If you have never gotten into the depths of pvp in a complex mmo then you can't say that it doesn't offer much.
That's rather a big "if" don't you think?
I know that having alot of experience in pvp makes a big difference when you fighting against someone that knows what's going on. If the game allows for it you have to have alot of knowledge of the combat system to be good at pvp
But MMorpg combat systems are not very complicated. You just highlight your target and then button mash until the fight ends.
Gametypes and maps make little enviromental difference to the tactics either. Essentially you learn which moves work best against which classes. And then vary your tactics slightly to adjust to individual players. (I'd compare it's complexity to your average beat'em up, less the need for timing and without the user friendly interface). The ability to adjust and modify your loadouts to adopt new tactics or to counter your enemies take days to farm/respec the necessary skills and equipment where in proper PvP games it is simply chosen at the beginning of each fight.
In an MMORPG the ability to comeback next round with a totally new tactic and defeat the same opponent who pulverised you in the last fight is much reduced. Tactics are slow to evolve and a wide repatoire is not so important.
but pc fps games are alot easier than say HALO but I still see people playing PC fps.
Halo is very a limited multiplayer FPS. Very few loadouts, very few maps, very few vehicles, few gametypes, extrmemly limited player count and tiny tiny maps each one is smaller than 64 megs. As good as Halo is it is essentially limited by the equipment it runs on and the number of control buttons on the console interface.
Lets compare Multiplayer Halo with Joint operations for the PC.
HALO has 16 player maximum, a 300x300 metre map, 5 weapon types, 5 vehicle types, 1 playertype (3 gametypes?) (8 maps?).
Joint Operations has a 150 player maximum, 10,000 X 10,000 metre maps, 50 weapon types, 50 vehicle types, 5 playertypes, 5 gametypes and a map editor so that you can create or download an infinite number of maps.
Try Operation Flashpoint or WWii online or Planetside for a more complex FPS PC game experience. Or try the babystuff like the Unreals or the Battlefield series even.
America's Army is free and a good place to start if you enjoy challenging PvP.
I know your going to flame that comment but don't bother I have to much proof on that subject.
Righto.
I'm not sure of the relative numbers of PvP players vs PvE players. I would take a guesstimate from the proportion of PvP servers vs PvE servers in WoW as my estimation. Since their is PvP available in PvE servers too, this would not be an accurate estimation of who does and doesn't enjoy PvP, but it should give you a good estimation of players priority in this regard.
I've played Asheron's Call for almost 5 years now, and one of the main things keeping me there is the PvE. I have tried other games but all their PvE seemed to be boring to me, making me quit them after just a few months. I've played Shadowbane, where the PvE was fun till you hit 50-60 where you started to PvP anyway. But after a couple months of just PvP and no need to kill creatures, that got boring too.
A good PvE is what's going to keep my hooked to a game, after a year it may be the people keeping me more then the PvE. Though if the PvE got boring, I would probably leave.
Originally posted by jackilojohn I also refuse the believe that ffa pvp players only make up 5% of the community. I think it's a much larger audience than most of you forum blasters seem to think. In the beginning of UO there were tons of people that played the game and loved it.Then EA bought it and tried to bring in even more players by starting the trammel system and that screwed it up for the people that enjoyed the complex society structures within the ffa pvp server.
There were tonnes of people who played it and loved it despite a few warts. For many, one of the warts was the completely open PvP. And they jumped ship as soon as EQ was released with it's PvP switch.
Trammel was created to stop the bleeding. It was a mistake, IMO (though I didn't think so at the time;) better to have no PvP switches than a poorly implemented one. But it was done for completely logical reasons: it was what the vocal majority wanted, and they weren't satisfied catering to the neglected minority.
I don't think alot of the anti-ffa pvp people understand that we aren't wanting a gank fest.
The reason for that is simple: it's because you're an ass to them. You belittle them by calling them liars and 'carebears.' When you do that, they have trouble believing that you're not just pining for the ganking.
Hell, I want a lot of what you claim to want and even I have trouble believing you.
[quote][b] If you ask any vet UO player they will tell you that they weren't in the game to gank people. [][quote]
Some of them are lying. Some of them left UO for *no* other reason than to get away from the ganking. And some of them - and these I despise the most - want others to do the ganking so they can feel like 'heroes' by confronting them.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by BuZZKilgoreI enjoy PVE, when I want "real" PVP I play a FPS not an MMO. MMO PVP'ers are all carebears, in FPS you need skill not levels and items to win a battle. Same goes for me. I also play RTS and Civ4 for PvP. Button mashing third person MMO's don't make for very stimulating PvP in my opinion. The genre has very little to offer a PvP enviroment. It's not so much the "MMO" that is the problem, but the "RPG". Role play games are about questing and leveling/skill advancing and exploring and learning the lore of the land. Killing your fellow player is just a distraction from this end.
For many, yes.
But for me? I try to avoid distinguishing between player and npc as much as possible. I don't like having that figurative line drawn around another character just because it's a PC.
Course, that also means I don't want the PvP to be approached with the same attitude as one does in an FPS or RTS - ie. for it's own sake.
I do enjoy PvE. But that's mainly because i'm a raider. I enjoy huge PvE raids be it as member or in leading positions/leader groups. I don't seek competition like most PVPers do, but i rather go Co-Op with my fellow mates against some Uber powerful epic mobs, the more epic the better.
Also, dear Wow Players: Your raids aren't big, no, not even MC or AQ. Your raids are casual.
PvE would be fun if the mobs were a bit more intelligent and could give you more of a challenge. In recent single player games, you can see first signs of that. Take Call Of Duty for example, where your opponents actually take cover when shot at. Unfortunately, MMORPGs still seem unable to duplicate this (not enough CPU power per player?). So as it is, PvE is OK but not reason enough to play MMORPGs. The real strengths of MMORPGs are elswhere, so I have chosen option 3 (...but I play for other reasons).
Think about the system requirements of games that have good A.I. Now multiply that by thousands of people. That's the reason why MMORPGs cannot implement anything beyond a simple A.I.
I think that the fix for PvE needs to be mobs that do different things. As it currently stands, we're using the same tactics to kill a mob at level 1 as we do at level 60 or beyond. What if, say, we had to fight against ranged mobs who wouldn't let us get close? Or perhaps a mob that requires the use of the environment to defeat? That would make combat much less repetitive.
I liked WOW's PVE up until 60, where you end up with raids and huge reputation grinds for PVE content, that was over six months of playing. I think the problem with current MMOs is that they try to target 'addicts' and get people hooked, then just throw time sinks at them. This works for the player base that gets 'addicted', but it's also why for a long time MMOs kept passing the same pool of players around - there's only so many people who find that kind of thing fun. Sometime someome is going to make an MMO that appeals to 'non-addict' personalities, and is going to manage to keep numbers similar to WOW's as a long-term subscriber base. Just tossing some randomization on instances that people have to rerun would be nice, though smarter mobs and more tactical combat would help too.
Comments
If you have never gotten into the depths of pvp in a complex mmo then you can't say that it doesn't offer much.
That's rather a big "if" don't you think?
I know that having alot of experience in pvp makes a big difference when you fighting against someone that knows what's going on. If the game allows for it you have to have alot of knowledge of the combat system to be good at pvp
But MMorpg combat systems are not very complicated. You just highlight your target and then button mash until the fight ends.
Gametypes and maps make little enviromental difference to the tactics either. Essentially you learn which moves work best against which classes. And then vary your tactics slightly to adjust to individual players. (I'd compare it's complexity to your average beat'em up, less the need for timing and without the user friendly interface). The ability to adjust and modify your loadouts to adopt new tactics or to counter your enemies take days to farm/respec the necessary skills and equipment where in proper PvP games it is simply chosen at the beginning of each fight.
In an MMORPG the ability to comeback next round with a totally new tactic and defeat the same opponent who pulverised you in the last fight is much reduced. Tactics are slow to evolve and a wide repatoire is not so important.
but pc fps games are alot easier than say HALO but I still see people playing PC fps.
Halo is very a limited multiplayer FPS. Very few loadouts, very few maps, very few vehicles, few gametypes, extrmemly limited player count and tiny tiny maps each one is smaller than 64 megs. As good as Halo is it is essentially limited by the equipment it runs on and the number of control buttons on the console interface.
Lets compare Multiplayer Halo with Joint operations for the PC.
HALO has 16 player maximum, a 300x300 metre map, 5 weapon types, 5 vehicle types, 1 playertype (3 gametypes?) (8 maps?).
Joint Operations has a 150 player maximum, 10,000 X 10,000 metre maps, 50 weapon types, 50 vehicle types, 5 playertypes, 5 gametypes and a map editor so that you can create or download an infinite number of maps.
Try Operation Flashpoint or WWii online or Planetside for a more complex FPS PC game experience. Or try the babystuff like the Unreals or the Battlefield series even.
America's Army is free and a good place to start if you enjoy challenging PvP.
I know your going to flame that comment but don't bother I have to much proof on that subject.
Righto.
I'm not sure of the relative numbers of PvP players vs PvE players. I would take a guesstimate from the proportion of PvP servers vs PvE servers in WoW as my estimation. Since their is PvP available in PvE servers too, this would not be an accurate estimation of who does and doesn't enjoy PvP, but it should give you a good estimation of players priority in this regard.
I've played Asheron's Call for almost 5 years now, and one of the main things keeping me there is the PvE. I have tried other games but all their PvE seemed to be boring to me, making me quit them after just a few months. I've played Shadowbane, where the PvE was fun till you hit 50-60 where you started to PvP anyway. But after a couple months of just PvP and no need to kill creatures, that got boring too.
A good PvE is what's going to keep my hooked to a game, after a year it may be the people keeping me more then the PvE. Though if the PvE got boring, I would probably leave.
There were tonnes of people who played it and loved it despite a few warts. For many, one of the warts was the completely open PvP. And they jumped ship as soon as EQ was released with it's PvP switch.
Trammel was created to stop the bleeding. It was a mistake, IMO (though I didn't think so at the time;) better to have no PvP switches than a poorly implemented one. But it was done for completely logical reasons: it was what the vocal majority wanted, and they weren't satisfied catering to the neglected minority.
The reason for that is simple: it's because you're an ass to them. You belittle them by calling them liars and 'carebears.' When you do that, they have trouble believing that you're not just pining for the ganking.
Hell, I want a lot of what you claim to want and even I have trouble believing you.
[quote][b] If you ask any vet UO player they will tell you that they weren't in the game to gank people. [][quote]
Some of them are lying.
Some of them left UO for *no* other reason than to get away from the ganking.
And some of them - and these I despise the most - want others to do the ganking so they can feel like 'heroes' by confronting them.
For many, yes.
But for me? I try to avoid distinguishing between player and npc as much as possible. I don't like having that figurative line drawn around another character just because it's a PC.
Course, that also means I don't want the PvP to be approached with the same attitude as one does in an FPS or RTS - ie. for it's own sake.
I do enjoy PvE. But that's mainly because i'm a raider. I enjoy huge PvE raids be it as member or in leading positions/leader groups. I don't seek competition like most PVPers do, but i rather go Co-Op with my fellow mates against some Uber powerful epic mobs, the more epic the better.
Also, dear Wow Players: Your raids aren't big, no, not even MC or AQ. Your raids are casual.
I already cancelled WoW after the second month. Its always the 2nd month.
?
PvE would be fun if the mobs were a bit more intelligent and could give you more of a challenge. In recent single player games, you can see first signs of that. Take Call Of Duty for example, where your opponents actually take cover when shot at.
Unfortunately, MMORPGs still seem unable to duplicate this (not enough CPU power per player?). So as it is, PvE is OK but not reason enough to play MMORPGs. The real strengths of MMORPGs are elswhere, so I have chosen option 3 (...but I play for other reasons).
Think about the system requirements of games that have good A.I. Now multiply that by thousands of people. That's the reason why MMORPGs cannot implement anything beyond a simple A.I.
I think that the fix for PvE needs to be mobs that do different things. As it currently stands, we're using the same tactics to kill a mob at level 1 as we do at level 60 or beyond. What if, say, we had to fight against ranged mobs who wouldn't let us get close? Or perhaps a mob that requires the use of the environment to defeat? That would make combat much less repetitive.
I liked WOW's PVE up until 60, where you end up with raids and huge reputation grinds for PVE content, that was over six months of playing. I think the problem with current MMOs is that they try to target 'addicts' and get people hooked, then just throw time sinks at them. This works for the player base that gets 'addicted', but it's also why for a long time MMOs kept passing the same pool of players around - there's only so many people who find that kind of thing fun. Sometime someome is going to make an MMO that appeals to 'non-addict' personalities, and is going to manage to keep numbers similar to WOW's as a long-term subscriber base. Just tossing some randomization on instances that people have to rerun would be nice, though smarter mobs and more tactical combat would help too.