I will be in the extreme minority but I went with EQ. Yeah they didn't balance it at all but CC wasn't so overpowered like in most of these games and still to do this day the best method of PvP I've seen is to have it revolve around the PvE. You want to camp that mob over there, you'll have to go through me to do it.
All of these games that create cheesy capture the keep and rotate systems just aren't fun long term.
Shadowbane was a good one too but the castle system just didn't work very well and the client was way too unstable. Get to a siege and half the army gets an sb.exe.
I guess a point here ( to bring it back around to being on topic) would be that a PvP system can be good because it is so bad. And often I have found the more troll PvP generally is in a game. the more engaging it is for most participants. That is to say I think worst PvP can oddly, sometimes qualify amongst the best PvP.
A very good point. We tend to have our fondest recollections of some of the most broken systems in PVP.
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 voted pre-toa DAoC. I still play on occasion and it is really the only pvp mmorpg that keeps drawing me back even after 14 years.
Pre-toa was incredible for me. 1500+ players from 3 different realms fighting inside/around 1 relic keep is my greatest pvp experience of all time. Although that was a rare battle, it was still common back then to get 200-300 from each realm fighting over a piece of property....it was the norm for the 1st couple of years.
My vote is DaoC. I could not get enough of fighting for the realm and realm points to make a stronger character. Nothing has ever felt the same since then to me. Oh how I wish we could go back to pre Toa goodness.
If you consider balance of skills and abilities in combat to be important in PvP then none of them did a good job.
In EQ any class that could root or snare could easily beat any melee class unless they had some kind of super gear that let them resist spells.
In UO most PvPers would max out magic, wear plate armor, try to one shot you, and then teleport away if the one or two shot didn't succeed. The other method would be to gang up on people.
I never played DAOC or AC so I can't comment on them. DAOC seems like it was aimed at PvP so it was probably the best.
Originally posted by Vardahoth Lineage 2 for me. Can't think of another game that would have turned me from a pve'er to a pvp'er. During everquest and UO, I was sticking to consoles at the time (mostly 18-20 I was going to parties every night and didn't game much). So I only got to hear about the great things they offered.
I had the opportunity to play many of the games listed in the poll, and L2 was one of the top ones for me as well.
That said, L2's PvP system certainly had it's gaps. The outcome of a battle was WAY too dependent on gear and class balance was wildly off the mark, constantly fluctuating between expansions. As a matter of fact, I'm wholly convinced that the development team at NCSoft didn't even attempt to balance the classes out, and instead sought to balance "PvP" on the macro scale...for things like castle & fortress sieges.
Which brings me to where L2's PvP system shined, and differentiated itself from other MMOs of that time.....large scale PvP. Castle sieges were a powerful game sub-system, getting 200+ players together in a massive fight at least 1x every few weeks. Resource scarcity in a mostly non-instanced world resulted in epic territory & hunting ground fights between guilds & alliances. L2 was also one of the first MMOs to set up a meaningful guild & alliance infrastructure....connecting people together with communication tools and in game banners that displayed next to a player's name. It was VERY easy to see who's team a person, or guild of people were on....which of course played a role in PvP.
I'd be remised if I didn't mention L2's notoriety system. It was one of the most balanced PvP flagging systems (for an open PvP game)...second only to Ultima Online (Ultima had both a global & local flagging system that discouraged baiting & "might is right" mentality)
Originally posted by Axehilt They were pretty much universally bad, when measured in terms of skillful competition (which some believe is the only point of having PVP.) RPGs by definition involve vertical progression, and world PVP means population imbalances, and both of those things cause PVP to be a lot less about skillful competition than about leveraging those non-skill advantages.
I can't speak for all the games listed, but I did play Ultima Online for a little over 4 years and I'd disagree with you on UO's PvP system not being based on skillful completion.
UO was one of the strongest micro-PvP (ie, 1v1) MMO games I've ever played.
UO is a skill based game, with no classes. This means a player can equip themselves for any number of PvP situations by either diversifying the skills they put points into, giving them proficiency to handle most situations....or by focusing the skill points into a specific class arch-type, giving a person the ability to handle specific situations very easily
Items were things that enhanced your abilities in PvP, not determined them. A person in generic player crafted gear was just as capable of killing a less skilled player in far superior gear
Mage battles were essentially chess matches, with the casting mechanics allowing for strategically timed interruptions interruption and combos, which are reasonably defensible if you're skilled enough
UO has the most balanced notoriety system of any other MMORPG I've ever played....fairly flagging players open for PvP, based on their actions in the game (Criminal & Murderous acts opening players up for PvP & potential loss of their items). That said, even though the system was designed to discourage anti-social or "criminal" behavior....it still allowed for players to play the role of the "criminal" and "murderer" by giving players with those statuses the ability to defend themselves and get away with their crimes IF they are skilled enough.
Their Faction & Order / Chaos systems were an attempt at macro-PvP, and was mostly successful in my experience, but certainly had room for improvement and didn't operate at the massive scale as Lineage 2's Castle Sieges (although you can see the UO Faction system influence in L2's Castle Siege & Territory Control systems)
We get it. You like carebear games like WoW. There are already millions of games out like this already. Why you here on the forums and not playing them?
You don't get it.
WOW's PVP was as casual as any MMORPG. It was an RPG, so it had vertical progression, so it had bad PVP. (The only exception was tourney play where all players got maxed gear, but those were one-off sort of things and so it wasn't worth getting into WOW PVP for it.)
If you like MMORPG PVP, then your preferred PVP is just as "carebear" casual as any. If it's winnable by shallow or non-skill factors (like population or progression) then it's casual PVP.
I'm on the forums because I'm at work working and doing something in between compiles. I do play pure PVP games in my free time though (BF4, TF2, LoL, HotS, etc.)
While I mostly agree....I'll offer one exception for WOW PvP...
Pre-Made vs Pre-Made Battleground: Where two organized teams faced eachother in the PvP scenarios WOW offered through the battleground system.
Arathi Vally Battleground (40 vs 40 PvP Scenario) was both one of the most enjoyable & frustrating PvP experiences I've ever had in any game. Blizzard actually put a lot of thought into the maps & mechanics on most of the battlegrounds...providing lots of strategic choke points and other terrain & NPC mechanics that could be INCREDIBLY effective IF utilized correctly.
For a while, there was an add-on for WOW that would attempt to shortcut Blizzard's in-game mechanic that PREVENTED pre-made groups by allowing a group of people to join the same battleground. Getting to participate in a 40 man PvP raid, where people communicated with eachother, and made effective use of the map & mechanics with an agreed upon strategy...against another team doing the same thing was one of the most fun times I've had in WOW over 5+ years of playing.
On the other hand, randomly joining a battle ground and getting thrown into a massive group of people...all with different objectives, most refusing to work together, and most just going through the motions for "participation points" was also one of the most frustrating & infuriating times I've had in WOW over 5+ years of playing.
Unfortunately for Blizzard, the latter is the intended & most likely experience....which is why the system SUCKS
Originally posted by Amjoco My family and I played UOs PvPvP (PhonevPlayervPlayer). We had dial up back then and weren't real tech savvy. Every time the phone would ring we would lose connection. Ah the good old days!
Yes, the good ole days...
A buddy of mine that played UO with me was one of the first to get cable internet on our shard (server)....and it was a slaughter! lol
Originally posted by Thorkune SWG's bounty hunter system is my all time favorite PvP. The adrenaline rush from hunting/being hunted was amazing.
That was a very interesting wrinkle in the game play that you didn't really see much of in subsequent games.
Ultima Online had a similar system that allowed players create bounties for other players to fill. You could view a town's bounty board, with a list of player names & associated bounty rewards. If you killed that player in combat, chopped up the corpse and took the head back to a town guard of that city, you'd get the reward.
It wasn't heavily utilized, and was not featured in the way SOE designed SWG's bounty system was though.
Originally posted by Axehilt They were pretty much universally bad, when measured in terms of skillful competition (which some believe is the only point of having PVP.) RPGs by definition involve vertical progression, and world PVP means population imbalances, and both of those things cause PVP to be a lot less about skillful competition than about leveraging those non-skill advantages.
I can't speak for all the games listed, but I did play Ultima Online for a little over 4 years and I'd disagree with you on UO's PvP system not being based on skillful completion.
UO was one of the strongest micro-PvP (ie, 1v1) MMO games I've ever played.
UO is a skill based game, with no classes. This means a player can equip themselves for any number of PvP situations by either diversifying the skills they put points into, giving them proficiency to handle most situations....or by focusing the skill points into a specific class arch-type, giving a person the ability to handle specific situations very easily
Items were things that enhanced your abilities in PvP, not determined them. A person in generic player crafted gear was just as capable of killing a less skilled player in far superior gear
Mage battles were essentially chess matches, with the casting mechanics allowing for strategically timed interruptions interruption and combos, which are reasonably defensible if you're skilled enough
UO has the most balanced notoriety system of any other MMORPG I've ever played....fairly flagging players open for PvP, based on their actions in the game (Criminal & Murderous acts opening players up for PvP & potential loss of their items). That said, even though the system was designed to discourage anti-social or "criminal" behavior....it still allowed for players to play the role of the "criminal" and "murderer" by giving players with those statuses the ability to defend themselves and get away with their crimes IF they are skilled enough.
Their Faction & Order / Chaos systems were an attempt at macro-PvP, and was mostly successful in my experience, but certainly had room for improvement and didn't operate at the massive scale as Lineage 2's Castle Sieges (although you can see the UO Faction system influence in L2's Castle Siege & Territory Control systems)
Macro-PvP: 6/10
Micro-PvP: 8/10
UO was like having one class with one build that was good. The only good build for PvP when I played at launch was to get your skills in magic and magic resistance up. You couldn't fight PKers without those skills. If you wanted to be a melee fighter or a bow fighter you would get killed against a magic user. That's not to take into account the non combat skills that some people only invested into. I think this setup is fun in a way, but it has no balance. I've never been a huge fan of balance as long as everyone has an important role to play in the world, but in PvP balance is what allows you a chance to survive. In UO this was less important because it was a game that was not based on PvP as much as it was trying to achieve a realistic, living, world. Most good PvP games are centered around PvP exclusively. I guess it depends on what you are looking for. If you want to play in a world where you can pretend to be a marauder, kill, pillage, and plunder then UO is probably for you. If you want an even fight for many different builds and want something that is not a world, but more like a game of chess then UO is probably not for you IMO.
Originally posted by Axehilt They were pretty much universally bad, when measured in terms of skillful competition (which some believe is the only point of having PVP.) RPGs by definition involve vertical progression, and world PVP means population imbalances, and both of those things cause PVP to be a lot less about skillful competition than about leveraging those non-skill advantages.
I can't speak for all the games listed, but I did play Ultima Online for a little over 4 years and I'd disagree with you on UO's PvP system not being based on skillful completion.
UO was one of the strongest micro-PvP (ie, 1v1) MMO games I've ever played.
UO is a skill based game, with no classes. This means a player can equip themselves for any number of PvP situations by either diversifying the skills they put points into, giving them proficiency to handle most situations....or by focusing the skill points into a specific class arch-type, giving a person the ability to handle specific situations very easily
Items were things that enhanced your abilities in PvP, not determined them. A person in generic player crafted gear was just as capable of killing a less skilled player in far superior gear
Mage battles were essentially chess matches, with the casting mechanics allowing for strategically timed interruptions interruption and combos, which are reasonably defensible if you're skilled enough
UO has the most balanced notoriety system of any other MMORPG I've ever played....fairly flagging players open for PvP, based on their actions in the game (Criminal & Murderous acts opening players up for PvP & potential loss of their items). That said, even though the system was designed to discourage anti-social or "criminal" behavior....it still allowed for players to play the role of the "criminal" and "murderer" by giving players with those statuses the ability to defend themselves and get away with their crimes IF they are skilled enough.
Their Faction & Order / Chaos systems were an attempt at macro-PvP, and was mostly successful in my experience, but certainly had room for improvement and didn't operate at the massive scale as Lineage 2's Castle Sieges (although you can see the UO Faction system influence in L2's Castle Siege & Territory Control systems)
Macro-PvP: 6/10
Micro-PvP: 8/10
UO was like having one class with one build that was good. The only good build for PvP when I played at launch was to get your skills in magic and magic resistance up. You couldn't fight PKers without those skills. If you wanted to be a melee fighter or a bow fighter you would get killed against a magic user. That's not to take into account the non combat skills that some people only invested into. I think this setup is fun in a way, but it has no balance. I've never been a huge fan of balance as long as everyone has an important role to play in the world, but in PvP balance is what allows you a chance to survive. In UO this was less important because it was a game that was not based on PvP as much as it was trying to achieve a realistic, living, world. Most good PvP games are centered around PvP exclusively. I guess it depends on what you are looking for. If you want to play in a world where you can pretend to be a marauder, kill, pillage, and plunder then UO is probably for you. If you want an even fight for many different builds and want something that is not a world, but more like a game of chess then UO is probably not for you IMO.
Yes, you played the game before they made some changes to PvP that balanced things out a bit.
They introduced mechanics that *highly discouraged* mages to wear any kind of metal based armor, by applying a mana regen penalty on all armor pieces, other than leather based armor. So while a mage could technically wear a full suit of plate armor, their mana regen would be so low that most mages didn't wear armor.
They also gave melee warriors (fencers, macers, swordsmen, axers) special abilities that would trigger randomly, based on your skill in that weapon (and some other melee fighting skill). Fencers could land a paralyzing blow, Macers could land a double damage blow, Swordsmen & Axers could land a concussive blow, which would reduce INT by 25%.
All this did even the playing field out a bit, such that playing a melee character was MUCH more viable in PvP...but a well played & seasoned mage still held an advantage, given their ability to deal damage was no where near as affected by RNG as melee characters.
That is the problem with this conversation, I suppose.......even if you did play one of the games listed in the poll, the games changed SOOO much over time that your experience with a game might be completely different than another person's....given you played the game during different eras of it's existance
Tibia worked very slowly with my connection, and there were lags non stop, but we had the best communitiy from Austria and Germany and I was the only one who played from Slovenia. It was like a small village. Everyone knew every char . Yes also people for Hong Kong played. We all cheated. But I got extremely rare best equipment possible. Not non existent excalibur sword, but Sword of Valor which was extremely hard to get with my poor 486 and slow Connection . Ah yea Few guys from Usa played too, they pointed me where to get from those HK guys best equipment.
Anways, I became a pk because the Germans non stop attacked my char and made fun of me. But they had at least some culture not like mmorpgs these days.
p.s. Internet was for me very expensive dial up connection, I payed all i had for each month just to play and was charged for minute. But was well worth it I learned a lot about cultures of the world. Usa guy cried after loosing equipment, and skills were rising very slow. We trained, and yes there was ROLEPLAYING.
p.s.s. I am the guy who got blind on one eye because World of Warcraft..At least I can see on ene eye , the other eye just periphericaly.
Comments
over 20 years of mmorpg's and counting...
I will be in the extreme minority but I went with EQ. Yeah they didn't balance it at all but CC wasn't so overpowered like in most of these games and still to do this day the best method of PvP I've seen is to have it revolve around the PvE. You want to camp that mob over there, you'll have to go through me to do it.
All of these games that create cheesy capture the keep and rotate systems just aren't fun long term.
Shadowbane was a good one too but the castle system just didn't work very well and the client was way too unstable. Get to a siege and half the army gets an sb.exe.
A very good point. We tend to have our fondest recollections of some of the most broken systems in PVP.
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 voted pre-toa DAoC. I still play on occasion and it is really the only pvp mmorpg that keeps drawing me back even after 14 years.
Pre-toa was incredible for me. 1500+ players from 3 different realms fighting inside/around 1 relic keep is my greatest pvp experience of all time. Although that was a rare battle, it was still common back then to get 200-300 from each realm fighting over a piece of property....it was the norm for the 1st couple of years.
DAOC had the best/only PvP that I enjoyed. It had/has everything:
1) massive open area with 3 factions fighting over keeps and relics
2) battlegrounds with level limits, so anyone can fight on an even field
3) a huge dungeon with possible PvP (I used to love being stealthed in DF when it changed hands!)
4) PvE in a PvP zone, for extra danger and fun!
I also enjoyed PvP in Ryzom, fighting over Outposts or fighting over rare mats in a PvP zone.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
What do you mean by who did PvP really well?
If you consider balance of skills and abilities in combat to be important in PvP then none of them did a good job.
In EQ any class that could root or snare could easily beat any melee class unless they had some kind of super gear that let them resist spells.
In UO most PvPers would max out magic, wear plate armor, try to one shot you, and then teleport away if the one or two shot didn't succeed. The other method would be to gang up on people.
I never played DAOC or AC so I can't comment on them. DAOC seems like it was aimed at PvP so it was probably the best.
I had the opportunity to play many of the games listed in the poll, and L2 was one of the top ones for me as well.
That said, L2's PvP system certainly had it's gaps. The outcome of a battle was WAY too dependent on gear and class balance was wildly off the mark, constantly fluctuating between expansions. As a matter of fact, I'm wholly convinced that the development team at NCSoft didn't even attempt to balance the classes out, and instead sought to balance "PvP" on the macro scale...for things like castle & fortress sieges.
Which brings me to where L2's PvP system shined, and differentiated itself from other MMOs of that time.....large scale PvP. Castle sieges were a powerful game sub-system, getting 200+ players together in a massive fight at least 1x every few weeks. Resource scarcity in a mostly non-instanced world resulted in epic territory & hunting ground fights between guilds & alliances. L2 was also one of the first MMOs to set up a meaningful guild & alliance infrastructure....connecting people together with communication tools and in game banners that displayed next to a player's name. It was VERY easy to see who's team a person, or guild of people were on....which of course played a role in PvP.
I'd be remised if I didn't mention L2's notoriety system. It was one of the most balanced PvP flagging systems (for an open PvP game)...second only to Ultima Online (Ultima had both a global & local flagging system that discouraged baiting & "might is right" mentality)
Macro PvP - 8/10
Micro PvP - 4/10
I can't speak for all the games listed, but I did play Ultima Online for a little over 4 years and I'd disagree with you on UO's PvP system not being based on skillful completion.
UO was one of the strongest micro-PvP (ie, 1v1) MMO games I've ever played.
While I mostly agree....I'll offer one exception for WOW PvP...
Pre-Made vs Pre-Made Battleground: Where two organized teams faced eachother in the PvP scenarios WOW offered through the battleground system.
Arathi Vally Battleground (40 vs 40 PvP Scenario) was both one of the most enjoyable & frustrating PvP experiences I've ever had in any game. Blizzard actually put a lot of thought into the maps & mechanics on most of the battlegrounds...providing lots of strategic choke points and other terrain & NPC mechanics that could be INCREDIBLY effective IF utilized correctly.
For a while, there was an add-on for WOW that would attempt to shortcut Blizzard's in-game mechanic that PREVENTED pre-made groups by allowing a group of people to join the same battleground. Getting to participate in a 40 man PvP raid, where people communicated with eachother, and made effective use of the map & mechanics with an agreed upon strategy...against another team doing the same thing was one of the most fun times I've had in WOW over 5+ years of playing.
On the other hand, randomly joining a battle ground and getting thrown into a massive group of people...all with different objectives, most refusing to work together, and most just going through the motions for "participation points" was also one of the most frustrating & infuriating times I've had in WOW over 5+ years of playing.
Unfortunately for Blizzard, the latter is the intended & most likely experience....which is why the system SUCKS
Yes, the good ole days...
A buddy of mine that played UO with me was one of the first to get cable internet on our shard (server)....and it was a slaughter! lol
That was a very interesting wrinkle in the game play that you didn't really see much of in subsequent games.
Ultima Online had a similar system that allowed players create bounties for other players to fill. You could view a town's bounty board, with a list of player names & associated bounty rewards. If you killed that player in combat, chopped up the corpse and took the head back to a town guard of that city, you'd get the reward.
It wasn't heavily utilized, and was not featured in the way SOE designed SWG's bounty system was though.
UO was like having one class with one build that was good. The only good build for PvP when I played at launch was to get your skills in magic and magic resistance up. You couldn't fight PKers without those skills. If you wanted to be a melee fighter or a bow fighter you would get killed against a magic user. That's not to take into account the non combat skills that some people only invested into. I think this setup is fun in a way, but it has no balance. I've never been a huge fan of balance as long as everyone has an important role to play in the world, but in PvP balance is what allows you a chance to survive. In UO this was less important because it was a game that was not based on PvP as much as it was trying to achieve a realistic, living, world. Most good PvP games are centered around PvP exclusively. I guess it depends on what you are looking for. If you want to play in a world where you can pretend to be a marauder, kill, pillage, and plunder then UO is probably for you. If you want an even fight for many different builds and want something that is not a world, but more like a game of chess then UO is probably not for you IMO.
Yes, you played the game before they made some changes to PvP that balanced things out a bit.
They introduced mechanics that *highly discouraged* mages to wear any kind of metal based armor, by applying a mana regen penalty on all armor pieces, other than leather based armor. So while a mage could technically wear a full suit of plate armor, their mana regen would be so low that most mages didn't wear armor.
They also gave melee warriors (fencers, macers, swordsmen, axers) special abilities that would trigger randomly, based on your skill in that weapon (and some other melee fighting skill). Fencers could land a paralyzing blow, Macers could land a double damage blow, Swordsmen & Axers could land a concussive blow, which would reduce INT by 25%.
All this did even the playing field out a bit, such that playing a melee character was MUCH more viable in PvP...but a well played & seasoned mage still held an advantage, given their ability to deal damage was no where near as affected by RNG as melee characters.
That is the problem with this conversation, I suppose.......even if you did play one of the games listed in the poll, the games changed SOOO much over time that your experience with a game might be completely different than another person's....given you played the game during different eras of it's existance
Tibia worked very slowly with my connection, and there were lags non stop, but we had the best communitiy from Austria and Germany and I was the only one who played from Slovenia. It was like a small village. Everyone knew every char . Yes also people for Hong Kong played. We all cheated. But I got extremely rare best equipment possible. Not non existent excalibur sword, but Sword of Valor which was extremely hard to get with my poor 486 and slow Connection . Ah yea Few guys from Usa played too, they pointed me where to get from those HK guys best equipment.
Anways, I became a pk because the Germans non stop attacked my char and made fun of me. But they had at least some culture not like mmorpgs these days.
p.s. Internet was for me very expensive dial up connection, I payed all i had for each month just to play and was charged for minute. But was well worth it I learned a lot about cultures of the world. Usa guy cried after loosing equipment, and skills were rising very slow. We trained, and yes there was ROLEPLAYING.
p.s.s. I am the guy who got blind on one eye because World of Warcraft..At least I can see on ene eye , the other eye just periphericaly.