Well first of all your complaint shouldn't be with the pve players ,it shoudl be with Blizzard and yourself.
One Blizzard can't design a good pvp map if setup/skills become redundant also the lack of a good skillset would come to mind as well.
Secondl;y,why are you lookign for SERIOUS pvp in a rpg,they offer NOTHING to serious pvp.
I play deathmatch in games like UT or Quake for serious pvp.I can tell you right away thta no matter how many times i play a map ,there is not set pattern of skills,you adjust to how yoru oppoenent plays.Yes i tend to use a similiar strat all the time,but i also win like 90% of may games.If a player comes along with a superior latency or is just really good,then i make adjustments,a GOOD map does not dictate how i play,only poorly designed ones do.
RPG's are so lopsided in their entire design,it is near impossible to build a stretegic type pvp and devs really don't care.They just add in pvp to get more subscriptions,then make subtle changes here and there to keep them happy.
A RPG is "SUPPOSE" to be your playground to play out your role as whatever character you chose,it is not suppose to be a playground where any tom dick or harry can waltz by and try to ruin your role playing expreience.
FPS's =pvp
rpg's =role playing
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Epeen or gear or titles are not the central focus. Competition is. Making the right decision (strategy/tactics) and executing it (twitch.)
It's about mechanical gameplay -- which is to say it's about gameplay. Nothing is "safe" about a game purely decision by player skill and teamwork though -- make bad decisions, you lose; make good ones, you win.
"Safe" would be a game where you can amass a fortune, buy an advantage, bring more friends, and win PVP without risk. The fights are lopsided and dull in such games, which is the primary reason they're unpopular. No amount of rationalizing your own opinion to others is gonna change the fact that most people don't want that kind of gameplay.
I'd argue that "most recent games that have tried it have failed" is a pretty obvious indicator that there isn't a "huge" niche audience for it.
The thing is, the games that have had it work "correctly" are still being paid for and are old than WoW.
The ones that it didn't work did one thing wrong ---> TOO MUCH FREEDOM.
I don't think you've played any good PvP games. There's way more Depth in open world pvp than "Tourney PvP". I've been in numerous fights outnumbered and still come out on top because skill mattered. The OP isn't saying that there shouldn't be "Tourney PvP", he's saying that PvP servers are a joke because they are just PvE servers with the flagging system on at all times. Real PvP in mmorpgs = risk, reward, depth. The only thing you risk in a "Tourney" is losing the fight... the only thing you gain is winning the fight (yeah you might get some points and whatnot but that's pretty...shallow). "Real PvP" mmorpgs have more at stake than just losing the fight or winning the fight. The main draw to "Real PvP" mmorpgs is that it's PvP but on a MASSIVE SCALE. It takes a larger amount of leadership charisma to lead attacks on massive scales. You don't get that on your "Tourney" games.
There's a difference between "realistic mmorpg PvP"... and "Tourney PvP" that you can get in pretty much every console game. You can't get the former anywhere else, but in mmos. MMOs are selling themselves short. While more people play in general, less people are actually interacting.
If you made a good open pvp game you could get a great amount of players, but for that you'll have to have a 1) well known IP/ developers and 2) Polished game.
The niche is pretty big it just isn't bigger than those who just want a shallow game.
It's not the fault of PvEers, it's the fault of softcore PvPers.
This.
As a PvE'er I dont give a shit what goes on with pvp. If a game requires pvp, I dont bother with it. Its pvpers that get pissy about everything easily and are more vocal, so devs listen to them.
Two tyrants are destroying the PvP Servers: PvE Players and Incentive.
PvE Players: You guys and your damn yearning for "safe" PvP. Your cries have been answered. The result? Instanced and optional PvP mini-games, e.g., 8v8 team death-match, capture the flag, control points, take the hill, hutt-ball, and kick the can. I normally wouldn't mind, as PvE'rs should have a choice. HOWEVER, your bs axioms have spread to my PvP Servers. Innovation is lost; Battlegrounds, Arenas, and Warzones now reside as the dominant form of PvP on both server types.
Incentive: Battlegrounds, Arenas, and Warzones are limited. Normally, there are about 5-6 different instances that are solely dedicated to structured PvP. This becomes mind-numbingly redundant. Strategies are learned by all within 1 month. The match becomes a rinse and repeat type thing... over and over and over and over again. There is nothing "massive" about it.
So why do people do it on the PvP Servers? The PvP GEAR. The devs simply toss in a few cool looking duds, place an insanely high kill-point price, and watch the masses conform to the simple rules of kindergarten PvP.
THE FIX?
Either remove Instanced PvP from PvP Servers OR remove incentive from the Instanced PvP Games via PvP Server.
Agreed in a general sense.
I think the problem is actually deeper than that. The irrational and unfailing love most players have for pixels. It's a game. You won't really die.
It's not the fault of PvEers, it's the fault of softcore PvPers.
This.
As a PvE'er I dont give a shit what goes on with pvp. If a game requires pvp, I dont bother with it. Its pvpers that get pissy about everything easily and are more vocal, so devs listen to them.
No....
He's saying that PvE players are effecting the PvP server ruleset. Developers aren't making rulesets that give risk, reward, and consequence. They just make rulesets that allow players to kill freely by telling the server to remove Flagging limitations and that's all. You being a PvE'er shouldn't have to feel threatened by a PvP server if it's done correctly and you play in it.
The fact is that even WoW's PvP server isn't done correctly... they just slapped PvP in front of the server name so that it'd entice the players who want to PvP in a risky setting, but it turns out that it's just as meaningless on the grand scheme of things as "Tourney/ Instanced PvP" in a massively multiplayer online rpg.
The lack of depth in PvP in general is what the OP is angry about.
Two tyrants are destroying the PvP Servers: PvE Players and Incentive
PvE Players: You guys and your damn yearning for "safe" PvP.
/shrug... optional PvP is the preference of the majority. That's just the reality and ranting on forums won't change it.
People want optional PvP for a reason... because they don't want to spend their leisure time being farmed by nb mvcmvfgjfgj being farmed by gankers with low self esteem issues 20 levels or whatever above them.
Why do optional PvPers want what they want? Because the hardcore have played with selfish abandon for years.The same hardcore that now moan about reaping the crop they themselves have planted.
Maybe if some of you 'hardcore' guys were more interested in building communities then destroying them more folks would play them and stick around and you would have more games to play, because the populations in the existing games/ servers would warrant them.
I'm just the type that believes more in 'honorable' or more 'fair' battles then having people just jump me that even if they had the iq of a pee could achieve a victory and then proceed to grief me out of some pathetic sense of 'forfillment'. I feel these people are a huge reason why people feel so bitter to world pvp and its becoming less and less 'desired for'. Sorry to say, but your own people are killing the brand.
This is the point. I'm a current Darkfall player and I love open world pvp.
These people who gank players of much lower level/strength -- repeatedly and for no tactical or strategic purpose other than to have fun ruining another person's experience -- are the problem. Because of these people, pvp is restricted.
In Darkfall, there are griefers, but those players and clans are known and avoided and sometimes dealt with by player protectors. Griefers don't have respect on the server and become a kind of sad joke to the rest of the community. Established players move on and are with their clans. If new players can survive the griefing, they get stronger eventually and come back and kill these guys until they get it out of their system. Then the griefers can be looted and camped, if desired. Those are the consequences. It's a kind of eco-system of a full loot free-for-all pvp game.
It's not perfect. I don't know what is perfect in any game. There could be a way to make alignment more meaningful and provide a place for pve-er/crafter types to create a better economy, etc., but for the time being, this is what we have.
For me, this is better than sanitized pvp and tab-targeting on offer in most games now. So there may be pvp alternatives for you and if you know what you're getting into, OP.
What if the reason for PvP servers dying is simply because increasing amount of people that suck?
Fixed that, people dont like competitive multiplayer. Co-op modes are becoming the standard in all games, PvP mods in shooters and RTS are getting much less attention during development than co-op. Most people are bad at games and dont want to be farmed by the people are who are good at games.
Currently playing:
EVE online (Ruining low sec one hotdrop at a time)
Gravity Rush, Dishonoured: The Knife of Dunwall.
(Waiting for) Metro: Last Light, Company of Heroes II.
The thing is, the games that have had it work "correctly" are still being paid for and are old than WoW.
I don't think you've played any good PvP games.
I've played plenty of good PVP games. No World PVP game approached anything resembling good PVP.
My dislike of world PVP stems from the same underlying reasons as why everyone else (except the tiny niche) dislikes it, mostly revolving around the importance of player choice and frequency of actual PVP. No amount of "I like world PVP because of traits X and Y" will change the opinions of the majority or myself, because we simply don't value those elements (and in many cases consider them detractors.)
Solitary examples of "beating the odds" are irrelevant, as the overwhelming majority of fights don't pan out that way. Simple logic tells us that a 5v5 fight more consistently has good, close battles than a 5v10 fight. The epic wins in True PVP games just happen to be 5v5s against really goddamn hard opponents, rather than the 5 beating the 10.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Two tyrants are destroying the PvP Servers: PvE Players and Incentive.
PvE Players: You guys and your damn yearning for "safe" PvP. Your cries have been answered. The result? Instanced and optional PvP mini-games, e.g., 8v8 team death-match, capture the flag, control points, take the hill, hutt-ball, and kick the can. I normally wouldn't mind, as PvE'rs should have a choice. HOWEVER, your bs axioms have spread to my PvP Servers. Innovation is lost; Battlegrounds, Arenas, and Warzones now reside as the dominant form of PvP on both server types.
Incentive: Battlegrounds, Arenas, and Warzones are limited. Normally, there are about 5-6 different instances that are solely dedicated to structured PvP. This becomes mind-numbingly redundant. Strategies are learned by all within 1 month. The match becomes a rinse and repeat type thing... over and over and over and over again. There is nothing "massive" about it.
So why do people do it on the PvP Servers? The PvP GEAR. The devs simply toss in a few cool looking duds, place an insanely high kill-point price, and watch the masses conform to the simple rules of kindergarten PvP.
THE FIX?
Either remove Instanced PvP from PvP Servers OR remove incentive from the Instanced PvP Games via PvP Server.
I think you're confused, first PVE players are PVE players, what do they care about PVP? Second, incentive isn't the issue that causes this, it's the e-sport mentality dominating gaming in this day and age. WIthout the e-sport idea that teams should be fair and balanced warzones wouldn't be so popular. There's not much more to it than that.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Epeen or gear or titles are not the central focus. Competition is. Making the right decision (strategy/tactics) and executing it (twitch.)
It's about mechanical gameplay -- which is to say it's about gameplay. Nothing is "safe" about a game purely decision by player skill and teamwork though -- make bad decisions, you lose; make good ones, you win.
"Safe" would be a game where you can amass a fortune, buy an advantage, bring more friends, and win PVP without risk. The fights are lopsided and dull in such games, which is the primary reason they're unpopular. No amount of rationalizing your own opinion to others is gonna change the fact that most people don't want that kind of gameplay.
I'd argue that "most recent games that have tried it have failed" is a pretty obvious indicator that there isn't a "huge" niche audience for it.
you seem to have entierly missed my point, or perhaps you're just lacking in experience when it comes to open world PvP games. it sure looks that way.
anyway, I'll say it once again, just to be clear: the recent FFA games failed NOT because they went for FFA - interest was huge both for Darkfall and Mortal - but because they failed to deliver on so many aspects (lack of content, bugs, exploits, countless other shortcomings that had nothing to do with FFA). AV even had to restrict server access when Darkfall launched; does that indicate a lack of interest for this type of game perhaps?
Darkfall and Mortal failed because they were made by small, indie companies that tried to do too much with limited resources and experience. FFA PvP will always be a niche, but it's not as small a niche as people seem to think.
as for your other opinions: yes PvP without risk is safe PvP. if you risk nothing, losses are meaningless, as are wins - you just respawn, queue up again, and that's it.
that's why it's only about e-peen and bragging rights; since there's nothing else at stake, what's there to fight about except the right to say "I won"?
by the way: your "the majority is always right" style of logic doesn't fly.
are you saying that only the most popular cultural phenomenons deserve to exist, and that niche audiences are essentially wrong? that WoW is the best game out there, that McDonald's offers the best food on the market, and that Hollywood blockbusters define what cinema is all about?
if you are not, please refrain from arguing that popularity is a measure of quality in any way whatsoever.
Originally posted by Biskop Originally posted by Axehilt Epeen or gear or titles are not the central focus. Competition is. Making the right decision (strategy/tactics) and executing it (twitch.) It's about mechanical gameplay -- which is to say it's about gameplay. Nothing is "safe" about a game purely decision by player skill and teamwork though -- make bad decisions, you lose; make good ones, you win. "Safe" would be a game where you can amass a fortune, buy an advantage, bring more friends, and win PVP without risk. The fights are lopsided and dull in such games, which is the primary reason they're unpopular. No amount of rationalizing your own opinion to others is gonna change the fact that most people don't want that kind of gameplay. I'd argue that "most recent games that have tried it have failed" is a pretty obvious indicator that there isn't a "huge" niche audience for it.
you seem to have entierly missed my point, or perhaps you're just lacking in experience when it comes to open world PvP games. it sure looks that way. anyway, I'll say it once again, just to be clear: the recent FFA games failed NOT because they went for FFA - interest was huge both for Darkfall and Mortal - but because they failed to deliver on so many aspects (lack of content, bugs, exploits, countless other shortcomings that had nothing to do with FFA). AV even had to restrict server access when Darkfall launched; does that indicate a lack of interest for this type of game perhaps? Darkfall and Mortal failed because they were made by small, indie companies that tried to do too much with limited resources and experience. FFA PvP will always be a niche, but it's not as small a niche as people seem to think. as for your other opinions: yes PvP without risk is safe PvP. if you risk nothing, losses are meaningless, as are wins - you just respawn, queue up again, and that's it. that's why it's only about e-peen and bragging rights; since there's nothing else at stake, what's there to fight about except the right to say "I won"?
by the way: your "the majority is always right" style of logic doesn't fly. are you saying that only the most popular cultural phenomenons deserve to exist, and that niche audiences are essentially wrong? that WoW is the best game out there, that McDonald's offers the best food on the market, and that Hollywood blockbusters define what cinema is all about? if you are not, please refrain from arguing that popularity is a measure of quality in any way whatsoever.
Popularity is a measure of quality. It's not the only measure of quality, but it's certainly one of them. When the people who want to play FFA PvP games measure in at less than 5% of the market, it should tell you something. When the people who actually engage in FFA PvP measure in at 2% of the market or less then that should be screaming something at you. Either (a) there's a very, very tiny audience for FFA PvP games or that (b) they're cr@p.
Mortal Online fits squarely in the cr@p category. Darkfall I don't think is cr@p...but even FFA PvP people seem to find a lot of the mechanics a drag. Eve is by far the best quality with the biggest population of FFA PvP players...but most of the people who play Eve do not engage in the actual PvP. Thousands of people do to be sure, sometimes all at once, but most of the population putters around in safe space. I'm pretty sure the most likely option is (a), there is a tiny, tiny audience for FFA PvP games, with the caveat that it would be a bigger audience if there were more games available that were better developed.
In any event, you're totally right about Mortal Online and Darkfall. PvE popularity hasn't hurt FFA PvP games or even Open World PvP. The FFA PvP games that have been released have hurt PvP MMORPG. This is followed closely by PvP people with no real outlet for MMORPG PvP running around complaining about it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
i think they should also make PvP gear ONLY usable in PvP
Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. Lao-Tze
It's not the fault of PvEers, it's the fault of softcore PvPers.
This.
As a PvE'er I dont give a shit what goes on with pvp. If a game requires pvp, I dont bother with it. Its pvpers that get pissy about everything easily and are more vocal, so devs listen to them.
No....
He's saying that PvE players are effecting the PvP server ruleset. Developers aren't making rulesets that give risk, reward, and consequence. They just make rulesets that allow players to kill freely by telling the server to remove Flagging limitations and that's all. You being a PvE'er shouldn't have to feel threatened by a PvP server if it's done correctly and you play in it.
The fact is that even WoW's PvP server isn't done correctly... they just slapped PvP in front of the server name so that it'd entice the players who want to PvP in a risky setting, but it turns out that it's just as meaningless on the grand scheme of things as "Tourney/ Instanced PvP" in a massively multiplayer online rpg.
The lack of depth in PvP in general is what the OP is angry about.
You and others are lumping PvErs together with being against hardcore PvP. This is wrong.
Enjoying PvE doesn't mean a player can't also like hardcore PvP. In fact, there's a lot of players that like hardcore PvP, but they also like hardcore PvE as well. Liking one does not preclude liking the other.
The problem is the players who want softcore PvP. They want access to PvP, but they want it on their own terms. They like the option of attacking other players, but they don't like consequence if they die. They want to be able to jump in and out of PvP on a whim, hence why things like battlegrounds are so popular.
Again, blame the players that are softcore PvPers, because they're the ones weighing your PvP down. There's more than enough choice in MMO these days that the gamers who only enjoy PvE stay the hell away from PvP oriented MMOs and server rulesets.
As I stated in a previous post, PvE is suffering similarly from softcore gamers complaining that content should be easier, have less consequence for failure, and be able to jump in and out whenever they want. It's a problem with casual gamers in general, so stop blaming PvErs as a whole.
I think you're confused, first PVE players are PVE players, what do they care about PVP? Second, incentive isn't the issue that causes this, it's the e-sport mentality dominating gaming in this day and age. WIthout the e-sport idea that teams should be fair and balanced warzones wouldn't be so popular. There's not much more to it than that.
"In this day and age"? In what age *didn't* it dominate? Look back through the history of every game humans have ever conceived to entertain themselves through competition -- from Go to Chess to Street Fighter 2 to CoD to LoL -- and you'll see a clear pattern of instanced PVP. Call it "e-sport" if you want, but it's the same balanced PVP as it's always been through every age.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Two tyrants are destroying the PvP Servers: PvE Players and Incentive.
PvE Players: You guys and your damn yearning for "safe" PvP. Your cries have been answered. The result? Instanced and optional PvP mini-games, e.g., 8v8 team death-match, capture the flag, control points, take the hill, hutt-ball, and kick the can. I normally wouldn't mind, as PvE'rs should have a choice. HOWEVER, your bs axioms have spread to my PvP Servers. Innovation is lost; Battlegrounds, Arenas, and Warzones now reside as the dominant form of PvP on both server types.
Incentive: Battlegrounds, Arenas, and Warzones are limited. Normally, there are about 5-6 different instances that are solely dedicated to structured PvP. This becomes mind-numbingly redundant. Strategies are learned by all within 1 month. The match becomes a rinse and repeat type thing... over and over and over and over again. There is nothing "massive" about it.
So why do people do it on the PvP Servers? The PvP GEAR. The devs simply toss in a few cool looking duds, place an insanely high kill-point price, and watch the masses conform to the simple rules of kindergarten PvP.
THE FIX?
Either remove Instanced PvP from PvP Servers OR remove incentive from the Instanced PvP Games via PvP Server.
I think you're confused, first PVE players are PVE players, what do they care about PVP? Second, incentive isn't the issue that causes this, it's the e-sport mentality dominating gaming in this day and age. WIthout the e-sport idea that teams should be fair and balanced warzones wouldn't be so popular. There's not much more to it than that.
Because of E-Sport?
lol.
I like World PvP because of the following:
#1. The thought of espionage, e.g., sneaking past the epic NPC guards of the city and creeping along the alley ways.
#2. The thrill of the hunt. The thrill of being hunted.
#3. Improvising and adapting. If I'm leveling in hostile territory, I always have an escape route planned should any PvP group come my way.
#4. The element of surprise - something that is 100% void in instanced pvp.
you seem to have entierly missed my point, or perhaps you're just lacking in experience when it comes to open world PvP games. it sure looks that way.
anyway, I'll say it once again, just to be clear: the recent FFA games failed NOT because they went for FFA - interest was huge both for Darkfall and Mortal - but because they failed to deliver on so many aspects (lack of content, bugs, exploits, countless other shortcomings that had nothing to do with FFA). AV even had to restrict server access when Darkfall launched; does that indicate a lack of interest for this type of game perhaps?
Darkfall and Mortal failed because they were made by small, indie companies that tried to do too much with limited resources and experience. FFA PvP will always be a niche, but it's not as small a niche as people seem to think.
as for your other opinions: yes PvP without risk is safe PvP. if you risk nothing, losses are meaningless, as are wins - you just respawn, queue up again, and that's it.
that's why it's only about e-peen and bragging rights; since there's nothing else at stake, what's there to fight about except the right to say "I won"?
by the way: your "the majority is always right" style of logic doesn't fly.
are you saying that only the most popular cultural phenomenons deserve to exist, and that niche audiences are essentially wrong? that WoW is the best game out there, that McDonald's offers the best food on the market, and that Hollywood blockbusters define what cinema is all about?
if you are not, please refrain from arguing that popularity is a measure of quality in any way whatsoever.
1. If every restaurant cost the same and McD's still sold the best, it could be considered the best restaurant.
Every MMORPG does cost the same (except the free ones) and WOW outsells them by a huge margin.
2. This isn't about right or wrong. It's merely fact-stating about what people like. You can't claim someone's opinion is "wrong".
3. I lied, you can call someone's opinion wrong: and I'm calling your opinion wrong when you say a world PVP game "done right" would sell equal to an instanced PVP game done right. The traits that make something world PVP just aren't what competitive players are looking for.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Two tyrants are destroying the PvP Servers: PvE Players and Incentive.
PvE Players: You guys and your damn yearning for "safe" PvP. Your cries have been answered. The result? Instanced and optional PvP mini-games, e.g., 8v8 team death-match, capture the flag, control points, take the hill, hutt-ball, and kick the can. I normally wouldn't mind, as PvE'rs should have a choice. HOWEVER, your bs axioms have spread to my PvP Servers. Innovation is lost; Battlegrounds, Arenas, and Warzones now reside as the dominant form of PvP on both server types.
Incentive: Battlegrounds, Arenas, and Warzones are limited. Normally, there are about 5-6 different instances that are solely dedicated to structured PvP. This becomes mind-numbingly redundant. Strategies are learned by all within 1 month. The match becomes a rinse and repeat type thing... over and over and over and over again. There is nothing "massive" about it.
So why do people do it on the PvP Servers? The PvP GEAR. The devs simply toss in a few cool looking duds, place an insanely high kill-point price, and watch the masses conform to the simple rules of kindergarten PvP.
THE FIX?
Either remove Instanced PvP from PvP Servers OR remove incentive from the Instanced PvP Games via PvP Server.
The only thing "destroying" open-world PvP servers is the fact that most players will opt for structured competition (with shiny rewards and combat ladders) rather than random encounters.
You answered it! if they took the grind out of the BZ's and put the drops in game other than grinding out said gear, this would opt open world more.
If these BG's, warzones and arena's were not used by the majority of the players, they would go away, instead of becoming more popular.
this was covered above! I personally think its brain numbing to have to do 10000000000 BZ's ect to get better PVP gear, i mean how boring, YAY! I won my 10000000000 BZ match now all i have to do is run to the pvp vendor and get my new gear.... BORING....
People are either too lazy (or don't want to spend the time) to roam the open world looking for a fight. They want to login and join the BG queue and get their fight delivered on schedule.
You forgot a sentance.--->So they can get there gear!. If you take the bling out of these BZ's ect. I guarentee BG's BZ's will be alot less popular.
Fixed. (note this is just humor, I apologise if it's taken seriously)
On a more serious note, you know a few of those points were just repeats? 2,3, and 4 could have all ben rolled into one point, not including that 1 is a subset of that point.
So point here being you only listed two points.
Other point is world PvP can certainly be fun, but like reality people need their wanton destruction tempered with repercussions that are generally lacking. That lack of overarching ability to stop players from getting out of hand and causing the game to effectively being unplayable by others is the main deterrent most people have from world or ffa PvP.
It's never going to be popular majority because the reasons some love it are the very reasons many hate it more or less.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I'm a PvE player on most MMO's, and I agree with the Original Poster.
Blizzard (as an example) with Warcraft told their players that the best pvp rewards could only ever come from controlled PvP environments - battlegrounds and especially their craptastic arenas.
Too many companies followed suit.
If an MMO is to have both PvE servers as well as PvP servers, one thing MUST be kept in mind for the devs.
PvP players come to a PvP server for OPEN WORLD PVP. End of story. Either that form of PvP is provided for and ENCOURAGED, or it's a complete god forsaken waste of time for those players seeking that kind of server.
There's not too much to argue about here involving the situation.
The thing is, the games that have had it work "correctly" are still being paid for and are old than WoW.
I don't think you've played any good PvP games.
I've played plenty of good PVP games. No World PVP game approached anything resembling good PVP.
My dislike of world PVP stems from the same underlying reasons as why everyone else (except the tiny niche) dislikes it, mostly revolving around the importance of player choice and frequency of actual PVP. No amount of "I like world PVP because of traits X and Y" will change the opinions of the majority or myself, because we simply don't value those elements (and in many cases consider them detractors.)
Solitary examples of "beating the odds" are irrelevant, as the overwhelming majority of fights don't pan out that way. Simple logic tells us that a 5v5 fight more consistently has good, close battles than a 5v10 fight. The epic wins in True PVP games just happen to be 5v5s against really goddamn hard opponents, rather than the 5 beating the 10.
I remember the day, when our guild got beat with similar odds 10-5, we just regrouped and added a few numbers and went back and beat them. this was exciting IMO. I never really got butt hurt over a gank here and there, its a game.. I personally think that most gamers want to be the best (and thats ok) but there is always someone out there better, and to me that makes a challenge, thus making me a better gamer. As far as the ganking it happens, just avoid it if possible. If you keep running back to an area being covered by a griefer then well hate to say it your a fool. I do belive that there should be a stiff penalty on persons who gank lowbies. Anyway BZ's and all the other instanced PVP is way too structured for me.
Wehn WoW was initially released, how many people remember the fact that there was a constant rampage of open wrld PvP between people to take capitols and hold quest zones of eachother's factions?
It was normal to see at least a vew dozen enemy players even in lowbie zones fighting one another at major hubs.
Then the honor system was implemented. And you know what Blizzard found out about PvP? People love gettign rewards for all that killing, but hate getting punished for killing people out of their level range. And so the penalty was nerfed.
As time went on Blizzard got around to adding the battlegrounds. You know what happened?
All those people that had been doing so much open world PvP disappeared. Where? To the battlegrounds. You could still find world PvP, but it was largely just people moseying into a quest hub for lowbies and ganking the crap out of them like in ashenvale or tarren mill.
And then world PvP quests came alone to capture locations in WoW. Those...didn't do much. People did the quests, milled about the area, controlled the place for as long as they individually needed it, then abandoned it to never visit again.
I don't know how it's been since then, but WoW had, while not FFA, a foundation of world centered PvP that was proven to be less popular than the controlled PvP they introduced later.
I find this sad, but I also can't say I didn't expect it to go this way either. Axehilt all ready noted the reasons why really.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Two tyrants are destroying the PvP Servers: PvE Players and Incentive.
PvE Players: You guys and your damn yearning for "safe" PvP. Your cries have been answered. The result? Instanced and optional PvP mini-games, e.g., 8v8 team death-match, capture the flag, control points, take the hill, hutt-ball, and kick the can. I normally wouldn't mind, as PvE'rs should have a choice. HOWEVER, your bs axioms have spread to my PvP Servers. Innovation is lost; Battlegrounds, Arenas, and Warzones now reside as the dominant form of PvP on both server types.
Incentive: Battlegrounds, Arenas, and Warzones are limited. Normally, there are about 5-6 different instances that are solely dedicated to structured PvP. This becomes mind-numbingly redundant. Strategies are learned by all within 1 month. The match becomes a rinse and repeat type thing... over and over and over and over again. There is nothing "massive" about it.
So why do people do it on the PvP Servers? The PvP GEAR. The devs simply toss in a few cool looking duds, place an insanely high kill-point price, and watch the masses conform to the simple rules of kindergarten PvP.
THE FIX?
Either remove Instanced PvP from PvP Servers OR remove incentive from the Instanced PvP Games via PvP Server.
I think you're confused, first PVE players are PVE players, what do they care about PVP? Second, incentive isn't the issue that causes this, it's the e-sport mentality dominating gaming in this day and age. WIthout the e-sport idea that teams should be fair and balanced warzones wouldn't be so popular. There's not much more to it than that.
Because of E-Sport?
lol.
I like World PvP because of the following:
#1. The thought of espionage, e.g., sneaking past the epic NPC guards of the city and creeping along the alley ways.
#2. The thrill of the hunt. The thrill of being hunted.
#3. Improvising and adapting. If I'm leveling in hostile territory, I always have an escape route planned should any PvP group come my way.
#4. The element of surprise - something that is 100% void in instanced pvp.
I agree, that's why I prefer world PVP as well, it feels like you're actually in an environment of conflict, the atmosphere it brings is not found in BG heavy PVP games.
In short war isn't about sportsmanship it's about strategy and planning, which has nothing to do with BG play. BGs are a sport of sorts, even down to everything being tied to a score. Victory is about points not attrition or territory. The basic idea behind them is giving a fair and balanced play-field, sportsmanship is the basic concept behind this, hence my basic point in what I said, it's an e-sport.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Comments
Well first of all your complaint shouldn't be with the pve players ,it shoudl be with Blizzard and yourself.
One Blizzard can't design a good pvp map if setup/skills become redundant also the lack of a good skillset would come to mind as well.
Secondl;y,why are you lookign for SERIOUS pvp in a rpg,they offer NOTHING to serious pvp.
I play deathmatch in games like UT or Quake for serious pvp.I can tell you right away thta no matter how many times i play a map ,there is not set pattern of skills,you adjust to how yoru oppoenent plays.Yes i tend to use a similiar strat all the time,but i also win like 90% of may games.If a player comes along with a superior latency or is just really good,then i make adjustments,a GOOD map does not dictate how i play,only poorly designed ones do.
RPG's are so lopsided in their entire design,it is near impossible to build a stretegic type pvp and devs really don't care.They just add in pvp to get more subscriptions,then make subtle changes here and there to keep them happy.
A RPG is "SUPPOSE" to be your playground to play out your role as whatever character you chose,it is not suppose to be a playground where any tom dick or harry can waltz by and try to ruin your role playing expreience.
FPS's =pvp
rpg's =role playing
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The thing is, the games that have had it work "correctly" are still being paid for and are old than WoW.
The ones that it didn't work did one thing wrong ---> TOO MUCH FREEDOM.
I don't think you've played any good PvP games. There's way more Depth in open world pvp than "Tourney PvP". I've been in numerous fights outnumbered and still come out on top because skill mattered. The OP isn't saying that there shouldn't be "Tourney PvP", he's saying that PvP servers are a joke because they are just PvE servers with the flagging system on at all times. Real PvP in mmorpgs = risk, reward, depth. The only thing you risk in a "Tourney" is losing the fight... the only thing you gain is winning the fight (yeah you might get some points and whatnot but that's pretty...shallow). "Real PvP" mmorpgs have more at stake than just losing the fight or winning the fight. The main draw to "Real PvP" mmorpgs is that it's PvP but on a MASSIVE SCALE. It takes a larger amount of leadership charisma to lead attacks on massive scales. You don't get that on your "Tourney" games.
There's a difference between "realistic mmorpg PvP"... and "Tourney PvP" that you can get in pretty much every console game. You can't get the former anywhere else, but in mmos. MMOs are selling themselves short. While more people play in general, less people are actually interacting.
If you made a good open pvp game you could get a great amount of players, but for that you'll have to have a 1) well known IP/ developers and 2) Polished game.
The niche is pretty big it just isn't bigger than those who just want a shallow game.
This.
As a PvE'er I dont give a shit what goes on with pvp. If a game requires pvp, I dont bother with it. Its pvpers that get pissy about everything easily and are more vocal, so devs listen to them.
Agreed in a general sense.
I think the problem is actually deeper than that. The irrational and unfailing love most players have for pixels. It's a game. You won't really die.
No....
He's saying that PvE players are effecting the PvP server ruleset. Developers aren't making rulesets that give risk, reward, and consequence. They just make rulesets that allow players to kill freely by telling the server to remove Flagging limitations and that's all. You being a PvE'er shouldn't have to feel threatened by a PvP server if it's done correctly and you play in it.
The fact is that even WoW's PvP server isn't done correctly... they just slapped PvP in front of the server name so that it'd entice the players who want to PvP in a risky setting, but it turns out that it's just as meaningless on the grand scheme of things as "Tourney/ Instanced PvP" in a massively multiplayer online rpg.
The lack of depth in PvP in general is what the OP is angry about.
Bravo. +1, end thread.
looks like DarkFall and Mortal Online arent doing their jobs if we see posts like these popping up.
This is the point. I'm a current Darkfall player and I love open world pvp.
These people who gank players of much lower level/strength -- repeatedly and for no tactical or strategic purpose other than to have fun ruining another person's experience -- are the problem. Because of these people, pvp is restricted.
In Darkfall, there are griefers, but those players and clans are known and avoided and sometimes dealt with by player protectors. Griefers don't have respect on the server and become a kind of sad joke to the rest of the community. Established players move on and are with their clans. If new players can survive the griefing, they get stronger eventually and come back and kill these guys until they get it out of their system. Then the griefers can be looted and camped, if desired. Those are the consequences. It's a kind of eco-system of a full loot free-for-all pvp game.
It's not perfect. I don't know what is perfect in any game. There could be a way to make alignment more meaningful and provide a place for pve-er/crafter types to create a better economy, etc., but for the time being, this is what we have.
For me, this is better than sanitized pvp and tab-targeting on offer in most games now. So there may be pvp alternatives for you and if you know what you're getting into, OP.
LOL
I was just writing a post about my experience in Darkfall when you posted.
Fixed that, people dont like competitive multiplayer. Co-op modes are becoming the standard in all games, PvP mods in shooters and RTS are getting much less attention during development than co-op. Most people are bad at games and dont want to be farmed by the people are who are good at games.
Currently playing:
EVE online (Ruining low sec one hotdrop at a time)
Gravity Rush,
Dishonoured: The Knife of Dunwall.
(Waiting for) Metro: Last Light,
Company of Heroes II.
I've played plenty of good PVP games. No World PVP game approached anything resembling good PVP.
My dislike of world PVP stems from the same underlying reasons as why everyone else (except the tiny niche) dislikes it, mostly revolving around the importance of player choice and frequency of actual PVP. No amount of "I like world PVP because of traits X and Y" will change the opinions of the majority or myself, because we simply don't value those elements (and in many cases consider them detractors.)
Solitary examples of "beating the odds" are irrelevant, as the overwhelming majority of fights don't pan out that way. Simple logic tells us that a 5v5 fight more consistently has good, close battles than a 5v10 fight. The epic wins in True PVP games just happen to be 5v5s against really goddamn hard opponents, rather than the 5 beating the 10.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think you're confused, first PVE players are PVE players, what do they care about PVP? Second, incentive isn't the issue that causes this, it's the e-sport mentality dominating gaming in this day and age. WIthout the e-sport idea that teams should be fair and balanced warzones wouldn't be so popular. There's not much more to it than that.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
you seem to have entierly missed my point, or perhaps you're just lacking in experience when it comes to open world PvP games. it sure looks that way.
anyway, I'll say it once again, just to be clear: the recent FFA games failed NOT because they went for FFA - interest was huge both for Darkfall and Mortal - but because they failed to deliver on so many aspects (lack of content, bugs, exploits, countless other shortcomings that had nothing to do with FFA). AV even had to restrict server access when Darkfall launched; does that indicate a lack of interest for this type of game perhaps?
Darkfall and Mortal failed because they were made by small, indie companies that tried to do too much with limited resources and experience. FFA PvP will always be a niche, but it's not as small a niche as people seem to think.
as for your other opinions: yes PvP without risk is safe PvP. if you risk nothing, losses are meaningless, as are wins - you just respawn, queue up again, and that's it.
that's why it's only about e-peen and bragging rights; since there's nothing else at stake, what's there to fight about except the right to say "I won"?
by the way: your "the majority is always right" style of logic doesn't fly.
are you saying that only the most popular cultural phenomenons deserve to exist, and that niche audiences are essentially wrong? that WoW is the best game out there, that McDonald's offers the best food on the market, and that Hollywood blockbusters define what cinema is all about?
if you are not, please refrain from arguing that popularity is a measure of quality in any way whatsoever.
anyway, I'll say it once again, just to be clear: the recent FFA games failed NOT because they went for FFA - interest was huge both for Darkfall and Mortal - but because they failed to deliver on so many aspects (lack of content, bugs, exploits, countless other shortcomings that had nothing to do with FFA). AV even had to restrict server access when Darkfall launched; does that indicate a lack of interest for this type of game perhaps?
Darkfall and Mortal failed because they were made by small, indie companies that tried to do too much with limited resources and experience. FFA PvP will always be a niche, but it's not as small a niche as people seem to think.
as for your other opinions: yes PvP without risk is safe PvP. if you risk nothing, losses are meaningless, as are wins - you just respawn, queue up again, and that's it.
that's why it's only about e-peen and bragging rights; since there's nothing else at stake, what's there to fight about except the right to say "I won"?
by the way: your "the majority is always right" style of logic doesn't fly.
are you saying that only the most popular cultural phenomenons deserve to exist, and that niche audiences are essentially wrong? that WoW is the best game out there, that McDonald's offers the best food on the market, and that Hollywood blockbusters define what cinema is all about?
if you are not, please refrain from arguing that popularity is a measure of quality in any way whatsoever.
Popularity is a measure of quality. It's not the only measure of quality, but it's certainly one of them. When the people who want to play FFA PvP games measure in at less than 5% of the market, it should tell you something. When the people who actually engage in FFA PvP measure in at 2% of the market or less then that should be screaming something at you. Either (a) there's a very, very tiny audience for FFA PvP games or that (b) they're cr@p.
Mortal Online fits squarely in the cr@p category. Darkfall I don't think is cr@p...but even FFA PvP people seem to find a lot of the mechanics a drag. Eve is by far the best quality with the biggest population of FFA PvP players...but most of the people who play Eve do not engage in the actual PvP. Thousands of people do to be sure, sometimes all at once, but most of the population putters around in safe space. I'm pretty sure the most likely option is (a), there is a tiny, tiny audience for FFA PvP games, with the caveat that it would be a bigger audience if there were more games available that were better developed.
In any event, you're totally right about Mortal Online and Darkfall. PvE popularity hasn't hurt FFA PvP games or even Open World PvP. The FFA PvP games that have been released have hurt PvP MMORPG. This is followed closely by PvP people with no real outlet for MMORPG PvP running around complaining about it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
i think they should also make PvP gear ONLY usable in PvP
Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
Lao-Tze
You and others are lumping PvErs together with being against hardcore PvP. This is wrong.
Enjoying PvE doesn't mean a player can't also like hardcore PvP. In fact, there's a lot of players that like hardcore PvP, but they also like hardcore PvE as well. Liking one does not preclude liking the other.
The problem is the players who want softcore PvP. They want access to PvP, but they want it on their own terms. They like the option of attacking other players, but they don't like consequence if they die. They want to be able to jump in and out of PvP on a whim, hence why things like battlegrounds are so popular.
Again, blame the players that are softcore PvPers, because they're the ones weighing your PvP down. There's more than enough choice in MMO these days that the gamers who only enjoy PvE stay the hell away from PvP oriented MMOs and server rulesets.
As I stated in a previous post, PvE is suffering similarly from softcore gamers complaining that content should be easier, have less consequence for failure, and be able to jump in and out whenever they want. It's a problem with casual gamers in general, so stop blaming PvErs as a whole.
"In this day and age"? In what age *didn't* it dominate? Look back through the history of every game humans have ever conceived to entertain themselves through competition -- from Go to Chess to Street Fighter 2 to CoD to LoL -- and you'll see a clear pattern of instanced PVP. Call it "e-sport" if you want, but it's the same balanced PVP as it's always been through every age.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Because of E-Sport?
lol.
I like World PvP because of the following:
#1. The thought of espionage, e.g., sneaking past the epic NPC guards of the city and creeping along the alley ways.
#2. The thrill of the hunt. The thrill of being hunted.
#3. Improvising and adapting. If I'm leveling in hostile territory, I always have an escape route planned should any PvP group come my way.
#4. The element of surprise - something that is 100% void in instanced pvp.
#5. Everything about it feel much more real.
1. If every restaurant cost the same and McD's still sold the best, it could be considered the best restaurant.
Every MMORPG does cost the same (except the free ones) and WOW outsells them by a huge margin.
2. This isn't about right or wrong. It's merely fact-stating about what people like. You can't claim someone's opinion is "wrong".
3. I lied, you can call someone's opinion wrong: and I'm calling your opinion wrong when you say a world PVP game "done right" would sell equal to an instanced PVP game done right. The traits that make something world PVP just aren't what competitive players are looking for.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Fixed. (note this is just humor, I apologise if it's taken seriously)
On a more serious note, you know a few of those points were just repeats? 2,3, and 4 could have all ben rolled into one point, not including that 1 is a subset of that point.
So point here being you only listed two points.
Other point is world PvP can certainly be fun, but like reality people need their wanton destruction tempered with repercussions that are generally lacking. That lack of overarching ability to stop players from getting out of hand and causing the game to effectively being unplayable by others is the main deterrent most people have from world or ffa PvP.
It's never going to be popular majority because the reasons some love it are the very reasons many hate it more or less.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I'm a PvE player on most MMO's, and I agree with the Original Poster.
Blizzard (as an example) with Warcraft told their players that the best pvp rewards could only ever come from controlled PvP environments - battlegrounds and especially their craptastic arenas.
Too many companies followed suit.
If an MMO is to have both PvE servers as well as PvP servers, one thing MUST be kept in mind for the devs.
PvP players come to a PvP server for OPEN WORLD PVP. End of story. Either that form of PvP is provided for and ENCOURAGED, or it's a complete god forsaken waste of time for those players seeking that kind of server.
There's not too much to argue about here involving the situation.
I remember the day, when our guild got beat with similar odds 10-5, we just regrouped and added a few numbers and went back and beat them. this was exciting IMO. I never really got butt hurt over a gank here and there, its a game.. I personally think that most gamers want to be the best (and thats ok) but there is always someone out there better, and to me that makes a challenge, thus making me a better gamer. As far as the ganking it happens, just avoid it if possible. If you keep running back to an area being covered by a griefer then well hate to say it your a fool. I do belive that there should be a stiff penalty on persons who gank lowbies. Anyway BZ's and all the other instanced PVP is way too structured for me.
Good to mention something here actually.
Wehn WoW was initially released, how many people remember the fact that there was a constant rampage of open wrld PvP between people to take capitols and hold quest zones of eachother's factions?
It was normal to see at least a vew dozen enemy players even in lowbie zones fighting one another at major hubs.
Then the honor system was implemented. And you know what Blizzard found out about PvP? People love gettign rewards for all that killing, but hate getting punished for killing people out of their level range. And so the penalty was nerfed.
As time went on Blizzard got around to adding the battlegrounds. You know what happened?
All those people that had been doing so much open world PvP disappeared. Where? To the battlegrounds. You could still find world PvP, but it was largely just people moseying into a quest hub for lowbies and ganking the crap out of them like in ashenvale or tarren mill.
And then world PvP quests came alone to capture locations in WoW. Those...didn't do much. People did the quests, milled about the area, controlled the place for as long as they individually needed it, then abandoned it to never visit again.
I don't know how it's been since then, but WoW had, while not FFA, a foundation of world centered PvP that was proven to be less popular than the controlled PvP they introduced later.
I find this sad, but I also can't say I didn't expect it to go this way either. Axehilt all ready noted the reasons why really.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I agree, that's why I prefer world PVP as well, it feels like you're actually in an environment of conflict, the atmosphere it brings is not found in BG heavy PVP games.
In short war isn't about sportsmanship it's about strategy and planning, which has nothing to do with BG play. BGs are a sport of sorts, even down to everything being tied to a score. Victory is about points not attrition or territory. The basic idea behind them is giving a fair and balanced play-field, sportsmanship is the basic concept behind this, hence my basic point in what I said, it's an e-sport.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson