Bad for whom? If you're playing an open world pvp game then you should realize that you can't win all the time. How much of the time you do win is a mixture of skill and luck. I don't see anything inherently wrong with this, if anything it makes the game more exciting.
Losing 50% of the time is no fun. It is very easy to design a game with no losing involved. In fact, most of the single player games have no losing.
It may make the game more exciting for YOU, it is certainly not so for most players. Otherwise it won't be so unpopular.
In most FPS you lose about 50% of the time, if you fight against equally skilled opponents. Same goes with most RTS, Beat-em-up games and MOBAs (such as League of Legends).
It only ruins the experience of a player if they let a bad pvp experience get to them, its all about attitude. You're not going to move to a different city tomorrow if you get mugged today. Most people who play games that have world pvp are well aware of the risks, most of em actually like the idea of having a "human element" rather than the predictable grind. If they don't then why are they playing the game?
Moving to another city is expensive. Moving to another game costs almost nothing. There is no reason to play a GAME even if it aggragate you a little. There are plenty of games just entertain.
Well, they are not. If you look at the market, games without world pvp (i.e. WOW) is a lot more popular than ones with world pvp. The market preference is pretty clear on this one.
And if most people like vanilla ice cream does that mean the market should stop making orange sherbet? Even if most casual gamers don't like the open world pvp design it does not make it inherently bad, its a matter of preference. There is obviously a market for the type of game most people here think is bad game design, otherwise we wouldn't have EVE, Darkfall, Mortal Online, etc.
Popular =/= good or right, just the preference of a majority. Doesn't mean the majority can tell me my orange ice cream is bad or shove vanilla down my throat. If you dont like orange sherbet then don't have any, whats the point in tasting it, spitting it out, then running around screaming that its inherently bad.
Originally posted by Ghost12 Originally posted by skyexile
Originally posted by Axehilt
Originally posted by skyexile So wait for PlanetSide 2 then?
Unless they really screw up, Planetside 2 won't be world PVP. World PVP in MMORPGs is bad because of ganking and zerging and progression. Planetside had none of those things. There was no distracting PVE (no ganking), population limits were enforced in what was effectively 200v200v200 instanced PVP (no zerging), and progression was lateral (a skilled level 1 could easily kill an unskilled max-level player.) So it's not really world PVP. The only time Planetside offered bad PVP is if your faction was underpopulated. But MMORPGs, especially in world PVP, almost always offer bad PVP where skill is swept aside by population or progression factors.
Thats because world PvP in MMO's is wrong, Planetside (2) is right.
But here you're implying that world PvP itself is bad. world PvP itself isnt bad, its the structure of linear progression that kills world PvP. If developers grew some cajones and put some skill back into gameplay, world PvP would be a totally different animal. ,And for you people who say, "well the technology doesnt exist for skilled gameplay." GIVE ME A BREAK! A little known game made in 97 called "Asheron's Call" not only had World PvP, no classes, but a system in which people were able to DODGE projecticles. Gosh, what a novel idea everyone! Dodging projectiles? Who would of thought, instead of homing arrows we have nowadays that can phase through solid rock. In AC, a level 30 could still stand a chance against a level 60. I keep on saying this, and I'll keep on saying it, AC had a genius, brilliant system light years ahead of any MMO to come out in the past decade; a hybrid system with levels AND physical skill involved. Theres a reason why Darktide is considered one of the best PvP servers ever to exist.
Not sure if you meant to quote me, but i agree with what you said, planetside is exactly like you describe and they had skill based gameplay back in 2003, they're doing it again in 2012 and the tchnology is much better now.
I believe the success of EVE is based on 3 things:
1. World size:
World PvP works in EVE because the game world is massive, so territory control is actually something meaningful. Certain alliances can hold onto their core territory for years, and territorial control is vital to the economic success of an alliance.
2. Economics:
Because the player-driven economy is a major part of EVE, the sheer cost of warfare limits how far and fast any single group can expand. War costs money, and nobody has endless finances.
3. Politics:
In EVE, alliances and treaties between groups are vital. It's very dangerous to launch a major offensive if you're unsure about your neighbours' intentions. You may win your war against your enemy, but it could weaken you, resulting in a formerly neutral neighbour suddenly taking advantage of your weakness.
In EVE, everyone isn't fighting over the same 10 or 20 keeps/cities/towns and flipping control every other week, so people don't get bored by "pointless" back-and-forth combat. In EVE, it usually takes a great deal of strategy and planning (and politics) to dislodge someone from their territory.
I still spend most of my time playing world PVP games so its not dead for me but I would definitely enjoy them more if other people would play them more . .. I hate the way that Warhammer feels though compared to most other open world games and think that its a terrible example to use when talking about when world PVP was good. I played beta. It sucked! I was bored to death after a couple weeks. Oh man oh man there were soooOOOo many other games that were soooOOo fun when they were crowded during beta testing and release but Warhammer was nothing special at all. I think that you can get a better world PVP experience right now from many games than the one in the video shown.
NEWS FLASH!"A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished!https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
You can always roll a PVE server to get away from world PVP....
that doesn't change the fact that world pvp exist in the game and it's implementation and "improvements" take away time and money from devs who could be focusing on something different
like gw2, I still belive that the whole WvWvW thingy is why there is no GvG upon release, anet doesn't have unlimited resources and when it came to the drawing board and what can make it and what can't 2 pvp options are obviously going to be comapred and the one percieved as weaker or less popular removed
the time and money that wento into ilum in swtor could have been used to design another dungeon or something (in before: lololo they didn't spend anything on ilum anyway lololo I are so clever" jokes)
so even if you play on a server with no world pvp, you are still affect by the devs decission to implement world pvp in the game
You can always roll a PVE server to get away from world PVP....
that doesn't change the fact that world pvp exist in the game and it's implementation and "improvements" take away time and money from devs who could be focusing on something different
like gw2, I still belive that the whole WvWvW thingy is why there is no GvG upon release, anet doesn't have unlimited resources and when it came to the drawing board and what can make it and what can't 2 pvp options are obviously going to be comapred and the one percieved as weaker or less popular removed
the time and money that wento into ilum in swtor could have been used to design another dungeon or something (in before: lololo they didn't spend anything on ilum anyway lololo I are so clever" jokes)
so even if you play on a server with no world pvp, you are still affect by the devs decission to implement world pvp in the game
I see this kind of post lots on forums. It's not a bad post in my opinion, but there are some things I happen to disagree with.
The problem is that a lot of people think they are only paying for a certain piece of content or a specific ruleset that they enjoy in an MMO. This is not true. You are paying for access to the game in its entirety. This includes all types of gameplay, server rulesets and content.
As an example, I don't really enjoy PvE raiding, but I understand that in the majority of MMOs on the market raiding is likely to be included. Do I feel cheated? Not really. It's my choice to participate in that aspect of the game or not. Just like it is someone's choice to choose to participate in world PvP or not. I know other people feel differently, but that's just how I feel about it.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Up until recently, I would have totally agreed with the OP.
But, I think open world pvp is comming back, in a big way! We will probly see it first in MMOFPS games, which are starting to make a surge, I am just drooling over PS2.
Once game companys see how badly gamers want to have as much freedom in games as possible, ala sandbox, then the MMO's will follow suit... crossing my fingers!
Because really, open pvp is sandbox, it just doesnt fit with theme park games. Same with all those other aspects of sandbox games that you guys brought up, they all fit nicely with open pvp.
I believe the latest trend of F2P games is actually fueling this, at first F2P seemed lilke the answer to game devs looking to make a buck, but they see now that it doesnt last, escept for League of Legends, they really have a great business model along with a very fun game.
I've been playing MMO's for 10+ years, and I dont want to give up yet. >:?)
I see this kind of post lots on forums. It's not a bad post in my opinion, but there are some things I happen to disagree with.
The problem is that a lot of people think they are only paying for a certain piece of content or a specific ruleset that they enjoy in an MMO. This is not true. You are paying for access to the game in its entirety. This includes all types of gameplay, server rulesets and content.
As an example, I don't really enjoy PvE raiding, but I understand that in the majority of MMOs on the market raiding is likely to be included. Do I feel cheated? Not really. It's my choice to participate in that aspect of the game or not. Just like it is someone's choice to choose to participate in world PvP or not. I know other people feel differently, but that's just how I feel about it.
Yeah, you pay for the entire game.
But games which efficiently serve player interests do better than those which don't.
If you don't like raiding and devs waste their time on that, you sort of are cheated out of a product which could've been a lot more interesting to you (if those same resources went itno the thing(s) you like instead.) The resulting game might still be worthwhile to you, but it definitely could've served your desires better.
The only argument otherwise is if you need the profitability of one system to be able to experience the other. For example, RPers might not consider WOW the most optimal RP RPG, however the vast popularity of WOW's other game systems make the RP community very populated and additional vanity gear gets made which wouldn't get made in an MMORPG purely about RP (which probably wouldn't be all that popular.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But games which efficiently serve player interests do better than those which don't.
If you don't like raiding and devs waste their time on that, you sort of are cheated out of a product which could've been a lot more interesting to you (if those same resources went itno the thing(s) you like instead.) The resulting game might still be worthwhile to you, but it definitely could've served your desires better.
Ah well therein lies the problem, how do you determine "player interests" whose interests deserve consideration and whose doesn't? Player interests may even be competing (i.e. pvp vs pve). I'm going to assume based on your other posts that you mean devs should accomodate whatever seems popular atm. The only issue with that is it leaves no room for the niche player who might not want what everybody else wants, so majority rules and minority be damned? There are so many game studios out there surely there is room for everyone, majority or minority to have the kind of game they want without someone telling them they are doing it wrong just because its not what everyone else is doing.
The only thing that should really matter then is developer intent/goals, if they wanted to make a world pvp game they shouldn't be besieged by themepark gamers telling them they need to fundamentally change their game just to get more subs. i.e. the "I want to like your game but you need to change this, this and that for me to play it, stop listening to the vets that actually play your game, ignore them and try to get more new players" mentality is just plan wrong. Let the devs make the game that they originally intended, as long as they have enough subs to keep funding their vision it should be no ones business to tell them what they should/need to do. Or say that their game design is inherently bad just because gamer type-A doesn't like it. As long as gamer type-B keeps playing what does it matter?
I believe the success of EVE is based on 3 things:
1. World size:
World PvP works in EVE because the game world is massive, so territory control is actually something meaningful. Certain alliances can hold onto their core territory for years, and territorial control is vital to the economic success of an alliance.
2. Economics:
Because the player-driven economy is a major part of EVE, the sheer cost of warfare limits how far and fast any single group can expand. War costs money, and nobody has endless finances.
3. Politics:
In EVE, alliances and treaties between groups are vital. It's very dangerous to launch a major offensive if you're unsure about your neighbours' intentions. You may win your war against your enemy, but it could weaken you, resulting in a formerly neutral neighbour suddenly taking advantage of your weakness.
In EVE, everyone isn't fighting over the same 10 or 20 keeps/cities/towns and flipping control every other week, so people don't get bored by "pointless" back-and-forth combat. In EVE, it usually takes a great deal of strategy and planning (and politics) to dislodge someone from their territory.
World PVP succeeds in EVE because it isn't totally free form, a player can easily manage the level of risk they wish to take and its not uncommon for players to go months or even years without ever losing a ship that they didn't want to.
If they pulled Concorde mechanics out of the game and made the universe totally a FFA experience you'd see the game die almost overnight.
Contrast that with a title like Aion where you are at the mercy of the gank squad and there's no recourse such as a PVE server and you find it is far less popular (here in the west at least) that it could have been.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
World PVP succeeds in EVE because it isn't totally free form, a player can easily manage the level of risk they wish to take and its not uncommon for players to go months or even years without ever losing a ship that they didn't want to.
If they pulled Concorde mechanics out of the game and made the universe totally a FFA experience you'd see the game die almost overnight.
Contrast that with a title like Aion where you are at the mercy of the gank squad and there's no recourse such as a PVE server and you find it is far less popular (here in the west at least) that it could have been.
It pulls off a balance, while there is a generous high security zone, being in the zone still doesn't guarantee you won't be war-decced or suicide ganked. So in essence world pvp is still maintained because people can still choose to pvp in the "safe areas" provided they are willing to pay for war or are willing to suicide themselves to the NPC cops in an attempt to kill you.
From what I have personally concluded, only because the results have yet to change, is that people who are "passionate" about Player Vs Player content do not stay in the same long lasting level of immersion as the PvE'ers/Explorers/Socializers.
Exploiters for better words are what I would describe PVPers, and not in a bad way, victory is again all about getting the upper hand on your opponent, capitalizing on the other persons mistake, finding the flaw that can lead you to victory. This is a very unstable platform, these exploits are constantly changed, tweaked and revised because when there is a class/item/attribute system in place the majority by nature flock to the better.
We all have seen posts such as
What class is best at PVP
Who does the highest Damage
What class beats what at PVP
When games come out, promoting World PVP, the migration happens, players flock from all games to join the fresh one to capitalize on as many new exploitations of systems as they can before everything becomes balanced in the eyes of the developers and broken in the minds of the community. World PVP is not dead, it's stillborn, World PVP is waiting for it's fans, its community to sit down with a title and enjoy it, contribute to it and evolve it.
I suggest, if World PVP is something you really enjoy, very very much, to the point you feel its fading, Invest time into making it fun again, use tools to make a World PVP game, anything is possible and its no different then how D&D enthusiast created ultima, everquest, and the list goes on and on.
It only ruins the experience of a player if they let a bad pvp experience get to them, its all about attitude. You're not going to move to a different city tomorrow if you get mugged today. Most people who play games that have world pvp are well aware of the risks, most of em actually like the idea of having a "human element" rather than the predictable grind. If they don't then why are they playing the game?
Moving to another city is expensive. Moving to another game costs almost nothing. There is no reason to play a GAME even if it aggragate you a little. There are plenty of games just entertain.
Well, they are not. If you look at the market, games without world pvp (i.e. WOW) is a lot more popular than ones with world pvp. The market preference is pretty clear on this one.
And if most people like vanilla ice cream does that mean the market should stop making orange sherbet? Even if most casual gamers don't like the open world pvp design it does not make it inherently bad, its a matter of preference. There is obviously a market for the type of game most people here think is bad game design, otherwise we wouldn't have EVE, Darkfall, Mortal Online, etc.
Popular =/= good or right, just the preference of a majority. Doesn't mean the majority can tell me my orange ice cream is bad or shove vanilla down my throat. If you dont like orange sherbet then don't have any, whats the point in tasting it, spitting it out, then running around screaming that its inherently bad.
It obviously depends on how small is orange sherbet. No one is making avocado (or pic ur unpopular fruit) sherbet, right? If it is really unpopular, then it would only be niche.
In this case, it is exactly what happens. Darkfall, eve, .. Are all niche.
It only ruins the experience of a player if they let a bad pvp experience get to them, its all about attitude. You're not going to move to a different city tomorrow if you get mugged today. Most people who play games that have world pvp are well aware of the risks, most of em actually like the idea of having a "human element" rather than the predictable grind. If they don't then why are they playing the game?
Moving to another city is expensive. Moving to another game costs almost nothing. There is no reason to play a GAME even if it aggragate you a little. There are plenty of games just entertain.
Well, they are not. If you look at the market, games without world pvp (i.e. WOW) is a lot more popular than ones with world pvp. The market preference is pretty clear on this one.
And if most people like vanilla ice cream does that mean the market should stop making orange sherbet? Even if most casual gamers don't like the open world pvp design it does not make it inherently bad, its a matter of preference. There is obviously a market for the type of game most people here think is bad game design, otherwise we wouldn't have EVE, Darkfall, Mortal Online, etc.
Popular =/= good or right, just the preference of a majority. Doesn't mean the majority can tell me my orange ice cream is bad or shove vanilla down my throat. If you dont like orange sherbet then don't have any, whats the point in tasting it, spitting it out, then running around screaming that its inherently bad.
It obviously depends on how small is orange sherbet. No one is making avocado (or pic ur unpopular fruit) sherbet, right? If it is really unpopular, then it would only be niche. In this case, it is exactly what happens. Darkfall, eve, .. Are all niche.
Lets not confuse the word "niche"
I'm starting to see any game that doesn't follow the WoW model being labeled a "niche" game. Sure, right now "Raiding" style games are the popular ones, but it wasnt always that way, and it never will. Remember that EVE has been around for years, I call that a huge success.
Things change, but us pvpers have always been here, in fact, imo I think we have driven the market. Look at all the gameing competitions out there, like Esports. Look at all the battlefield type games, they are everywhere!
Oh, and to the guy who posted that most or all pvpers are cheaters, that is just pure BS man.
Sandbox games can do so much more than themepark, with thier pretty little BG's and hand-held quests. We just need a game dev that can integrate the 2 in a healthy way, then we will all have a seriously awsome game. I think Prime battle for Dominus has a chance, and thats just one example of whats comming our way.
Ah well therein lies the problem, how do you determine "player interests" whose interests deserve consideration and whose doesn't? Player interests may even be competing (i.e. pvp vs pve). I'm going to assume based on your other posts that you mean devs should accomodate whatever seems popular atm. The only issue with that is it leaves no room for the niche player who might not want what everybody else wants, so majority rules and minority be damned? There are so many game studios out there surely there is room for everyone, majority or minority to have the kind of game they want without someone telling them they are doing it wrong just because its not what everyone else is doing.
The only thing that should really matter then is developer intent/goals, if they wanted to make a world pvp game they shouldn't be besieged by themepark gamers telling them they need to fundamentally change their game just to get more subs. i.e. the "I want to like your game but you need to change this, this and that for me to play it, stop listening to the vets that actually play your game, ignore them and try to get more new players" mentality is just plan wrong. Let the devs make the game that they originally intended, as long as they have enough subs to keep funding their vision it should be no ones business to tell them what they should/need to do. Or say that their game design is inherently bad just because gamer type-A doesn't like it. As long as gamer type-B keeps playing what does it matter?
Well niche tastes are doomed to be eternally under-served. That's life, really.
But as for your second comment, I don't think any decent developer fundamentally changes their game. Most developers just put out a series of features and improve the ones resonating best with their playerbase. Seldom do we see SWG-caliber mistakes where a developer attempts to completely change what their game is about. In fact, SWG is one of few examples I can think of a dev changing their game fundamentally to chase an entirely different audience.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It only ruins the experience of a player if they let a bad pvp experience get to them, its all about attitude. You're not going to move to a different city tomorrow if you get mugged today. Most people who play games that have world pvp are well aware of the risks, most of em actually like the idea of having a "human element" rather than the predictable grind. If they don't then why are they playing the game?
Moving to another city is expensive. Moving to another game costs almost nothing. There is no reason to play a GAME even if it aggragate you a little. There are plenty of games just entertain.
Well, they are not. If you look at the market, games without world pvp (i.e. WOW) is a lot more popular than ones with world pvp. The market preference is pretty clear on this one.
And if most people like vanilla ice cream does that mean the market should stop making orange sherbet? Even if most casual gamers don't like the open world pvp design it does not make it inherently bad, its a matter of preference. There is obviously a market for the type of game most people here think is bad game design, otherwise we wouldn't have EVE, Darkfall, Mortal Online, etc.
Popular =/= good or right, just the preference of a majority. Doesn't mean the majority can tell me my orange ice cream is bad or shove vanilla down my throat. If you dont like orange sherbet then don't have any, whats the point in tasting it, spitting it out, then running around screaming that its inherently bad.
It obviously depends on how small is orange sherbet. No one is making avocado (or pic ur unpopular fruit) sherbet, right? If it is really unpopular, then it would only be niche. In this case, it is exactly what happens. Darkfall, eve, .. Are all niche.
Lets not confuse the word "niche"
I'm starting to see any game that doesn't follow the WoW model being labeled a "niche" game. Sure, right now "Raiding" style games are the popular ones, but it wasnt always that way, and it never will. Remember that EVE has been around for years, I call that a huge success.
Things change, but us pvpers have always been here, in fact, imo I think we have driven the market. Look at all the gameing competitions out there, like Esports. Look at all the battlefield type games, they are everywhere!
Oh, and to the guy who posted that most or all pvpers are cheaters, that is just pure BS man.
Sandbox games can do so much more than themepark, with thier pretty little BG's and hand-held quests. We just need a game dev that can integrate the 2 in a healthy way, then we will all have a seriously awsome game. I think Prime battle for Dominus has a chance, and thats just one example of whats comming our way.
about Dominus;
what with Planetside 2, Tribes Ascended and Firefall all being somewhat similar games - scifi - 3 sided RVR - heavily PVP driven
thats 4 games to divide potential subs around
(OK Dominus has some PVE content too, but its still heavily PVP focused)
I'm starting to see any game that doesn't follow the WoW model being labeled a "niche" game. Sure, right now "Raiding" style games are the popular ones, but it wasnt always that way, and it never will. Remember that EVE has been around for years, I call that a huge success.
Things change, but us pvpers have always been here, in fact, imo I think we have driven the market. Look at all the gameing competitions out there, like Esports. Look at all the battlefield type games, they are everywhere!
Oh, and to the guy who posted that most or all pvpers are cheaters, that is just pure BS man.
Sandbox games can do so much more than themepark, with thier pretty little BG's and hand-held quests. We just need a game dev that can integrate the 2 in a healthy way, then we will all have a seriously awsome game. I think Prime battle for Dominus has a chance, and thats just one example of whats comming our way.
As long as sandbox games cling to their world simulation roots, they can't really do "so much more" than themeparks, business-wise.
But sandbox games which embrace gameplay first and shove simulation to the side will be more and more popular.
That's been the entire history of videogames: Games sell well; Simulations 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
The problem with pvp is that very few people want a fair fight, good competition. They want to just add notches to their gun belt and the hows don't matter.
PvP is exclusion, PvE is inclusive.
I for one will never play a game that forces a player to partake of PvP.
Check out Dominus for an up-coming open world, faction vs. faction vs. faction PvP MMO with consensual PvP that won't devolve into a cesspool of ganking and greifing common in FFA-style PvP games.
dominusthegame.com
It will feature three factions, the best gear will be player crafted, the crafting materials are found in the open PvP zone, and the enemies will be perpetual (unlike GW2's rotating server vs. server matches with arbitrary enemies) and the open world PvP will be perpetual (unlike The Secret World's fully-instanced PvP). It's definitely one to keep an eye on.
I'm starting to see any game that doesn't follow the WoW model being labeled a "niche" game. Sure, right now "Raiding" style games are the popular ones, but it wasnt always that way, and it never will. Remember that EVE has been around for years, I call that a huge success.
Things change, but us pvpers have always been here, in fact, imo I think we have driven the market. Look at all the gameing competitions out there, like Esports. Look at all the battlefield type games, they are everywhere!
Oh, and to the guy who posted that most or all pvpers are cheaters, that is just pure BS man.
Sandbox games can do so much more than themepark, with thier pretty little BG's and hand-held quests. We just need a game dev that can integrate the 2 in a healthy way, then we will all have a seriously awsome game. I think Prime battle for Dominus has a chance, and thats just one example of whats comming our way.
As long as sandbox games cling to their world simulation roots, they can't really do "so much more" than themeparks, business-wise.
But sandbox games which embrace gameplay first and shove simulation to the side will be more and more popular.
That's been the entire history of videogames: Games sell well; Simulations don't.
But as long as they manage to sell well enough, I don't see the problem with that, the sim lovers need to go somewhere, let us have our little island in the sun. Its not about explosive success, its about having a place on the internetz to build our little sand castles or kick over someone elses. Anyone who doesnt like that can get off the sandy beach and head to a resort island, there are plenty out there to choose from. World pvp isn't dead, its doing ok, modest success is still success.
I really like the way ACE online does pvp, each map has combat and safe channels, harder and higher level maps are all combat, really works well and it gives the perfect pvp feel, except you can't invade the other nations home town... lawl...
Check out Dominus for an up-coming open world, faction vs. faction vs. faction PvP MMO with consensual PvP that won't devolve into a cesspool of ganking and greifing common in FFA-style PvP games.
dominusthegame.com
It will feature three factions, the best gear will be player crafted, the crafting materials are found in the open PvP zone, and the enemies will be perpetual (unlike GW2's rotating server vs. server matches with arbitrary enemies) and the open world PvP will be perpetual (unlike The Secret World's fully-instanced PvP). It's definitely one to keep an eye on.
The secret world has a simmilar PVP setup to GW2
it has a arena
it has battlegrounds
it has FFA areas of the citries called fight clubs
it has warzones which are persistent / perpetual objective based areas of the world (actually its more so than GW2 here as it isn't on a 2 week timer) - they even have something very similar to daoc relic bonus
theres lots of misconceptions about TSW warzones, genrerally along the lines of "like alterac valley" or "like lake wintergrasp" if you watch the actual videos for the warzones as presented at PAX - its pretty obvious where they got the inspiration from and it certaily wasn't WOW.
But as long as they manage to sell well enough, I don't see the problem with that, the sim lovers need to go somewhere, let us have our little island in the sun. Its not about explosive success, its about having a place on the internetz to build our little sand castles or kick over someone elses. Anyone who doesnt like that can get off the sandy beach and head to a resort island, there are plenty out there to choose from. World pvp isn't dead, its doing ok, modest success is still success.
Sure those games can be profitable. It's only when sandboxers insist they get a AAA game or lots more games that we need to step back and realize those aren't reasonable requests.
But really I think there are a lot of sandboxers who would love a gameplay-focused sandbox. If you ask them now (before a gameplay-focused sandbox really exists) if they want that they'll say "No way, I want world simulation", but I think a significant portion of sandbox lovers would love to see games go more in the Terraria direction (more game-like, less simulation.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
In most FPS you lose about 50% of the time, if you fight against equally skilled opponents. Same goes with most RTS, Beat-em-up games and MOBAs (such as League of Legends).
So, no, the losing in itself is not an issue.
You can always roll a PVE server to get away from world PVP....
And if most people like vanilla ice cream does that mean the market should stop making orange sherbet? Even if most casual gamers don't like the open world pvp design it does not make it inherently bad, its a matter of preference. There is obviously a market for the type of game most people here think is bad game design, otherwise we wouldn't have EVE, Darkfall, Mortal Online, etc.
Popular =/= good or right, just the preference of a majority. Doesn't mean the majority can tell me my orange ice cream is bad or shove vanilla down my throat. If you dont like orange sherbet then don't have any, whats the point in tasting it, spitting it out, then running around screaming that its inherently bad.
Unless they really screw up, Planetside 2 won't be world PVP.
World PVP in MMORPGs is bad because of ganking and zerging and progression.
Planetside had none of those things. There was no distracting PVE (no ganking), population limits were enforced in what was effectively 200v200v200 instanced PVP (no zerging), and progression was lateral (a skilled level 1 could easily kill an unskilled max-level player.) So it's not really world PVP.
The only time Planetside offered bad PVP is if your faction was underpopulated. But MMORPGs, especially in world PVP, almost always offer bad PVP where skill is swept aside by population or progression factors.
Thats because world PvP in MMO's is wrong, Planetside (2) is right.
But here you're implying that world PvP itself is bad. world PvP itself isnt bad, its the structure of linear progression that kills world PvP. If developers grew some cajones and put some skill back into gameplay, world PvP would be a totally different animal.
,And for you people who say, "well the technology doesnt exist for skilled gameplay."
GIVE ME A BREAK! A little known game made in 97 called "Asheron's Call" not only had World PvP, no classes, but a system in which people were able to DODGE projecticles. Gosh, what a novel idea everyone! Dodging projectiles? Who would of thought, instead of homing arrows we have nowadays that can phase through solid rock.
In AC, a level 30 could still stand a chance against a level 60.
I keep on saying this, and I'll keep on saying it, AC had a genius, brilliant system light years ahead of any MMO to come out in the past decade; a hybrid system with levels AND physical skill involved. Theres a reason why Darktide is considered one of the best PvP servers ever to exist.
Not sure if you meant to quote me, but i agree with what you said, planetside is exactly like you describe and they had skill based gameplay back in 2003, they're doing it again in 2012 and the tchnology is much better now.
SKYeXile
TRF - GM - GW2, PS2, WAR, AION, Rift, WoW, WOT....etc...
Future Crew - High Council. Planetside 1 & 2.
World PvP is alive and well and living in EVE
I believe the success of EVE is based on 3 things:
1. World size:
World PvP works in EVE because the game world is massive, so territory control is actually something meaningful. Certain alliances can hold onto their core territory for years, and territorial control is vital to the economic success of an alliance.
2. Economics:
Because the player-driven economy is a major part of EVE, the sheer cost of warfare limits how far and fast any single group can expand. War costs money, and nobody has endless finances.
3. Politics:
In EVE, alliances and treaties between groups are vital. It's very dangerous to launch a major offensive if you're unsure about your neighbours' intentions. You may win your war against your enemy, but it could weaken you, resulting in a formerly neutral neighbour suddenly taking advantage of your weakness.
In EVE, everyone isn't fighting over the same 10 or 20 keeps/cities/towns and flipping control every other week, so people don't get bored by "pointless" back-and-forth combat. In EVE, it usually takes a great deal of strategy and planning (and politics) to dislodge someone from their territory.
I still spend most of my time playing world PVP games so its not dead for me but I would definitely enjoy them more if other people would play them more . .. I hate the way that Warhammer feels though compared to most other open world games and think that its a terrible example to use when talking about when world PVP was good. I played beta. It sucked! I was bored to death after a couple weeks. Oh man oh man there were soooOOOo many other games that were soooOOo fun when they were crowded during beta testing and release but Warhammer was nothing special at all. I think that you can get a better world PVP experience right now from many games than the one in the video shown.
NEWS FLASH! "A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/ Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished! https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/ Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
that doesn't change the fact that world pvp exist in the game and it's implementation and "improvements" take away time and money from devs who could be focusing on something different
like gw2, I still belive that the whole WvWvW thingy is why there is no GvG upon release, anet doesn't have unlimited resources and when it came to the drawing board and what can make it and what can't 2 pvp options are obviously going to be comapred and the one percieved as weaker or less popular removed
the time and money that wento into ilum in swtor could have been used to design another dungeon or something (in before: lololo they didn't spend anything on ilum anyway lololo I are so clever" jokes)
so even if you play on a server with no world pvp, you are still affect by the devs decission to implement world pvp in the game
I see this kind of post lots on forums. It's not a bad post in my opinion, but there are some things I happen to disagree with.
The problem is that a lot of people think they are only paying for a certain piece of content or a specific ruleset that they enjoy in an MMO. This is not true. You are paying for access to the game in its entirety. This includes all types of gameplay, server rulesets and content.
As an example, I don't really enjoy PvE raiding, but I understand that in the majority of MMOs on the market raiding is likely to be included. Do I feel cheated? Not really. It's my choice to participate in that aspect of the game or not. Just like it is someone's choice to choose to participate in world PvP or not. I know other people feel differently, but that's just how I feel about it.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Up until recently, I would have totally agreed with the OP.
But, I think open world pvp is comming back, in a big way! We will probly see it first in MMOFPS games, which are starting to make a surge, I am just drooling over PS2.
Once game companys see how badly gamers want to have as much freedom in games as possible, ala sandbox, then the MMO's will follow suit... crossing my fingers!
Because really, open pvp is sandbox, it just doesnt fit with theme park games. Same with all those other aspects of sandbox games that you guys brought up, they all fit nicely with open pvp.
I believe the latest trend of F2P games is actually fueling this, at first F2P seemed lilke the answer to game devs looking to make a buck, but they see now that it doesnt last, escept for League of Legends, they really have a great business model along with a very fun game.
I've been playing MMO's for 10+ years, and I dont want to give up yet. >:?)
Yeah, you pay for the entire game.
But games which efficiently serve player interests do better than those which don't.
If you don't like raiding and devs waste their time on that, you sort of are cheated out of a product which could've been a lot more interesting to you (if those same resources went itno the thing(s) you like instead.) The resulting game might still be worthwhile to you, but it definitely could've served your desires better.
The only argument otherwise is if you need the profitability of one system to be able to experience the other. For example, RPers might not consider WOW the most optimal RP RPG, however the vast popularity of WOW's other game systems make the RP community very populated and additional vanity gear gets made which wouldn't get made in an MMORPG purely about RP (which probably wouldn't be all that popular.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Ah well therein lies the problem, how do you determine "player interests" whose interests deserve consideration and whose doesn't? Player interests may even be competing (i.e. pvp vs pve). I'm going to assume based on your other posts that you mean devs should accomodate whatever seems popular atm. The only issue with that is it leaves no room for the niche player who might not want what everybody else wants, so majority rules and minority be damned? There are so many game studios out there surely there is room for everyone, majority or minority to have the kind of game they want without someone telling them they are doing it wrong just because its not what everyone else is doing.
The only thing that should really matter then is developer intent/goals, if they wanted to make a world pvp game they shouldn't be besieged by themepark gamers telling them they need to fundamentally change their game just to get more subs. i.e. the "I want to like your game but you need to change this, this and that for me to play it, stop listening to the vets that actually play your game, ignore them and try to get more new players" mentality is just plan wrong. Let the devs make the game that they originally intended, as long as they have enough subs to keep funding their vision it should be no ones business to tell them what they should/need to do. Or say that their game design is inherently bad just because gamer type-A doesn't like it. As long as gamer type-B keeps playing what does it matter?
World PVP succeeds in EVE because it isn't totally free form, a player can easily manage the level of risk they wish to take and its not uncommon for players to go months or even years without ever losing a ship that they didn't want to.
If they pulled Concorde mechanics out of the game and made the universe totally a FFA experience you'd see the game die almost overnight.
Contrast that with a title like Aion where you are at the mercy of the gank squad and there's no recourse such as a PVE server and you find it is far less popular (here in the west at least) that it could have been.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It pulls off a balance, while there is a generous high security zone, being in the zone still doesn't guarantee you won't be war-decced or suicide ganked. So in essence world pvp is still maintained because people can still choose to pvp in the "safe areas" provided they are willing to pay for war or are willing to suicide themselves to the NPC cops in an attempt to kill you.
From what I have personally concluded, only because the results have yet to change, is that people who are "passionate" about Player Vs Player content do not stay in the same long lasting level of immersion as the PvE'ers/Explorers/Socializers.
Exploiters for better words are what I would describe PVPers, and not in a bad way, victory is again all about getting the upper hand on your opponent, capitalizing on the other persons mistake, finding the flaw that can lead you to victory. This is a very unstable platform, these exploits are constantly changed, tweaked and revised because when there is a class/item/attribute system in place the majority by nature flock to the better.
We all have seen posts such as
What class is best at PVP
Who does the highest Damage
What class beats what at PVP
When games come out, promoting World PVP, the migration happens, players flock from all games to join the fresh one to capitalize on as many new exploitations of systems as they can before everything becomes balanced in the eyes of the developers and broken in the minds of the community. World PVP is not dead, it's stillborn, World PVP is waiting for it's fans, its community to sit down with a title and enjoy it, contribute to it and evolve it.
I suggest, if World PVP is something you really enjoy, very very much, to the point you feel its fading, Invest time into making it fun again, use tools to make a World PVP game, anything is possible and its no different then how D&D enthusiast created ultima, everquest, and the list goes on and on.
It only ruins the experience of a player if they let a bad pvp experience get to them, its all about attitude. You're not going to move to a different city tomorrow if you get mugged today. Most people who play games that have world pvp are well aware of the risks, most of em actually like the idea of having a "human element" rather than the predictable grind. If they don't then why are they playing the game?
Moving to another city is expensive. Moving to another game costs almost nothing. There is no reason to play a GAME even if it aggragate you a little. There are plenty of games just entertain.
Well, they are not. If you look at the market, games without world pvp (i.e. WOW) is a lot more popular than ones with world pvp. The market preference is pretty clear on this one.
And if most people like vanilla ice cream does that mean the market should stop making orange sherbet? Even if most casual gamers don't like the open world pvp design it does not make it inherently bad, its a matter of preference. There is obviously a market for the type of game most people here think is bad game design, otherwise we wouldn't have EVE, Darkfall, Mortal Online, etc.
Popular =/= good or right, just the preference of a majority. Doesn't mean the majority can tell me my orange ice cream is bad or shove vanilla down my throat. If you dont like orange sherbet then don't have any, whats the point in tasting it, spitting it out, then running around screaming that its inherently bad.
It obviously depends on how small is orange sherbet. No one is making avocado (or pic ur unpopular fruit) sherbet, right? If it is really unpopular, then it would only be niche.In this case, it is exactly what happens. Darkfall, eve, .. Are all niche.
Lets not confuse the word "niche"
I'm starting to see any game that doesn't follow the WoW model being labeled a "niche" game. Sure, right now "Raiding" style games are the popular ones, but it wasnt always that way, and it never will. Remember that EVE has been around for years, I call that a huge success.
Things change, but us pvpers have always been here, in fact, imo I think we have driven the market. Look at all the gameing competitions out there, like Esports. Look at all the battlefield type games, they are everywhere!
Oh, and to the guy who posted that most or all pvpers are cheaters, that is just pure BS man.
Sandbox games can do so much more than themepark, with thier pretty little BG's and hand-held quests. We just need a game dev that can integrate the 2 in a healthy way, then we will all have a seriously awsome game. I think Prime battle for Dominus has a chance, and thats just one example of whats comming our way.
Well niche tastes are doomed to be eternally under-served. That's life, really.
But as for your second comment, I don't think any decent developer fundamentally changes their game. Most developers just put out a series of features and improve the ones resonating best with their playerbase. Seldom do we see SWG-caliber mistakes where a developer attempts to completely change what their game is about. In fact, SWG is one of few examples I can think of a dev changing their game fundamentally to chase an entirely different audience.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
about Dominus;
what with Planetside 2, Tribes Ascended and Firefall all being somewhat similar games - scifi - 3 sided RVR - heavily PVP driven
thats 4 games to divide potential subs around
(OK Dominus has some PVE content too, but its still heavily PVP focused)
As long as sandbox games cling to their world simulation roots, they can't really do "so much more" than themeparks, business-wise.
But sandbox games which embrace gameplay first and shove simulation to the side will be more and more popular.
That's been the entire history of videogames: Games sell well; Simulations 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
The problem with pvp is that very few people want a fair fight, good competition. They want to just add notches to their gun belt and the hows don't matter.
PvP is exclusion, PvE is inclusive.
I for one will never play a game that forces a player to partake of PvP.
Check out Dominus for an up-coming open world, faction vs. faction vs. faction PvP MMO with consensual PvP that won't devolve into a cesspool of ganking and greifing common in FFA-style PvP games.
dominusthegame.com
It will feature three factions, the best gear will be player crafted, the crafting materials are found in the open PvP zone, and the enemies will be perpetual (unlike GW2's rotating server vs. server matches with arbitrary enemies) and the open world PvP will be perpetual (unlike The Secret World's fully-instanced PvP). It's definitely one to keep an eye on.
But as long as they manage to sell well enough, I don't see the problem with that, the sim lovers need to go somewhere, let us have our little island in the sun. Its not about explosive success, its about having a place on the internetz to build our little sand castles or kick over someone elses. Anyone who doesnt like that can get off the sandy beach and head to a resort island, there are plenty out there to choose from. World pvp isn't dead, its doing ok, modest success is still success.
I really like the way ACE online does pvp, each map has combat and safe channels, harder and higher level maps are all combat, really works well and it gives the perfect pvp feel, except you can't invade the other nations home town... lawl...
The secret world has a simmilar PVP setup to GW2
it has a arena
it has battlegrounds
it has FFA areas of the citries called fight clubs
it has warzones which are persistent / perpetual objective based areas of the world (actually its more so than GW2 here as it isn't on a 2 week timer) - they even have something very similar to daoc relic bonus
theres lots of misconceptions about TSW warzones, genrerally along the lines of "like alterac valley" or "like lake wintergrasp" if you watch the actual videos for the warzones as presented at PAX - its pretty obvious where they got the inspiration from and it certaily wasn't WOW.
Sure those games can be profitable. It's only when sandboxers insist they get a AAA game or lots more games that we need to step back and realize those aren't reasonable requests.
But really I think there are a lot of sandboxers who would love a gameplay-focused sandbox. If you ask them now (before a gameplay-focused sandbox really exists) if they want that they'll say "No way, I want world simulation", but I think a significant portion of sandbox lovers would love to see games go more in the Terraria direction (more game-like, less simulation.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver