Only problem with pvp is that majority of players dont want it and avoid games with pvp focus.This is not going to change what ever stile of pvp you insert to the games people avoid it.
The problem with the integraged pvp/pve is that most "pvp'ers" like to stack the odds in thier favor, you would be surprised how many pve'ers wouldn't mind it if they had a decent chance at winning, but most games with FFA pvp like say aion for example put the pve'ers at a serious disadvantage, as long as people don't stand a chance in a fight they will not want it, its human nature. As long as there are mechanics that can be abused to grief players there will be players that grief them with the intent to make players quit the game for the "lulz".
Its one of the reasons why most big games stay away from that model completely.
It is true that some players will always try to game any system. I would just say it is up to the developers to produce a game with solid design.
Still, I can't say you're wrong about why the developers stay away from certain models. It could be outside the realm of what they are capable of or what they would want to produce.
No offense but I don't see the logic. Are these myths not directed at PvE'rs? Why then do you say "You just want to grief me." Are you talking to other PvP'ers that feel this way? They wouldn't be very big PvP'ers then, no?
"Why should I be forced to play your way? No one is forcing you to PVE.” Again, is this not a myth that is proposed BY PvE'rs? Why would a PvP'er even suggest this?
You don't really go into details of how you'd want PvP in your game, just trying to shut out those against it by attempting to debunk these arguments against FFA PvP games.
If this wasn't your intention, then maybe you should have worded it differently. Then it wouldn't have become a PvP vs PvE thread. Reading comprehension is only half the work. Writing is the other...
This is why when making threads and arguments of this type, the "one clear message" approach is so important.
I'm not claiming I always do it right myself though!
Originally posted by Bidwood Hey everyone,There have been some major misconceptions here.This thread is not "Full PVP is right and anything less is crap." This is not me trying to convince you to participate in it or to take over and transform your existing games. This is me explaining why I want to see some games in development end up featuring full PVP. It's dispelling the myths about what people like me believe/want from future games. I'm really the only one who is an expert on what I want from a game. But I'm trying to share that with you, and am willing to revise the myths to reflect other opinions from people who are like-minded. The rest of you - your have an opportunity to read and better understand what we're asking for for ourselves - not to be mistaken for how we feel all games should be for everyone.
I truly hope you do get a full on PvP MMO that you enjoy playing. However, why the thread? Who are you trying to convince?
PS: Using your original points as rebuttals accomplishes nothing. It did not work the first time, why would it the second or third? Expound on those points. Explain it differently. (Or maybe say the same but all in caps?)
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
The problem with the integraged pvp/pve is that most "pvp'ers" like to stack the odds in thier favor, you would be surprised how many pve'ers wouldn't mind it if they had a decent chance at winning, but most games with FFA pvp like say aion for example put the pve'ers at a serious disadvantage, as long as people don't stand a chance in a fight they will not want it, its human nature. As long as there are mechanics that can be abused to grief players there will be players that grief them with the intent to make players quit the game for the "lulz".
Its one of the reasons why most big games stay away from that model completely.
There's a lot of truth in that.
Nothing wrong with stacking the fight in your favor but that's not so much about "pvp" as about "insuring a win".
Most of my time in Aion, concerning pvp, was about someone being vastly high in level and gear than me or someone hiding and then hitting as fast as they could to take me down OR coming at me with a horde of players at their side.
Some people like this, I think it's boring. If me coming at someone with a horde of players at my side won't insure an eventual equal response then taking out one players is not of interest. If I out levle and out gear players and that doesn't insure that their guild mates who are equally geared and of similiar level won't come out then that's not of interest.
I essentially find ganking boring and never do it.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
There are inevitable debates that pop up during the development of high-profile, triple-A MMOs.
This purpose of this thread is to dispel the myths about full PVP that grow back like weeds every time you cut them down. Hopefully this thread helps some folks see the point of view of those who are waiting patiently for a triple-A game with full PVP.
So what is “full” PVP? Here are some of the defining characteristics:
PVP is “on” throughout the entire world. (No place is 100 per cent safe, although there can be some areas with strong protection like hi-sec in EVE.)
It's integrated with the other mature game systems in a meaningful way -- like the economy -- where everything from crafting to territory control are designed with PVP in mind. (Integration with other well-developed systems is where a lot of the indies fall short and why we need a triple-A title.)
It involves risk v.s. reward in a big way. Getting the best resources means venturing into unsafe/contested territories.
I may need to expand on the defining characteristics after other folks weigh in.
The myths
1. You just want to grief me.
This is the self-centered argument of someone who was scarred for life in Ultima Online a decade ago and can’t move on. We actually don’t care if you play the game. In fact, if you dislike full PVP then we hope you don’t play
2. “Why should I be forced to play your way? No one is forcing you to PVE.”
This makes it sound like you’re already a paying customer for a game and we’re pulling the rug out from under you. If a game is in development and you find out it has full PVP, you aren’t forced to do anything. You can simply play a different game. If you do play and get ganked, then you still made a conscious decision with regard to risk v.s. reward. And you lost. No one forced anything on you.
3. It’s PVP v.s. PVE and people who enjoy PVP are a niche.
This creates sort of a false dichotomy where you’re looking at a niche of gamers – those who only want to PVP – and ignoring the huge market of folks who want to PVP AND PVE. So the most passionate arguments are usually between those who want ONLY full PVP and those who want ONLY PVE. Both of these are arguably niche, but then again League of Legends is the most played game in the world with only PVP.
4. Okay - but the majority of people want PVP on their terms.
How many triple-A MMOs with full PVP have they even been able to try in the last 15 years? Who's to say they would find a triple-A game with full PVP distasteful? Games like Darkfall don't count, because they don't have mature systems to integrate with the PVP.
5. The answer is simple: Just let people flag themselves for PVP when they want to engage in it.
Things go wrong when you take a game designed for full PVP and let people opt in/out whenever they want. Take, for example, the risk v.s. reward characteristic. Human nature compels us to get rewards using the path that involves as little risk as possible. Even people who love risk would be stupid not to turn PVP off because it puts them at a distinct tactical disadvantage. This is like Game Geenie or any number of other hacks and it would break any game designed with full PVP.
6. The answer is simple: Just implement PVP and non-PVP servers.
You might as well have two different games, because full PVP requires a dedicated dev team to succeed. Remember, it’s not just the ability to attack people. It’s the integration of PVP with other game systems and risk v.s. reward. While a game with dedicated full-service dev teams for each server type would be great for players, it could also hurt publishers’ return on investment.
7. Look around at the limited number of PVP servers on popular games. This is proof that the market for open-world PVP games is niche.
The only thing this proves is that gamers don’t like a server where a core game mechanic has been merely “turned on” as an afterthought to the game’s design. The PVP is often meaningless in these games because it isn’t “full” PVP and is essentially in its own vaccuum.
Okay, so that’s what I was able to come up with so far. I’ll probably refine this and come up with a “v 2.0” after all of the arguments are made.
See, your points are fine and very valid - but really a lot of this discussion comes from your statement about 'if a game is being developed for PvP'. Problem is, a lot of the more resent PvP discussions are being had due to EQN and the fact that no one knows anything about the game. No body knows if it will be PvP or straight PvE. No one knows how PvP will be implemented. In those discussions, people are throwing around ideas about how they would like to see PvP handled - FFA Advocates, PvE 'No PvP Allowed' Advocates and the PvE with consensual PvP advocates. Thing is, no one knows what system they will choose for the game. Sure, there have been some very vague and cryptic tweets, but they really mean nothing.
If they said EQN were to be made in X style, then we would all have to deal with it. Don't like it, don't play it - be it PvEers or PvPers. Sadly in those forums it all boils down to "It has to be our way or the highway - No Compromises!" and it all seems to be coming from one specific camp. And its always the same rhetoric being spouted about why it has to be this way. Now we have posts like this popping up as some sort of defense to validate your prefered playstyle. And trust me, EVERYONE gets what you are saying, and if it were a game being designed for FFA PvP/OW PvP then yes, you have a point and many people would agree with you and likely look toward another game if they didn't agree with it. But again, No one knows ANYTHING about how EQN will manage PvP. In the meantime, however, if you don't want people creating 'myths' as to why PvP is unneeded, don't force 'myths' as to why it is. Because what you see as a 'myth' is what a lot of us see as fact having experienced it over the many years this genre has been in existence.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I'm not sure " as long as it has no effect on me " is a compromise. People are willing to let games do whatever they want on other server types but is anyone really ok with it when it does impact their play in a negative manor ?
When DAoC added Mordred (which utterly failed...)
Wait what? Mordred was so popular they had to open a second server.
It failed after YEARS of neglect, because DAoC wasn't built to be a FFA PVP game, so most of the systems didn't work well with it.
Sadly in those forums it all boils down to "It has to be our way or the highway - No Compromises!" and it all seems to be coming from one specific camp. And its always the same rhetoric being spouted about why it has to be this way.
This is true on both sides.
Some people continue to say things like "PVP and PVE servers solves this problem for everyone, discussion over."
And then you get the same old rhetoric from the other guy saying "Not for me, proper PVE/PVP integration in a game from my perspective means a game cannot function without all of its relevant PVE AND PVP systems in place."
Then, 10 minutes later, someone shows up and says "PVP and PVE servers solves this problem for everyone, discussion over."
So this is why you hear the same "rhetoric being spouted" constantly.
Originally posted by OfficialFlow Sandbox demands some form of PvP the dull monsters cant keep the interest of players with the current AI no matter how refined the game mechanics are
You miss the whole point of sandbox games. There is so much more to do other than combat. Your fallacy is that the only thing to do in an MMO is fight. You are not far off with today's MMOs. Sandboxes have so much more than "just fighting", which is the meat and potatoes of the PvPers, right?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Sadly in those forums it all boils down to "It has to be our way or the highway - No Compromises!" and it all seems to be coming from one specific camp. And its always the same rhetoric being spouted about why it has to be this way.
This is true on both sides.
Some people continue to say things like "PVP and PVE servers solves this problem for everyone, discussion over."
And then you get the same old rhetoric from the other guy saying "Not for me, proper PVE/PVP integration in a game from my perspective means a game cannot function without all of its relevant PVE AND PVP systems in place."
Then, 10 minutes later, someone shows up and says "PVP and PVE servers solves this problem for everyone, discussion over."
So this is why you hear the same "rhetoric being spouted" constantly.
Solution is separate games one for pvp Another for pvp,fantasy games for pve different games for pvp since those need no content,people just gank eachother.
I'll agree with the point that different games have a place, and I personally have no problem whatsoever with the existence of DF:UW or EVE Online. Hell, I'm subscribed to EVE right now. But...
1. Is not really a myth. Griefing, especially of players who don't play "the right way", is very common in FFA PvP* games and is often done for giggles and not for profit, putting these games in a very bad light, because the playerbase often auto-markets them as games for "PvPers" only. Games that have poor or lacking safe zones often have spawn camping - this can only done for griefing purposes, and it always happens. EVE also suffers from this, even though it has some solid PvE elements.
2. Is valid if the discussion takes the turn of: "PvEers should enjoy FFA PvP games, if they don't, it's because they didn't try it yet or because they're pathetic carebears". "PvPers" are often quick to imply PvEers don't like a real challenge, as well. It's all been said and done, so don't be surprised point 2 is often raised. If FFA PvP folk just stuck to their games and didn't try to push their ideals into others (EQN) or bash other games/players, nobody would mention point 2.
5. and 6. are not there to accommodate an FFA PvP game. They're there to provide proper PvP modes for people who want to PvP in the game environment. They generally satisfy the PvP+PvE group that you mention in 3. The subset that plays FFA PvP games is different from that subset, because they prefer balanced games to imbalanced games (and most FFA PvP games are imbalanced where PvP is more important and integral to the game than the PvE).
*I call a game FFA PvP if PvP is technically possible everywhere.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW Currently playing: GW2, EVE Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
Sadly in those forums it all boils down to "It has to be our way or the highway - No Compromises!" and it all seems to be coming from one specific camp. And its always the same rhetoric being spouted about why it has to be this way.
This is true on both sides.
Some people continue to say things like "PVP and PVE servers solves this problem for everyone, discussion over."
And then you get the same old rhetoric from the other guy saying "Not for me, proper PVE/PVP integration in a game from my perspective means a game cannot function without all of its relevant PVE AND PVP systems in place."
Then, 10 minutes later, someone shows up and says "PVP and PVE servers solves this problem for everyone, discussion over."
So this is why you hear the same "rhetoric being spouted" constantly.
Solution is separate games one for pvp Another for pvp,fantasy games for pve different games for pvp since those need no content,people just gank eachother.
You say no content but I think some people just get tired of the same old content over and over. There have been games that try to push theme parks in new directions, but it's really just atmosphere. These games rise to massive heights then go free to play as people get tired and leave.
A good sandbox will at least give people the illusion of exploration, with real suspense, and a greater level of social interaction.
It may not be what you call content but it can keep a game on the market long after a PVE game has closed it's doors.
Case in point, DAYZ. This is mod of a little known game, that came out of nowhere, to be on par with many major theme parks.
It shows that what you call no content and griefing can be just a powerful as any theme park.
I'm not sure " as long as it has no effect on me " is a compromise. People are willing to let games do whatever they want on other server types but is anyone really ok with it when it does impact their play in a negative manor ?
When DAoC added Mordred (which utterly failed...)
Wait what? Mordred was so popular they had to open a second server.
It failed after YEARS of neglect, because DAoC wasn't built to be a FFA PVP game, so most of the systems didn't work well with it.
That is not true initially Mordred was very successful but people started leaving both Andred (the server they opened after Mordred) and Mordred because new players could not get a foot in. The earlier argument that PvP servers killed their own growth happened to Mordred and Andred. Andred was subsequently shut down and the players were asked to transfer to Mordred. It died because that server never allowed new players to grow they just kept ganking them and discouraging people. I was there and read the vault boards. Don't try to rewrite history.
There seems to be two prevalent false assumptions going on in this thread:
1. Everyone plays mmos primarily for combat.
2. Risking loss and death are the only way to place value on what you do in an mmo.
Both these statements are false. Many people primarily play mmos for other reasons than combat. I get my combat fix in fighting games. When I want to immerse myself in a player driven world, I play mmos.
Crafting an item just to be ganked and have it stolen does not make the gameplay exciting for me. Risk of loss is not a motivation for many mmo players. My best mmo experiences are when I collaborated with other players to achieve a common goal such as making a live event or a multi tiered crafted item. Creativity is its own reward as well regarding decoration, outfits, etc. And exploration has its benefits as well.
I am not saying this appeals to everyone. Saying its in the minority is irrelevant.
It's integrated with the other mature game systems in a meaningful way -- like the economy -- where everything from crafting to territory control are designed with PVP in mind.
This is where I disagree. It's not because I am against full PvP, however.
Because when you design all the systems with PvP in mind, you sacrifice the integrity of all the systems for the sake of a PvPers needs.
And I've seen it in games like SWG, where the most powerful PvP guilds set up buffbots to give them enhancements 24/7. I've seen it in games like EVE, where small industrial corps are preyed upon by PvP guilds who really don't care about making the game work for everyone. I've seen it in CoH, where the PvP guilds would demand people place headsets in their ears in order to join, and had no respect for roleplayers.
That's how PvP games die, because unless PvPers are willing to submit to systems they don't like very much (like roleplay, non-combat needs, carebearing, etc.), there's no reason for these other, non-PvP players to willingly submit themselves to your ganks.
So, I'm going to make a demand of my own, and I hope the FFA PvP folks will take me up on it.
What are you willing to do, and what are you willing to give up, to get your FFA PvP?
Are you willing to engage in light roleplay? Not "thee and thou," but are you willing to play along and make the game work for roleplayers trying to suspend disbelief? If not, why should RPers submit to your ganks?
Are you willing to not run off to the buffbot or the alt account the moment you need an enhancement? If not, why should the enhancers and the actual live players who depend on general commerce support your FFA PvP?
Are you willing to be good citizens of your server? Or are you just interested in seeing your guild dominate? Because if you are just interested in domination, and care less about people who aren't in your clique, why should the non-guilded, the ambassadors of goodwill, and the neutrals subject themselves to your ganks?
Now you may say to yourselves, PvPers, "you can't make us respect those things, Beatnik." Fair enough. But by the same token, the devs don't have to respect your desire for open world PvP either. We non-PvPers keep on hearing how much you want your open world PvP. But it sounds like an all give and no take deal to us. What are you going to do--what sort of sacrifices are you going to make--to make your victims' games better?
In my experience, PvPers were some of the worst violators of the spirit of the game in games like SWG, EVE and UO. They metagamed, min/maxed, taunted serious RPers, had a juvenile sense of humor that "does it for the lolz," made buffbots, broke the economic game through multiboxing, and made it a point to always F-up the plans of the people who did constructive things (like weddings, meetings, social gatherings, etc.).
As I said in one of my blogs, PvPers in the early days behaved like clearcutting loggers, felling everything in sight without any regard that the forest couldn't sustain itself. As a result, can we actually blame the developers to act like good forest rangers, and place restrictions on logging?
So what are you going to do, PvPers, to "replenish the soil," or make it worth your victims' time to subject themselves to your ganks?
You have to think "sustainability," but so far, I haven't seen any PvPer come forward and make a sustainability proposal to keep the carebears interested. Instead, all I see is how great it would be once we let the chainsaws fly free.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Sadly in those forums it all boils down to "It has to be our way or the highway - No Compromises!" and it all seems to be coming from one specific camp. And its always the same rhetoric being spouted about why it has to be this way.
This is true on both sides.
Some people continue to say things like "PVP and PVE servers solves this problem for everyone, discussion over."
And then you get the same old rhetoric from the other guy saying "Not for me, proper PVE/PVP integration in a game from my perspective means a game cannot function without all of its relevant PVE AND PVP systems in place."
Then, 10 minutes later, someone shows up and says "PVP and PVE servers solves this problem for everyone, discussion over."
So this is why you hear the same "rhetoric being spouted" constantly.
Solution is separate games one for pvp Another for pvp,fantasy games for pve different games for pvp since those need no content,people just gank eachother.
See, PvPers are not out just to gank each other. It's all based on the player. There are a lot of PvPers I knew when UO launched who PvPed for roleplaying. We had fun because it lead to some great player made stories in game that everyone who wanted to could participate in. Problem is you started getting more people who started playing just for the sole purpose of killing 'newbs'. The game started to become flooded with Red stuttered cap names like "DeWdBRo". The roleplaying community tried to consolidate on servers less populated by these players, but they followed. Even a lot of my friends who loved PvP were getting fed up with it because this type of player was growing in numbers. Every system that was put in game to stop griefing ended up being exploited by the griefers (Don't want to go red? walk into the path of the spell your target cast to kill the mong bat...)
There is a reason why game companies started coming up with the separate server approach, flag systems, etc. They know most players like PvP on their terms and don't want to have to deal with it on a daily basis. They also know that what ever safety system they put in to prevent griefing will almost always be abused by the griefer. Most PvPers enjoy the game as it is meant to be played and will not abuse nor grief others. Sadly they are lumped in with the mental midgets who tend to eventually out number them. I can understand where people like Raman are coming from, and how players like Bidwood yern for a game that offers them the full spectrum of choices. And hopefully a developer will get it right and give them a game that can balance that choice equally. But history has shown that that sort of balance is hard to achieve and has the consequence of alienating a large number of players from either play style. And being a business, compromises have to be made.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
The problem with the integraged pvp/pve is that most "pvp'ers" like to stack the odds in thier favor, you would be surprised how many pve'ers wouldn't mind it if they had a decent chance at winning, but most games with FFA pvp like say aion for example put the pve'ers at a serious disadvantage, as long as people don't stand a chance in a fight they will not want it, its human nature. As long as there are mechanics that can be abused to grief players there will be players that grief them with the intent to make players quit the game for the "lulz".
Its one of the reasons why most big games stay away from that model completely.
Sure, pardon for stating the obvious and cliche, there are bad apples in every bunch. That applies to this discussion in that the PVE oriented have just as many of them. Need I remind that there's a pretty large number of EQ vets that want the same systems they abused in EQ1 to gain their advantages and "grief" the rest of the populace in EQ1?
Large guilds that take over the best spots (bosses), they essentially corner the market for high end loot. Without PVP in the game (server) there's little that can be done about it (if they go with non instanced encounters here--which these players want).
Griefing comes in many forms.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I think you make good points, dystopia and fyerwall. They are important points, that I wish PvPers would take seriously.
Sadly, I don't think they do. The PvPers who made FFA suck never cared about RP. They never cared about making the game work. They only cared about ears, pods and ladder rankings; it seems counterintuitive for them to understand anyone else's perspective.
Nevertheless, we have to try. Because from my perspective, we need the gankers and PvPers.
They are just as hungry for a game that satisfies their needs as we are. And while I don't like getting ganked, and I don't play these games exclusively for the PvP (it's more a sideshow for me), I have certain things I want that the industry isn't giving me...things like deep roleplay and respectable non-combat activities.
We're all in this together, if we ever want to play anything more interesting than WoW ever again. But that involves compromise on all our parts, to get the game we all need.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
It's integrated with the other mature game systems in a meaningful way -- like the economy -- where everything from crafting to territory control are designed with PVP in mind.
This is where I disagree. It's not because I am against full PvP, however.
Because when you design all the systems with PvP in mind, you sacrifice the integrity of all the systems for the sake of a PvPers needs.
So what are you going to do, PvPers, to "replenish the soil," or make it worth your victims' time to subject themselves to your ganks?
You have to think "sustainability," but so far, I haven't seen any PvPer come forward and make a sustainability proposal to keep the carebears interested. Instead, all I see is how great it would be once we let the chainsaws fly free.
Great post!! The reason I've rarely pvp'd was because most of it was random acts of gank or large guild vs guild fights that didn't really mean anything for those that want to do anything else. If PvP could be worked into the world without taking everything from those trying to get things done in the PvE world, I'd be all for it. Join pvp when in mood, guild/friend needed help or when something fun came up, but not hunted by higher level/gank groups when I'm trying to get my pve goals accomplished. If PvPers would work with the pve community and give up some of their desires/"fun" for pve then I would join in with them. Also, have deeper motivation for pvp besides random fights (I know many pvp centric games have such mechanics, but rarely does it fit well with PVE.
The problem with the integraged pvp/pve is that most "pvp'ers" like to stack the odds in thier favor, you would be surprised how many pve'ers wouldn't mind it if they had a decent chance at winning, but most games with FFA pvp like say aion for example put the pve'ers at a serious disadvantage, as long as people don't stand a chance in a fight they will not want it, its human nature. As long as there are mechanics that can be abused to grief players there will be players that grief them with the intent to make players quit the game for the "lulz".
Its one of the reasons why most big games stay away from that model completely.
Sure, pardon for stating the obvious and cliche, there are bad apples in every bunch. That applies to this discussion in that the PVE oriented have just as many of them. Need I remind that there's a pretty large number of EQ vets that want the same systems they abused in EQ1 to gain their advantages and "grief" the rest of the populace in EQ1?
Large guilds that take over the best spots (bosses), they essentially corner the market for high end loot. Without PVP in the game (server) there's little that can be done about it (if they go with non instanced encounters here--which these players want).
Griefing comes in many forms.
I won't disagree with you, its on both sides. Its one of the reason wow because so popular with thier instanced dungeons and raids instead of having to fight 300 people to claim or out dps them for a mob, but like Ramanadjinn said, its all about solid implementation, and one of the many reason so many MMO's fail these days.
Sure, pardon for stating the obvious and cliche, there are bad apples in every bunch. That applies to this discussion in that the PVE oriented have just as many of them. Need I remind that there's a pretty large number of EQ vets that want the same systems they abused in EQ1 to gain their advantages and "grief" the rest of the populace in EQ1?
Large guilds that take over the best spots (bosses), they essentially corner the market for high end loot. Without PVP in the game (server) there's little that can be done about it (if they go with non instanced encounters here--which these players want).
Griefing comes in many forms.
Also, good points about PvE jerks, as their are plenty of them as well, but they are usually less disruptive to an individuals pve fun it is much easier to avoid them than PvPer that can follow you around, or wait in popular spots just to randomly kill. Large guilds monopolizing a camp spot usually only affects other large hardcore raiding guild, with higher % of gamers not being involved, but i see what you mean. In EQ, people would block dungeon exits so you couldn't zone out when chased by mobs, causing death and xp loss or purposely start trains when people would be afk by entrance just to kill, annoy. Gaming in general seems to attract a higher level of ass-hat than other segments of life, but pvp can bring it to a higher level, because of the direct griefing. Also, in EQ, you needed to group up, so if u had a bad rep you would find it difficult to get group.
Originally posted by cheyane I do feel sorry that no AAA game exist for full PvP but I doubt trying to convince those of us who want choice in our game will ever work. I love choice so much in my life is without it. I will never agree to PvP without choice. I am sorry because convincing more PvE players can help developers make more of those games and perhaps one that you can be happy with but many of us are entrenched in our views already and you have not convinced me.
It's no different then me wanting a Triple-A, PvE only MMO with unlimited progression and a dynamic Asheron's Call loot system. Both of these games types will never be developed at the level of which we think they deserve to be. The issue is the OP fails to understand this while I know I'll never get my beloved Asheron's Call 3.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
I am making an observation about a specific kind of PvE'er based on about 50 pages of posts from them. Whereas the people I am critiquing toss out blanket labels and pass judgements without any kind of basis. Hence the uneducated part.
At the same time, when I was playing MUDs in the 80s, with FFA PvP, or even when I was in UO Beta (again with FFA PvP) 17 years ago, you were still a kid if the age listed in your profile is correct.
I'd be careful with the word "uneducated", since many here may know more than you concerning FFA PvP and use that knowledge in their answers.
Excellently stated, sir.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Most replies sound like frustrated gibberish so far, no offense. On both sides of the debate, too.
WHy do people actually argue about this? It's like saying you hate football and then go out in the field and complain someone hit you with the ball in the face. Debating about this why this style of gaming (full pvp) is bad because people shouldn't force you to play this way is exactly forcing others to play a game your way (with no pvp) - ironic isn't it?. Exactly what gives you entitlement to tell people they can't have PVP everywhere? If I dislike racing and FPS games (and I do) why would I care about other people playing them? I honestly don't.
Can someone please explain me why do people insist on playing something repeatedly and say they hate it? That I know, FFA PVP games aren't breaking any legal laws, are they? Rest assured, even if a few FFA PVP games are released here and there, the carebear population will still have 99.5% of the gaming industry to choose from.
Comments
It is true that some players will always try to game any system. I would just say it is up to the developers to produce a game with solid design.
Still, I can't say you're wrong about why the developers stay away from certain models. It could be outside the realm of what they are capable of or what they would want to produce.
This is why when making threads and arguments of this type, the "one clear message" approach is so important.
I'm not claiming I always do it right myself though!
And I do appreciate the OP's intent.
PS: Using your original points as rebuttals accomplishes nothing. It did not work the first time, why would it the second or third? Expound on those points. Explain it differently. (Or maybe say the same but all in caps?)
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
There's a lot of truth in that.
Nothing wrong with stacking the fight in your favor but that's not so much about "pvp" as about "insuring a win".
Most of my time in Aion, concerning pvp, was about someone being vastly high in level and gear than me or someone hiding and then hitting as fast as they could to take me down OR coming at me with a horde of players at their side.
Some people like this, I think it's boring. If me coming at someone with a horde of players at my side won't insure an eventual equal response then taking out one players is not of interest. If I out levle and out gear players and that doesn't insure that their guild mates who are equally geared and of similiar level won't come out then that's not of interest.
I essentially find ganking boring and never do it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
See, your points are fine and very valid - but really a lot of this discussion comes from your statement about 'if a game is being developed for PvP'. Problem is, a lot of the more resent PvP discussions are being had due to EQN and the fact that no one knows anything about the game. No body knows if it will be PvP or straight PvE. No one knows how PvP will be implemented. In those discussions, people are throwing around ideas about how they would like to see PvP handled - FFA Advocates, PvE 'No PvP Allowed' Advocates and the PvE with consensual PvP advocates. Thing is, no one knows what system they will choose for the game. Sure, there have been some very vague and cryptic tweets, but they really mean nothing.
If they said EQN were to be made in X style, then we would all have to deal with it. Don't like it, don't play it - be it PvEers or PvPers. Sadly in those forums it all boils down to "It has to be our way or the highway - No Compromises!" and it all seems to be coming from one specific camp. And its always the same rhetoric being spouted about why it has to be this way. Now we have posts like this popping up as some sort of defense to validate your prefered playstyle. And trust me, EVERYONE gets what you are saying, and if it were a game being designed for FFA PvP/OW PvP then yes, you have a point and many people would agree with you and likely look toward another game if they didn't agree with it. But again, No one knows ANYTHING about how EQN will manage PvP. In the meantime, however, if you don't want people creating 'myths' as to why PvP is unneeded, don't force 'myths' as to why it is. Because what you see as a 'myth' is what a lot of us see as fact having experienced it over the many years this genre has been in existence.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Wait what? Mordred was so popular they had to open a second server.
It failed after YEARS of neglect, because DAoC wasn't built to be a FFA PVP game, so most of the systems didn't work well with it.
This is true on both sides.
Some people continue to say things like "PVP and PVE servers solves this problem for everyone, discussion over."
And then you get the same old rhetoric from the other guy saying "Not for me, proper PVE/PVP integration in a game from my perspective means a game cannot function without all of its relevant PVE AND PVP systems in place."
Then, 10 minutes later, someone shows up and says "PVP and PVE servers solves this problem for everyone, discussion over."
So this is why you hear the same "rhetoric being spouted" constantly.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Solution is separate games one for pvp Another for pvp,fantasy games for pve different games for pvp since those need no content,people just gank eachother.
I'll agree with the point that different games have a place, and I personally have no problem whatsoever with the existence of DF:UW or EVE Online. Hell, I'm subscribed to EVE right now. But...
1. Is not really a myth. Griefing, especially of players who don't play "the right way", is very common in FFA PvP* games and is often done for giggles and not for profit, putting these games in a very bad light, because the playerbase often auto-markets them as games for "PvPers" only. Games that have poor or lacking safe zones often have spawn camping - this can only done for griefing purposes, and it always happens. EVE also suffers from this, even though it has some solid PvE elements.
2. Is valid if the discussion takes the turn of: "PvEers should enjoy FFA PvP games, if they don't, it's because they didn't try it yet or because they're pathetic carebears". "PvPers" are often quick to imply PvEers don't like a real challenge, as well. It's all been said and done, so don't be surprised point 2 is often raised. If FFA PvP folk just stuck to their games and didn't try to push their ideals into others (EQN) or bash other games/players, nobody would mention point 2.
5. and 6. are not there to accommodate an FFA PvP game. They're there to provide proper PvP modes for people who want to PvP in the game environment. They generally satisfy the PvP+PvE group that you mention in 3. The subset that plays FFA PvP games is different from that subset, because they prefer balanced games to imbalanced games (and most FFA PvP games are imbalanced where PvP is more important and integral to the game than the PvE).
*I call a game FFA PvP if PvP is technically possible everywhere.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
You say no content but I think some people just get tired of the same old content over and over. There have been games that try to push theme parks in new directions, but it's really just atmosphere. These games rise to massive heights then go free to play as people get tired and leave.
A good sandbox will at least give people the illusion of exploration, with real suspense, and a greater level of social interaction.
It may not be what you call content but it can keep a game on the market long after a PVE game has closed it's doors.
Case in point, DAYZ. This is mod of a little known game, that came out of nowhere, to be on par with many major theme parks.
It shows that what you call no content and griefing can be just a powerful as any theme park.
That is not true initially Mordred was very successful but people started leaving both Andred (the server they opened after Mordred) and Mordred because new players could not get a foot in. The earlier argument that PvP servers killed their own growth happened to Mordred and Andred. Andred was subsequently shut down and the players were asked to transfer to Mordred. It died because that server never allowed new players to grow they just kept ganking them and discouraging people. I was there and read the vault boards. Don't try to rewrite history.
There seems to be two prevalent false assumptions going on in this thread:
1. Everyone plays mmos primarily for combat.
2. Risking loss and death are the only way to place value on what you do in an mmo.
Both these statements are false. Many people primarily play mmos for other reasons than combat. I get my combat fix in fighting games. When I want to immerse myself in a player driven world, I play mmos.
Crafting an item just to be ganked and have it stolen does not make the gameplay exciting for me. Risk of loss is not a motivation for many mmo players. My best mmo experiences are when I collaborated with other players to achieve a common goal such as making a live event or a multi tiered crafted item. Creativity is its own reward as well regarding decoration, outfits, etc. And exploration has its benefits as well.
I am not saying this appeals to everyone. Saying its in the minority is irrelevant.
This is where I disagree. It's not because I am against full PvP, however.
Because when you design all the systems with PvP in mind, you sacrifice the integrity of all the systems for the sake of a PvPers needs.
And I've seen it in games like SWG, where the most powerful PvP guilds set up buffbots to give them enhancements 24/7. I've seen it in games like EVE, where small industrial corps are preyed upon by PvP guilds who really don't care about making the game work for everyone. I've seen it in CoH, where the PvP guilds would demand people place headsets in their ears in order to join, and had no respect for roleplayers.
That's how PvP games die, because unless PvPers are willing to submit to systems they don't like very much (like roleplay, non-combat needs, carebearing, etc.), there's no reason for these other, non-PvP players to willingly submit themselves to your ganks.
So, I'm going to make a demand of my own, and I hope the FFA PvP folks will take me up on it.
What are you willing to do, and what are you willing to give up, to get your FFA PvP?
Are you willing to engage in light roleplay? Not "thee and thou," but are you willing to play along and make the game work for roleplayers trying to suspend disbelief? If not, why should RPers submit to your ganks?
Are you willing to not run off to the buffbot or the alt account the moment you need an enhancement? If not, why should the enhancers and the actual live players who depend on general commerce support your FFA PvP?
Are you willing to be good citizens of your server? Or are you just interested in seeing your guild dominate? Because if you are just interested in domination, and care less about people who aren't in your clique, why should the non-guilded, the ambassadors of goodwill, and the neutrals subject themselves to your ganks?
Now you may say to yourselves, PvPers, "you can't make us respect those things, Beatnik." Fair enough. But by the same token, the devs don't have to respect your desire for open world PvP either. We non-PvPers keep on hearing how much you want your open world PvP. But it sounds like an all give and no take deal to us. What are you going to do--what sort of sacrifices are you going to make--to make your victims' games better?
In my experience, PvPers were some of the worst violators of the spirit of the game in games like SWG, EVE and UO. They metagamed, min/maxed, taunted serious RPers, had a juvenile sense of humor that "does it for the lolz," made buffbots, broke the economic game through multiboxing, and made it a point to always F-up the plans of the people who did constructive things (like weddings, meetings, social gatherings, etc.).
As I said in one of my blogs, PvPers in the early days behaved like clearcutting loggers, felling everything in sight without any regard that the forest couldn't sustain itself. As a result, can we actually blame the developers to act like good forest rangers, and place restrictions on logging?
So what are you going to do, PvPers, to "replenish the soil," or make it worth your victims' time to subject themselves to your ganks?
You have to think "sustainability," but so far, I haven't seen any PvPer come forward and make a sustainability proposal to keep the carebears interested. Instead, all I see is how great it would be once we let the chainsaws fly free.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
EXCELLENT post OP.
Bookmarked for future reference.
The sad thing is developers fell for the same lame Pve exclusive arguments again and again (and failed because of it)
Time for change
See, PvPers are not out just to gank each other. It's all based on the player. There are a lot of PvPers I knew when UO launched who PvPed for roleplaying. We had fun because it lead to some great player made stories in game that everyone who wanted to could participate in. Problem is you started getting more people who started playing just for the sole purpose of killing 'newbs'. The game started to become flooded with Red stuttered cap names like "DeWdBRo". The roleplaying community tried to consolidate on servers less populated by these players, but they followed. Even a lot of my friends who loved PvP were getting fed up with it because this type of player was growing in numbers. Every system that was put in game to stop griefing ended up being exploited by the griefers (Don't want to go red? walk into the path of the spell your target cast to kill the mong bat...)
There is a reason why game companies started coming up with the separate server approach, flag systems, etc. They know most players like PvP on their terms and don't want to have to deal with it on a daily basis. They also know that what ever safety system they put in to prevent griefing will almost always be abused by the griefer. Most PvPers enjoy the game as it is meant to be played and will not abuse nor grief others. Sadly they are lumped in with the mental midgets who tend to eventually out number them. I can understand where people like Raman are coming from, and how players like Bidwood yern for a game that offers them the full spectrum of choices. And hopefully a developer will get it right and give them a game that can balance that choice equally. But history has shown that that sort of balance is hard to achieve and has the consequence of alienating a large number of players from either play style. And being a business, compromises have to be made.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Sure, pardon for stating the obvious and cliche, there are bad apples in every bunch. That applies to this discussion in that the PVE oriented have just as many of them. Need I remind that there's a pretty large number of EQ vets that want the same systems they abused in EQ1 to gain their advantages and "grief" the rest of the populace in EQ1?
Large guilds that take over the best spots (bosses), they essentially corner the market for high end loot. Without PVP in the game (server) there's little that can be done about it (if they go with non instanced encounters here--which these players want).
Griefing comes in many forms.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I think you make good points, dystopia and fyerwall. They are important points, that I wish PvPers would take seriously.
Sadly, I don't think they do. The PvPers who made FFA suck never cared about RP. They never cared about making the game work. They only cared about ears, pods and ladder rankings; it seems counterintuitive for them to understand anyone else's perspective.
Nevertheless, we have to try. Because from my perspective, we need the gankers and PvPers.
They are just as hungry for a game that satisfies their needs as we are. And while I don't like getting ganked, and I don't play these games exclusively for the PvP (it's more a sideshow for me), I have certain things I want that the industry isn't giving me...things like deep roleplay and respectable non-combat activities.
We're all in this together, if we ever want to play anything more interesting than WoW ever again. But that involves compromise on all our parts, to get the game we all need.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Great post!! The reason I've rarely pvp'd was because most of it was random acts of gank or large guild vs guild fights that didn't really mean anything for those that want to do anything else. If PvP could be worked into the world without taking everything from those trying to get things done in the PvE world, I'd be all for it. Join pvp when in mood, guild/friend needed help or when something fun came up, but not hunted by higher level/gank groups when I'm trying to get my pve goals accomplished. If PvPers would work with the pve community and give up some of their desires/"fun" for pve then I would join in with them. Also, have deeper motivation for pvp besides random fights (I know many pvp centric games have such mechanics, but rarely does it fit well with PVE.
I won't disagree with you, its on both sides. Its one of the reason wow because so popular with thier instanced dungeons and raids instead of having to fight 300 people to claim or out dps them for a mob, but like Ramanadjinn said, its all about solid implementation, and one of the many reason so many MMO's fail these days.
Also, good points about PvE jerks, as their are plenty of them as well, but they are usually less disruptive to an individuals pve fun it is much easier to avoid them than PvPer that can follow you around, or wait in popular spots just to randomly kill. Large guilds monopolizing a camp spot usually only affects other large hardcore raiding guild, with higher % of gamers not being involved, but i see what you mean. In EQ, people would block dungeon exits so you couldn't zone out when chased by mobs, causing death and xp loss or purposely start trains when people would be afk by entrance just to kill, annoy. Gaming in general seems to attract a higher level of ass-hat than other segments of life, but pvp can bring it to a higher level, because of the direct griefing. Also, in EQ, you needed to group up, so if u had a bad rep you would find it difficult to get group.
It's no different then me wanting a Triple-A, PvE only MMO with unlimited progression and a dynamic Asheron's Call loot system. Both of these games types will never be developed at the level of which we think they deserve to be. The issue is the OP fails to understand this while I know I'll never get my beloved Asheron's Call 3.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Excellently stated, sir.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Most replies sound like frustrated gibberish so far, no offense. On both sides of the debate, too.
WHy do people actually argue about this? It's like saying you hate football and then go out in the field and complain someone hit you with the ball in the face. Debating about this why this style of gaming (full pvp) is bad because people shouldn't force you to play this way is exactly forcing others to play a game your way (with no pvp) - ironic isn't it?. Exactly what gives you entitlement to tell people they can't have PVP everywhere? If I dislike racing and FPS games (and I do) why would I care about other people playing them? I honestly don't.
Can someone please explain me why do people insist on playing something repeatedly and say they hate it? That I know, FFA PVP games aren't breaking any legal laws, are they? Rest assured, even if a few FFA PVP games are released here and there, the carebear population will still have 99.5% of the gaming industry to choose from.