Originally posted by Bladestrom Then you agree general-zod
I agree with owpvp games being niche... after all, the amount of wolves in the world is scarce
But pvp players think that open pvp zones should be more popular - Bladestrom
I do not agree
should qualify then, the pvp players that want to hunt in zones marked for PVE, wolves need fresh meat constantly, im looking at you high sec zone in eve.
Regardless of the stereotypes about pvpers there are a great number of us who do consider ourselves gladiators receiving great honor fighting and winning against the odds. People seem to think i'm saying there are no situations where a player has preyed on the weak and innocent... i'm not saying that.
When I said there are less wolves out there i'm speaking about the players that find themselves in situations where the attacker is more powerful or the attackers outnumber the player but he still tries to figure out how a way to overcome instead of giving up.
No doubt that's true...I wish we might have more PvPers like you. But, sadly, that kind of PvPer is getting rarer ever day.
Frankly, the PvPer that tends to be en vogue these days is some tool with a name like xXDEATHDEALERXx who swarms into a game with his BF4 clan with the aspiration to post grief videos with 10,000+ hits on YouTube...no regard for the RP environment. No respect for context.
The dirty secret to PvP that lam0rs exploit is the notion that the less a PKer cares about what's going on, the better. Somebody said before how the problem is that too many people take what pixels do too seriously. Actually, the problem I see is that too many--far too many--don't take the pixels on the screen seriously enough, which is why PvP has basically degenerated into a quest for l0lz and grief-reactions.
Because things like suicide ganking in EVE couldn't happen nearly as regularly as what it does, if characters mattered, and the pixels represent more than pixels. People don't waste billions of in-game currency to engage in pointless ganking unless they are playing for meta-motives, like causing emotional distress to people. The problem is that the pixels DON'T matter to most of these new PKers...the real-world grief reactions and YouTube videos matter. The smack in forums are the things that matter. Grief, we might say, is a reward for powergamers; and the games have shown that you can get those rewards, just so long as they can give up any pretense of playing the game that's given.
That's why we need PvPers to start investing more of themselves in the game fiction; PvPers need to buy into the lore, their characters and their motives, from a world standpoint. If not, then all we'll have are cheap l0llogaggers, and people jumping ship because of the lameness of it all.
__________________________ "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
Yeah- Open World (FFA) PVP isnt for me either due to the poor game mechanics. However, in the past I have played games where it worked very well (for a myriad of reasons) and I would like to see that return.
Will it?
Probably not. =(
Not enough people will tolerate that in their games.
Originally posted by Bladestrom Then you agree general-zod
I agree with owpvp games being niche... after all, the amount of wolves in the world is scarce
But pvp players think that open pvp zones should be more popular - Bladestrom
I do not agree
should qualify then, the pvp players that want to hunt in zones marked for PVE, wolves need fresh meat constantly, im looking at you high sec zone in eve.
Regardless of the stereotypes about pvpers there are a great number of us who do consider ourselves gladiators receiving great honor fighting and winning against the odds. People seem to think i'm saying there are no situations where a player has preyed on the weak and innocent... i'm not saying that.
When I said there are less wolves out there i'm speaking about the players that find themselves in situations where the attacker is more powerful or the attackers outnumber the player but he still tries to figure out how a way to overcome instead of giving up.
No doubt that's true...I wish we might have more PvPers like you. But, sadly, that kind of PvPer is getting rarer ever day.
Frankly, the PvPer that tends to be en vogue these days is some tool with a name like xXDEATHDEALERXx who swarms into a game with his BF4 clan with the aspiration to post grief videos with 10,000+ hits on YouTube...no regard for the RP environment. No respect for context.
The dirty secret to PvP that lam0rs exploit is the notion that the less a PKer cares about what's going on, the better. Somebody said before how the problem is that too many people take what pixels do too seriously. Actually, the problem I see is that too many--far too many--don't take the pixels on the screen seriously enough, which is why PvP has basically degenerated into a quest for l0lz and grief-reactions.
Because things like suicide ganking in EVE couldn't happen nearly as regularly as what it does, if characters mattered, and the pixels represent more than pixels. People don't waste billions of in-game currency to engage in pointless ganking unless they are playing for meta-motives, like causing emotional distress to people. The problem is that the pixels DON'T matter to most of these new PKers...the real-world grief reactions and YouTube videos matter. The smack in forums are the things that matter. Grief, we might say, is a reward for powergamers; and the games have shown that you can get those rewards, just so long as they can give up any pretense of playing the game that's given.
That's why we need PvPers to start investing more of themselves in the game fiction; PvPers need to buy into the lore, their characters and their motives, from a world standpoint. If not, then all we'll have are cheap l0llogaggers, and people jumping ship because of the lameness of it all.
That was a perfect summation of the problem. It's all about the meta benefits-- the youtube lulz and forum infamy. Honestly, I think part of the problem is the homogenization of the genres. Since games are being made with bigger and bigger budgets, publishers naturally want a wider reach for income. So, they'll throw out the competitive side of things outside of the game context while sweeping under the rug the very idea that, hey, try to act with some honor here.
I appreciate PVP players like General-Zod and wish more would have that attitude, but as you say, the real wolves out there care not one whit for the game, its lore, and the community of the game no more than as a source for lulz. It does get old, and it does drive off the players who just want to roleplay in the world they've paid money to be in.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
In reality the number of people who have a desire to pvp against other players who do not want to pvp is fairly low however the gaming market over-indulges those people.
understand I am not talking about people who want to pvp wtth other people who want to pvp. I am talking about people who find enjoyment on pvp against people who do not want to pvp.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
In reality the number of people who have a desire to pvp against other players who do not want to pvp is fairly low however the gaming market over-indulges those people.
understand I am not talking about people who want to pvp wtth other people who want to pvp. I am talking about people who find enjoyment on pvp against people who do not want to pvp.
I think it would be more accurate to say there are people who are only interested in the PvP aspects of a game, largely to the exclusion of everything else a game offers. The role play, world exploration, etc. are all secondary to finding and killing or being killed by other players. It's not that they want to kill players who do not want to PvP, they don't care if the other players want to participate in PvP or they assume that the other players have opted in to the PvP by playing the game in the first place. This seems like a reasonable assumption to me. If you decide to play Darkfall, then you've opted in to whatever the game offers, including whatever PvP is available.
I think this is more accurate because it doesn't seem all that likely that someone who doesn't want to PvP in general is going to play a PvP based game, or play on a PvP based server. Finding one of those people would be like finding Bigfoot.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
In reality the number of people who have a desire to pvp against other players who do not want to pvp is fairly low however the gaming market over-indulges those people.
understand I am not talking about people who want to pvp wtth other people who want to pvp. I am talking about people who find enjoyment on pvp against people who do not want to pvp.
I think it would be more accurate to say there are people who are only interested in the PvP aspects of a game, largely to the exclusion of everything else a game offers. The role play, world exploration, etc. are all secondary to finding and killing or being killed by other players. It's not that they want to kill players who do not want to PvP, they don't care if the other players want to participate in PvP or they assume that the other players have opted in to the PvP by playing the game in the first place. This seems like a reasonable assumption to me. If you decide to play Darkfall, then you've opted in to whatever the game offers, including whatever PvP is available.
I think this is more accurate because it doesn't seem all that likely that someone who doesn't want to PvP in general is going to play a PvP based game, or play on a PvP based server. Finding one of those people would be like finding Bigfoot.
Then why do we not have more games where people who are doing just PvE can still explore anywhere on the map.
It should be far more simple. Character (or ship) is blue, you cant attack. peroid.
problem is PvP people would rage over that....why?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Your problem is expecting the majority to work in a rational and reasonable manner.
The best Open World PvP I ever saw was the one used in SWG where people had Open World PvP including attacking each others fortifications with a opt in or out flag.
Some people kept it always active and some had it forced active (Jedi) but basically PvP was a lot of fun and people who wanted to just enjoy the game without PvP could do so.
In reality the number of people who have a desire to pvp against other players who do not want to pvp is fairly low however the gaming market over-indulges those people.
understand I am not talking about people who want to pvp wtth other people who want to pvp. I am talking about people who find enjoyment on pvp against people who do not want to pvp.
I think it would be more accurate to say there are people who are only interested in the PvP aspects of a game, largely to the exclusion of everything else a game offers. The role play, world exploration, etc. are all secondary to finding and killing or being killed by other players. It's not that they want to kill players who do not want to PvP, they don't care if the other players want to participate in PvP or they assume that the other players have opted in to the PvP by playing the game in the first place. This seems like a reasonable assumption to me. If you decide to play Darkfall, then you've opted in to whatever the game offers, including whatever PvP is available.
I think this is more accurate because it doesn't seem all that likely that someone who doesn't want to PvP in general is going to play a PvP based game, or play on a PvP based server. Finding one of those people would be like finding Bigfoot.
Then why do we not have more games where people who are doing just PvE can still explore anywhere on the map.
It should be far more simple. Character (or ship) is blue, you cant attack. peroid.
problem is PvP people would rage over that....why?
Either you're looking at world PVP being nothing more than just a combat zone or you really haven't been following the many answers that have been given in the countless threads on this topic.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
In reality the number of people who have a desire to pvp against other players who do not want to pvp is fairly low however the gaming market over-indulges those people.
understand I am not talking about people who want to pvp wtth other people who want to pvp. I am talking about people who find enjoyment on pvp against people who do not want to pvp.
I think it would be more accurate to say there are people who are only interested in the PvP aspects of a game, largely to the exclusion of everything else a game offers. The role play, world exploration, etc. are all secondary to finding and killing or being killed by other players. It's not that they want to kill players who do not want to PvP, they don't care if the other players want to participate in PvP or they assume that the other players have opted in to the PvP by playing the game in the first place. This seems like a reasonable assumption to me. If you decide to play Darkfall, then you've opted in to whatever the game offers, including whatever PvP is available.
I think this is more accurate because it doesn't seem all that likely that someone who doesn't want to PvP in general is going to play a PvP based game, or play on a PvP based server. Finding one of those people would be like finding Bigfoot.
Then why do we not have more games where people who are doing just PvE can still explore anywhere on the map.
It should be far more simple. Character (or ship) is blue, you cant attack. peroid.
problem is PvP people would rage over that....why?
I don't know. I just doesn't seem likely that someone who is adamantly opposed to any sort of PvP is going to play a game based around PvP. Why would they? Given how unlikely it is that someone who is adamantly opposed to PvP would join a PvP based game, it doesn't seem likely that many players would develop a taste for attacking PvE-only players.
People will complain if they cannot get what they want. If someone was playing a game where they wanted to be able to attack everything, but couldn't attack everything, then they're going to complain about it. If someone is playing a game where they want to be able to complete quests in peace, but they can't, they are going to complain about it. Their expectations may not make sense, but that's what people do.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
In reality the number of people who have a desire to pvp against other players who do not want to pvp is fairly low however the gaming market over-indulges those people.
understand I am not talking about people who want to pvp wtth other people who want to pvp. I am talking about people who find enjoyment on pvp against people who do not want to pvp.
I think it would be more accurate to say there are people who are only interested in the PvP aspects of a game, largely to the exclusion of everything else a game offers. The role play, world exploration, etc. are all secondary to finding and killing or being killed by other players. It's not that they want to kill players who do not want to PvP, they don't care if the other players want to participate in PvP or they assume that the other players have opted in to the PvP by playing the game in the first place. This seems like a reasonable assumption to me. If you decide to play Darkfall, then you've opted in to whatever the game offers, including whatever PvP is available.
I think this is more accurate because it doesn't seem all that likely that someone who doesn't want to PvP in general is going to play a PvP based game, or play on a PvP based server. Finding one of those people would be like finding Bigfoot.
Then why do we not have more games where people who are doing just PvE can still explore anywhere on the map.
It should be far more simple. Character (or ship) is blue, you cant attack. peroid.
problem is PvP people would rage over that....why?
I don't know. I just doesn't seem likely that someone who is adamantly opposed to any sort of PvP is going to play a game based around PvP. Why would they? Given how unlikely it is that someone who is adamantly opposed to PvP would join a PvP based game, it doesn't seem likely that many players would develop a taste for attacking PvE-only players.
People will complain if they cannot get what they want. If someone was playing a game where they wanted to be able to attack everything, but couldn't attack everything, then they're going to complain about it. If someone is playing a game where they want to be able to complete quests in peace, but they can't, they are going to complain about it. Their expectations may not make sense, but that's what people do.
I do...
namely because the games that have pvp are better games but NOT BECAUSE they are pvp.
Eve is a good example, what PvE space MMO should I play instead of EvE?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Working in the games industry, I've noticed that people who PVP or PK don't spend as much money on free-2-play games as people who enjoy PVE. As a result, you will see more complaints and critical feedback from PVE'rs. PVE / casual PVPers will go on forums and address their concerns, submit tickets threatening to quit, and complain about how they cannot enjoy content due to the PKers, griefers and contested zones where PVP is allowed. Since developers and publishers rely on those players who charge more. they will either remove FFA pvp system, make it extremely difficult (npc patrols), or have extreme punishment to control the PVP(item destruction, de-level). Eventually, the harsh systems will just eliminate world PVP which is the intended band-aid fix.
Honest PVPers will always complain about balancing skills and classes when in reality, MMOs with unique classes and skills cannot be perfectly balanced. If developers attempt to balance, people will just rage that they're desired class is getting nerfed or they will just quit the game.
Working in the games industry, I've noticed that people who PVP or PK don't spend as much money on free-2-play games as people who enjoy PVE. As a result, you will see more complaints and critical feedback from PVE'rs. PVE / casual PVPers will go on forums and address their concerns, submit tickets threatening to quit, and complain about how they cannot enjoy content due to the PKers, griefers and contested zones where PVP is allowed. Since developers and publishers rely on those players who charge more. they will either remove FFA pvp system, make it extremely difficult (npc patrols), or have extreme punishment to control the PVP(item destruction, de-level). Eventually, the harsh systems will just eliminate world PVP which is the intended band-aid fix.
That's interesting info, Jeff. Thanks for sharing that.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
In reality the number of people who have a desire to pvp against other players who do not want to pvp is fairly low however the gaming market over-indulges those people.
understand I am not talking about people who want to pvp wtth other people who want to pvp. I am talking about people who find enjoyment on pvp against people who do not want to pvp.
I think it would be more accurate to say there are people who are only interested in the PvP aspects of a game, largely to the exclusion of everything else a game offers. The role play, world exploration, etc. are all secondary to finding and killing or being killed by other players. It's not that they want to kill players who do not want to PvP, they don't care if the other players want to participate in PvP or they assume that the other players have opted in to the PvP by playing the game in the first place. This seems like a reasonable assumption to me. If you decide to play Darkfall, then you've opted in to whatever the game offers, including whatever PvP is available.
I think this is more accurate because it doesn't seem all that likely that someone who doesn't want to PvP in general is going to play a PvP based game, or play on a PvP based server. Finding one of those people would be like finding Bigfoot.
Then why do we not have more games where people who are doing just PvE can still explore anywhere on the map.
It should be far more simple. Character (or ship) is blue, you cant attack. peroid.
problem is PvP people would rage over that....why?
There's something to be said about the strategic aspect of "the greater fight" as a way to bring some kind of structure to the player actions. In short, sympathizers and support personnel of a faction are--in a broad sense--"enemy combatants" in the same way as full-blown fighters. Therefore, I can understand and--in fact--support the PvPer's position about ganking non-combatants. If you are part of "Faction X"", knowing that you'll be a target for "Faction X's" enemies provides context for everyone to do things like go on a raid into enemy territory, or guarding encampments, or patrolling borders, or exploring place A over place B.
That's why deep down inside, I'm a non-consensual PvP advocate. I think it works best when its channeled into some "faction on faction" struggle, similar to DAoC and SWG. I don't think it works well when it is "guild on guild" or FFA.
But by the same token, that sort of non-consensual PvP only works when everyone is willing to buy into the fiction. And the problem I see is that people, generally, don't care about buying into the fiction...not the PvPers and not the non-PvPers. PvPers these days seem to want kills...they don't care about whether the kills advance some esoteric lore-based goal. PvP haters these days seem to want to consume content...they don't care whether the roles they play and the animosities that ought to be there are really there or not.
So I can see why the PvPers would get upset over "opt-in PvP," because a lot of what makes the game fun for them is the strategic aspect of "attack where they are weak and off guard" and "protect where we are vulnerable." You can't really have that aspect when the weak can't be killed, nobody is ever off guard, and the vulnerable are invulnerable. But by the same token, a lot of PvPers really don't care about that strategic aspect either, since they haven't "bought in" to the lore that underpins their PvP in the first place.
__________________________ "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
In reality the number of people who have a desire to pvp against other players who do not want to pvp is fairly low however the gaming market over-indulges those people.
understand I am not talking about people who want to pvp wtth other people who want to pvp. I am talking about people who find enjoyment on pvp against people who do not want to pvp.
I think it would be more accurate to say there are people who are only interested in the PvP aspects of a game, largely to the exclusion of everything else a game offers. The role play, world exploration, etc. are all secondary to finding and killing or being killed by other players. It's not that they want to kill players who do not want to PvP, they don't care if the other players want to participate in PvP or they assume that the other players have opted in to the PvP by playing the game in the first place. This seems like a reasonable assumption to me. If you decide to play Darkfall, then you've opted in to whatever the game offers, including whatever PvP is available.
I think this is more accurate because it doesn't seem all that likely that someone who doesn't want to PvP in general is going to play a PvP based game, or play on a PvP based server. Finding one of those people would be like finding Bigfoot.
Then why do we not have more games where people who are doing just PvE can still explore anywhere on the map.
It should be far more simple. Character (or ship) is blue, you cant attack. peroid.
problem is PvP people would rage over that....why?
There's something to be said about the strategic aspect of "the greater fight" as a way to bring some kind of structure to the player actions. In short, sympathizers and support personnel of a faction are--in a broad sense--"enemy combatants" in the same way as full-blown fighters. Therefore, I can understand and--in fact--support the PvPer's position about ganking non-combatants. If you are part of "Faction X"", knowing that you'll be a target for "Faction X's" enemies provides context for everyone to do things like go on a raid into enemy territory, or guarding encampments, or patrolling borders, or exploring place A over place B.
That's why deep down inside, I'm a non-consensual PvP advocate. I think it works best when its channeled into some "faction on faction" struggle, similar to DAoC and SWG. I don't think it works well when it is "guild on guild" or FFA.
But by the same token, that sort of non-consensual PvP only works when everyone is willing to buy into the fiction. And the problem I see is that people, generally, don't care about buying into the fiction...not the PvPers and not the non-PvPers. PvPers these days seem to want kills...they don't care about whether the kills advance some esoteric lore-based goal. PvP haters these days seem to want to consume content...they don't care whether the roles they play and the animosities that ought to be there are really there or not.
So I can see why the PvPers would get upset over "opt-in PvP," because a lot of what makes the game fun for them is the strategic aspect of "attack where they are weak and off guard" and "protect where we are vulnerable." You can't really have that aspect when the weak can't be killed, nobody is ever off guard, and the vulnerable are invulnerable. But by the same token, a lot of PvPers really don't care about that strategic aspect either, since they haven't "bought in" to the lore that underpins their PvP in the first place.
Also consider that the more meaningful one's actions are in the game world and the more value the game's resources and materials have toward the territorial control or conquest aspect of the game, the more an invuln flag negates or circumvents that design. At the very least, it severely cheapens it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
In reality the number of people who have a desire to pvp against other players who do not want to pvp is fairly low however the gaming market over-indulges those people.
understand I am not talking about people who want to pvp wtth other people who want to pvp. I am talking about people who find enjoyment on pvp against people who do not want to pvp.
I think it would be more accurate to say there are people who are only interested in the PvP aspects of a game, largely to the exclusion of everything else a game offers. The role play, world exploration, etc. are all secondary to finding and killing or being killed by other players. It's not that they want to kill players who do not want to PvP, they don't care if the other players want to participate in PvP or they assume that the other players have opted in to the PvP by playing the game in the first place. This seems like a reasonable assumption to me. If you decide to play Darkfall, then you've opted in to whatever the game offers, including whatever PvP is available.
I think this is more accurate because it doesn't seem all that likely that someone who doesn't want to PvP in general is going to play a PvP based game, or play on a PvP based server. Finding one of those people would be like finding Bigfoot.
Then why do we not have more games where people who are doing just PvE can still explore anywhere on the map.
It should be far more simple. Character (or ship) is blue, you cant attack. peroid.
problem is PvP people would rage over that....why?
There's something to be said about the strategic aspect of "the greater fight" as a way to bring some kind of structure to the player actions. In short, sympathizers and support personnel of a faction are--in a broad sense--"enemy combatants" in the same way as full-blown fighters. Therefore, I can understand and--in fact--support the PvPer's position about ganking non-combatants. If you are part of "Faction X"", knowing that you'll be a target for "Faction X's" enemies provides context for everyone to do things like go on a raid into enemy territory, or guarding encampments, or patrolling borders, or exploring place A over place B.
That's why deep down inside, I'm a non-consensual PvP advocate. I think it works best when its channeled into some "faction on faction" struggle, similar to DAoC and SWG. I don't think it works well when it is "guild on guild" or FFA.
But by the same token, that sort of non-consensual PvP only works when everyone is willing to buy into the fiction. And the problem I see is that people, generally, don't care about buying into the fiction...not the PvPers and not the non-PvPers. PvPers these days seem to want kills...they don't care about whether the kills advance some esoteric lore-based goal. PvP haters these days seem to want to consume content...they don't care whether the roles they play and the animosities that ought to be there are really there or not.
So I can see why the PvPers would get upset over "opt-in PvP," because a lot of what makes the game fun for them is the strategic aspect of "attack where they are weak and off guard" and "protect where we are vulnerable." You can't really have that aspect when the weak can't be killed, nobody is ever off guard, and the vulnerable are invulnerable. But by the same token, a lot of PvPers really don't care about that strategic aspect either, since they haven't "bought in" to the lore that underpins their PvP in the first place.
Also consider that the more meaningful one's actions are in the game world and the more value the game's resources and materials have toward the territorial control or conquest aspect of the game, the more an invuln flag negates or circumvents that design. At the very least, it severely cheapens it.
Indeed. Which is why I am not so big on having "meaningful" results in PvP, when meaning is cast in mechanical advantages, resource advantages or some sort of competitive advantage. Once we get there, we get the l0llogaggers and powergamers playing for motives that mess everything up.
I'd rather have the "rewards" be more esoteric than tangible; bragging rights, artistic changes in conquered zones, different sorts of NPCs who pop up...that sort of thing. You foster a different kind of vibe when the goals are lore-based.
__________________________ "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
In reality the number of people who have a desire to pvp against other players who do not want to pvp is fairly low however the gaming market over-indulges those people.
understand I am not talking about people who want to pvp wtth other people who want to pvp. I am talking about people who find enjoyment on pvp against people who do not want to pvp.
I think it would be more accurate to say there are people who are only interested in the PvP aspects of a game, largely to the exclusion of everything else a game offers. The role play, world exploration, etc. are all secondary to finding and killing or being killed by other players. It's not that they want to kill players who do not want to PvP, they don't care if the other players want to participate in PvP or they assume that the other players have opted in to the PvP by playing the game in the first place. This seems like a reasonable assumption to me. If you decide to play Darkfall, then you've opted in to whatever the game offers, including whatever PvP is available.
I think this is more accurate because it doesn't seem all that likely that someone who doesn't want to PvP in general is going to play a PvP based game, or play on a PvP based server. Finding one of those people would be like finding Bigfoot.
Then why do we not have more games where people who are doing just PvE can still explore anywhere on the map.
It should be far more simple. Character (or ship) is blue, you cant attack. peroid.
problem is PvP people would rage over that....why?
There's something to be said about the strategic aspect of "the greater fight" as a way to bring some kind of structure to the player actions. In short, sympathizers and support personnel of a faction are--in a broad sense--"enemy combatants" in the same way as full-blown fighters. Therefore, I can understand and--in fact--support the PvPer's position about ganking non-combatants. If you are part of "Faction X"", knowing that you'll be a target for "Faction X's" enemies provides context for everyone to do things like go on a raid into enemy territory, or guarding encampments, or patrolling borders, or exploring place A over place B.
That's why deep down inside, I'm a non-consensual PvP advocate. I think it works best when its channeled into some "faction on faction" struggle, similar to DAoC and SWG. I don't think it works well when it is "guild on guild" or FFA.
But by the same token, that sort of non-consensual PvP only works when everyone is willing to buy into the fiction. And the problem I see is that people, generally, don't care about buying into the fiction...not the PvPers and not the non-PvPers. PvPers these days seem to want kills...they don't care about whether the kills advance some esoteric lore-based goal. PvP haters these days seem to want to consume content...they don't care whether the roles they play and the animosities that ought to be there are really there or not.
So I can see why the PvPers would get upset over "opt-in PvP," because a lot of what makes the game fun for them is the strategic aspect of "attack where they are weak and off guard" and "protect where we are vulnerable." You can't really have that aspect when the weak can't be killed, nobody is ever off guard, and the vulnerable are invulnerable. But by the same token, a lot of PvPers really don't care about that strategic aspect either, since they haven't "bought in" to the lore that underpins their PvP in the first place.
could not disagree more.
There isnt any reason whatsoever that the achievements and contributions to the PvE part of the game be completely seperate from warfare as well as allowing PvE players to go almost anywhere in the game.
The PvP games i play I play because the game world itself is great, I do not play for PvP. Having said that I do enjoy true Pvp war (not random piarte hunting).
more importantly if I did want to play PvP I would not have much of a interest hunting down people who are not interested in that type of game play because it prooves nothing,not even a challenge
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
There isnt any reason whatsoever that the achievements and contributions to the PvE part of the game be completely seperate from warfare as well as allowing PvE players to go almost anywhere in the game.
Yes there is.
A large enough pop of players don't like to pvp when they pve. If you want their business, don't put pvp in their pve, as many devs have figured out.
In reality the number of people who have a desire to pvp against other players who do not want to pvp is fairly low however the gaming market over-indulges those people.
understand I am not talking about people who want to pvp wtth other people who want to pvp. I am talking about people who find enjoyment on pvp against people who do not want to pvp.
I think it would be more accurate to say there are people who are only interested in the PvP aspects of a game, largely to the exclusion of everything else a game offers. The role play, world exploration, etc. are all secondary to finding and killing or being killed by other players. It's not that they want to kill players who do not want to PvP, they don't care if the other players want to participate in PvP or they assume that the other players have opted in to the PvP by playing the game in the first place. This seems like a reasonable assumption to me. If you decide to play Darkfall, then you've opted in to whatever the game offers, including whatever PvP is available.
I think this is more accurate because it doesn't seem all that likely that someone who doesn't want to PvP in general is going to play a PvP based game, or play on a PvP based server. Finding one of those people would be like finding Bigfoot.
Then why do we not have more games where people who are doing just PvE can still explore anywhere on the map.
It should be far more simple. Character (or ship) is blue, you cant attack. peroid.
problem is PvP people would rage over that....why?
There's something to be said about the strategic aspect of "the greater fight" as a way to bring some kind of structure to the player actions. In short, sympathizers and support personnel of a faction are--in a broad sense--"enemy combatants" in the same way as full-blown fighters. Therefore, I can understand and--in fact--support the PvPer's position about ganking non-combatants. If you are part of "Faction X"", knowing that you'll be a target for "Faction X's" enemies provides context for everyone to do things like go on a raid into enemy territory, or guarding encampments, or patrolling borders, or exploring place A over place B.
That's why deep down inside, I'm a non-consensual PvP advocate. I think it works best when its channeled into some "faction on faction" struggle, similar to DAoC and SWG. I don't think it works well when it is "guild on guild" or FFA.
But by the same token, that sort of non-consensual PvP only works when everyone is willing to buy into the fiction. And the problem I see is that people, generally, don't care about buying into the fiction...not the PvPers and not the non-PvPers. PvPers these days seem to want kills...they don't care about whether the kills advance some esoteric lore-based goal. PvP haters these days seem to want to consume content...they don't care whether the roles they play and the animosities that ought to be there are really there or not.
So I can see why the PvPers would get upset over "opt-in PvP," because a lot of what makes the game fun for them is the strategic aspect of "attack where they are weak and off guard" and "protect where we are vulnerable." You can't really have that aspect when the weak can't be killed, nobody is ever off guard, and the vulnerable are invulnerable. But by the same token, a lot of PvPers really don't care about that strategic aspect either, since they haven't "bought in" to the lore that underpins their PvP in the first place.
Also consider that the more meaningful one's actions are in the game world and the more value the game's resources and materials have toward the territorial control or conquest aspect of the game, the more an invuln flag negates or circumvents that design. At the very least, it severely cheapens it.
Indeed. Which is why I am not so big on having "meaningful" results in PvP, when meaning is cast in mechanical advantages, resource advantages or some sort of competitive advantage. Once we get there, we get the l0llogaggers and powergamers playing for motives that mess everything up.
I'd rather have the "rewards" be more esoteric than tangible; bragging rights, artistic changes in conquered zones, different sorts of NPCs who pop up...that sort of thing. You foster a different kind of vibe when the goals are lore-based.
I'm very glad you didn't create Axis and Allies, RISK or chess.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
In reality the number of people who have a desire to pvp against other players who do not want to pvp is fairly low however the gaming market over-indulges those people.
understand I am not talking about people who want to pvp wtth other people who want to pvp. I am talking about people who find enjoyment on pvp against people who do not want to pvp.
I think it would be more accurate to say there are people who are only interested in the PvP aspects of a game, largely to the exclusion of everything else a game offers. The role play, world exploration, etc. are all secondary to finding and killing or being killed by other players. It's not that they want to kill players who do not want to PvP, they don't care if the other players want to participate in PvP or they assume that the other players have opted in to the PvP by playing the game in the first place. This seems like a reasonable assumption to me. If you decide to play Darkfall, then you've opted in to whatever the game offers, including whatever PvP is available.
I think this is more accurate because it doesn't seem all that likely that someone who doesn't want to PvP in general is going to play a PvP based game, or play on a PvP based server. Finding one of those people would be like finding Bigfoot.
Then why do we not have more games where people who are doing just PvE can still explore anywhere on the map.
It should be far more simple. Character (or ship) is blue, you cant attack. peroid.
problem is PvP people would rage over that....why?
There's something to be said about the strategic aspect of "the greater fight" as a way to bring some kind of structure to the player actions. In short, sympathizers and support personnel of a faction are--in a broad sense--"enemy combatants" in the same way as full-blown fighters. Therefore, I can understand and--in fact--support the PvPer's position about ganking non-combatants. If you are part of "Faction X"", knowing that you'll be a target for "Faction X's" enemies provides context for everyone to do things like go on a raid into enemy territory, or guarding encampments, or patrolling borders, or exploring place A over place B.
That's why deep down inside, I'm a non-consensual PvP advocate. I think it works best when its channeled into some "faction on faction" struggle, similar to DAoC and SWG. I don't think it works well when it is "guild on guild" or FFA.
But by the same token, that sort of non-consensual PvP only works when everyone is willing to buy into the fiction. And the problem I see is that people, generally, don't care about buying into the fiction...not the PvPers and not the non-PvPers. PvPers these days seem to want kills...they don't care about whether the kills advance some esoteric lore-based goal. PvP haters these days seem to want to consume content...they don't care whether the roles they play and the animosities that ought to be there are really there or not.
So I can see why the PvPers would get upset over "opt-in PvP," because a lot of what makes the game fun for them is the strategic aspect of "attack where they are weak and off guard" and "protect where we are vulnerable." You can't really have that aspect when the weak can't be killed, nobody is ever off guard, and the vulnerable are invulnerable. But by the same token, a lot of PvPers really don't care about that strategic aspect either, since they haven't "bought in" to the lore that underpins their PvP in the first place.
Also consider that the more meaningful one's actions are in the game world and the more value the game's resources and materials have toward the territorial control or conquest aspect of the game, the more an invuln flag negates or circumvents that design. At the very least, it severely cheapens it.
Indeed. Which is why I am not so big on having "meaningful" results in PvP, when meaning is cast in mechanical advantages, resource advantages or some sort of competitive advantage. Once we get there, we get the l0llogaggers and powergamers playing for motives that mess everything up.
I'd rather have the "rewards" be more esoteric than tangible; bragging rights, artistic changes in conquered zones, different sorts of NPCs who pop up...that sort of thing. You foster a different kind of vibe when the goals are lore-based.
I'm very glad you didn't create Axis and Allies, RISK or chess.
That's because I'm a role playing game designer, not a board game designer.
__________________________ "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
There isnt any reason whatsoever that the achievements and contributions to the PvE part of the game be completely seperate from warfare as well as allowing PvE players to go almost anywhere in the game.
Yes there is.
A large enough pop of players don't like to pvp when they pve. If you want their business, don't put pvp in their pve, as many devs have figured out.
Why not this.
My character is set up PvE so you cant attack me regardless of where I am.
Resources I gather from PvE efforts can not be used in warfare.
Resources I gather while in PvP mode can be used in warfare.
If I am set to PvE my status will be PVP if I come within a certain radius of your area.
Or like Wurm does have simply have pvp servers and pve servers and you can have characters in both worlds.
simple.
this is just ONE example
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Working in the games industry, I've noticed that people who PVP or PK don't spend as much money on free-2-play games as people who enjoy PVE. As a result, you will see more complaints and critical feedback from PVE'rs. PVE / casual PVPers will go on forums and address their concerns, submit tickets threatening to quit, and complain about how they cannot enjoy content due to the PKers, griefers and contested zones where PVP is allowed. Since developers and publishers rely on those players who charge more. they will either remove FFA pvp system, make it extremely difficult (npc patrols), or have extreme punishment to control the PVP(item destruction, de-level). Eventually, the harsh systems will just eliminate world PVP which is the intended band-aid fix.
Honest PVPers will always complain about balancing skills and classes when in reality, MMOs with unique classes and skills cannot be perfectly balanced. If developers attempt to balance, people will just rage that they're desired class is getting nerfed or they will just quit the game.
This brings to mind something else that marks the departure of the RPG aspects from MMORPGs. In the classic sense, the classes complimented eachother, and balance was achieved by having a well rounded party. Whether tabletop, singleplayer a la Baldur's Gate, or MMO, the weakness of one class was bolstered by the strength of another. As a group, the party is a force, but the separate elements, not so much.
Unfortunately, similar factors that have lead to the influx of lulz-seeking griefers have also contributed to the lack of grouping nowadays. Aside from individual time constraints each player must face due to real life, I can speak from experience that the overall quality of player in terms of sociability has contributed to a lack of desire to group. I'm not talking about general social awkwardness. Hell, I freely admit to being a nerd, and therefore socially awkward. I'm talking about maturity levels. One can only take so many dick and fart jokes before it becomes ridiculous. These are likely the same types of people that shit on roleplayers, even having the gall to call roleplayers in a roleplaying game nerds as an insult. Mind boggler, that one.
So more often than not, you'll find people just wanting to go it alone or with real life friends to maintain the quality control of the group. For the loners, it's too bad if you want to play something squishy, because you might as well wear a sign over your head saying "Kill me! I'm easy!" Enter the predator, and the cycle continues. Squishy gets tired of the crap and leaves. So on, and so on.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
There isnt any reason whatsoever that the achievements and contributions to the PvE part of the game be completely seperate from warfare as well as allowing PvE players to go almost anywhere in the game.
Yes there is.
A large enough pop of players don't like to pvp when they pve. If you want their business, don't put pvp in their pve, as many devs have figured out.
Why not this.
My character is set up PvE so you cant attack me regardless of where I am.
Resources I gather from PvE efforts can not be used in warfare.
Resources I gather while in PvP mode can be used in warfare.
If I am set to PvE my status will be PVP if I come within a certain radius of your area.
Or like Wurm does have simply have pvp servers and pve servers and you can have characters in both worlds.
simple.
this is just ONE example
Except the red part, i have no problem with what you said .. because essentially you just have two games, pvp and pve ..and that is what i want .. separate the two.
I can participate in either one, or both, as i please.
In reality the number of people who have a desire to pvp against other players who do not want to pvp is fairly low however the gaming market over-indulges those people.
understand I am not talking about people who want to pvp wtth other people who want to pvp. I am talking about people who find enjoyment on pvp against people who do not want to pvp.
I think it would be more accurate to say there are people who are only interested in the PvP aspects of a game, largely to the exclusion of everything else a game offers. The role play, world exploration, etc. are all secondary to finding and killing or being killed by other players. It's not that they want to kill players who do not want to PvP, they don't care if the other players want to participate in PvP or they assume that the other players have opted in to the PvP by playing the game in the first place. This seems like a reasonable assumption to me. If you decide to play Darkfall, then you've opted in to whatever the game offers, including whatever PvP is available.
I think this is more accurate because it doesn't seem all that likely that someone who doesn't want to PvP in general is going to play a PvP based game, or play on a PvP based server. Finding one of those people would be like finding Bigfoot.
Then why do we not have more games where people who are doing just PvE can still explore anywhere on the map.
It should be far more simple. Character (or ship) is blue, you cant attack. peroid.
problem is PvP people would rage over that....why?
I don't know. I just doesn't seem likely that someone who is adamantly opposed to any sort of PvP is going to play a game based around PvP. Why would they? Given how unlikely it is that someone who is adamantly opposed to PvP would join a PvP based game, it doesn't seem likely that many players would develop a taste for attacking PvE-only players.
People will complain if they cannot get what they want. If someone was playing a game where they wanted to be able to attack everything, but couldn't attack everything, then they're going to complain about it. If someone is playing a game where they want to be able to complete quests in peace, but they can't, they are going to complain about it. Their expectations may not make sense, but that's what people do.
I do...
namely because the games that have pvp are better games but NOT BECAUSE they are pvp.
Eve is a good example, what PvE space MMO should I play instead of EvE?
I've said this several times, and it's something I'm coming to believe more and more. Eve is an exception in many ways. Not the least of which is that it is a PvP based game that makes a viable space for people who aren't interested in PvP. Players really can ease themselves into the game over time, and decide if they want to participate in PvP or not. It is absolutely true that PvP can occur anywhere, at any time, but the game world reinforces the role playing and positive social aspects of the game enough that PvP is a tool, not an end in itself. Eve is an exception in other ways as well, but this seems relevant here.
It also seems like the "space sim" idea is taking off. There are one or two other games*, similar to Eve, but not nearly as good that are running right now. More are coming. I think if your taste in games continues along this path, you will have more options in the future.
**
Vendetta Online comes to mind. Not sure if it's any good, but it exists, and it is expanding.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
In reality the number of people who have a desire to pvp against other players who do not want to pvp is fairly low however the gaming market over-indulges those people.
understand I am not talking about people who want to pvp wtth other people who want to pvp. I am talking about people who find enjoyment on pvp against people who do not want to pvp.
I think it would be more accurate to say there are people who are only interested in the PvP aspects of a game, largely to the exclusion of everything else a game offers. The role play, world exploration, etc. are all secondary to finding and killing or being killed by other players. It's not that they want to kill players who do not want to PvP, they don't care if the other players want to participate in PvP or they assume that the other players have opted in to the PvP by playing the game in the first place. This seems like a reasonable assumption to me. If you decide to play Darkfall, then you've opted in to whatever the game offers, including whatever PvP is available.
I think this is more accurate because it doesn't seem all that likely that someone who doesn't want to PvP in general is going to play a PvP based game, or play on a PvP based server. Finding one of those people would be like finding Bigfoot.
Then why do we not have more games where people who are doing just PvE can still explore anywhere on the map.
It should be far more simple. Character (or ship) is blue, you cant attack. peroid.
problem is PvP people would rage over that....why?
I don't know. I just doesn't seem likely that someone who is adamantly opposed to any sort of PvP is going to play a game based around PvP. Why would they? Given how unlikely it is that someone who is adamantly opposed to PvP would join a PvP based game, it doesn't seem likely that many players would develop a taste for attacking PvE-only players.
People will complain if they cannot get what they want. If someone was playing a game where they wanted to be able to attack everything, but couldn't attack everything, then they're going to complain about it. If someone is playing a game where they want to be able to complete quests in peace, but they can't, they are going to complain about it. Their expectations may not make sense, but that's what people do.
I do...
namely because the games that have pvp are better games but NOT BECAUSE they are pvp.
Eve is a good example, what PvE space MMO should I play instead of EvE?
I've said this several times, and it's something I'm coming to believe more and more. Eve is an exception in many ways. Not the least of which is that it is a PvP based game that makes a viable space for people who aren't interested in PvP. Players really can ease themselves into the game over time, and decide if they want to participate in PvP or not. It is absolutely true that PvP can occur anywhere, at any time, but the game world reinforces the role playing and positive social aspects of the game enough that PvP is a tool, not an end in itself. Eve is an exception in other ways as well, but this seems relevant here.
It also seems like the "space sim" idea is taking off. There are one or two other games*, similar to Eve, but not nearly as good that are running right now. More are coming. I think if your taste in games continues along this path, you will have more options in the future.
**
Vendetta Online comes to mind. Not sure if it's any good, but it exists, and it is expanding.
well specific to EvE, PvE players cant experience Wormholes, null sec or really much of low sec. The amount of income they can make is limited and even industrial is really hard in high sec because of the factional requirements.
I have no problem moving to a server that is PvE only or as I would perfer PvE and clan warfare only but that option doesnt exist.
Mainly however I find it odd that so many players want to do combat with players who have no interest in fighting them. I know that might not seem like a reality but it is a reality.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Just a brief aside regarding Vendetta Online; I vastly prefer its style of basic gameplay to Eve, so to this individual player it is a superior game. This has nothing to do with how many people play it, just my own preference.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Comments
No doubt that's true...I wish we might have more PvPers like you. But, sadly, that kind of PvPer is getting rarer ever day.
Frankly, the PvPer that tends to be en vogue these days is some tool with a name like xXDEATHDEALERXx who swarms into a game with his BF4 clan with the aspiration to post grief videos with 10,000+ hits on YouTube...no regard for the RP environment. No respect for context.
The dirty secret to PvP that lam0rs exploit is the notion that the less a PKer cares about what's going on, the better. Somebody said before how the problem is that too many people take what pixels do too seriously. Actually, the problem I see is that too many--far too many--don't take the pixels on the screen seriously enough, which is why PvP has basically degenerated into a quest for l0lz and grief-reactions.
Because things like suicide ganking in EVE couldn't happen nearly as regularly as what it does, if characters mattered, and the pixels represent more than pixels. People don't waste billions of in-game currency to engage in pointless ganking unless they are playing for meta-motives, like causing emotional distress to people. The problem is that the pixels DON'T matter to most of these new PKers...the real-world grief reactions and YouTube videos matter. The smack in forums are the things that matter. Grief, we might say, is a reward for powergamers; and the games have shown that you can get those rewards, just so long as they can give up any pretense of playing the game that's given.
That's why we need PvPers to start investing more of themselves in the game fiction; PvPers need to buy into the lore, their characters and their motives, from a world standpoint. If not, then all we'll have are cheap l0llogaggers, and people jumping ship because of the lameness of it all.
__________________________
"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
Not enough people will tolerate that in their games.
That was a perfect summation of the problem. It's all about the meta benefits-- the youtube lulz and forum infamy. Honestly, I think part of the problem is the homogenization of the genres. Since games are being made with bigger and bigger budgets, publishers naturally want a wider reach for income. So, they'll throw out the competitive side of things outside of the game context while sweeping under the rug the very idea that, hey, try to act with some honor here.
I appreciate PVP players like General-Zod and wish more would have that attitude, but as you say, the real wolves out there care not one whit for the game, its lore, and the community of the game no more than as a source for lulz. It does get old, and it does drive off the players who just want to roleplay in the world they've paid money to be in.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
In reality the number of people who have a desire to pvp against other players who do not want to pvp is fairly low however the gaming market over-indulges those people.
understand I am not talking about people who want to pvp wtth other people who want to pvp. I am talking about people who find enjoyment on pvp against people who do not want to pvp.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I think it would be more accurate to say there are people who are only interested in the PvP aspects of a game, largely to the exclusion of everything else a game offers. The role play, world exploration, etc. are all secondary to finding and killing or being killed by other players. It's not that they want to kill players who do not want to PvP, they don't care if the other players want to participate in PvP or they assume that the other players have opted in to the PvP by playing the game in the first place. This seems like a reasonable assumption to me. If you decide to play Darkfall, then you've opted in to whatever the game offers, including whatever PvP is available.
I think this is more accurate because it doesn't seem all that likely that someone who doesn't want to PvP in general is going to play a PvP based game, or play on a PvP based server. Finding one of those people would be like finding Bigfoot.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Then why do we not have more games where people who are doing just PvE can still explore anywhere on the map.
It should be far more simple. Character (or ship) is blue, you cant attack. peroid.
problem is PvP people would rage over that....why?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This ^^^
~I am Many~
Either you're looking at world PVP being nothing more than just a combat zone or you really haven't been following the many answers that have been given in the countless threads on this topic.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I don't know. I just doesn't seem likely that someone who is adamantly opposed to any sort of PvP is going to play a game based around PvP. Why would they? Given how unlikely it is that someone who is adamantly opposed to PvP would join a PvP based game, it doesn't seem likely that many players would develop a taste for attacking PvE-only players.
People will complain if they cannot get what they want. If someone was playing a game where they wanted to be able to attack everything, but couldn't attack everything, then they're going to complain about it. If someone is playing a game where they want to be able to complete quests in peace, but they can't, they are going to complain about it. Their expectations may not make sense, but that's what people do.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I do...
namely because the games that have pvp are better games but NOT BECAUSE they are pvp.
Eve is a good example, what PvE space MMO should I play instead of EvE?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Working in the games industry, I've noticed that people who PVP or PK don't spend as much money on free-2-play games as people who enjoy PVE. As a result, you will see more complaints and critical feedback from PVE'rs. PVE / casual PVPers will go on forums and address their concerns, submit tickets threatening to quit, and complain about how they cannot enjoy content due to the PKers, griefers and contested zones where PVP is allowed. Since developers and publishers rely on those players who charge more. they will either remove FFA pvp system, make it extremely difficult (npc patrols), or have extreme punishment to control the PVP(item destruction, de-level). Eventually, the harsh systems will just eliminate world PVP which is the intended band-aid fix.
Honest PVPers will always complain about balancing skills and classes when in reality, MMOs with unique classes and skills cannot be perfectly balanced. If developers attempt to balance, people will just rage that they're desired class is getting nerfed or they will just quit the game.
That's interesting info, Jeff. Thanks for sharing that.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
There's something to be said about the strategic aspect of "the greater fight" as a way to bring some kind of structure to the player actions. In short, sympathizers and support personnel of a faction are--in a broad sense--"enemy combatants" in the same way as full-blown fighters. Therefore, I can understand and--in fact--support the PvPer's position about ganking non-combatants. If you are part of "Faction X"", knowing that you'll be a target for "Faction X's" enemies provides context for everyone to do things like go on a raid into enemy territory, or guarding encampments, or patrolling borders, or exploring place A over place B.
That's why deep down inside, I'm a non-consensual PvP advocate. I think it works best when its channeled into some "faction on faction" struggle, similar to DAoC and SWG. I don't think it works well when it is "guild on guild" or FFA.
But by the same token, that sort of non-consensual PvP only works when everyone is willing to buy into the fiction. And the problem I see is that people, generally, don't care about buying into the fiction...not the PvPers and not the non-PvPers. PvPers these days seem to want kills...they don't care about whether the kills advance some esoteric lore-based goal. PvP haters these days seem to want to consume content...they don't care whether the roles they play and the animosities that ought to be there are really there or not.
So I can see why the PvPers would get upset over "opt-in PvP," because a lot of what makes the game fun for them is the strategic aspect of "attack where they are weak and off guard" and "protect where we are vulnerable." You can't really have that aspect when the weak can't be killed, nobody is ever off guard, and the vulnerable are invulnerable. But by the same token, a lot of PvPers really don't care about that strategic aspect either, since they haven't "bought in" to the lore that underpins their PvP in the first place.
__________________________
"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
Also consider that the more meaningful one's actions are in the game world and the more value the game's resources and materials have toward the territorial control or conquest aspect of the game, the more an invuln flag negates or circumvents that design. At the very least, it severely cheapens it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Indeed. Which is why I am not so big on having "meaningful" results in PvP, when meaning is cast in mechanical advantages, resource advantages or some sort of competitive advantage. Once we get there, we get the l0llogaggers and powergamers playing for motives that mess everything up.
I'd rather have the "rewards" be more esoteric than tangible; bragging rights, artistic changes in conquered zones, different sorts of NPCs who pop up...that sort of thing. You foster a different kind of vibe when the goals are lore-based.
__________________________
"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
could not disagree more.
There isnt any reason whatsoever that the achievements and contributions to the PvE part of the game be completely seperate from warfare as well as allowing PvE players to go almost anywhere in the game.
The PvP games i play I play because the game world itself is great, I do not play for PvP. Having said that I do enjoy true Pvp war (not random piarte hunting).
more importantly if I did want to play PvP I would not have much of a interest hunting down people who are not interested in that type of game play because it prooves nothing,not even a challenge
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Yes there is.
A large enough pop of players don't like to pvp when they pve. If you want their business, don't put pvp in their pve, as many devs have figured out.
I'm very glad you didn't create Axis and Allies, RISK or chess.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
That's because I'm a role playing game designer, not a board game designer.
__________________________
"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
Why not this.
My character is set up PvE so you cant attack me regardless of where I am.
Resources I gather from PvE efforts can not be used in warfare.
Resources I gather while in PvP mode can be used in warfare.
If I am set to PvE my status will be PVP if I come within a certain radius of your area.
Or like Wurm does have simply have pvp servers and pve servers and you can have characters in both worlds.
simple.
this is just ONE example
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This brings to mind something else that marks the departure of the RPG aspects from MMORPGs. In the classic sense, the classes complimented eachother, and balance was achieved by having a well rounded party. Whether tabletop, singleplayer a la Baldur's Gate, or MMO, the weakness of one class was bolstered by the strength of another. As a group, the party is a force, but the separate elements, not so much.
Unfortunately, similar factors that have lead to the influx of lulz-seeking griefers have also contributed to the lack of grouping nowadays. Aside from individual time constraints each player must face due to real life, I can speak from experience that the overall quality of player in terms of sociability has contributed to a lack of desire to group. I'm not talking about general social awkwardness. Hell, I freely admit to being a nerd, and therefore socially awkward. I'm talking about maturity levels. One can only take so many dick and fart jokes before it becomes ridiculous. These are likely the same types of people that shit on roleplayers, even having the gall to call roleplayers in a roleplaying game nerds as an insult. Mind boggler, that one.
So more often than not, you'll find people just wanting to go it alone or with real life friends to maintain the quality control of the group. For the loners, it's too bad if you want to play something squishy, because you might as well wear a sign over your head saying "Kill me! I'm easy!" Enter the predator, and the cycle continues. Squishy gets tired of the crap and leaves. So on, and so on.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Except the red part, i have no problem with what you said .. because essentially you just have two games, pvp and pve ..and that is what i want .. separate the two.
I can participate in either one, or both, as i please.
I've said this several times, and it's something I'm coming to believe more and more. Eve is an exception in many ways. Not the least of which is that it is a PvP based game that makes a viable space for people who aren't interested in PvP. Players really can ease themselves into the game over time, and decide if they want to participate in PvP or not. It is absolutely true that PvP can occur anywhere, at any time, but the game world reinforces the role playing and positive social aspects of the game enough that PvP is a tool, not an end in itself. Eve is an exception in other ways as well, but this seems relevant here.
It also seems like the "space sim" idea is taking off. There are one or two other games*, similar to Eve, but not nearly as good that are running right now. More are coming. I think if your taste in games continues along this path, you will have more options in the future.
**
Vendetta Online comes to mind. Not sure if it's any good, but it exists, and it is expanding.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
well specific to EvE, PvE players cant experience Wormholes, null sec or really much of low sec. The amount of income they can make is limited and even industrial is really hard in high sec because of the factional requirements.
I have no problem moving to a server that is PvE only or as I would perfer PvE and clan warfare only but that option doesnt exist.
Mainly however I find it odd that so many players want to do combat with players who have no interest in fighting them. I know that might not seem like a reality but it is a reality.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance