Even within the context of a Free For All, Open World, Full Loot, "PvP Hardcore" Game or server, it is possible to have consequences for your actions.
In a few MMO's, those who prey on weaker characters become "jailed" and the player loses access to that character for a set period of time. UO created terms like "statloss", another enacted fines on the offending characters (even other characters on the same account would have their bank drained). There are even mechanics set up so gamers who wish to can hunt down and kill, at an advantage, any PK's they wish, with the game providing for clues of their whereabouts and certain battle advantages.
Hell even in Warhammer you would become a level 1 chicken with no offensive or defensive capability if you attempted to go to a contested zone of a lower level than yourself.
In short, I would just like to say that IMHO most people have a bad taste for PvP games because to date most PvP games have sucked.
They allow for griefing and exploiting on a fairly massive scale, so it's really no wonder gamers are left with a bad taste in their mouth.
Luckily, for fans of PvP, there are plenty of games on the horizon which allow for open world conquest and still protect those who don't wish to engage in that sort of activity without resorting to crappy mechanics like PvP flagging or the like.
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
Originally posted by cirsyndic What is PVE? PVE can be defined as contesting against a static AI script that repeats the same things at the same intervals.
I find it most interesting you choose such a (very wrong!) definition. Looks like it was chosen to "support" a certain line of thought...
How about you consider this definition instead: "PvE means pitting a player vs. AI." Period. Nothing more, nothing less. That the AI is governed/represented by a "static script" is YOUR view only. Perhaps you have played too much WoW or EQ and generalize from that experience. But really, who said that a script needs to be "static"? Who says that "scripting" equals PvE in the first place? Can't you imagine, in this era of technological wonders, that AI is actually that: Artificial Intelligence, complete with it's own set of goals and the SAME means at their disposal that players have?
For an example, look at the old X-Games. While of course not perfect in any way (it was a good start and development from X1 to X3 imo), the AI reacted to the player's actions. Was that static? Or not PvE? Either way, it for sure didn't "repeat the same things at the same intervals" if the player somehow interfered.
Originally posted by cirsyndic The AI script is always, without exception, designed to offer challenge but remain beatable.
Um... Does the "Kobayashi Maru" scenario ring a bell? Do you really think it needs to be limited to SciFi? (or the Freeport Arena test in EQ when it was introduced) I'm more than certain that - if the demand for something like an unbeatable opponent is there - such a thing can be implemented.
Originally posted by cirsyndic The only thing that can compete with a human mind is another human mind, AI cannot.
Some AI programmers might agree, but some would probably say the opposite; it's really just a matter of investment vs. gain if an AI can/will be programmed to provide "real" challenges. i mean, back in the 80s no one thought it possible that a computer could beat a human chess champ either, or that cars can drive autonomically... You're really giving technology not enough credit here!
Just to give you something to think about: What if "PvP" could not be done directly? What if, instead, players would by their effort "instantiate" NPCs of different sorts that have to be fought, the side that works harder gathering resources and such beating the other team's NPCs entirely and only THEN you own that team's station or terrain or whatever. Is that PvE? or PvP? or a mish-mash? Rhetorical question,m because according to you it's not possible in the first place...
You are misunderstanding what I wrote and mixing apples and oranges. There is indeed static and dynamic AI (X series is a great example). What you describe in your technological wonder diatribe is a fully conscious AI with it's own goals and objectives - such a thing does not exist in any game. If it existed, it would wipe out the player population simply because it does not sleep, it does not get bored, it knows no mercy. Perfect warmachine if you will.
In every MMO to date, the AI is implemented with static spawns, static actions, and dynamic paths. The bosses you raid are static, their ability tables are static, and more importantly their "encounter" can be predicted. This leads us to what I mentioned previously, it is a simple case of monkey-learn-monkey-get-banana. You learn the encounter, you devise a strategy to down the boss, you refine it to perfection, after that it's farm time.
For the less intelligent monkeys, the process is much simpler - you go to some wiki guide, read how the smart monkey did it and then spend a week or two learning to do it. Then it's farm time.
Originally posted by lizardbones
Originally posted by cirsyndic To consider the inherent logical fallacy, first we must consider;
What is PVE?
PVE can be defined as contesting against a static AI script that repeats the same things at the same intervals. Essentially, once you figure out the optimal pattern you can begin to learn it, once you learn it you perfect it and when you perfect it you can farm.
What is dynamic PVE?
A dynamic AI script that creates a sense of challenge but retains the safety net of contesting against something which is inherently inferior to human intellect due to lack of free will. The logical fallacy herein is that the AI script is designed to simulate human behavior in order to provide the challenge, but retaining the relative predictability and therefore the inferiority of the AI.
In layman's terms, once you figure out the width of the dynamic script you can figure out the optimal pattern, perfect it and farm.
What does that have to do with PVP?
The AI script is always, without exception, designed to offer challenge but remain beatable. It serves as a proverbial punching bag to be punched ad infinitum, offering mock-resistance but no real challenge. The only thing that can compete with a human mind is another human mind, AI cannot.
The AI is there to let you win and feel good about it. It requires very little time investment to master the process of beating it, which is why it's so popular among the casual crowds. It doesn't take player's loot, it doesn't send nasty PM's, it doesn't crouch above your corpse's head in mock-teabag gesture.
To conclude;
With no real chance or consequence of loss, victory is destined to become meaningless. One of the main culprits of themeparks imploding after a month can be identified here.
As the OP correctly identified, PVP only functions as an integrated part of a wider collection of systems. To date only EVE has been able to correctly design that network of systems, whereas any of the many indy sandboxes (Mortal, Darkfall, Perpetuum, etc) imploded shortly after release because there was absolutely nothing to do besides kill people. There was no network of systems to cater to a multitude of playstyles, while maintaining the adrenaline rush inherently present in PVP enviroment.
TL;DR version:
Monkey learns to press lever, monkey gets banana.
Monkey fights monkey for banana.
Except challenging PvE content exists with the express purpose of forcing the player to improve without the AI cheating. Even older RTS games have AI that ranges from really easy to really hard or nearly impossible to beat without resorting to cheating. Unreal's AI can field bots with player level skills and behaviors. They had to program in the ability for the AI to make mistakes because the AI was more or less unbeatable by any human player. It wasn't a challenge, it was a slaughter.
Even in MMORPGs, the easy mode of gaming, WoW's end game raids are unbeatable without a great deal of time, effort and additional mods to the base game. There is certainly a lot of content that is easy, but the choice is available for the players to choose content that requires the time investment to get something out of it.
So your post would be accurate if it didn't ignore reality.
Sorry, I'm not the one ignoring reality. The only challenge is in to how long it takes for a specific person to learn encounters. That's why there are raiders who figure stuff out and write the guides, and there are raiders who read the guides and "improve" trying to beat an encounter that is completely predictable.
Older RTS games didn't have a challenging AI, it had the same AI with various degrees of handicaps that were scaled down as the difficulty increased. For example, in Age of Empires the hardest AI was unbeatable simply because it had no handicaps and it was literally using cheat codes. Unreal (and other FPS bots) can be unbeatable because they are have an in-built wallhack & aimbot, the additional coding makes them beatable.
Originally posted by cirsyndic You are misunderstanding what I wrote and mixing apples and oranges. There is indeed static and dynamic AI (X series is a great example). What you describe in your technological wonder diatribe is a fully conscious AI with it's own goals and objectives - such a thing does not exist in any game. If it existed, it would wipe out the player population simply because it does not sleep, it does not get bored, it knows no mercy. Perfect warmachine if you will.
In every MMO to date, the AI is implemented with static spawns, static actions, and dynamic paths. The bosses you raid are static, their ability tables are static, and more importantly their "encounter" can be predicted. This leads us to what I mentioned previously, it is a simple case of monkey-learn-monkey-get-banana. You learn the encounter, you devise a strategy to down the boss, you refine it to perfection, after that it's farm time.
For the less intelligent monkeys, the process is much simpler - you go to some wiki guide, read how the smart monkey did it and then spend a week or two learning to do it. Then it's farm time.
I neither misunderstood you, nor am i comparing any fruit. And since you were answering my post, i should know what *i* meant when i said "AI" and where *your* interpretation or line of thought went "wrong" concerning my argumentation:
a) again you make the mistake of basing your argument on "what is" (or rather: what think/perceive that is) b) just because - as you say - "In every MMO to date, the AI is implemented with static spawns, static actions, and dynamic paths", it does not mean that's the end or all that's possible.
All you do by your line of arguments is to side-track the original discussion in this thread, which isn't about AI and static or dynamic spawns or whatever, but about "full PvP".
In this context my claim is that there is NOTHING that "only a player as an opponent can offer", that everything the PvP'ers in this thread crave (i.e. said why they "need" a human player OPPONENT) CAN be implemented by AI. Yes, that does mean that i am taking examples of existing games - like the X-Games - and implying that some feature(s) could be implemented in a MMO. It does simply not matter "how it is today" - it's not my faukt that studios take the easy route of "static spawns" or relying on players to do their work.
The PvP'ers (or rather: the "full PvP proponents", because hardly anyone in this thread is against PvP as long as it's consentual) in this thread claimed that the "challenge" of playing against another player means a lot to them, for one because his actions (so they say) are unpredictable. The very same is (or at least can be) true for an AI programmed to that end. And what better challenge for your skills than "a perfect war machine"?
But you are right, most PvP'ers wouldn't want that. (Most players don't, and that's why it's not done) Simply because the AI wouldn't be caught unawares, or would actually be able to retaliate, and possibly quicker than a "live" player ever could. You're using the example of AIs using "cheat codes", thereby carefully omitting that i mentioned "AIs using the exact same tools as players do" above. (so much for reading skills!)
I was sure that was going to happen, simply because PvP'ers tend to start whining when suddenly they find someone who can be online longer than they can, and call it "cheating", while when roles are reversed and THEY are the ones who have an advantage from being online longer (camping POS's, moving into contested territorry first etc) things are juuust fine.
Not the PvP'ers fault really, it's simply human nature to seek the advantage (we see it in 3year-old children and later it just becomes "overlaid" by social skills) and only "misbehave" when no one watches or the numbers are fairly one-sided. Gangs (from "Gangs of New York" to your gang in the neighborhood) are cowards, catch the members alone and they're easy meat. And it's exactly this aspect of human nature, which comes out in MMOs much more easily because - as was said too in this thread - the player is rarely if at all held (holdable) accountable for his actions in-game.
That's why "full PvP" simply doesn't work in a major MMO in the long run. And why at least some of these "myths" aren't myths after all, but generalized empirical data. Generalizing is a mistake by itself, yes, and that was what the OP tried to point out imo. But he overlooked or neglected the impact of just a fraction of people behaving in the way that was basis for that generalization in the first place, which is predictably and foreseeably present in ANY PvP game, even more so and with greater impact of the community as a whole, the more "open" the PvP is the game is.
This is where guild,clans,ts3buddys,ect come into place.In a pvp world it pays to make bonds, and call on them in a dire need, or just a favor from a op dude to come and clean house so you can cut in line to buy a hotdog.
Originally posted by Grixxitt Even within the context of a Free For All, Open World, Full Loot, "PvP Hardcore" Game or server, it is possible to have consequences for your actions.
I don't think anyone really said it weren't possible. But i also think that in this very thread the "if the game allows it i should be allowed to do it, artificial limits to what i can do are bull"-argument was brought up - it usually is in every thread about open PvP.
Meaning: While yes, it is possible to introduce accountability, there are always those that reject it, especially by pointing to "open/full PvP" and how consequences or repercussions through game mechanics would - in their eyes - defeat the purpose.
Originally posted by Grixxitt There are even mechanics set up so gamers who wish to can hunt down and kill, at an advantage, any PK's they wish
Yes, bounty-hunting mechanisms exist. But they're part of the problem actually.
Simply because they are justification for a player to use his freedom in a griefing way: "why are complaining? the game mechanic allows me to kill you even in safe zones. If you don't like it, you can play something else or place a bounty on my character's head"
This is rubbish because, as was said above too, the victim is at best victimized twice (by the actual deed and by him being required to use his online time to "pay" for the revenge). Now, if the attempt would auto-fail and the *game* would auto-issue a bounty, that would be another matter but of course, from a "full PvP proponent"-point of view something like that isn't desireable in the first place because that too "defeats the purpose" or simply isn't "full PvP" then...
Short: Any such mechanics don't work because either the victim is still a victim or because the PvP'ers say it's not PvP at all or at least no "open PvP" and therefore to be rejected.
Originally posted by Grixxitt I would just like to say that IMHO most people have a bad taste for PvP games because to date most PvP games have sucked.
I disagree. More likely imo is that most people have a "bad taste for PvP" (as you put it, but which should rather be a bad taste for full PvP), because they've run into those very people that make use of a game's mechanics in the (socially) most destructive way they can. It's just a minor portion of PvP'ers of course, but with over-proportional impact the more "open" PvP is.
i.e. not the *game* they played sucked, it was a part of the *players* encountered in them that did.
Originally posted by cirsyndic You are misunderstanding what I wrote and mixing apples and oranges. There is indeed static and dynamic AI (X series is a great example). What you describe in your technological wonder diatribe is a fully conscious AI with it's own goals and objectives - such a thing does not exist in any game. If it existed, it would wipe out the player population simply because it does not sleep, it does not get bored, it knows no mercy. Perfect warmachine if you will.
In every MMO to date, the AI is implemented with static spawns, static actions, and dynamic paths. The bosses you raid are static, their ability tables are static, and more importantly their "encounter" can be predicted. This leads us to what I mentioned previously, it is a simple case of monkey-learn-monkey-get-banana. You learn the encounter, you devise a strategy to down the boss, you refine it to perfection, after that it's farm time.
For the less intelligent monkeys, the process is much simpler - you go to some wiki guide, read how the smart monkey did it and then spend a week or two learning to do it. Then it's farm time.
I neither misunderstood you, nor am i comparing any fruit. And since you were answering my post, i should know what *i* meant when i said "AI" and where *your* interpretation or line of thought went "wrong" concerning my argumentation:
a) again you make the mistake of basing your argument on "what is" (or rather: what think/perceive that is) b) just because - as you say - "In every MMO to date, the AI is implemented with static spawns, static actions, and dynamic paths", it does not mean that's the end or all that's possible.
All you do by your line of arguments is to side-track the original discussion in this thread, which isn't about AI and static or dynamic spawns or whatever, but about "full PvP".
In this context my claim is that there is NOTHING that "only a player as an opponent can offer", that everything the PvP'ers in this thread crave (i.e. said why they "need" a human player OPPONENT) CAN be implemented by AI. Yes, that does mean that i am taking examples of existing games - like the X-Games - and implying that some feature(s) could be implemented in a MMO. It does simply not matter "how it is today" - it's not my faukt that studios take the easy route of "static spawns" or relying on players to do their work.
The PvP'ers (or rather: the "full PvP proponents", because hardly anyone in this thread is against PvP as long as it's consentual) in this thread claimed that the "challenge" of playing against another player means a lot to them, for one because his actions (so they say) are unpredictable. The very same is (or at least can be) true for an AI programmed to that end. And what better challenge for your skills than "a perfect war machine"?
But you are right, most PvP'ers wouldn't want that. (Most players don't, and that's why it's not done) Simply because the AI wouldn't be caught unawares, or would actually be able to retaliate, and possibly quicker than a "live" player ever could. You're using the example of AIs using "cheat codes", thereby carefully omitting that i mentioned "AIs using the exact same tools as players do" above. (so much for reading skills!)
I was sure that was going to happen, simply because PvP'ers tend to start whining when suddenly they find someone who can be online longer than they can, and call it "cheating", while when roles are reversed and THEY are the ones who have an advantage from being online longer (camping POS's, moving into contested territorry first etc) things are juuust fine.
Not the PvP'ers fault really, it's simply human nature to seek the advantage (we see it in 3year-old children and later it just becomes "overlaid" by social skills) and only "misbehave" when no one watches or the numbers are fairly one-sided. Gangs (from "Gangs of New York" to your gang in the neighborhood) are cowards, catch the members alone and they're easy meat. And it's exactly this aspect of human nature, which comes out in MMOs much more easily because - as was said too in this thread - the player is rarely if at all held (holdable) accountable for his actions in-game.
That's why "full PvP" simply doesn't work in a major MMO in the long run. And why at least some of these "myths" aren't myths after all, but generalized empirical data. Generalizing is a mistake by itself, yes, and that was what the OP tried to point out imo. But he overlooked or neglected the impact of just a fraction of people behaving in the way that was basis for that generalization in the first place, which is predictably and foreseeably present in ANY PvP game, even more so and with greater impact of the community as a whole, the more "open" the PvP is the game is.
There is a notable difference between a possibility and a fact. Basing arguments on evident facts is pretty much the point of an argument. Your counter-argument can be summed up as "Well its possible so youre wrong!". It's theoretically possible a piano will fall on your head, doesn't mean it will happen.
My argument is perfectly in-line with the OP, since you missed it I will reiterate it in simpler words - the AI is designed as a predictable substitute for humans. Every boss encounter in every MMO to date is a static encounter with a predictable behavior, the AI exists for you to beat it. That's why there are trash-mobs and bosses. That's why the bosses just stand around waiting for you to come collect the loot while you kill their minions in conveniently arranged combinations. The irony is, even if a human-like AI was developed (I'm humoring your what-ifs), it's still nothing more then a substitute for human interaction constructed for introverted autists who shy away from human interaction.
In most MMO's there is absolutely zero accountability. Not in sandboxes though, step on the wrong guys toes in EVE and you will experience a whole new meaning of fighting someone who does not sleep and who will hit you where it hurts. What PVP can offer is the very essence of challenge - unpredictability and no knowing if you will win or lose. Asking for consentuality is just another way of trying to make things predictable therefore beatable - a wider aspect of the panicked aversion to loss. It is indeed human nature to seek advantage. But consider in the context of human nature, what are humans who run away from challenge and construct mock-up practice dolls they can beat and feel good about themselves.
EVE's full PVP is working for 10+ years, where your full-kindergarden MMO's fizzle out in a month or two at best. In short, I wouldn't call PVPers cowards for seeking advantage, I would sooner call cowards those so pathetically afraid of losing they invent harmless puppets to beat up.
If you read the OP with understanding, you would see his actual point that PVP functions only when supported by many systems that enrich the overall game experience, on it's own it falls flat on it's face just like every MMO oriented on raiding. But hey, scream kick and defend your mockup puppets to the bitter end if it makes you happy.
Originally posted by cirsyndic Originally posted by MorrokOriginally posted by cirsyndic What is PVE? PVE can be defined as contesting against a static AI script that repeats the same things at the same intervals. I find it most interesting you choose such a (very wrong!) definition. Looks like it was chosen to "support" a certain line of thought... How about you consider this definition instead: "PvE means pitting a player vs. AI." Period. Nothing more, nothing less. That the AI is governed/represented by a "static script" is YOUR view only. Perhaps you have played too much WoW or EQ and generalize from that experience. But really, who said that a script needs to be "static"? Who says that "scripting" equals PvE in the first place? Can't you imagine, in this era of technological wonders, that AI is actually that: Artificial Intelligence, complete with it's own set of goals and the SAME means at their disposal that players have? For an example, look at the old X-Games. While of course not perfect in any way (it was a good start and development from X1 to X3 imo), the AI reacted to the player's actions. Was that static? Or not PvE? Either way, it for sure didn't "repeat the same things at the same intervals" if the player somehow interfered. Originally posted by cirsyndic The AI script is always, without exception, designed to offer challenge but remain beatable. Um... Does the "Kobayashi Maru" scenario ring a bell? Do you really think it needs to be limited to SciFi? (or the Freeport Arena test in EQ when it was introduced) I'm more than certain that - if the demand for something like an unbeatable opponent is there - such a thing can be implemented. Originally posted by cirsyndic The only thing that can compete with a human mind is another human mind, AI cannot.
Some AI programmers might agree, but some would probably say the opposite; it's really just a matter of investment vs. gain if an AI can/will be programmed to provide "real" challenges. i mean, back in the 80s no one thought it possible that a computer could beat a human chess champ either, or that cars can drive autonomically... You're really giving technology not enough credit here! Just to give you something to think about: What if "PvP" could not be done directly? What if, instead, players would by their effort "instantiate" NPCs of different sorts that have to be fought, the side that works harder gathering resources and such beating the other team's NPCs entirely and only THEN you own that team's station or terrain or whatever. Is that PvE? or PvP? or a mish-mash? Rhetorical question,m because according to you it's not possible in the first place...
You are misunderstanding what I wrote and mixing apples and oranges. There is indeed static and dynamic AI (X series is a great example). What you describe in your technological wonder diatribe is a fully conscious AI with it's own goals and objectives - such a thing does not exist in any game. If it existed, it would wipe out the player population simply because it does not sleep, it does not get bored, it knows no mercy. Perfect warmachine if you will.
In every MMO to date, the AI is implemented with static spawns, static actions, and dynamic paths. The bosses you raid are static, their ability tables are static, and more importantly their "encounter" can be predicted. This leads us to what I mentioned previously, it is a simple case of monkey-learn-monkey-get-banana. You learn the encounter, you devise a strategy to down the boss, you refine it to perfection, after that it's farm time.
For the less intelligent monkeys, the process is much simpler - you go to some wiki guide, read how the smart monkey did it and then spend a week or two learning to do it. Then it's farm time.
Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by cirsyndicTo consider the inherent logical fallacy, first we must consider;What is PVE?PVE can be defined as contesting against a static AI script that repeats the same things at the same intervals. Essentially, once you figure out the optimal pattern you can begin to learn it, once you learn it you perfect it and when you perfect it you can farm.What is dynamic PVE?A dynamic AI script that creates a sense of challenge but retains the safety net of contesting against something which is inherently inferior to human intellect due to lack of free will. The logical fallacy herein is that the AI script is designed to simulate human behavior in order to provide the challenge, but retaining the relative predictability and therefore the inferiority of the AI.In layman's terms, once you figure out the width of the dynamic script you can figure out the optimal pattern, perfect it and farm.What does that have to do with PVP?The AI script is always, without exception, designed to offer challenge but remain beatable. It serves as a proverbial punching bag to be punched ad infinitum, offering mock-resistance but no real challenge. The only thing that can compete with a human mind is another human mind, AI cannot.The AI is there to let you win and feel good about it. It requires very little time investment to master the process of beating it, which is why it's so popular among the casual crowds. It doesn't take player's loot, it doesn't send nasty PM's, it doesn't crouch above your corpse's head in mock-teabag gesture.To conclude;With no real chance or consequence of loss, victory is destined to become meaningless. One of the main culprits of themeparks imploding after a month can be identified here.As the OP correctly identified, PVP only functions as an integrated part of a wider collection of systems. To date only EVE has been able to correctly design that network of systems, whereas any of the many indy sandboxes (Mortal, Darkfall, Perpetuum, etc) imploded shortly after release because there was absolutely nothing to do besides kill people. There was no network of systems to cater to a multitude of playstyles, while maintaining the adrenaline rush inherently present in PVP enviroment.TL;DR version:Monkey learns to press lever, monkey gets banana.Monkey fights monkey for banana.
Except challenging PvE content exists with the express purpose of forcing the player to improve without the AI cheating. Even older RTS games have AI that ranges from really easy to really hard or nearly impossible to beat without resorting to cheating. Unreal's AI can field bots with player level skills and behaviors. They had to program in the ability for the AI to make mistakes because the AI was more or less unbeatable by any human player. It wasn't a challenge, it was a slaughter. Even in MMORPGs, the easy mode of gaming, WoW's end game raids are unbeatable without a great deal of time, effort and additional mods to the base game. There is certainly a lot of content that is easy, but the choice is available for the players to choose content that requires the time investment to get something out of it. So your post would be accurate if it didn't ignore reality.
Sorry, I'm not the one ignoring reality. The only challenge is in to how long it takes for a specific person to learn encounters. That's why there are raiders who figure stuff out and write the guides, and there are raiders who read the guides and "improve" trying to beat an encounter that is completely predictable.
Older RTS games didn't have a challenging AI, it had the same AI with various degrees of handicaps that were scaled down as the difficulty increased. For example, in Age of Empires the hardest AI was unbeatable simply because it had no handicaps and it was literally using cheat codes. Unreal (and other FPS bots) can be unbeatable because they are have an in-built wallhack & aimbot, the additional coding makes them beatable.
Unreal tournament stopped the cheating years ago. The AI in RTS don't no longer need cheats either. Those are old ideas and old arguments that no longer apply. AI can match human players easily, if the developers choose to use it that way.
But again, the challenge exists for those that want it, whether it's PvE or PvP. The only different is where they want to spend the effort. Do they spend the effort gearing up to become more powerful in PvE or gear up to become more powerful in PvP? Because it's about the gear, or maxing out the numbers in the the game's systems and where players want to spend their time.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
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.
I agree, problem is some people just have no skills beyond point click and rage how pvp consist of only griefers (usually do to them getting killed by some nob in a starter town). The truth is griefers dont last long in open world pvp.
EVE's full PVP is working for 10+ years, where your full-kindergarden MMO's fizzle out in a month or two at best. In short, I wouldn't call PVPers cowards for seeking advantage, I would sooner call cowards those so pathetically afraid of losing they invent harmless puppets to beat up.
EVE is working because it is NOT FFA PvP, it's controlled PvP. And CCP themself said that most of their players stay in high sec, too.
The highlighted parts are also good examples of the average PvPer attitude towards anyone who doesn't share his love for his play style, which is also a good reason why other players don't like having those people around. Amusingly it's an attitude very similar to the one of high end PvE raiders, snotty and elitist... go figure
+1000
I always love these "you are wrong about us" threads because in the course of the conversation, those same people usually prove that we are right. Go figure ;-)
EVE's full PVP is working for 10+ years, where your full-kindergarden MMO's fizzle out in a month or two at best. In short, I wouldn't call PVPers cowards for seeking advantage, I would sooner call cowards those so pathetically afraid of losing they invent harmless puppets to beat up.
EVE is working because it is NOT FFA PvP, it's controlled PvP. And CCP themself said that most of their players stay in high sec, too.
The highlighted parts are also good examples of the average PvPer attitude towards anyone who doesn't share his love for his play style, which is also a good reason why other players don't like having those people around. Amusingly it's an attitude very similar to the one of high end PvE raiders, snotty and elitist... go figure
+1000
I always love these "you are wrong about us" threads because in the course of the conversation, those same people usually prove that we are right. Go figure ;-)
So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Because the times I feel most compelled to use terms like "carebear" are when I'm in the presence of people like Jean-Luc who love to psychoanalyze the "pvper" and act like he's a sociopath.
I don't see why it's ok for you guys to criticize OW PvP and people who enjoy it, but the reverse isn't ok.
EVE's full PVP is working for 10+ years, where your full-kindergarden MMO's fizzle out in a month or two at best. In short, I wouldn't call PVPers cowards for seeking advantage, I would sooner call cowards those so pathetically afraid of losing they invent harmless puppets to beat up.
EVE is working because it is NOT FFA PvP, it's controlled PvP. And CCP themself said that most of their players stay in high sec, too.
The highlighted parts are also good examples of the average PvPer attitude towards anyone who doesn't share his love for his play style, which is also a good reason why other players don't like having those people around. Amusingly it's an attitude very similar to the one of high end PvE raiders, snotty and elitist... go figure
+1000
I always love these "you are wrong about us" threads because in the course of the conversation, those same people usually prove that we are right. Go figure ;-)
So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Because the times I feel most compelled to use terms like "carebear" are when I'm in the presence of people like Jean-Luc who love to psychoanalyze the "pvper" and act like he's a sociopath.
I don't see why it's ok for you guys to criticize OW PvP and people who enjoy it, but the reverse isn't ok.
I can't comment on OW PvP because it doesn't exist, except for maybe Mortal Online and we know how well that's doing.
Personally I don't think we are criticizing OW PvP and the people who enjoy it. You are doing it for us just by posting. gg
EVE's full PVP is working for 10+ years, where your full-kindergarden MMO's fizzle out in a month or two at best. In short, I wouldn't call PVPers cowards for seeking advantage, I would sooner call cowards those so pathetically afraid of losing they invent harmless puppets to beat up.
EVE is working because it is NOT FFA PvP, it's controlled PvP. And CCP themself said that most of their players stay in high sec, too.
The highlighted parts are also good examples of the average PvPer attitude towards anyone who doesn't share his love for his play style, which is also a good reason why other players don't like having those people around. Amusingly it's an attitude very similar to the one of high end PvE raiders, snotty and elitist... go figure
+1000
I always love these "you are wrong about us" threads because in the course of the conversation, those same people usually prove that we are right. Go figure ;-)
So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Because the times I feel most compelled to use terms like "carebear" are when I'm in the presence of people like Jean-Luc who love to psychoanalyze the "pvper" and act like he's a sociopath.
I don't see why it's ok for you guys to criticize OW PvP and people who enjoy it, but the reverse isn't ok.
And yet I was playing an OW FFA PvP game in early beta (Ultima Online) when you were a 9 year old toddler (if the age in your profile is accurate) while I was 27, with a job, and able to afford my own Internet access and game subscription.
I've have a long enough experience with that genre to confidently say that there's a core of players who will turn into sociopaths and virtual "Hannibal Lecter" in such a setting, and will ruin the whole game for every other play style. And history proves me right. Every single attempt at FFA PvP games or even just servers either failed or ended with a tiny niche of players barely able to sustain the game. EvE worked because it's NOT FFA PvP, it's controlled PvP.
AC1 is doing fine even making enough cash to reopen ac 2. So yeah history has proven you wrong. open world pvp brings alliances closer and most of the sociopaths you speak of go into hiding due to retaliation. I find that a op[en pvp world makes everything you do more meaningful. The worlds in your hands and you get to fight a real person.
But then you have lineage 2 (its doing fine) but its not really open pvp. The only open pvp that has closed down has been shadowbane. But many non pvp or restricted pvp games no longer exist.
EVE's full PVP is working for 10+ years, where your full-kindergarden MMO's fizzle out in a month or two at best. In short, I wouldn't call PVPers cowards for seeking advantage, I would sooner call cowards those so pathetically afraid of losing they invent harmless puppets to beat up.
EVE is working because it is NOT FFA PvP, it's controlled PvP. And CCP themself said that most of their players stay in high sec, too.
The highlighted parts are also good examples of the average PvPer attitude towards anyone who doesn't share his love for his play style, which is also a good reason why other players don't like having those people around. Amusingly it's an attitude very similar to the one of high end PvE raiders, snotty and elitist... go figure
+1000
I always love these "you are wrong about us" threads because in the course of the conversation, those same people usually prove that we are right. Go figure ;-)
So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Because the times I feel most compelled to use terms like "carebear" are when I'm in the presence of people like Jean-Luc who love to psychoanalyze the "pvper" and act like he's a sociopath.
I don't see why it's ok for you guys to criticize OW PvP and people who enjoy it, but the reverse isn't ok.
And yet I was playing an OW FFA PvP game in early beta (Ultima Online) when you were a 9 year old toddler (if the age in your profile is accurate) while I was 27, with a job, and able to afford my own Internet access and game subscription.
I've have a long enough experience with that genre to confidently say that there's a core of players who will turn into sociopaths and virtual "Hannibal Lecter" in such a setting, and will ruin the whole game for every other play style. And history proves me right. Every single attempt at FFA PvP games or even just servers either failed or ended with a tiny niche of players barely able to sustain the game. EvE worked because it's NOT FFA PvP, it's controlled PvP.
Why should I care about how old you are or if you played in the beta for UO? I'm telling you that your pompous and ridiculous attitude towards anybody who prefers ow pvp is the only thing that makes me want to use words like carebear etc. Whether or not you played UO and are in your mid-40's is totally irrelevant. As is this weird obsession you have with FFA pvp. next to nobody asks for total ffa pvp, yet you constantly bring it up. When people talk about sandboxes and ow pvp they often point towards eve and UO, neither of which are ffa pvp. We want simulation. That means rules, laws, notoriety, bounties, etc. It just doesn't mean an invisible force field around your character or the ability to choose when you fight somebody and when you don't. That's not interesting or exciting to a lot of us.
And you don't have as much of a history in that genre. Maybe you started playing UO earlier, but I've been playing it longer, along with other "hardcore" games.
EVE's full PVP is working for 10+ years, where your full-kindergarden MMO's fizzle out in a month or two at best. In short, I wouldn't call PVPers cowards for seeking advantage, I would sooner call cowards those so pathetically afraid of losing they invent harmless puppets to beat up.
EVE is working because it is NOT FFA PvP, it's controlled PvP. And CCP themself said that most of their players stay in high sec, too.
The highlighted parts are also good examples of the average PvPer attitude towards anyone who doesn't share his love for his play style, which is also a good reason why other players don't like having those people around. Amusingly it's an attitude very similar to the one of high end PvE raiders, snotty and elitist... go figure
+1000
I always love these "you are wrong about us" threads because in the course of the conversation, those same people usually prove that we are right. Go figure ;-)
So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Because the times I feel most compelled to use terms like "carebear" are when I'm in the presence of people like Jean-Luc who love to psychoanalyze the "pvper" and act like he's a sociopath.
I don't see why it's ok for you guys to criticize OW PvP and people who enjoy it, but the reverse isn't ok.
I can't comment on OW PvP because it doesn't exist, except for maybe Mortal Online and we know how well that's doing.
Personally I don't think we are criticizing OW PvP and the people who enjoy it. You are doing it for us just by posting. gg
Maybe you personally are not criticizing ow pvp, but you are criticizing people who enjoy it. And how am I criticizing myself my posting?
AC1 is doing fine even making enough cash to reopen ac 2. So yeah history has proven you wrong. open world pvp brings alliances closer and most of the sociopaths you speak of go into hiding due to retaliation. I find that a op[en pvp world makes everything you do more meaningful. The worlds in your hands and you get to fight a real person.
But then you have lineage 2 (its doing fine) but its not really open pvp. The only open pvp that has closed down has been shadowbane. But many non pvp or restricted pvp games no longer exist.
Darktide was only 8% of the AC1 player base when the game was at it's prime. Without the majority of PvE servers, the game wouldn't have survived. So what's your point? You only helped my point so far...
lol no your figures are wrong sorry. darktide is 90% of the current player base. in the past it was about 30% which is about average for a game with multi servers.
I dont think you play or have played the game to be honest. The game play sets the standard for mmorpgs.
I started with Uo and have played just about all other major mmos including AC1 and the disaster that was Shadowbane. People are right full pvp turns many people in pyschopaths. Pvp is ok in settings like DAoC frontier you have to keep those people gated away from rest of your community or it turns into a prison yard. FFA PvP just leads to roving bands of griefers teabagging newbies then whining on the forums because their game is dead. Another thing I find is a joke is FFA PvPers acting like they are hardcore and bad ass. You want to be a bad ass go to work in a maximum security prison or join the military and do a couple tours then come tell me how hardcore it is in a game. It shouldn't bother me but after being in law enforcement and the military these pixel warriors just annoy me to no end.
And you don't have as much of a history in that genre. Maybe you started playing UO earlier, but I've been playing it longer, along with other "hardcore" games.
I doubt you played UO longer that me, but whatever... and you definitely didn't play UO pre-trammel either, which I did.
I've also played every single other "hardcore" FFA PvP game that has been released. AC1 Darktide server, DAoC Mordred, Shadowbane, AoC on a FFA PvP server, Darkfall, Mortal Online (can even show you my pre-order items of that one), L2 (which has a pathetic western player base, and which is still restricted PvP) and I played EvE too of course but that's not a FFA PvP game and it's the only one that actually had some success.
Common thing I've seen in all of them... the "psychopath bully gangs" ruining it for every other play style, and enforcing their play style on the whole game. It happened in UO, on Darktide, on Mordred (where they actually killed the server), on shadowbane (there, they simply killed the whole game), on AoC, on Darkfall, on MO... in every single FFA PvP MMORPG.
I absolutely did play UO pre-trammel. I was there when they were first releasing "moonstones" before people even knew what they did. And since then I've played an extensive amount on pre-trammel private servers.
And I have no doubt that you've tried those games, but there's no way you have the same amount of total experience in the genre. All I've been playing are games like UO, Darkfall, Shadowbane. I doubt very much that you've put much time into these games you seem to hate.
But at any rate, I do appreciate you always ignoring most of my posts and focusing in on one small, relatively meaningless point. It doesn't matter who has more experience in the genre.
AC1 is doing fine even making enough cash to reopen ac 2. So yeah history has proven you wrong. open world pvp brings alliances closer and most of the sociopaths you speak of go into hiding due to retaliation. I find that a op[en pvp world makes everything you do more meaningful. The worlds in your hands and you get to fight a real person.
But then you have lineage 2 (its doing fine) but its not really open pvp. The only open pvp that has closed down has been shadowbane. But many non pvp or restricted pvp games no longer exist.
Darktide was only 8% of the AC1 player base when the game was at it's prime. Without the majority of PvE servers, the game wouldn't have survived. So what's your point? You only helped my point so far...
lol no your figures are wrong sorry. darktide is 90% of the current player base. in the past it was about 30% which is about average for a game with multi servers.
I dont think you play or have played the game to be honest. The game play sets the standard for mmorpgs.
Wrong. AC1 displayed the server population, and DT never was more than 8% (at the peak of the game). That's hard facts, not wishful thinkings.
And I've been playing the game for over 5 years, on DT, Harvestgain and Verdantine later (challenge of starting anew on a clean server).
no im 100% correct and i didnt include character creation or it would be closer to 100% since everyone logged on with newbs during release. lol And the figures you speak of were released month to month. Of which they stopped reporting the stats before you started playing bro. I been playing since beta.... The peak of the game was the first year before you played ..... come on try harder bro.
While your points are well written, they look like a presentation for a bad bill being pushed through Congress. Every point you made was filled more with conceit than fact. FFA PvP is not mainstream and that is why no one has developed a game that implements it fully, save for Darkfall if I'm not mistaken. Some people just don't like it and won't spend their money on it.
Originally posted by Holophonist So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Because the times I feel most compelled to use terms like "carebear" are when I'm in the presence of people like Jean-Luc who love to psychoanalyze the "pvper" and act like he's a sociopath. I don't see why it's ok for you guys to criticize OW PvP and people who enjoy it, but the reverse isn't ok.
I think you either got some things wrong or let your feelings/prejudices get the better of you.
a) this dicussion isn't about a chicken-or-egg question. It's not even pro/contra PvP as such. It's basically about "full PvP". And in this context, if "we" use the term "PvPer" i think you can safely assume that it's not referring to "all who like to PvP" but to those that argue for "full PvP". (And really, the "contras" are basically all revolving about that tiny fraction of PvP'ers that abuse "open game mechanics" in a griefing manner and why that is counter-productive to an MMO, let alone a major one)
b) I also think you went a little overboard in your reference to JLP. At least i haven't seen him acting like a sociopath. And the "psychoanalyzing" part is a wrong observation imo, because stating experiences one has made and drawing conclusions from that might be one-sided, generalizing perhaps even outright wrong in someone's eyes (in which i, like i am sure JLP would like to hear arguments instead of opinions, because the former is good for a discussion while the latter simply isn't!), but have nothing to do with "psychoanalyzing" anyone.
c) you can go ahead and call me "carebear", i am not offended by the term - after all i know what i am and what not. (in some aspects the term applies, in other#s it simply doesn't, like is the case with any generalization)
d) criticizing OW PvP is ok because for one the OP has opened a thread on OW PvP, pretending to "dispell the myths" about it and because the critique is mostly based on personal experiences.
"the reverse" simply hasn't been done, really. Saying "OW PvP is the greatest thing of all time" is simply not enough without the "because". Likewise, it's not enough to always repeat how wonderful it'd be without taking the "other side" seriously enough to at least address their concerns in a serious manner.
And the latter hasn't really be done. A few have tried, but fell way short simply because each and every mechanism that has been brought up to "prevent" griefing in open PvP environments were either rejected as being ineffective (again, personal experience!) or as being "not full PvP" (which then basically supports the "contras" who don't do more than say "PvP in MMos must be consentual/controlled instead of open")
Originally posted by Hanthos While your points are well written, they look like a presentation for a bad bill being pushed through Congress. Every point you made was filled more with conceit than fact. FFA PvP is not mainstream and that is why no one has developed a game that implements it fully, save for Darkfall if I'm not mistaken. Some people just don't like it and won't spend their money on it.
lol mainstream has reduced the genre to ftp... just like main stream produced vanilla ice and mc hammer
EVE's full PVP is working for 10+ years, where your full-kindergarden MMO's fizzle out in a month or two at best. In short, I wouldn't call PVPers cowards for seeking advantage, I would sooner call cowards those so pathetically afraid of losing they invent harmless puppets to beat up.
EVE is working because it is NOT FFA PvP, it's controlled PvP. And CCP themself said that most of their players stay in high sec, too.
The highlighted parts are also good examples of the average PvPer attitude towards anyone who doesn't share his love for his play style, which is also a good reason why other players don't like having those people around. Amusingly it's an attitude very similar to the one of high end PvE raiders, snotty and elitist... go figure
I absolutely did play UO pre-trammel. I was there when they were first releasing "moonstones" before people even knew what they did.
Not very believable, considering the cost of Internet access back then (which was still phone bill based) and the fact you were 13 years old then when Trammel released. But whatever...
I lived with my parents. I wasn't paying for internet.
And since then I've played an extensive amount on pre-trammel private servers.
Yep, private servers, that's actually more believable. Servers with a very small amount of people, run by people who use Origin's and EA's work for free which makes those private servers sustainable. That's no real MMORPG server.
What does that have to do with anything? It's pre-trammel UO.
And I have no doubt that you've tried those games, but there's no way you have the same amount of total experience in the genre. All I've been playing are games like UO, Darkfall, Shadowbane. I doubt very much that you've put much time into these games you seem to hate.
I hate no game. I'm just not blind enough to not recognize the flaws of those I've played.
Fair enough. I still doubt you have as much experience in the genre, but as I pointed out: it doesn't matter.
But at any rate, I do appreciate you always ignoring most of my posts and focusing in on one small, relatively meaningless point. It doesn't matter who has more experience in the genre.
If experience doesn't matter, why do employers look so much for experienced people? Why don't kids age 10 already get to drive a car? Why are driving licenses even needed? Hell, why is school needed, why is learning needed? Experience doesn't matter!
You don't make any sense... as always, you're struggling to avoid admitting your arguments aren't worth shit. And the reason why most of your posts don't make any sense is that you reason with passion and imagination, and not with facts and experience.
I didn't say experience doesn't matter in the real world. I said comparing our experiences in the genre has nothing to do with the discussion. You're like the strawman king.
Originally posted by Grixxitt Even within the context of a Free For All, Open World, Full Loot, "PvP Hardcore" Game or server, it is possible to have consequences for your actions.
I don't think anyone really said it weren't possible. But i also think that in this very thread the "if the game allows it i should be allowed to do it, artificial limits to what i can do are bull"-argument was brought up - it usually is in every thread about open PvP.
Meaning: While yes, it is possible to introduce accountability, there are always those that reject it, especially by pointing to "open/full PvP" and how consequences or repercussions through game mechanics would - in their eyes - defeat the purpose.
Originally posted by Grixxitt There are even mechanics set up so gamers who wish to can hunt down and kill, at an advantage, any PK's they wish
Yes, bounty-hunting mechanisms exist. But they're part of the problem actually.
Simply because they are justification for a player to use his freedom in a griefing way: "why are complaining? the game mechanic allows me to kill you even in safe zones. If you don't like it, you can play something else or place a bounty on my character's head"
This is rubbish because, as was said above too, the victim is at best victimized twice (by the actual deed and by him being required to use his online time to "pay" for the revenge). Now, if the attempt would auto-fail and the *game* would auto-issue a bounty, that would be another matter but of course, from a "full PvP proponent"-point of view something like that isn't desireable in the first place because that too "defeats the purpose" or simply isn't "full PvP" then...
Short: Any such mechanics don't work because either the victim is still a victim or because the PvP'ers say it's not PvP at all or at least no "open PvP" and therefore to be rejected.
Originally posted by Grixxitt I would just like to say that IMHO most people have a bad taste for PvP games because to date most PvP games have sucked.
I disagree. More likely imo is that most people have a "bad taste for PvP" (as you put it, but which should rather be a bad taste for full PvP), because they've run into those very people that make use of a game's mechanics in the (socially) most destructive way they can. It's just a minor portion of PvP'ers of course, but with over-proportional impact the more "open" PvP is.
i.e. not the *game* they played sucked, it was a part of the *players* encountered in them that did.
Truth be told I find your reply a bit perplexing.
You use the argument that since mechanics exist to grief players that it gives players the right to use them while excluding any mechanics in place to grief the griefers. Also you bring up the bounty hunter mechanism which has NEVER worked in any game, for the simple fact that you can make a character, PK to your hearts content and then have an alt or other character kill you and cash in on your foul deeds.
And you didn't even bring up any of the other mechanics.
I would also like to point out that griefers and asshats exist in EVERY game whether there is pvp in any capacity or not. PvP games are actually the only ones that let players deal with these types in game as opposed to their only recourse being to petition GMs.
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
Originally posted by Holophonist So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Because the times I feel most compelled to use terms like "carebear" are when I'm in the presence of people like Jean-Luc who love to psychoanalyze the "pvper" and act like he's a sociopath. I don't see why it's ok for you guys to criticize OW PvP and people who enjoy it, but the reverse isn't ok.
I think you either got some things wrong or let your feelings/prejudices get the better of you.
a) this dicussion isn't about a chicken-or-egg question. It's not even pro/contra PvP as such. It's basically about "full PvP". And in this context, if "we" use the term "PvPer" i think you can safely assume that it's not referring to "all who like to PvP" but to those that argue for "full PvP". (And really, the "contras" are basically all revolving about that tiny fraction of PvP'ers that abuse "open game mechanics" in a griefing manner and why that is counter-productive to an MMO, let alone a major one)
Whatever the overall discussion is about, I was referring to grim and jean-luc talking about pvp'ers exposing ourselves to be what they thought we were all along. My point is if I ever use the term carebear or something similar it's in response to me being called a sociopath. That may be off-topic, but then so is what I responding to.
b) I also think you went a little overboard in your reference to JLP. At least i haven't seen him acting like a sociopath. And the "psychoanalyzing" part is a wrong observation imo, because stating experiences one has made and drawing conclusions from that might be one-sided, generalizing perhaps even outright wrong in someone's eyes (in which i, like i am sure JLP would like to hear arguments instead of opinions, because the former is good for a discussion while the latter simply isn't!), but have nothing to do with "psychoanalyzing" anyone.
I didn't mean he was acting like a sociopath. The "he" in my sentence was the pvper. And jean-luc has personally called me a griefer, sociopath, etc many times. Even though I actually SHOWED him a vod of me streaming UO with my little sister that shows that I'm not that kind of player. So maybe you haven't seen him do it, but he does it... along with many other people on this these forums.
c) you can go ahead and call me "carebear", i am not offended by the term - after all i know what i am and what not. (in some aspects the term applies, in other#s it simply doesn't, like is the case with any generalization)
I'm glad you're thick-skinned or at least accepting of "what you are."
d) criticizing OW PvP is ok because for one the OP has opened a thread on OW PvP, pretending to "dispell the myths" about it and because the critique is mostly based on personal experiences.
I agree that criticizing OW PvP is ok in this thread. I'd take it a step further and say it's ok just about anywhere, unless it's hijacking a thread. I'm comparing apples with apples. If people can criticize OW pvp and ow pvper's then ow pvper's can criticize themeparks and "carebears."
"the reverse" simply hasn't been done, really. Saying "OW PvP is the greatest thing of all time" is simply not enough without the "because". Likewise, it's not enough to always repeat how wonderful it'd be without taking the "other side" seriously enough to at least address their concerns in a serious manner.
And the latter hasn't really be done. A few have tried, but fell way short simply because each and every mechanism that has been brought up to "prevent" griefing in open PvP environments were either rejected as being ineffective (again, personal experience!) or as being "not full PvP" (which then basically supports the "contras" who don't do more than say "PvP in MMos must be consentual/controlled instead of open")
Well now you're just getting into the discussion itself which doesn't really have anything to do with the post you're responding to.
Comments
Even within the context of a Free For All, Open World, Full Loot, "PvP Hardcore" Game or server, it is possible to have consequences for your actions.
In a few MMO's, those who prey on weaker characters become "jailed" and the player loses access to that character for a set period of time. UO created terms like "statloss", another enacted fines on the offending characters (even other characters on the same account would have their bank drained). There are even mechanics set up so gamers who wish to can hunt down and kill, at an advantage, any PK's they wish, with the game providing for clues of their whereabouts and certain battle advantages.
Hell even in Warhammer you would become a level 1 chicken with no offensive or defensive capability if you attempted to go to a contested zone of a lower level than yourself.
In short, I would just like to say that IMHO most people have a bad taste for PvP games because to date most PvP games have sucked.
They allow for griefing and exploiting on a fairly massive scale, so it's really no wonder gamers are left with a bad taste in their mouth.
Luckily, for fans of PvP, there are plenty of games on the horizon which allow for open world conquest and still protect those who don't wish to engage in that sort of activity without resorting to crappy mechanics like PvP flagging or the like.
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
-The MMO Forum Community
You are misunderstanding what I wrote and mixing apples and oranges. There is indeed static and dynamic AI (X series is a great example). What you describe in your technological wonder diatribe is a fully conscious AI with it's own goals and objectives - such a thing does not exist in any game. If it existed, it would wipe out the player population simply because it does not sleep, it does not get bored, it knows no mercy. Perfect warmachine if you will.
In every MMO to date, the AI is implemented with static spawns, static actions, and dynamic paths. The bosses you raid are static, their ability tables are static, and more importantly their "encounter" can be predicted. This leads us to what I mentioned previously, it is a simple case of monkey-learn-monkey-get-banana. You learn the encounter, you devise a strategy to down the boss, you refine it to perfection, after that it's farm time.
For the less intelligent monkeys, the process is much simpler - you go to some wiki guide, read how the smart monkey did it and then spend a week or two learning to do it. Then it's farm time.
Sorry, I'm not the one ignoring reality. The only challenge is in to how long it takes for a specific person to learn encounters. That's why there are raiders who figure stuff out and write the guides, and there are raiders who read the guides and "improve" trying to beat an encounter that is completely predictable.
Older RTS games didn't have a challenging AI, it had the same AI with various degrees of handicaps that were scaled down as the difficulty increased. For example, in Age of Empires the hardest AI was unbeatable simply because it had no handicaps and it was literally using cheat codes. Unreal (and other FPS bots) can be unbeatable because they are have an in-built wallhack & aimbot, the additional coding makes them beatable.
And since you were answering my post, i should know what *i* meant when i said "AI" and where *your* interpretation or line of thought went "wrong" concerning my argumentation:
a) again you make the mistake of basing your argument on "what is" (or rather: what think/perceive that is)
b) just because - as you say - "In every MMO to date, the AI is implemented with static spawns, static actions, and dynamic paths", it does not mean that's the end or all that's possible.
All you do by your line of arguments is to side-track the original discussion in this thread, which isn't about AI and static or dynamic spawns or whatever, but about "full PvP".
In this context my claim is that there is NOTHING that "only a player as an opponent can offer", that everything the PvP'ers in this thread crave (i.e. said why they "need" a human player OPPONENT) CAN be implemented by AI.
Yes, that does mean that i am taking examples of existing games - like the X-Games - and implying that some feature(s) could be implemented in a MMO.
It does simply not matter "how it is today" - it's not my faukt that studios take the easy route of "static spawns" or relying on players to do their work.
The PvP'ers (or rather: the "full PvP proponents", because hardly anyone in this thread is against PvP as long as it's consentual) in this thread claimed that the "challenge" of playing against another player means a lot to them, for one because his actions (so they say) are unpredictable.
The very same is (or at least can be) true for an AI programmed to that end.
And what better challenge for your skills than "a perfect war machine"?
But you are right, most PvP'ers wouldn't want that.
(Most players don't, and that's why it's not done)
Simply because the AI wouldn't be caught unawares, or would actually be able to retaliate, and possibly quicker than a "live" player ever could.
You're using the example of AIs using "cheat codes", thereby carefully omitting that i mentioned "AIs using the exact same tools as players do" above.
(so much for reading skills!)
I was sure that was going to happen, simply because PvP'ers tend to start whining when suddenly they find someone who can be online longer than they can, and call it "cheating", while when roles are reversed and THEY are the ones who have an advantage from being online longer (camping POS's, moving into contested territorry first etc) things are juuust fine.
Not the PvP'ers fault really, it's simply human nature to seek the advantage (we see it in 3year-old children and later it just becomes "overlaid" by social skills) and only "misbehave" when no one watches or the numbers are fairly one-sided.
Gangs (from "Gangs of New York" to your gang in the neighborhood) are cowards, catch the members alone and they're easy meat.
And it's exactly this aspect of human nature, which comes out in MMOs much more easily because - as was said too in this thread - the player is rarely if at all held (holdable) accountable for his actions in-game.
That's why "full PvP" simply doesn't work in a major MMO in the long run.
And why at least some of these "myths" aren't myths after all, but generalized empirical data.
Generalizing is a mistake by itself, yes, and that was what the OP tried to point out imo.
But he overlooked or neglected the impact of just a fraction of people behaving in the way that was basis for that generalization in the first place, which is predictably and foreseeably present in ANY PvP game, even more so and with greater impact of the community as a whole, the more "open" the PvP is the game is.
But i also think that in this very thread the "if the game allows it i should be allowed to do it, artificial limits to what i can do are bull"-argument was brought up - it usually is in every thread about open PvP.
Meaning:
While yes, it is possible to introduce accountability, there are always those that reject it, especially by pointing to "open/full PvP" and how consequences or repercussions through game mechanics would - in their eyes - defeat the purpose.
Yes, bounty-hunting mechanisms exist.But they're part of the problem actually.
Simply because they are justification for a player to use his freedom in a griefing way:
"why are complaining? the game mechanic allows me to kill you even in safe zones. If you don't like it, you can play something else or place a bounty on my character's head"
This is rubbish because, as was said above too, the victim is at best victimized twice
(by the actual deed and by him being required to use his online time to "pay" for the revenge).
Now, if the attempt would auto-fail and the *game* would auto-issue a bounty, that would be another matter but of course, from a "full PvP proponent"-point of view something like that isn't desireable in the first place because that too "defeats the purpose" or simply isn't "full PvP" then...
I disagree.Short:
Any such mechanics don't work because either the victim is still a victim or because the PvP'ers say it's not PvP at all or at least no "open PvP" and therefore to be rejected.
More likely imo is that most people have a "bad taste for PvP" (as you put it, but which should rather be a bad taste for full PvP), because they've run into those very people that make use of a game's mechanics in the (socially) most destructive way they can.
It's just a minor portion of PvP'ers of course, but with over-proportional impact the more "open" PvP is.
i.e. not the *game* they played sucked, it was a part of the *players* encountered in them that did.
There is a notable difference between a possibility and a fact. Basing arguments on evident facts is pretty much the point of an argument. Your counter-argument can be summed up as "Well its possible so youre wrong!". It's theoretically possible a piano will fall on your head, doesn't mean it will happen.
My argument is perfectly in-line with the OP, since you missed it I will reiterate it in simpler words - the AI is designed as a predictable substitute for humans. Every boss encounter in every MMO to date is a static encounter with a predictable behavior, the AI exists for you to beat it. That's why there are trash-mobs and bosses. That's why the bosses just stand around waiting for you to come collect the loot while you kill their minions in conveniently arranged combinations. The irony is, even if a human-like AI was developed (I'm humoring your what-ifs), it's still nothing more then a substitute for human interaction constructed for introverted autists who shy away from human interaction.
In most MMO's there is absolutely zero accountability. Not in sandboxes though, step on the wrong guys toes in EVE and you will experience a whole new meaning of fighting someone who does not sleep and who will hit you where it hurts. What PVP can offer is the very essence of challenge - unpredictability and no knowing if you will win or lose. Asking for consentuality is just another way of trying to make things predictable therefore beatable - a wider aspect of the panicked aversion to loss. It is indeed human nature to seek advantage. But consider in the context of human nature, what are humans who run away from challenge and construct mock-up practice dolls they can beat and feel good about themselves.
EVE's full PVP is working for 10+ years, where your full-kindergarden MMO's fizzle out in a month or two at best. In short, I wouldn't call PVPers cowards for seeking advantage, I would sooner call cowards those so pathetically afraid of losing they invent harmless puppets to beat up.
If you read the OP with understanding, you would see his actual point that PVP functions only when supported by many systems that enrich the overall game experience, on it's own it falls flat on it's face just like every MMO oriented on raiding. But hey, scream kick and defend your mockup puppets to the bitter end if it makes you happy.
You are misunderstanding what I wrote and mixing apples and oranges. There is indeed static and dynamic AI (X series is a great example). What you describe in your technological wonder diatribe is a fully conscious AI with it's own goals and objectives - such a thing does not exist in any game. If it existed, it would wipe out the player population simply because it does not sleep, it does not get bored, it knows no mercy. Perfect warmachine if you will.
In every MMO to date, the AI is implemented with static spawns, static actions, and dynamic paths. The bosses you raid are static, their ability tables are static, and more importantly their "encounter" can be predicted. This leads us to what I mentioned previously, it is a simple case of monkey-learn-monkey-get-banana. You learn the encounter, you devise a strategy to down the boss, you refine it to perfection, after that it's farm time.
For the less intelligent monkeys, the process is much simpler - you go to some wiki guide, read how the smart monkey did it and then spend a week or two learning to do it. Then it's farm time.
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by cirsyndic To consider the inherent logical fallacy, first we must consider; What is PVE? PVE can be defined as contesting against a static AI script that repeats the same things at the same intervals. Essentially, once you figure out the optimal pattern you can begin to learn it, once you learn it you perfect it and when you perfect it you can farm. What is dynamic PVE? A dynamic AI script that creates a sense of challenge but retains the safety net of contesting against something which is inherently inferior to human intellect due to lack of free will. The logical fallacy herein is that the AI script is designed to simulate human behavior in order to provide the challenge, but retaining the relative predictability and therefore the inferiority of the AI. In layman's terms, once you figure out the width of the dynamic script you can figure out the optimal pattern, perfect it and farm. What does that have to do with PVP? The AI script is always, without exception, designed to offer challenge but remain beatable. It serves as a proverbial punching bag to be punched ad infinitum, offering mock-resistance but no real challenge. The only thing that can compete with a human mind is another human mind, AI cannot. The AI is there to let you win and feel good about it. It requires very little time investment to master the process of beating it, which is why it's so popular among the casual crowds. It doesn't take player's loot, it doesn't send nasty PM's, it doesn't crouch above your corpse's head in mock-teabag gesture. To conclude; With no real chance or consequence of loss, victory is destined to become meaningless. One of the main culprits of themeparks imploding after a month can be identified here. As the OP correctly identified, PVP only functions as an integrated part of a wider collection of systems. To date only EVE has been able to correctly design that network of systems, whereas any of the many indy sandboxes (Mortal, Darkfall, Perpetuum, etc) imploded shortly after release because there was absolutely nothing to do besides kill people. There was no network of systems to cater to a multitude of playstyles, while maintaining the adrenaline rush inherently present in PVP enviroment. TL;DR version: Monkey learns to press lever, monkey gets banana. Monkey fights monkey for banana.
Except challenging PvE content exists with the express purpose of forcing the player to improve without the AI cheating. Even older RTS games have AI that ranges from really easy to really hard or nearly impossible to beat without resorting to cheating. Unreal's AI can field bots with player level skills and behaviors. They had to program in the ability for the AI to make mistakes because the AI was more or less unbeatable by any human player. It wasn't a challenge, it was a slaughter. Even in MMORPGs, the easy mode of gaming, WoW's end game raids are unbeatable without a great deal of time, effort and additional mods to the base game. There is certainly a lot of content that is easy, but the choice is available for the players to choose content that requires the time investment to get something out of it. So your post would be accurate if it didn't ignore reality.
Sorry, I'm not the one ignoring reality. The only challenge is in to how long it takes for a specific person to learn encounters. That's why there are raiders who figure stuff out and write the guides, and there are raiders who read the guides and "improve" trying to beat an encounter that is completely predictable.
Older RTS games didn't have a challenging AI, it had the same AI with various degrees of handicaps that were scaled down as the difficulty increased. For example, in Age of Empires the hardest AI was unbeatable simply because it had no handicaps and it was literally using cheat codes. Unreal (and other FPS bots) can be unbeatable because they are have an in-built wallhack & aimbot, the additional coding makes them beatable.
Unreal tournament stopped the cheating years ago. The AI in RTS don't no longer need cheats either. Those are old ideas and old arguments that no longer apply. AI can match human players easily, if the developers choose to use it that way.
But again, the challenge exists for those that want it, whether it's PvE or PvP. The only different is where they want to spend the effort. Do they spend the effort gearing up to become more powerful in PvE or gear up to become more powerful in PvP? Because it's about the gear, or maxing out the numbers in the the game's systems and where players want to spend their time.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I agree, problem is some people just have no skills beyond point click and rage how pvp consist of only griefers (usually do to them getting killed by some nob in a starter town). The truth is griefers dont last long in open world pvp.
+1000
I always love these "you are wrong about us" threads because in the course of the conversation, those same people usually prove that we are right. Go figure ;-)
So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Because the times I feel most compelled to use terms like "carebear" are when I'm in the presence of people like Jean-Luc who love to psychoanalyze the "pvper" and act like he's a sociopath.
I don't see why it's ok for you guys to criticize OW PvP and people who enjoy it, but the reverse isn't ok.
I can't comment on OW PvP because it doesn't exist, except for maybe Mortal Online and we know how well that's doing.
Personally I don't think we are criticizing OW PvP and the people who enjoy it. You are doing it for us just by posting. gg
AC1 is doing fine even making enough cash to reopen ac 2. So yeah history has proven you wrong. open world pvp brings alliances closer and most of the sociopaths you speak of go into hiding due to retaliation. I find that a op[en pvp world makes everything you do more meaningful. The worlds in your hands and you get to fight a real person.
But then you have lineage 2 (its doing fine) but its not really open pvp. The only open pvp that has closed down has been shadowbane. But many non pvp or restricted pvp games no longer exist.
Why should I care about how old you are or if you played in the beta for UO? I'm telling you that your pompous and ridiculous attitude towards anybody who prefers ow pvp is the only thing that makes me want to use words like carebear etc. Whether or not you played UO and are in your mid-40's is totally irrelevant. As is this weird obsession you have with FFA pvp. next to nobody asks for total ffa pvp, yet you constantly bring it up. When people talk about sandboxes and ow pvp they often point towards eve and UO, neither of which are ffa pvp. We want simulation. That means rules, laws, notoriety, bounties, etc. It just doesn't mean an invisible force field around your character or the ability to choose when you fight somebody and when you don't. That's not interesting or exciting to a lot of us.
And you don't have as much of a history in that genre. Maybe you started playing UO earlier, but I've been playing it longer, along with other "hardcore" games.
Maybe you personally are not criticizing ow pvp, but you are criticizing people who enjoy it. And how am I criticizing myself my posting?
lol no your figures are wrong sorry. darktide is 90% of the current player base. in the past it was about 30% which is about average for a game with multi servers.
I dont think you play or have played the game to be honest. The game play sets the standard for mmorpgs.
I absolutely did play UO pre-trammel. I was there when they were first releasing "moonstones" before people even knew what they did. And since then I've played an extensive amount on pre-trammel private servers.
And I have no doubt that you've tried those games, but there's no way you have the same amount of total experience in the genre. All I've been playing are games like UO, Darkfall, Shadowbane. I doubt very much that you've put much time into these games you seem to hate.
But at any rate, I do appreciate you always ignoring most of my posts and focusing in on one small, relatively meaningless point. It doesn't matter who has more experience in the genre.
no im 100% correct and i didnt include character creation or it would be closer to 100% since everyone logged on with newbs during release. lol And the figures you speak of were released month to month. Of which they stopped reporting the stats before you started playing bro. I been playing since beta.... The peak of the game was the first year before you played ..... come on try harder bro.
a) this dicussion isn't about a chicken-or-egg question.
It's not even pro/contra PvP as such.
It's basically about "full PvP".
And in this context, if "we" use the term "PvPer" i think you can safely assume that it's not referring to "all who like to PvP" but to those that argue for "full PvP".
(And really, the "contras" are basically all revolving about that tiny fraction of PvP'ers that abuse "open game mechanics" in a griefing manner and why that is counter-productive to an MMO, let alone a major one)
b) I also think you went a little overboard in your reference to JLP.
At least i haven't seen him acting like a sociopath.
And the "psychoanalyzing" part is a wrong observation imo, because stating experiences one has made and drawing conclusions from that might be one-sided, generalizing perhaps even outright wrong in someone's eyes (in which i, like i am sure JLP would like to hear arguments instead of opinions, because the former is good for a discussion while the latter simply isn't!), but have nothing to do with "psychoanalyzing" anyone.
c) you can go ahead and call me "carebear", i am not offended by the term - after all i know what i am and what not.
(in some aspects the term applies, in other#s it simply doesn't, like is the case with any generalization)
d) criticizing OW PvP is ok because for one the OP has opened a thread on OW PvP, pretending to "dispell the myths" about it and because the critique is mostly based on personal experiences.
"the reverse" simply hasn't been done, really.
Saying "OW PvP is the greatest thing of all time" is simply not enough without the "because".
Likewise, it's not enough to always repeat how wonderful it'd be without taking the "other side" seriously enough to at least address their concerns in a serious manner.
And the latter hasn't really be done.
A few have tried, but fell way short simply because each and every mechanism that has been brought up to "prevent" griefing in open PvP environments were either rejected as being ineffective (again, personal experience!) or as being "not full PvP" (which then basically supports the "contras" who don't do more than say "PvP in MMos must be consentual/controlled instead of open")
lol mainstream has reduced the genre to ftp... just like main stream produced vanilla ice and mc hammer
Exactly! +1
I lived with my parents. I wasn't paying for internet.
What does that have to do with anything? It's pre-trammel UO.
Fair enough. I still doubt you have as much experience in the genre, but as I pointed out: it doesn't matter.
I didn't say experience doesn't matter in the real world. I said comparing our experiences in the genre has nothing to do with the discussion. You're like the strawman king.
Truth be told I find your reply a bit perplexing.
You use the argument that since mechanics exist to grief players that it gives players the right to use them while excluding any mechanics in place to grief the griefers. Also you bring up the bounty hunter mechanism which has NEVER worked in any game, for the simple fact that you can make a character, PK to your hearts content and then have an alt or other character kill you and cash in on your foul deeds.
And you didn't even bring up any of the other mechanics.
I would also like to point out that griefers and asshats exist in EVERY game whether there is pvp in any capacity or not. PvP games are actually the only ones that let players deal with these types in game as opposed to their only recourse being to petition GMs.
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
-The MMO Forum Community
Whatever the overall discussion is about, I was referring to grim and jean-luc talking about pvp'ers exposing ourselves to be what they thought we were all along. My point is if I ever use the term carebear or something similar it's in response to me being called a sociopath. That may be off-topic, but then so is what I responding to.
I didn't mean he was acting like a sociopath. The "he" in my sentence was the pvper. And jean-luc has personally called me a griefer, sociopath, etc many times. Even though I actually SHOWED him a vod of me streaming UO with my little sister that shows that I'm not that kind of player. So maybe you haven't seen him do it, but he does it... along with many other people on this these forums.
I'm glad you're thick-skinned or at least accepting of "what you are."
I agree that criticizing OW PvP is ok in this thread. I'd take it a step further and say it's ok just about anywhere, unless it's hijacking a thread. I'm comparing apples with apples. If people can criticize OW pvp and ow pvper's then ow pvper's can criticize themeparks and "carebears."
Well now you're just getting into the discussion itself which doesn't really have anything to do with the post you're responding to.