non-instanced PvP, and especially FFA, full loot PvP, isn't just about winning fights, it's about the whole "virtual world" aspect of MMO gaming.
it's about going out into the world and not knowing what will happen.
it's about getting a group of friends together and go to a dungeon, only to find some other people there - not knowing if they'll attack you, join you, or flee for their lives.
it's about winning unexpected fights against all odds, getting away from murderers by playing it smart, and managing to get even once in a while.
it's about ambushes, sieges and battles that actually affect the world.
in other words: non-instanced, FFA PvP is about risk vs reward and real challenge, and about players using their brains because they actually have something to lose.
Correction -- that's what non-instanced PvP, and especially FFA PvP *should* be about. That's the theory behind FFA PvP.
The reality is that those games just end up becoming a mindless gankfest with herds of roaming players going around and killing anyone who is sufficiently low enough. There's no challenge and no virtual world at all. It's just pointless.
but not all MMO players want to do sports when they log in.
believe it or not, but there are actually players who want to play a Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game, in a persistent world, were character development, strategy, planning and teamwork on a massive scale (like alliances, territory control, etc) are important - not fast and shallow deathmatches.
that's why PvP in sandbox games are more about unexpected situations, player politics and total freedom, than about "fair" fights trying to simulate some kind of sports logic on a static playfield.
besides, instanced PvP games are not necessarily "fair" - I remember in WAR, high-ranked players from the top guilds would steamroll PUGs all day long in scenarios.
it didn't matter if you where a low-ranked solo player with crap gear, you still got thrown in there together with some random players (often in a group with a totally random class combination) and then you where supposed to fight against six high-ranked players with top-end gear, on vent and using the ultimate class setup.
15 minutes of pure humiliation.
so those trying to argue that instanced PvP is "pure" PvP without ganking are totally clueless, as are those trying to argue that PvP is about "fair" fights.
PvP is about winning, in any way you can, and anyone claiming otherwise is just doing scrub talk.
The argument I outlined in red would be really compelling, and I'd be forced to admit that you won, if I oh... say for example... ever tried arguing that's all anything people wanted. Which I didn't. I was saying a benefit and attraction for instanced PvP. Sort of like if I was saying why some people like to eat tacos instead of hamburgers, and you tried explaining to me that not everybody likes to eat tacos. Duh. No kidding, really? Never said they did. My message was to explain the benefits people see in instanced PvP, not to invalidate the existence of world PvP. Don't be so sensitive.
I actually like both kinds of PvP. BOTH. I enjoyed DAoC, I did open world PvP in vanilla WoW... I wanted to do it in Aion, but I couldn't get through the PvE content in there far enough to get to PvP (Ugh, hated that game. No offense to people who like Aion.)
As far as the argument I outlined in green (Yay color coding), that's why a lot of people are looking forward to GW2's take on instanced PvP, why they enjoyed the GW1 take on instanced PvP, and one reason why generally speaking, FPS games and most forms of competitive gameplay online are balanced, and why people complain about lack of balance.
Yes, gear/level imbalance in MMORPGs can make it relatively lopsided. Which is why the arenas are far from optimal so far as an actual e-sport goes. ... but at least in a 5v5 fight, or whatever, you know the enemy will bring 5 enemies, and you have a rough idea of the power ceiling they can bring, while in open world, it can be one person against 50, all which are drastically higher level and better geared.
The range of possible imbalance is significantly more extreme in open world PvP.
I outlined your last argument in pink, because it seems kind of like a weak, childish argument. That's what open world PvP is about. Sort of. Which is what makes it so unpopular to so many people. There's still rules though.
Sure, the idea of no fouls boxing sounds pretty fun... until you're actually one of those boxers (Oh god, you punched me in the CROTCH.' '... that's what you get for stabbing me in the neck with a knife' '... you gouged my eye first')
Except for actual real fights (To the death. Even street fights and... heck, most wars use actual rules. Whoa.), pretty much any form of competition humans do relies upon certain sets of rules. ... and, I'm going to totally blow your mind here... even open world PvP fights online? Merely simulations of real fights. THey're not real fights. Unless you think that uploading viruses to opponent's computers, and driving over to stab them in the kidneys all fall under 'fair PvP'. Seriously, scrubs?
Talk to me about people being scrubs when you're an expert RL knife fighter and have killed a few people. Then you can say 'Yeah, people who aren't willing to stab other people to death with KNIVES are scrubs'. Boasting about your elite prowess in open world PvP, and calling people who want to play games in other ways scrubs? That's just sort of embarrassing. For everybody involved. Mostly you though.
Originally posted by FikusOfAhazi
But fair fights and gear grinds are 2 different things. But BG proponents wont admit it, nor will they give up the rewards. We understand they're fair, but they only became more popular when rewards were only offered to that specific form of pvp. And to people whether they succeed or not. It's simply a gear grind. A fair one hehe.
Faction vs faction. We can tell which is better by their pants. Awesome lore there.
Are you kidding? THat's why I (and many others) are totally looking forward to GW2 PvP. If you want actual gear progression, you have to go into WvWvW, which is sort of like DAoC realm vs. realm...
If you do the instanced PvP? Everybody is max level with access to all max level skills and equipment. It's a completely fair fight (Well, unless the other person is more AWESOME than you, and that's more your fault than their fault), or at least as close as you're going to get with internet latency and stuff. All the rewards? Merely cosmetic. Ideally, that's the perfect form of fair, balanced eSport style PvP (Where even the rewards don't make you a better character, just let other people know you're a better player)
I welcome this with open arms. I don't want or need better gear from an instanced PvP fight, I just want to wear a hat that says I kicked people's ass because I'm more skillful.
... and if I feel in the mood for imbalanced fight where I can earn gear and where gear makes a difference, I'll just hop on over to WvWvW and try to get in a fight where it's 10 against 300, and see if I can survive.
But fair fights and gear grinds are 2 different things. But BG proponents wont admit it, nor will they give up the rewards. We understand they're fair, but they only became more popular when rewards were only offered to that specific form of pvp. And to people whether they succeed or not. It's simply a gear grind. A fair one hehe.
Faction vs faction. We can tell which is better by their pants. Awesome lore there.
Are you kidding? THat's why I (and many others) are totally looking forward to GW2 PvP. If you want actual gear progression, you have to go into WvWvW, which is sort of like DAoC realm vs. realm...
If you do the instanced PvP? Everybody is max level with access to all max level skills and equipment. It's a completely fair fight (Well, unless the other person is more AWESOME than you, and that's more your fault than their fault), or at least as close as you're going to get with internet latency and stuff. All the rewards? Merely cosmetic. Ideally, that's the perfect form of fair, balanced eSport style PvP (Where even the rewards don't make you a better character, just let other people know you're a better player)
I welcome this with open arms. I don't want or need better gear from an instanced PvP fight, I just want to wear a hat that says I kicked people's ass because I'm more skillful.
... and if I feel in the mood for imbalanced fight where I can earn gear and where gear makes a difference, I'll just hop on over to WvWvW and try to get in a fight where it's 10 against 300, and see if I can survive.
That's the answer I was looking for. Thank you:)
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Oh WAAAAAH - PvP'ers did this by their own silly actions. Like ganking noobs. I play a game to play a game, not worry that twitchy 12 year olds are going to trash my char.
Oh WAAAAAH - PvP'ers did this by their own silly actions. Like ganking noobs. I play a game to play a game, not worry that twitchy 12 year olds are going to trash my char.
I couldn't agree with you more. In my experience the people who ruin PvP servers are the ego maniacs and the griefers. I played Darkfall for about 6 months and I eventually stopped playing, not because I didn't like the game, but because I got sick of the ego's and all the posturing and epeen measuring. AoC was the same, I was abused by someone on a PvP server because when he attacked me I pulled him back into the NPC guards and they killed him. He called me a PvE soft cock, personally I didn't feel like fighting him and felt it was smart game play on my part. I was also playing a class that was PvP poor and he was playing a PvP strong class.
PVP = I'm more awesome than you and I'm going to kill you over and over and tell you how much you suck.
Oh WAAAAAH - PvP'ers did this by their own silly actions. Like ganking noobs. I play a game to play a game, not worry that twitchy 12 year olds are going to trash my char.
It's true that -->few<-- compared to the majority of players ruin it for some people, but this is mainly because mechanics allow this. You can have open world pvp that minimizes this pretty well (very apparent pre-WoW), but the devs have to create it. Most of the time, they fail to do so. In WoW's and similar cases, they fail to do so because they'd have to change a large amount of the game on PvP servers...but why do that when you can still profit from such an easy and shallow "switch" that turns on flagging. In DF (I didn't play MO long enough) they focused on a lot of good PvP mechanics, but gave a little too much freedom, which ruins the game to an extent. I think DF 2.0 will be what DF should have been from start.
Contrarily, in games like DF and MO, you NEED friends a lot more than you do in most games. While a solo character might be a viable option, one extra friend makes a HUGE difference in playability. Joining a guild/clan right when you start these games can increase the fun and push you faster along learning curve (because...well...the games are a lot harder because of the open PvP and full loot) by an outstanding amount. Don't expect to "solo to max level".
but not all MMO players want to do sports when they log in.
believe it or not, but there are actually players who want to play a Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game, in a persistent world, were character development, strategy, planning and teamwork on a massive scale (like alliances, territory control, etc) are important - not fast and shallow deathmatches.
that's why PvP in sandbox games are more about unexpected situations, player politics and total freedom, than about "fair" fights trying to simulate some kind of sports logic on a static playfield.
besides, instanced PvP games are not necessarily "fair" - I remember in WAR, high-ranked players from the top guilds would steamroll PUGs all day long in scenarios.
it didn't matter if you where a low-ranked solo player with crap gear, you still got thrown in there together with some random players (often in a group with a totally random class combination) and then you where supposed to fight against six high-ranked players with top-end gear, on vent and using the ultimate class setup.
15 minutes of pure humiliation.
so those trying to argue that instanced PvP is "pure" PvP without ganking are totally clueless, as are those trying to argue that PvP is about "fair" fights.
PvP is about winning, in any way you can, and anyone claiming otherwise is just doing scrub talk.
1. Nobody argues there aren't players who prefer World PVP. It's usually just pointed out that this group is a tiny minority compared to players seeking genuine competition.
2. As previously mentioned, if you lose because a team combines more skill and teamwork it's still fair. Losing due to gear disadvantage is when things become unfair.
Certainly skill imbalance doesn't make for ideal PVP, and if a game can match players of similar skill together to fight it's going to have that much better PVP. But at least when you have a game purely decided by skill you know it's on you to make the right decisions to win the match, and things weren't predetermined.
3. Of course you're going to try to win any way you can. That's always the case in PVP. Question is: when you do your part will the game consistently do it's part and deliver good PVP? With world PVP, the answer is often no.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The argument I outlined in red would be really compelling, and I'd be forced to admit that you won, if I oh... say for example... ever tried arguing that's all anything people wanted. Which I didn't. I was saying a benefit and attraction for instanced PvP. Sort of like if I was saying why some people like to eat tacos instead of hamburgers, and you tried explaining to me that not everybody likes to eat tacos. Duh. No kidding, really? Never said they did. My message was to explain the benefits people see in instanced PvP, not to invalidate the existence of world PvP. Don't be so sensitive.
sensitive? no man,I'm not angry or anything, I'm just pointing out that your sports analogy is not always valid when it comes to MMOs.
I actually like both kinds of PvP. BOTH. I enjoyed DAoC, I did open world PvP in vanilla WoW... I wanted to do it in Aion, but I couldn't get through the PvE content in there far enough to get to PvP (Ugh, hated that game. No offense to people who like Aion.)
As far as the argument I outlined in green (Yay color coding), that's why a lot of people are looking forward to GW2's take on instanced PvP, why they enjoyed the GW1 take on instanced PvP, and one reason why generally speaking, FPS games and most forms of competitive gameplay online are balanced, and why people complain about lack of balance.
Yes, gear/level imbalance in MMORPGs can make it relatively lopsided. Which is why the arenas are far from optimal so far as an actual e-sport goes. ... but at least in a 5v5 fight, or whatever, you know the enemy will bring 5 enemies, and you have a rough idea of the power ceiling they can bring, while in open world, it can be one person against 50, all which are drastically higher level and better geared.
The range of possible imbalance is significantly more extreme in open world PvP.
but again, open world PvP isn't about fair fights, or about a level playfield.
it's about player freedom.
sure, it could be the freedom to roam the world with 50 guys looking for solo players to kill (which never happened in any FFA game I've played), but it is also the freedom to place a smart ambush for a large group of enemies, the freedom to go get your firends and take revenge on the asshole that griefed you at the mining nodes, and the freedom to enjoy small-scale skirmishes where skilled players can win fights against all odds.
I outlined your last argument in pink, because it seems kind of like a weak, childish argument. That's what open world PvP is about. Sort of. Which is what makes it so unpopular to so many people. There's still rules though.
Sure, the idea of no fouls boxing sounds pretty fun... until you're actually one of those boxers (Oh god, you punched me in the CROTCH.' '... that's what you get for stabbing me in the neck with a knife' '... you gouged my eye first')
Except for actual real fights (To the death. Even street fights and... heck, most wars use actual rules. Whoa.), pretty much any form of competition humans do relies upon certain sets of rules. ... and, I'm going to totally blow your mind here... even open world PvP fights online? Merely simulations of real fights. THey're not real fights. Unless you think that uploading viruses to opponent's computers, and driving over to stab them in the kidneys all fall under 'fair PvP'. Seriously, scrubs?
Talk to me about people being scrubs when you're an expert RL knife fighter and have killed a few people. Then you can say 'Yeah, people who aren't willing to stab other people to death with KNIVES are scrubs'. Boasting about your elite prowess in open world PvP, and calling people who want to play games in other ways scrubs? That's just sort of embarrassing. For everybody involved. Mostly you though.
now you're not making any sense, and you're back with your weak sports analogies. we are not talking about real life sports here, we are talking about computer games.
by your logic, a PvEr would need to have killed some dragons irl before being allowed to discuss the pros and cons of dungeon raids, and an in-game blacksmith would have to craft awesome battle axes at home before arguing about the game's crafting system.
now that's an embarrasing line of reasoning.
of course I don't mean hacking or cheating is ok, but as long as you play the game legally, all means are allowed to win.
and why wouldn't they? do you think the premade top-end players I mentioned in my previous post would suddenly decide to wear green gear, stop using vent and start using random class combos, just so that the PUGs would get a "fair" fight? don't think so.
the notion of "fairness" is the weak player's argument; it's the scrubs and carebears who whine about class balance or numbers, when the simple fact is they lost. PvPers on the other hand just play the game for what it is, and accept that you win some, you lose some.
if you lose, get good - level some skills, get some friends, get better gear, get on VOIP, work on your strategy, whatever. just don't blame the game mechanics, they are the same for all players.
in instanced PvP, you can usually "get good" by grinding for a couple of months until you have the gear and the stats, but in an open PvP setting there are multiple options and a higher level of variety.
Instanced pvp in mmorpgs is as popular as it is because of accessibilty and ease of use. You have still failed to come up with any reasonable counter to that.
You forgot 'Because some people like the idea of a fair fight'.
Just look at pretty much all sports ever (Including things like martial arts). They all extoll the virtue of a fair fight, balanced sides (In numbers, anyway, if not neccessarily skill) and such.
You don't go to a soccer match where the referee says 'Okay, to make this more interesting, it's an 11 on 3 match today. Also, if you can ambush the 3 people from behind, that's cool. Today is a 'I don't care if there's fouls' day.
The concept of sports and fair play is deeply ingrained in society, and what people expect.
You know where they team up multiple people on one, and there's a strong 'anything goes' mentality?
Pro wrestling.
Not that I'm suggesting that open PvP holds a strong resemblance to pro wrestling.
No I didn't "forget" that at all if you look through the previous posts on the topic in this thread I have made. We were debating which was the primary factor behind the popularity of instances in mmorpgs, not every single factor under the sun. Given that debate ran on for quite a long time I'm not going to go over it all again as those involved either already came to some form of consensus or got to the point where it was clear we would never see eye to eye on the matter.
Btw only on the very, very rare occassion are mmorpg instances anything like "e-sports" at all. If people are totally and utterly involved in pvp due to the e-sport aspect over and above anything else then wtf are they doing in mmorpgs with gear/level progression, class imbalances and maps and team sizes that are often piss poor fits for such "e-sport" combat
The combat gaming equivalent of football or boxing et al are MOBAS, FPS, RTS and other dedicated e-sport games. Not RPGS with heavy emphasis on progression metrics. I love e-sport games myself, but I certainly would not look to find such an experience in an mmorpg (maybe GW2 will change that somewhat who knows) and it is patently clear that given the actual amount of "e-sport" in mmorpgs is low that it is not the primary driving factor for instanced pvps success in such games.
As for just the "fairness" aspect as long as players are entering as premades against pugs, as long as there are level/item discrepancies and as long as people still twink, then such talk of "fairness" as a major factor in mmorpg instances doesn't really swing it for me.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
PvP Died the day they made my character in ULITMA ONLINE a perma ghost because I killed 1000's of players .
It was about that time I quit UO the carebears won in the end.
PvP in MMO is more like FPS than the open world days of UO when you could loot player corpses of all their belongings etc.
Oh and you could say open world PvP is more Player vs N00b than fair competition .
Open PvP maybe, but yes, open world PvP tends to be a powerfull character one shotting some poor noob all to often.
I am not so sure making PvP more like FPS is a bad thing, after all is PvP by far more popular among FS players than MMO players and that tells me at least that FPS games are doing PvP better than MMOs.
MMO PvP even in UO were more added as an afterthought than the point of the game, and same goes for Meridian 59 that invented the original MMO mechanics which actually is still in use.
We need new mechanics for PvP if PvP is to be more popular in MMOs. Not really FPS mechanics though but I think we at least should take some pointers from them.
Btw only on the very, very rare occassion are mmorpg instances anything like "e-sports" at all. If people are totally and utterly involved in pvp due to the e-sport aspect over and above anything else then wtf are they doing in mmorpgs with gear/level progression, class imbalances and maps and team sizes that are often piss poor fits for such "e-sport" combat
People play casual pickup games of Soccer all the time. Do you think it matters to these players at all that they're nowhere close to pro athletes?
Just because the other genres you listed are better at providing competitive PVP, do you think that magically removes all desire for balanced PVP in MMORPGs? Do you honestly think most people feel that way?
How can you honestly think that, with so much evidence to the contrary (instance PVP being so much more popular)?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Btw only on the very, very rare occassion are mmorpg instances anything like "e-sports" at all. If people are totally and utterly involved in pvp due to the e-sport aspect over and above anything else then wtf are they doing in mmorpgs with gear/level progression, class imbalances and maps and team sizes that are often piss poor fits for such "e-sport" combat
People play casual pickup games of Soccer all the time. Do you think it matters to these players at all that they're nowhere close to pro athletes?
Just because the other genres you listed are better at providing competitive PVP, do you think that magically removes all desire for balanced PVP in MMORPGs? Do you honestly think most people feel that way?
How can you honestly think that, with so much evidence to the contrary (instance PVP being so much more popular)?
People do play a casual game of football, but oddly enough no one has super power boots of kicking that make them boot the ball over9000 times harder than other people on the pitch. There is not often three pro football players in there pitched against a team more suited to park football in that casual match. So yes people can go for a casual game, but it is neither "fair" nor "e-sport" which the poster who quoted me was seeming to imply.
There is rarely e-sport style pvp in mmorpg intances because the mechanics are predominantly set up in such a way that there are disparities in there. Playing a casual football match is like playing a casual moba game, not so much like playing a casual WAR scenario... at all.
Now if people were talking about casual or non elite moba, fps or rts matches then they would have a point. Last time I checked we were talking about mmorpgs.
Btw I am not aware that I said no one who took part in instanced pvp wanted a fair or competitive fight, nor did I say that no one in there was a "top pvper". I stated that the main reason it was popular was due to accessibilty, not that that was the only motivation/reason people pvp'd in such instances.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Isn't this why they do seperate servers and full (and free) gear for the e-Sport PvP tournaments in WoW?
They remove the RPG gear grind/level grind for the "serious" e-Sport PvP stuff and make it strictly about comp, skill, and gear management not aquisition.
People do play a casual game of football, but oddly enough no one has super power boots of kicking that make them boot the ball over9000 times harder than other people on the pitch. There is not often three pro football players in there pitched against a team more suited to park football in that casual match. So yes people can go for a casual game, but it is neither "fair" nor "e-sport" which the poster who quoted me was seeming to imply.
There is rarely e-sport style pvp in mmorpg intances because the mechanics are predominantly set up in such a way that there are disparities in there. Playing a casual football match is like playing a casual moba game, not so much like playing a casual WAR scenario... at all.
Now if people were talking about casual or non elite moba, fps or rts matches then they would have a point. Last time I checked we were talking about mmorpgs.
Btw I am not aware that I said no one who took part in instanced pvp wanted a fair or competitive fight, nor did I say that no one in there was a "top pvper". I stated that the main reason it was popular was due to accessibilty, not that that was the only motivation/reason people pvp'd in such instances.
E-sport PvP is relatively new feature in MMORPGs and very few games so far have implemented it well. For example, WoW didn't have a focus in instanced PvP until Guild Wars 1 was released and showed its popularity, athough I can imagine Blizzard did already have something on the drawingboard at the time.
Instanced PvP is a simple add-on to an otherwise PvE game and it doesn't have an adverse effect on PvE unlike open world PvP does. However very few games have had a real focus in it. I'd say GW1 was the first. Then there was Fury (crashed and burned), there's Crimecraft, Global Agenda etc. The point is, instanced PvP is an upcoming feature to MMORPGs and it has showed a lot of popularity. MMORPGs haven't yet fully embraced it. Who are you to say that they don't belong to MMORPGs?
Good instanced PvP would be expected to try to match players of similar skill level and or gear. You can't present the faults of some badly made games as faults of instanced PvP in general. Yes, gear had a huge impact in WAR's scenarios, but it is not a problem in Guild Wars 1.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Isn't this why they do seperate servers and full (and free) gear for the e-Sport PvP tournaments in WoW?
They remove the RPG gear grind/level grind for the "serious" e-Sport PvP stuff and make it strictly about comp, skill, and gear management not aquisition.
Yes. So that the best player actually wins - not the one with more level / übergear.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
E-sport PvP is relatively new feature in MMORPGs and very few games so far have implemented it well. For example, WoW didn't have a focus in instanced PvP until Guild Wars 1 was released and showed its popularity, athough I can imagine Blizzard did already have something on the drawingboard at the time.
Instanced PvP is a simple add-on to an otherwise PvE game and it doesn't have an adverse effect on PvE unlike open world PvP does. However very few games have had a real focus in it. I'd say GW1 was the first. Then there was Fury (crashed and burned), there's Crimecraft, Global Agenda etc. The point is, instanced PvP is an upcoming feature to MMORPGs and it has showed a lot of popularity. MMORPGs haven't yet fully embraced it. Who are you to say that they don't belong to MMORPGs?
Good instanced PvP would be expected to try to match players of similar skill level and or gear. You can't present the faults of some badly made games as faults of instanced PvP in general. Yes, gear had a huge impact in WAR's scenarios, but it is not a problem in Guild Wars 1.
So that fact that it is new and/or badly implemented on the whole in the mmorpg genre some how invalidates the accessibility case for popularity? If anything it reinforces my initial hypothesis quite frankly.
If you actually look I am not presenting the faults of instanced pvp in mmorpgs to show why it doesn't belong there, nothing could be further from the truth. But those faults within the mmorpg genre are indeed factors when people start banging on saying mmorpg instanced pvp is as popular as it is primarily due to competitiveness and "e-sport" factors. When at this present time generally it lacks those factors.
Until that time that the majority of mmorpg instanced pvp matches are ranked/matched up and remove gear/level and other traditional mmorpg disparities. Harping on about the popularity for the majority being down primarily to competition and e-sport just does not hold any water whatsoever.
PS: Who am I to say that they don't belong in mmorpgs? I am not saying that at all. There is quite a bit of difference between saying in the main it is badly done and saying it shouldn't be there in any mmorpg at all. I would love to see more player skill based e-sport style instancing in mmorpgs that are not trying to be world simulators or that have a heavy open world component. So not sure what you are suggesting there.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Now if people were talking about casual or non elite moba, fps or rts matches then they would have a point. Last time I checked we were talking about mmorpgs.
Well there's your major logical flaw: you think MMORPGs are somehow different from normal games, when they're not.
You think people somehow have fun in a fundamentally different way in MMORPGs, when they don't.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Axehilt Originally posted by bunnyhopper Now if people were talking about casual or non elite moba, fps or rts matches then they would have a point. Last time I checked we were talking about mmorpgs.
Well there's your major logical flaw: you think MMORPGs are somehow different from normal games, when they're not. You think people somehow have fun in a fundamentally different way in MMORPGs, when they don't.
Between World PvP and Instanced PvP, which is more like the very popular Lobby Base Shooter or the also very popular MOBA? That would be Instanced PvP. Probably for many of the same reasons.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Now if people were talking about casual or non elite moba, fps or rts matches then they would have a point. Last time I checked we were talking about mmorpgs.
Well there's your major logical flaw: you think MMORPGs are somehow different from normal games, when they're not.
You think people somehow have fun in a fundamentally different way in MMORPGs, when they don't.
Actually the glaring flaw here seems to be your inability to see that different genres of games can have different mechanics and different audiences. Moreover it is clear to anyone with any common sense that one in general provides a more competitive and player skill driven environment in instanced pvp than the other. Ultimately though if that is the only part of the post you part quoted you can rail against then it doesn't say alot.
Mmorpg instances tend not to be these great bastions of fair competitiveness in gnereal so to try and attribute the popularity of them primarily to competitiveness and fairness makes little to no sense when it is clear that the major driving force is their incredible accessibility.
Btw what the fuck is "a normal game"? There are different types of games, which one is "normal"?
Regardless you seem to be trying to move as far away from the central argument as possible in order to score points, which isn't working. I'm still waiting for a coherent argument as to why mmorpg instanced pvp is not as popular as it is within the mmorpg genre due to it's accessibility. If you come up with one great, if not and you want to talk about real e-sport games (with me that is) then that's best served in another thread tbh.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
First of all, it is wrong to blame PvE players for not having open world pvp games. In my opinion its the past PvPers who ruined the chance for open world pvp. Ganking was everywhere, griefing, newb hunting and overall gaming experience ruining. I know this since I experienced it all. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against PvP or those who choose to do it. It is jsut not my cup of tea. I have PvP'ed in several games. Starting with Runescape Classic, where it was actually fun. Second one would be Conquer Online which had open world PvP, which was destroyed later on with crap updates, which removed the "real skill" PvP.
Im neither pure PvE guy or PvP guy. I am something between, but I have some reasons why open world pvp fails:
1. As mentioned ganking, griefing, newb huntin etc. This is were all the lowlifes like to destroy the gaming experience of a pure PvE guy that wants jsut to feel the challenge of the enviroment and the game story.
2. There should be rewards for PvP users for killing someone also consequences. But why do you punish the one getting killed? It does seem unreasonable. Developers have to find a way to reward the PvP users without the PvE guy getting punished from something he didnt do. To be more clear, I feel its ok to kill someone killing and stealing your enemies/loots. But there should be harsher punishment for those who kill someone without a good reason and no it isnt ok reason to say "just cause I wanted to" or "just cause I could".
3. This is where it gets all tricky and why a good successful full open pvp game cannot exist. The punishment/reward for PvE and PvP guys cannot really be set so it is fun and interesting for both.
Well I don't mind open world PvP games, just leave the PvE guys alone. Kill, grief, gank the other PvP-oriented guys, feel free to do that. In that way you can PvP and the PvE guys can enjoy their part. Or are you all hardcore players just hunting for easy prey and killing someone while he is with his PvE setup? (gears/skills/etc.)
Actually the glaring flaw here seems to be your inability to see that different genres of games can have different mechanics and different audiences. Moreover it is clear to anyone with any common sense that one in general provides a more competitive and player skill driven environment in instanced pvp than the other. Ultimately though if that is the only part of the post you part quoted you can rail against then it doesn't say alot.
Mmorpg instances tend not to be these great bastions of fair competitiveness in gnereal so to try and attribute the popularity of them primarily to competitiveness and fairness makes little to no sense when it is clear that the major driving force is their incredible accessibility.
Btw what the fuck is "a normal game"? There are different types of games, which one is "normal"?
Regardless you seem to be trying to move as far away from the central argument as possible in order to score points, which isn't working. I'm still waiting for a coherent argument as to why mmorpg instanced pvp is not as popular as it is within the mmorpg genre due to it's accessibility. If you come up with one great, if not and you want to talk about real e-sport games (with me that is) then that's best served in another thread tbh.
No, I'd hate to explain this once again but accessibility is not the main reason why people like instanced PvP. If instanced PvP and open world PvP offered the same thing then accessibility would be one of the deciding factors which players choose. This is not the case, however, and the real motivator is something else. That "something else" is fair competition. Or can you think of anything else that open world PvP doesn't have but instanced PvP does?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Isn't this why they do seperate servers and full (and free) gear for the e-Sport PvP tournaments in WoW?
They remove the RPG gear grind/level grind for the "serious" e-Sport PvP stuff and make it strictly about comp, skill, and gear management not aquisition.
Funny enough, almost all pvp on the tournament server is instanced lobby based other than a few duels for practice. There is almost zero world pvp. Most pvpers enjoy the tournament server concept. MOBA ( aka Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) and FPS are immensely popular. Both of these styles of pvp are lobby / equal team based. The OP reflects a much older school of thought in regards to pvp that the market has outgrown.
Edit: I am not saying that world pvp can not be fun. I have had some great fights over world bosses. However, the lobby is here to stay. You need world pvp objectives to get players to world pvp because most prefer the lobby.
Comments
Correction -- that's what non-instanced PvP, and especially FFA PvP *should* be about. That's the theory behind FFA PvP.
The reality is that those games just end up becoming a mindless gankfest with herds of roaming players going around and killing anyone who is sufficiently low enough. There's no challenge and no virtual world at all. It's just pointless.
The argument I outlined in red would be really compelling, and I'd be forced to admit that you won, if I oh... say for example... ever tried arguing that's all anything people wanted. Which I didn't. I was saying a benefit and attraction for instanced PvP. Sort of like if I was saying why some people like to eat tacos instead of hamburgers, and you tried explaining to me that not everybody likes to eat tacos. Duh. No kidding, really? Never said they did. My message was to explain the benefits people see in instanced PvP, not to invalidate the existence of world PvP. Don't be so sensitive.
I actually like both kinds of PvP. BOTH. I enjoyed DAoC, I did open world PvP in vanilla WoW... I wanted to do it in Aion, but I couldn't get through the PvE content in there far enough to get to PvP (Ugh, hated that game. No offense to people who like Aion.)
As far as the argument I outlined in green (Yay color coding), that's why a lot of people are looking forward to GW2's take on instanced PvP, why they enjoyed the GW1 take on instanced PvP, and one reason why generally speaking, FPS games and most forms of competitive gameplay online are balanced, and why people complain about lack of balance.
Yes, gear/level imbalance in MMORPGs can make it relatively lopsided. Which is why the arenas are far from optimal so far as an actual e-sport goes. ... but at least in a 5v5 fight, or whatever, you know the enemy will bring 5 enemies, and you have a rough idea of the power ceiling they can bring, while in open world, it can be one person against 50, all which are drastically higher level and better geared.
The range of possible imbalance is significantly more extreme in open world PvP.
I outlined your last argument in pink, because it seems kind of like a weak, childish argument. That's what open world PvP is about. Sort of. Which is what makes it so unpopular to so many people. There's still rules though.
Sure, the idea of no fouls boxing sounds pretty fun... until you're actually one of those boxers (Oh god, you punched me in the CROTCH.' '... that's what you get for stabbing me in the neck with a knife' '... you gouged my eye first')
Except for actual real fights (To the death. Even street fights and... heck, most wars use actual rules. Whoa.), pretty much any form of competition humans do relies upon certain sets of rules. ... and, I'm going to totally blow your mind here... even open world PvP fights online? Merely simulations of real fights. THey're not real fights. Unless you think that uploading viruses to opponent's computers, and driving over to stab them in the kidneys all fall under 'fair PvP'. Seriously, scrubs?
Talk to me about people being scrubs when you're an expert RL knife fighter and have killed a few people. Then you can say 'Yeah, people who aren't willing to stab other people to death with KNIVES are scrubs'. Boasting about your elite prowess in open world PvP, and calling people who want to play games in other ways scrubs? That's just sort of embarrassing. For everybody involved. Mostly you though.
Are you kidding? THat's why I (and many others) are totally looking forward to GW2 PvP. If you want actual gear progression, you have to go into WvWvW, which is sort of like DAoC realm vs. realm...
If you do the instanced PvP? Everybody is max level with access to all max level skills and equipment. It's a completely fair fight (Well, unless the other person is more AWESOME than you, and that's more your fault than their fault), or at least as close as you're going to get with internet latency and stuff. All the rewards? Merely cosmetic. Ideally, that's the perfect form of fair, balanced eSport style PvP (Where even the rewards don't make you a better character, just let other people know you're a better player)
I welcome this with open arms. I don't want or need better gear from an instanced PvP fight, I just want to wear a hat that says I kicked people's ass because I'm more skillful.
... and if I feel in the mood for imbalanced fight where I can earn gear and where gear makes a difference, I'll just hop on over to WvWvW and try to get in a fight where it's 10 against 300, and see if I can survive.
That's the answer I was looking for. Thank you:)
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Oh WAAAAAH - PvP'ers did this by their own silly actions. Like ganking noobs. I play a game to play a game, not worry that twitchy 12 year olds are going to trash my char.
I couldn't agree with you more. In my experience the people who ruin PvP servers are the ego maniacs and the griefers. I played Darkfall for about 6 months and I eventually stopped playing, not because I didn't like the game, but because I got sick of the ego's and all the posturing and epeen measuring. AoC was the same, I was abused by someone on a PvP server because when he attacked me I pulled him back into the NPC guards and they killed him. He called me a PvE soft cock, personally I didn't feel like fighting him and felt it was smart game play on my part. I was also playing a class that was PvP poor and he was playing a PvP strong class.
PVP = I'm more awesome than you and I'm going to kill you over and over and tell you how much you suck.
Nuff said.
It's true that -->few<-- compared to the majority of players ruin it for some people, but this is mainly because mechanics allow this. You can have open world pvp that minimizes this pretty well (very apparent pre-WoW), but the devs have to create it. Most of the time, they fail to do so. In WoW's and similar cases, they fail to do so because they'd have to change a large amount of the game on PvP servers...but why do that when you can still profit from such an easy and shallow "switch" that turns on flagging. In DF (I didn't play MO long enough) they focused on a lot of good PvP mechanics, but gave a little too much freedom, which ruins the game to an extent. I think DF 2.0 will be what DF should have been from start.
Contrarily, in games like DF and MO, you NEED friends a lot more than you do in most games. While a solo character might be a viable option, one extra friend makes a HUGE difference in playability. Joining a guild/clan right when you start these games can increase the fun and push you faster along learning curve (because...well...the games are a lot harder because of the open PvP and full loot) by an outstanding amount. Don't expect to "solo to max level".
I'm at the point where I'd rather have no pvp at all... since battlegrounds have become the norm.
1. Nobody argues there aren't players who prefer World PVP. It's usually just pointed out that this group is a tiny minority compared to players seeking genuine competition.
2. As previously mentioned, if you lose because a team combines more skill and teamwork it's still fair. Losing due to gear disadvantage is when things become unfair.
Certainly skill imbalance doesn't make for ideal PVP, and if a game can match players of similar skill together to fight it's going to have that much better PVP. But at least when you have a game purely decided by skill you know it's on you to make the right decisions to win the match, and things weren't predetermined.
3. Of course you're going to try to win any way you can. That's always the case in PVP. Question is: when you do your part will the game consistently do it's part and deliver good PVP? With world PVP, the answer is often no.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
PvP Died the day they made my character in ULITMA ONLINE a perma ghost because I killed 1000's of players .
It was about that time I quit UO the carebears won in the end.
PvP in MMO is more like FPS than the open world days of UO when you could loot player corpses of all their belongings etc.
Oh and you could say open world PvP is more Player vs N00b than fair competition .
No I didn't "forget" that at all if you look through the previous posts on the topic in this thread I have made. We were debating which was the primary factor behind the popularity of instances in mmorpgs, not every single factor under the sun. Given that debate ran on for quite a long time I'm not going to go over it all again as those involved either already came to some form of consensus or got to the point where it was clear we would never see eye to eye on the matter.
Btw only on the very, very rare occassion are mmorpg instances anything like "e-sports" at all. If people are totally and utterly involved in pvp due to the e-sport aspect over and above anything else then wtf are they doing in mmorpgs with gear/level progression, class imbalances and maps and team sizes that are often piss poor fits for such "e-sport" combat
The combat gaming equivalent of football or boxing et al are MOBAS, FPS, RTS and other dedicated e-sport games. Not RPGS with heavy emphasis on progression metrics. I love e-sport games myself, but I certainly would not look to find such an experience in an mmorpg (maybe GW2 will change that somewhat who knows) and it is patently clear that given the actual amount of "e-sport" in mmorpgs is low that it is not the primary driving factor for instanced pvps success in such games.
As for just the "fairness" aspect as long as players are entering as premades against pugs, as long as there are level/item discrepancies and as long as people still twink, then such talk of "fairness" as a major factor in mmorpg instances doesn't really swing it for me.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Open PvP maybe, but yes, open world PvP tends to be a powerfull character one shotting some poor noob all to often.
I am not so sure making PvP more like FPS is a bad thing, after all is PvP by far more popular among FS players than MMO players and that tells me at least that FPS games are doing PvP better than MMOs.
MMO PvP even in UO were more added as an afterthought than the point of the game, and same goes for Meridian 59 that invented the original MMO mechanics which actually is still in use.
We need new mechanics for PvP if PvP is to be more popular in MMOs. Not really FPS mechanics though but I think we at least should take some pointers from them.
People play casual pickup games of Soccer all the time. Do you think it matters to these players at all that they're nowhere close to pro athletes?
Just because the other genres you listed are better at providing competitive PVP, do you think that magically removes all desire for balanced PVP in MMORPGs? Do you honestly think most people feel that way?
How can you honestly think that, with so much evidence to the contrary (instance PVP being so much more popular)?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
People do play a casual game of football, but oddly enough no one has super power boots of kicking that make them boot the ball over9000 times harder than other people on the pitch. There is not often three pro football players in there pitched against a team more suited to park football in that casual match. So yes people can go for a casual game, but it is neither "fair" nor "e-sport" which the poster who quoted me was seeming to imply.
There is rarely e-sport style pvp in mmorpg intances because the mechanics are predominantly set up in such a way that there are disparities in there. Playing a casual football match is like playing a casual moba game, not so much like playing a casual WAR scenario... at all.
Now if people were talking about casual or non elite moba, fps or rts matches then they would have a point. Last time I checked we were talking about mmorpgs.
Btw I am not aware that I said no one who took part in instanced pvp wanted a fair or competitive fight, nor did I say that no one in there was a "top pvper". I stated that the main reason it was popular was due to accessibilty, not that that was the only motivation/reason people pvp'd in such instances.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Isn't this why they do seperate servers and full (and free) gear for the e-Sport PvP tournaments in WoW?
They remove the RPG gear grind/level grind for the "serious" e-Sport PvP stuff and make it strictly about comp, skill, and gear management not aquisition.
E-sport PvP is relatively new feature in MMORPGs and very few games so far have implemented it well. For example, WoW didn't have a focus in instanced PvP until Guild Wars 1 was released and showed its popularity, athough I can imagine Blizzard did already have something on the drawingboard at the time.
Instanced PvP is a simple add-on to an otherwise PvE game and it doesn't have an adverse effect on PvE unlike open world PvP does. However very few games have had a real focus in it. I'd say GW1 was the first. Then there was Fury (crashed and burned), there's Crimecraft, Global Agenda etc. The point is, instanced PvP is an upcoming feature to MMORPGs and it has showed a lot of popularity. MMORPGs haven't yet fully embraced it. Who are you to say that they don't belong to MMORPGs?
Good instanced PvP would be expected to try to match players of similar skill level and or gear. You can't present the faults of some badly made games as faults of instanced PvP in general. Yes, gear had a huge impact in WAR's scenarios, but it is not a problem in Guild Wars 1.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Yes. So that the best player actually wins - not the one with more level / übergear.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
So that fact that it is new and/or badly implemented on the whole in the mmorpg genre some how invalidates the accessibility case for popularity? If anything it reinforces my initial hypothesis quite frankly.
If you actually look I am not presenting the faults of instanced pvp in mmorpgs to show why it doesn't belong there, nothing could be further from the truth. But those faults within the mmorpg genre are indeed factors when people start banging on saying mmorpg instanced pvp is as popular as it is primarily due to competitiveness and "e-sport" factors. When at this present time generally it lacks those factors.
Until that time that the majority of mmorpg instanced pvp matches are ranked/matched up and remove gear/level and other traditional mmorpg disparities. Harping on about the popularity for the majority being down primarily to competition and e-sport just does not hold any water whatsoever.
PS: Who am I to say that they don't belong in mmorpgs? I am not saying that at all. There is quite a bit of difference between saying in the main it is badly done and saying it shouldn't be there in any mmorpg at all. I would love to see more player skill based e-sport style instancing in mmorpgs that are not trying to be world simulators or that have a heavy open world component. So not sure what you are suggesting there.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Well there's your major logical flaw: you think MMORPGs are somehow different from normal games, when they're not.
You think people somehow have fun in a fundamentally different way in MMORPGs, when they don't.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You think people somehow have fun in a fundamentally different way in MMORPGs, when they don't.
Between World PvP and Instanced PvP, which is more like the very popular Lobby Base Shooter or the also very popular MOBA? That would be Instanced PvP. Probably for many of the same reasons.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Actually the glaring flaw here seems to be your inability to see that different genres of games can have different mechanics and different audiences. Moreover it is clear to anyone with any common sense that one in general provides a more competitive and player skill driven environment in instanced pvp than the other. Ultimately though if that is the only part of the post you part quoted you can rail against then it doesn't say alot.
Mmorpg instances tend not to be these great bastions of fair competitiveness in gnereal so to try and attribute the popularity of them primarily to competitiveness and fairness makes little to no sense when it is clear that the major driving force is their incredible accessibility.
Btw what the fuck is "a normal game"? There are different types of games, which one is "normal"?
Regardless you seem to be trying to move as far away from the central argument as possible in order to score points, which isn't working. I'm still waiting for a coherent argument as to why mmorpg instanced pvp is not as popular as it is within the mmorpg genre due to it's accessibility. If you come up with one great, if not and you want to talk about real e-sport games (with me that is) then that's best served in another thread tbh.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
we get penalised for not rping on their rp server why they dont get penalised for not pvping on pvp server?
First of all, it is wrong to blame PvE players for not having open world pvp games. In my opinion its the past PvPers who ruined the chance for open world pvp. Ganking was everywhere, griefing, newb hunting and overall gaming experience ruining. I know this since I experienced it all. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against PvP or those who choose to do it. It is jsut not my cup of tea. I have PvP'ed in several games. Starting with Runescape Classic, where it was actually fun. Second one would be Conquer Online which had open world PvP, which was destroyed later on with crap updates, which removed the "real skill" PvP.
Im neither pure PvE guy or PvP guy. I am something between, but I have some reasons why open world pvp fails:
1. As mentioned ganking, griefing, newb huntin etc. This is were all the lowlifes like to destroy the gaming experience of a pure PvE guy that wants jsut to feel the challenge of the enviroment and the game story.
2. There should be rewards for PvP users for killing someone also consequences. But why do you punish the one getting killed? It does seem unreasonable. Developers have to find a way to reward the PvP users without the PvE guy getting punished from something he didnt do. To be more clear, I feel its ok to kill someone killing and stealing your enemies/loots. But there should be harsher punishment for those who kill someone without a good reason and no it isnt ok reason to say "just cause I wanted to" or "just cause I could".
3. This is where it gets all tricky and why a good successful full open pvp game cannot exist. The punishment/reward for PvE and PvP guys cannot really be set so it is fun and interesting for both.
Well I don't mind open world PvP games, just leave the PvE guys alone. Kill, grief, gank the other PvP-oriented guys, feel free to do that. In that way you can PvP and the PvE guys can enjoy their part. Or are you all hardcore players just hunting for easy prey and killing someone while he is with his PvE setup? (gears/skills/etc.)
Cheers,
PvE/PvP dude
No, I'd hate to explain this once again but accessibility is not the main reason why people like instanced PvP. If instanced PvP and open world PvP offered the same thing then accessibility would be one of the deciding factors which players choose. This is not the case, however, and the real motivator is something else. That "something else" is fair competition. Or can you think of anything else that open world PvP doesn't have but instanced PvP does?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Funny enough, almost all pvp on the tournament server is instanced lobby based other than a few duels for practice. There is almost zero world pvp. Most pvpers enjoy the tournament server concept. MOBA ( aka Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) and FPS are immensely popular. Both of these styles of pvp are lobby / equal team based. The OP reflects a much older school of thought in regards to pvp that the market has outgrown.
Edit: I am not saying that world pvp can not be fun. I have had some great fights over world bosses. However, the lobby is here to stay. You need world pvp objectives to get players to world pvp because most prefer the lobby.