP isn't going to solve the problem. The reality is that now the guy who steals your kills will also have a PK guild behind him. Now he not only steals your mob but kills you, too. And he'll kill you repeatedly if you try to come back and get these mobs again.
The point of pvp isn't to grief, it's to allow justice and the ability to have a responsibility for one's actions.
"The point" is, well, besides the point. The *reality* is that open, no-restriction PvP creates a 24/7 all-grief all-the-time gankfest. Whether you *want* it to or not is irrelevant; the universe does not order itself to your wishes. The *reality* is that that is what has always happened when it is tried. Sometimes (particularly early on, as in UO) it took a while to get there. But it always devolves into that in the end.
It often accounts for players playing in a more mature manner simply because of the fact that they know that if they don't... I'll be coming after your ass.
It would be so nice if it worked that way. But it doesn't.
Originally posted by ChrisMattern Originally posted by Apocal I know this may not make sense to some of you but that takes away the immersion of the game and allows people again to exploit it. For example let's say that you have a "pvp flag" that can be turned on and off. When you don't want to pvp you turn it off and when you do you turn it on. Now let's say that you piss the hell out of someone by keep killing his mobs, and you know that you're in the wrong. You turn off your pvp flag because you just want to be a jerk. How is this fair?
It's not. But open PvP isn't going to solve the problem. The reality is that now the guy who steals your kills will also have a PK guild behind him. Now he not only steals your mob but kills you, too. And he'll kill you repeatedly if you try to come back and get these mobs again.
The point of pvp isn't to grief, it's to allow justice and the ability to have a responsibility for one's actions.
"The point" is, well, besides the point. The *reality* is that open, no-restriction PvP creates a 24/7 all-grief all-the-time gankfest. Whether you *want* it to or not is irrelevant; the universe does not order itself to your wishes. The *reality* is that that is what has always happened when it is tried. Sometimes (particularly early on, as in UO) it took a while to get there. But it always devolves into that in the end.
It often accounts for players playing in a more mature manner simply because of the fact that they know that if they don't... I'll be coming after your ass.
It would be so nice if it worked that way. But it doesn't.
Chris Mattern
If a game were designed that restricted players to 1 character per server and 1 account per player (yeah that'll happen) open, unrestricted, PVP would work. Because griefers could be hunted and would have no way of 'hiding' on an 'alt'. They'd either die to the hoardes of angry victims, or log out of the game. The reason people get away with being rampant pk'ers in games is because, for the most part, they have alts to go hide on.
Now, SOME people who PK are not like that, but the vast majority do.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
"How many characters can I play? Is there one big server or several smaller ones? At this time, we expect to launch ToA with four servers. Each account will be allowed only one character per server."
Originally posted by Apocal Quoted from ToA FAQ: "How many characters can I play? Is there one big server or several smaller ones? At this time, we expect to launch ToA with four servers. Each account will be allowed only one character per server."
Maybe it'll work. I think the odds are stacked against you, but I wish you luck. I am a firm believer in empirical fact: I will believe that open PvP works when somebody makes it work. It is unlikely I will be convinced until I am shown this demonstration.
I find it interesting to see people put the term "fair" into a debate that relates to whether a game should have or shouldn't have PvP.
The answer is simple. A game does have or doesn't have PvP. There is no fair factor involved. If you do not like a game or the style of game, do not play the game.
Everquest is a prime example of a game surviving as a PvE game almost exclusively. They do have consensual PvP, but that does not make or break that game. It is rare on the PvE (aka Carebear) servers you will find people engaged in a duel. The PvP servers often flounder in that game because it wasn't originally balanced for PvP.
There should be no requirement for a developer to include PvP in their vision of a game, and there is no evidence saying a game will fail because it doesn't have it.
People play PvE for the same reason people will play your standard CRPG. You don't need to have someone other than the AI coming in to kick your butt in order to enjoy a game or game design.
There have been very few games with meaningful PvP (AO, DAoC, WoW are a couple). Even Shadowbane, a game made for PvP, doesn't seem to have any other purpose than leapfrog or newbie guild domination. Duels have no real purpose. Just beating someone up with no reason behind it other than beating someone up does not appeal to the majority of the MMO community.
Originally posted by Apocal Quoted from ToA FAQ: "How many characters can I play? Is there one big server or several smaller ones? At this time, we expect to launch ToA with four servers. Each account will be allowed only one character per server."
Interestingly enough Horizons and Dawn were saying similar things when they were still in development. Don't believe Developer FaQs till you see some of the things they promise coming true in Beta.
Don't believe me? Go look at Dawn/Mourning's original concept if you can still find it... it was pretty impressive what they wanted to do . What they accomplished: Nothing comparable.
Same for Horizons: Their original 'plans' look nothing like the finished product.
Like I said... ToA looks great on paper... whether they pull half of what they promise off is an entirely different story. If they do, it may be the game I finally leave SWG for... but I doubt they'll do it. The problem is they gotta have a backer that's willing to take a risk on permadeath and limiting to 1 char per server.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
Comments
Alts: If they run and hide to an alt, the threatenting character is no longer around, so what's the problem? A character should, and CAN only be subject to any kind of justice if they're online anyway. What's the difference between logging out or using an alt? Either way there is no threat and no way to deal with it.
PvP rules: There should be no magical spy camera watching over every player marking down who PKed who, to give everyone reputations. It should be different though if a guard saw it, THEN they'd have an excuse to mark you as notorious, but if you're in a deserted wasteland with nobody else around, you should take responsibility for being there in the first place.
All open PvP proponents being griefers: Nobody is saying they want to be a griefer themselves. We are just saying we enjoy the thrill of playing in a world where anything can happen.
Any penalty should be within the context of the game, such as a guard seeing you and attacking you, or becoming notorious with guards in general and being attacked on sight.
PvP proponents are arguing for open PvP because they want a consistent and logical world, free from any artificial "bandaid" rules, complete with reward AND risk, not because they enjoy annoying people for the sake of it.
Well if you have an open PvE system, it's not fair to those folks who do not wish to PvE. Ever consider someone else's point of view?
Having said that, PvE content is necessary, AS IS PvP: Again, this isn't a matter of PvP vs. PvE. It's a matter of PvE proponents being anti-PvP. PvP proponents never seek to remove PvE as PvE proponents do seek to remove PvP. Sure, by including open PvP you may be allowing people to risk engaging in it at one point, but by removing it completely you confine everyone to ONLY PvE. How is this any more fair than removing PvE completely and confining everyone to PvP? Why the double standard?
Maybe some people think that because I said PvE should be a means to an end and not an end itself, that I'm suggesting that PvP be the end. Well I'm not. I think an end should be defined by the player themselves, and to acheive this a dynamic world is required. That way one person's end could simply be hunting mobs, another's could be PvPing, and another's could be taking over large amounts of land to mine resources for their ingame weapon making business. In a dynamic world with no artificial restrictions, all these things are possible.
Well if you have an open PvE system, it's not fair to those folks who do not wish to PvE. Ever consider someone else's point of view?
---Uh, you said PvE was essential to any MMORPG below. So whats the point of this? If you don't want to do quests and get gear, etc why are you playing these games? There are many games out there that are pure PvP that have no PvE in them at all. So if you play any MMORPG no one is forcing you to PvE, its a major part of the game. That being said, I think PvP should be an integral part of any successful long lasting MMORPG.
Having said that, PvE content is necessary, AS IS PvP: Again, this isn't a matter of PvP vs. PvE. It's a matter of PvE proponents being anti-PvP. PvP proponents never seek to remove PvE as PvE proponents do seek to remove PvP. Sure, by including open PvP you may be allowing people to risk engaging in it at one point, but by removing it completely you confine everyone to ONLY PvE. How is this any more fair than removing PvE completely and confining everyone to PvP? Why the double standard?
---It's simple. A MMORPG can exist without PvP. It would suck in my opinion, but it could exist. A MMORPG cannot exist without PvE. They have games like them, and they aren't called MMORPGs. It's not a double standard. It's the nature of the thing.
Maybe some people think that because I said PvE should be a means to an end and not an end itself, that I'm suggesting that PvP be the end. Well I'm not. I think an end should be defined by the player themselves, and to acheive this a dynamic world is required. That way one person's end could simply be hunting mobs, another's could be PvPing, and another's could be taking over large amounts of land to mine resources for their ingame weapon making business. In a dynamic world with no artificial restrictions, all these things are possible.
---I completely agree with the above paragraph.
All the above comments in RED or with a --- are my takes.
________________________________
Everything born must die. All that is, will come to ruin. This is the essence of Doom. So sayeth the Doomsayer.
I may not have any right to participate in this conversation, as I only read the first page and the last one but.....
Why I play MMOGs for PvE content:
I understand the concept of PvP. I understand the need for it in games because there are many in those games that enjoy it. I don't. The reason is very simple, I'm not a skilled enough player to survive long, or enjoy an open PvP environment.
I play MMOG's for the community, and because I very much enjoy tradeskilling (I didn't think I would) I enjoy building things for other chars to look at/use/whack the baddies with. I played D2, and I was moderately good at it, but it adversely affected my opinion of PvP because of Uber-goons that would eat you, spit out the metal bits, and camp your corpse. I find ZERO enjoyment in that, and if I'm playing a game, I'd like to enjoy it
Also I play with my wife, and she likes big games better than D2, too
Well. there's my 4 cents worth. happy hunting all (whether that be the mobs or your friends)
"We aren't going to ... Period. End of statement."
ya. ok. whatever.
but what do i know, i'm only a vanbois i'm told.
I remember a monster invasion from my MUD days; it wasn't fun because of the actual invasion. Plenty of single player RPGs have scenes of monsters coming into town. It was special because you were fighting alongside real players who shared the same goal, and were experiencing the same story and excitement.
PvE can be fun. It can even be fun in the long run. Devs up to this point, have given NPC mobs half-assed AI, and stale storylines where there is no real threat by the mobs. Everquest style is not the epitomy of sophistication for PvE. As for the "point" to PvE, it's just for fun. Or if your sense of disbelief is good enough, it's to save the world/city/schoolbus of kids, and to experience an adventure much like you do in a book or movie.
Why do I play MMOGs for PvE content?
Sometimes i just love the in game interaction w/ other players. I also love co-op questing with friends...to me, their is nothin better than bashing some drake skulls in guild wars w/ my close friends. I'm not good enough at PvP and dont have enough experience to enjoy it. I just love how MMOG's are set up. I like the trading, and the feeling of making a life in the game w/ something to work for. I have never been a huge PvP fan and I dont think I ever will. So play on yall...if any of you want to join me in guild wars, whisp Relic Klowd or Kodiak Hammermill
Play on my friends...play on.
1- I can group with others, better then in any non-MMO setting.
2- I can ''compete'' friendly with others, trying to do better then they do...and so can they with me.
3- MMOs have more long term focus, if I look for a game with a long term focus, non-MMO are just WAY backward.
I could return the question, why do you hide your L33T PvP skill behind PvE earned edges? A real PvPers will want pure PvP, not earning lame ass edge by killing low AI mobs then having no real PvP challenge.
For me, any game need:
- FUN.
- PvE challenges.
- A way to compare and compete nicely(non-PvP, like racing if you want) with others.
- Ability to play NOW, which neither PvP nor raiding or grouping can assure me, thereby why Solo need to be nice as well...if you make solo lame, you just lost me right away.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
It was just a hypothetical example to demonstrate the double standard that exists when PvEers accuse PvP proponents of being selfish. Not everything I say is necessarily my opinion. I'm trying to be objective here.
I disagree. An MMORPG that has the inability to attack non players would survive just the same as one with the inability to attack players. Would either be realistic, or complete? No.
I especially want to reemphasise the following paragraph:
Maybe some people think that because I said PvE should be a means to an end and not an end itself, that I'm suggesting that PvP be the end. Well I'm not. I think an end should be defined by the player themselves, and to acheive this a dynamic world is required. That way one person's end could simply be hunting mobs, another's could be PvPing, and another's could be taking over large amounts of land to mine resources for their ingame weapon making business. In a dynamic world with no artificial restrictions, all these things are possible.
The point is that no matter what you enjoy, it is not only possible, but required, given correct balancing, to include all of the fundamental elements, including both PvP and PvE to create a complete MMOG.
It's not a matter of intolerance on behalf of the PvP proponents. In fact, the intolerance towards PvP amonsgt the PvE obsessors has successfully been demonstrated in this thread. I want to know why it would be SUCH a loss to the PvE obsessors to include open PvP. As I said, PvP proponents never seek to remove PvE as PvE proponents do PvP.
PvE proponents can go on to perpetuate game after game that is identical, incomplete, and made inconsistent by artificial "bandaid" rules, but I don't consider that a proper persistent MMOG.
LOL! man... the awnser to your question is quite simple. pvper's can and do interupt "grief" some people's playing time. since when has a pve'er interupted a pvper's playing time? thats exactly why they complain about pvpers. going with your twisted logic is like saying " oh.. this is a smoking section could you please not eat while i smoke?" well maybe not quite the same but you see where im going with this dont you? also u said pvp content is necissary? since when? lol pve content is however or there would be no way to progress. again i am a pvper and i do see where your comming from on alot of your points but im sorry to say but there are more people that like to just pve (some that might like to pvp a little) that the hardcore pvper like you and me. i dont see what the big deal is anyways.... people that want to play a hardcore pvp game will and people that dont want to pvp wont play it. its just like a few other people said... if you wanna play a game with just pvp no pve content there are plenty of fps games out there to chose from
read this http://www.vanguardsoh.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1044304#post1044304 then come back and talk to me about the vanguard/soe fiasco.....
They haven't, but the mobs sure have.
And once again, I am not against PvE.
They haven't, but the mobs sure have.
And once again, I am not against PvE.
well i do understand that, i dont know how you feel about WOW but in the WSG battlegrounds there no mobs to get in the way
read this http://www.vanguardsoh.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1044304#post1044304 then come back and talk to me about the vanguard/soe fiasco.....
BundyTheRipper
I'm pro for both. more for PvE but PvP has it's place. when I'm challeged and killed during PvP it just makes me adjust my character for future PvP to get my revenge
and it helps if in a game where pickpocketing is present to swip a few items from the guy who killed you before...hmm sux that you don't have those heal pots or your missing your weap...lol
I disagree. An MMORPG that has the inability to attack non players would survive just the same as one with the inability to attack players. Would either be realistic, or complete? No.
_______________________________________________________________
--- I guess its possible. Players could only get exp from killing players. All gear could be crafted gear or store bought from merchants instead of drops. Not sure how money would be generated. Maybe crafting stuff or collecting materials and selling to vendors. But, questing and storyline would be hard pressed to have any depth whatsoever. Only quests like go kill X amounts of other players. So in the end I don't think it would have any lasting playability. But, its an interesting concept. Still I don't think it would hold my attention for long.
I think the market has proven that PvE is more important to the development and longetivity of a game than PvP is. So I think it should be given more emphasis. But both are required to make a game truly great. But I stand by my opinion that OPEN PvP without serious repercusions is detrimental to any MMORPG. Not from a purely game point of view, but that of the players. People in that community don't have the ability to be responsible enough not to have it turn into a grief-fest.
I don't see where PvEers have gone on some sorta quest to end all PvP in games. I am a PvPer and I don't feel targeted in any way. To me it always seems like the PvP crowd is the one starting things with posts like your original one and derogetory name calling like "carebear". If you think so or not, thats exactly what it is.
________________________________
Everything born must die. All that is, will come to ruin. This is the essence of Doom. So sayeth the Doomsayer.
Unfortunately, reality disagrees with you. There's 600,000 people (including me) who play FFXI and think there's nothing terribly bad about an MMORPG with essentially no PvP (Ballista is great fun, but it's a side game, not really part of the main MMORPG--and it wasn't even part of the initial release). Nobody I'm aware of plays an MMORPG with no PvE; if they do, it's not in any significant numbers.
No, they're not. In FFA PvP, you play PvP. All the time. Because if you don't, you die. And when you come up against a well-organized griefer band (and you will), you die anyways. Over and over and over again.
"Required"? Of course not. There is ample proof that it is not in the slightest required that an MMORPG have PvP. "Possible"? Yes. And part of the necessary balancing is restricting PvP in some fashion.
You've been told why open PvP doesn't work. Over and over. You ignore it. You don't want to know it. What you really want is for us to say, "My God, Gabs, you're right! Open PvP *does* work, and it's the only way to go! We must all immediately go and insist that our MMORPGs provide it. Thank you for opening our eyes!"
Well, the vast majority of MMORPG players disagree with you.
Chris Mattern
No.
If you have a system which allows "consensual" PvP, the PvPers still get to PvP against other people who *want* to PvP -- that's not a system where there is "ONLY PvE", it's a system where the PvP is consensual in the sense that those who do not wish to participate in it are not forced to participate in it. You've set up a false dichotomy: the issue isn't "all PvE" versus "all PvP", but rather, "PvE with consensual PvP" versus "all PvP". If PvP is consensual, it's still there for those who want to PvP, whereas if you make PvP non-consensual it's mandatory for everyone playing the game. A consensual PvP allows PvPers to PvP against other PvPers, but this NEVER SEEMS TO BE GOOD ENOUGH for the PvPers because they specifically want to do things that a consensual PvP system doesn't allow them to do: namely, grief, gank and attack players who don't want to PvP.
No.
If you have a system which allows "consensual" PvP, the PvPers still get to PvP against other people who *want* to PvP -- that's not a system where there is "ONLY PvE", it's a system where the PvP is consensual in the sense that those who do not wish to participate in it are not forced to participate in it. You've set up a false dichotomy: the issue isn't "all PvE" versus "all PvP", but rather, "PvE with consensual PvP" versus "all PvP". If PvP is consensual, it's still there for those who want to PvP, whereas if you make PvP non-consensual it's mandatory for everyone playing the game. A consensual PvP allows PvPers to PvP against other PvPers, but this NEVER SEEMS TO BE GOOD ENOUGH for the PvPers because they specifically want to do things that a consensual PvP system doesn't allow them to do: namely, grief, gank and attack players who don't want to PvP.
Well said
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
I know this may not make sense to some of you but that takes away the immersion of the game and allows people again to exploit it. For example let's say that you have a "pvp flag" that can be turned on and off. When you don't want to pvp you turn it off and when you do you turn it on. Now let's say that you piss the hell out of someone by keep killing his mobs, and you know that you're in the wrong. You turn off your pvp flag because you just want to be a jerk. How is this fair? The point of pvp isn't to grief, it's to allow justice and the ability to have a responsibility for one's actions. It often accounts for players playing in a more mature manner simply because of the fact that they know that if they don't... I'll be coming after your ass.
It's not. But open PvP isn't going to solve the problem. The reality is that now the guy who steals your kills will also have a PK guild behind him. Now he not only steals your mob but kills you, too. And he'll kill you repeatedly if you try to come back and get these mobs again.
"The point" is, well, besides the point. The *reality* is that open, no-restriction PvP creates a 24/7 all-grief all-the-time gankfest. Whether you *want* it to or not is irrelevant; the universe does not order itself to your wishes. The *reality* is that that is what has always happened when it is tried. Sometimes (particularly early on, as in UO) it took a while to get there. But it always devolves into that in the end.
It would be so nice if it worked that way. But it doesn't.
Chris Mattern
It's not. But open PvP isn't going to solve the problem. The reality is that now the guy who steals your kills will also have a PK guild behind him. Now he not only steals your mob but kills you, too. And he'll kill you repeatedly if you try to come back and get these mobs again.
"The point" is, well, besides the point. The *reality* is that open, no-restriction PvP creates a 24/7 all-grief all-the-time gankfest. Whether you *want* it to or not is irrelevant; the universe does not order itself to your wishes. The *reality* is that that is what has always happened when it is tried. Sometimes (particularly early on, as in UO) it took a while to get there. But it always devolves into that in the end.
It would be so nice if it worked that way. But it doesn't.
Chris Mattern
If a game were designed that restricted players to 1 character per server and 1 account per player (yeah that'll happen) open, unrestricted, PVP would work. Because griefers could be hunted and would have no way of 'hiding' on an 'alt'. They'd either die to the hoardes of angry victims, or log out of the game. The reason people get away with being rampant pk'ers in games is because, for the most part, they have alts to go hide on.
Now, SOME people who PK are not like that, but the vast majority do.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
Quoted from ToA FAQ:
"How many characters can I play? Is there one big server or several smaller ones?
At this time, we expect to launch ToA with four servers. Each account will be allowed only one character per server."
Maybe it'll work. I think the odds are stacked against you, but I wish you luck. I am a firm believer in empirical fact: I will believe that open PvP works when somebody makes it work. It is unlikely I will be convinced until I am shown this demonstration.
Chris Mattern
I find it interesting to see people put the term "fair" into a debate that relates to whether a game should have or shouldn't have PvP.
The answer is simple. A game does have or doesn't have PvP. There is no fair factor involved. If you do not like a game or the style of game, do not play the game.
Everquest is a prime example of a game surviving as a PvE game almost exclusively. They do have consensual PvP, but that does not make or break that game. It is rare on the PvE (aka Carebear) servers you will find people engaged in a duel. The PvP servers often flounder in that game because it wasn't originally balanced for PvP.
There should be no requirement for a developer to include PvP in their vision of a game, and there is no evidence saying a game will fail because it doesn't have it.
People play PvE for the same reason people will play your standard CRPG. You don't need to have someone other than the AI coming in to kick your butt in order to enjoy a game or game design.
There have been very few games with meaningful PvP (AO, DAoC, WoW are a couple). Even Shadowbane, a game made for PvP, doesn't seem to have any other purpose than leapfrog or newbie guild domination. Duels have no real purpose. Just beating someone up with no reason behind it other than beating someone up does not appeal to the majority of the MMO community.
Just my .02
Fadinaway
Playerbase Solutions
http://www.playerbasesolutions.com
Interestingly enough Horizons and Dawn were saying similar things when they were still in development. Don't believe Developer FaQs till you see some of the things they promise coming true in Beta.
Don't believe me?
Go look at Dawn/Mourning's original concept if you can still find it... it was pretty impressive what they wanted to do . What they accomplished: Nothing comparable.
Same for Horizons: Their original 'plans' look nothing like the finished product.
Like I said... ToA looks great on paper... whether they pull half of what they promise off is an entirely different story. If they do, it may be the game I finally leave SWG for... but I doubt they'll do it. The problem is they gotta have a backer that's willing to take a risk on permadeath and limiting to 1 char per server.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas