Originally posted by Torchwood Well I would not play a game either one of them had anything to do with. I will play a game with pvp in it, as long as I do not have to be a part of it. If the game is geared to PVP, no thank you. If any of the laws get passes that prevent the under 18 from playing PVP games, it might help them. PVP should be gearless in a game. A pvp zone that you enter, your given the same weapons and equipment, and made to be the same level. Then let people kill all they want.
Immaturity has no age limit.
As an example
I jumped on EQ2's new PvP server when it came out and they made it sound like it was going to be a epic battle between the good and evil. Yet most of the time (granted everyone had to start characters over) it was more about higher level sneaking into the enemy territory, going into the newbie areas and killing helpless newbs.
That is not my idea of fun.
Everyone bitches and moans on how unfair the system is, but no one stops to consider the oppertunity of creating defensive forces to safeguard the area, rather they are all trying to do the same thing.
They need to use the type of PvP in Conquer online. You can turn pking off or on so when you click a person depending on if you have it set on or off you'll start attacking them or not.
"The one who begins with nothing, gains everything slowly."
Open PvP is a breeding ground for immaturity. People have no interest in anything aside from making the person on the otehr end angry or irritated. Most PvPers in the current gaming community are nothing more than teenage boys (or those that act like one) with a Halo 2 mentality. They want an FPS with a fantasy theme. Most of these people have no interest in actually playing an MMO other than it's a means to the end. What I mean by this is that they play the game so they can gain levels or better equipment to make themselves more powerful and able to pick on those that may be less powerful. It's nothing more than an immature power trip for people who are inadequate losers in real life.
Strategic PvP, and cooperative PvP (DAoC and Guild Wars for example) are at least more well-rounded forms of PvP. Anyone who has played Lineage 2 or WoW's PvP servers know exactly what I'm talking about. They are full of foul-mouthed children who enjoy nothing more than griefing and taunting other players. What the hell is the point in that, I ask. If they want a pure PvP game or just enjoy being bastards to other players, then they should just go back to their FPS and play Halo 2.
The rest of us don't want to be forced into PvP so we can have our game enperience interrupted by obnoxious kids on an ego trip. It's unfair and unbalanced. And no game has any "real" consiquences for this type of PvP action. No one gets killed by the guards for killing other players, except in Lineage 2, but this can easily be remedied by the player going off and killing monsters. In other games that offer PvP, like WoW, there is no penalty to killing other players. It's just for the enjoyment of the higher level person killing those who have NO chance at defending themselves. None of these people want an even battle, they just want to gank and grief. I don't call that entertainment. I graduated from grammar school a long time ago...
I'm don't like to anoy people, so when I try to play the mean rogue I have a hard time deciding if I should attack the poor guy in front of me... But still, pvp is fun.
And, more importantly, I think conflicts are what good roleplay situations revolve around. If you can't hit a character, then you can't threaten him...
But players don't like to be ganked. Maybe a system could help defining what interrest one character could have killing an other one. I mean... you don't attack someone just "like that" (especially in a world where you can't loot the body anyway)... So, if you see someone attacking some fellow humans, then you have a reason to defend them. The reasons defining who and in what situations you can attack someone could be numerous, the factions you hate, the places you protect, etc... You could even be a crazy serial killer... but those reasons would have consequences on the hability of other players (and NPC) to see you as a threat. (of course, you wouldn't be able to redefine those reasons easily, nor quickly). And playing the unmoral fool who kills weak adventurers just for fun would mean having a really hard time entering any city.
The essence of this debate is whether PvP is a condition of the server or areas within the server's world. Of course, for those that only PvE, the debate naturally encourages some to post that any PvP, implemented in any fashion, is not the answer. These posts are legitimate, in that they are encouraging those new games that come out to NOT implement a world PvP option in ANY form. There are plenty of us out there that do not derive any sense of satisfaction from beating up on others. I personally have never seen a PvP system that I liked. It either rewarded the powergamers, or the FoTM builders, or the stealthers, or any other set of ideal conditions that gave one person an edge over another. Of course, this is not fun for any player that does not mimic those ideal actions. PvP then becomes just a special kind of grind that is optimized to produce a toon that has perfect equipment, skills, and strategies to beat others. I, for one, do not find this more specialized, player-killing grind to be any more fun than another. Perhaps it is because I have nothing to prove to anyone else, and that I derive enough satisfaction from playing my avatar well, both solo and cooperatively, to satisfy my ego. The idea of beating another human being does not excite me the way it does some, because I'm not a little kid, thus my motivations in life are different. Little kids are trying to carve out their place in the world, and this involves beating down others in various ways, for most. It's a simplistic life model that PvP emulates fairly well. As others have touched on, maturity often breeds less desire to compete, regardless of how nice the rewards might be. PvP emphasizes the most basic human characteristics, which, if pursued without thought, produce the most base humans. I, for one, cannot support anything that does this, MMOG or otherwise. However, in the interest of fairness, I am more than happy to have a sandbox set up where the kids can throw their toys at one another rather than working together to create something wonderful. I probably won't be visiting that sandbox, and I don't consider it to be the place that will stimulate the most personal growth, but being able to choose such an option is key to being human.
I love a challenging PvE game such as EQ was in the beginning.
I love structured war type PvP such as in DAoC.
I have yet to see a game with open PvP that I like. It isn't that I am totally against open PvP, it is just that they games always turn into a game full of murderers. People who like open PvP often say it is because it makes the game more real, and I would be fine with that if it were true. I would love to see an open PvP game where if you killed someone, you became an outlaw. When you are finally captured, you are taken before a jury and if found guilty, your character is either jailed (unplayable for a set time) or executed (deleted) and all that character's belongings are given to the victim. That would be much closer to realism and people would only PK if they felt they had a justifiable reason to do so. Don't think the gankers would go for it though since their goal in the game seems to be to make other people's gaming experience as uncomfortable as possible.
Ultimately, pvp must be meaningful for the specific player involved.
A player must have the choice whether or not to participate. Because of this, games need to incorporate 2 types of servers: Open pvp for the more hardcore pvp'ers and consensual pvp for those who like to pit themselves against another player but who don't like the trash talk, looting of corpses, ganking etc.
Not everyone wants pvp that has huge consequences. People are different. Not everyone wants pvp without consequences.
The Way EQ2 has done it is very on them money, at least for players who want to participate or not. You want to participate, go to a pvp server. You don't, go to a PvE server where there are arenas.
What people are not realizing is that both sides of the player base just can't be mixed.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
But this choice of "open pvp / occasional pvp / just pve" could be made possible in one server.
Say you want to never engage in any pvp action. Then you chose it and play a character that is protected by gods, no matter what, but that will never be able to defend anyone against other players.
Say you want to be able to attack anyone that is not protected by some of those gods. Well, then you'll play some kind of mad murderer well known by players, and who could get well known by NPCs nearby the places were you commit your filthy actions.
And then you can also play the occasionnal PVPist who want to be able to engage in combat with a determined percent of the population of players. The other faction anywhere anytime, the other faction when they attack your faction, any other player when they attack specific factions, etc.
You'd be able to choose the way you interact with other players.
That's close to the way you set your pvp tag on or off on a WoW PVE server, unless you wouldn't set it on or off. You would first define in what situations you accept or want pvp, and then you would face it once in those situations. Wants none, gets none. And that would be RP considering the way defining those situations would be like defining a background and a personnality to your character... I guess everyone could be content with something like that
PvP has been a big part of my life since UO, but I niether agree nor disagree with eaither of the debators in this case. In my opinion the better the combat system the better the PvP system to a certain point, but to make it a perfect PvP game in my opinion there needs to be FFA areas (Felucia, UO), areas in which only oposing factions may confront each other (Contested Areas, WoW, and leveling zones which only last until your characther is capable of defending itself. Thus, adding 3 difficulty levels to the PvP aspect of the game. None of these should be instanced; Instanced PvP zones takes the whole suprise out of PvPing, and in some cases it takes the PvPing out of a game all at once (ie. WSG, WoW)
The FFA areas should only be accessible to the higher level charachters. Your only ally is your party (15 people or less) this drastically reduces the number of people on each side of the battle. A 15 player party limit is not to big and not too miniscule. Lag shouldn't insue ,and it won't be a zerg-fest.
The Contested Areas should be alot like WoW's contested areas starting at a low level and working their way up to the highest level. These areas would be used for bigger battles like GvG or RvR
The starting areas again alot like WoW's starting areas (aka Faction Alligned Zones). They're soul purpose is a safe haven from what lurks behind every tree past the dreaded line, and to allow players to adjust to the game (Learn the controls, find out how the game works, learn basic strats, ect)
I do believe this system would be superior to most to most systems if not all PvP systems available today.
I like variety, and really, that's what we see in games today. There should DEFINATELY be games where pvp has consequences, permadeath is a possibility, etc. If you don't like that possibility at all, then don't play the game. Simple. Play one of the others out there.
In all "debates" like this, there seems to be a tendancy to assume that there is some "best" situation out there. Not so.
EVE seems to be the best example of pvp without restrictions (except in empire zones). For a while, I liked DAOC, but for me, I need a little bit more purpose in battle. Day to day, aside from large raids, there didn't seem to be a purpose other than gaining realm points. It was fun when it had scale, but otherwise, it just wasn't that entertaining to me (and then there was all the cheating).
Somebody suggested that everybody should go out with the same equipment and basic abilities and there should be no death consequences. Well, that sounds to me like Guildwars. Arena and tournament combat is just like that.
In fact, almost every suggestion exists except . . . there's no decent permadeath game out there that I know about.
For me, PvP imotivates most of my PvE activity. I may play for months at PvE just to gain advantages in PvP (like in DAOC). Otherwise, gaining levels, getting stuff, etc. just seems pointless other than to "look cool." That's the big problem for me in WoW. It's mostly just about obtaining things. They haven't implemented BGs in a meaningful enough way.
For me, most important in PvP is purpose. No rules universes can provide purpose like EVE, but so can battlegrounds, etc. It just has to be done well. If DAOC had special crafting components that had to be farmed inside little dungeons unique to each keep, the battles would have a LOT more meaning for me! People fight over resources in the real world! So we should do in games if we want meaning.
I'm interested in getting some feedback about my original post.
As I mentioned, I think that PVP could be interesting, fair, and have that uncertainty factor that would keep danger fans truly interested.
Again, I think that characters should mirror humans in that they will all be equally vulnerable. I'm a 39 year old man that can bench press well over 300 pounds, but if confronted by a 12 year old with a machine gun, I would die. However, if I had full body armor on, then my size and age might provide me with an advantage, but let's hope that I don't need to test that theory.
So:
1. all characters will have much the same HP that will never change.
2. Learned or earned moves/powers provide attacks that lower or different characters do not have. Delivering these attacks is what counts, because if they can't be then the little guy wins.
3. Armor, amulets, spells, weapons, and what have you provide the difference between you and the other guy. That would mean that a fairly new person could get some gear from a vet friend and be able to protect themselves pretty well. Maybe a system of loans could be given in game that one's character would have to pay off, or maybe that's too much like real life.
Anyway, I'm curious about your opinions and whether or not such a system would be interesting and what you see was the cost/benefit of it all.
In reference to the post imediately before this one, that system you propose sounds like how most systems end up once you reach the top level in most of these games out there. For instance, in WoW at level 60, you gear differentiates you from others. In DAOC, if you are a veteran of RvR, you are going to have some moves that other players don't have.
Furthermore, once you have pretty much maxed your level, everybody has pretty much the same hp, excepting special bonuses, skills, etc. It's hard to say what hit points really ARE anyway. Maybe they more reflect your skills at avoiding death until you get too tired, too careless, and that kid with the machine gun finally hits you in the stomach whereas before you were getting away. Perhaps, the difference in hit points between a kid and you reflects the fact that you might survive an encounter with a 12-year old trying to fire a maching gun at you than if the roles are reversed. In other words, he wouldn't know how to avoid getting killed as easily as you would. If it is merely wounding, then it seems like your abilities should drop with your hit points, but I don't see many games where that is the case. You are fine until you die.
I would say that EVE comes close to what you are talking about. You have to have your character learn the proper use of various kinds of technology while good gear gives a decent advantage. You don't have levels, and you are as mortal as the next guy (meaning you have a clone stored away somewhere). If you blow up, you blow up. Friends can give you stuff to help you out early on. You just have to learn how to use it well. It's a space game, of course. Perhaps you are thinking more in line with your fantasy type games. I think more of your skills based games are more what you are talking about.
For example, Ultima Online allowed you to wear anything anybody gave you but you had to practice skills to get good at using that equipment. People had pretty much the same hit points as I recall.
Another example might be Planetside. You can get the exact same equipment, but again, you gradually learn skills over time.
I always considered HP to be "health points". They generally represent, roughly, your endurance, while your ability to avoid hits is define by your agility. Thus a warrior with a lot of endurance should be able to take more hits than a rogue, but this rogue will be able to dodge more than the warrior.
Of course, this is not so balanced, but that's the idea : with time and experience, you gain endurance and the capacity of taking more hits in a row. Give a slap to a child, and he may feel hurt and cry. Give the same slap to an adult, and he will just feel offended. This gun example just represent the highlevel spell that takes anyone 5000 points... Now, in those fantasy games the gun/spell is hard enough to master so that no 12 years old could use it.
If it is merely wounding, then it seems like your abilities should drop with your hit points, but I don't see many games where that is the case. You are fine until you die.
Not equipment based, not level based, both arena and RvR (alliance v alliance) combat, cooperative and competitive PvP and PvE. And all in a tried-and-tested package which already has the BEST skill system around!
Anyone who doesn't like GW PvP is most likely a whining ganker
as a matter of fact i did when it first came out. for a whole 3 HOURS.not only coujld they KILL you as soon as you walked out of a town ,but loot your body. next dumb question
if you want a pvp game play one of the thousands of first person shooters that are out there.like half life.of course like i said they dont play those games cause its sort of EVEN.you have to actually work and hunt people down. its not fun unless you can kill a guy 10 times over,at his corpse.or people 20 lvls lower.
You are both full of it. Your opinions are valid; for yourselves and only for yourselves. Some of us - (actually more than either of you care to admit) do NOT think PvP adds anything positive to MMORPGs.
I don't play MMORPGs for the interaction with other players - I play it to "live" in a persistant world that I enjoy and to continue playing a game that doesn't have to end. Thank God for companies that recognize this and offer PvP free servers. Now if only we could get them to be solo friendly.
Stop forcing your opinions on those of us who do not enjoy PvP.
Originally posted by Sovrath Ultimately, pvp must be meaningful for the specific player involved. A player must have the choice whether or not to participate. Because of this, games need to incorporate 2 types of servers: Open pvp for the more hardcore pvp'ers and consensual pvp for those who like to pit themselves against another player but who don't like the trash talk, looting of corpses, ganking etc. Not everyone wants pvp that has huge consequences. People are different. Not everyone wants pvp without consequences. The Way EQ2 has done it is very on them money, at least for players who want to participate or not. You want to participate, go to a pvp server. You don't, go to a PvE server where there are arenas. What people are not realizing is that both sides of the player base just can't be mixed.
I think Sovrath's Post is on the money, I have played Shadowbane, EVE, EQLive(pvp), PlanetSide on the PVP side. I like Meaningfull PVP Currently I play EQ2 on a Non-PVP server but since the introduction of the PVP servers also have a Char on the PVP servers and do think is has meaning limits and restiction that I enjoy.
Examples are: EVE online you jump into a system that has a low security level. There is a bigger nastier ship there you have 2 choices die or warp.(If they have no warp Scramblers)
EQ2 fix which is top notch for me was if you leave an area while under pvp agro. you cant come back for a bit. This stops the, I'm going to camp the zone and fight people but if I can't handle the person I attacked I'll touch the perverbial "Base".
Personally, I started SB to try out the PvP, WAY after the game came out. Which means I was at the low end of the totem pole when it came to levels. What was frustrating to me was just like in other games I'm level "X" your level "X times 3" There isn't any way that I can do anything a biting ant can't do to you. So at level 20 I was killed by so many people that I wasn't even a challenge to, then I felt like the Ant under the magnifing glass.
So yes I don't like OPEN PvP because of what everyone would consider as "Teenager" Mentality with a god complex so I stopped playing that.
The only PvP game that comes to mind that is half fair for OPEN pvp is PlanetSide because a rank 5 Can kill a Rank 10 with skill.
In most fantasy based games there isn't any way a lvl 20 is killing a lvl 40. (Unless hes sleeping having a smoke, Taking a bio break, or generally AFK)
The thing is there is no right answer to all for this because, all of the before mentioned games here are still making money. So someone has to like it
I think for now EQ2 or PlanetSide are my nitch in the PvP world.
Not equipment based, not level based, both arena and RvR (alliance v alliance) combat, cooperative and competitive PvP and PvE. And all in a tried-and-tested package which already has the BEST skill system around!
Anyone who doesn't like GW PvP is most likely a whining ganker
Or maybe a person who want to play a mmoRPG where his character can possess weapons that can cut plus or less depending of the importance of the endurance of his oponent and of the degree of resistance of his clothes. Well, someone who wants to play something a little bit coherent... like, a world in wich you don't have to be transported into some strange "instance" to be able to fight. Of course, such a thing can be explained by some sort of Gods Protection but... is it ? It's certainly not in WoW, and I would be surprised if it was in any game... I still wait to see the game that will explain the particularities of the gameplay into it's bakground.
PVP has this advantage : it makes the world coherent and prevent it from being uninteresting. I mean... A world where gods prevent the masses from killing each others ? That sure would be beautifull, but in a game that would make a "my little poney" world. Or some things would still have to find a explanation : how come we can fight those monsters and evil PNJs ? Because they're evil, right... But how come Gods don't prevent those mobs from hurting us ? Hard one... oh yes... Maybe... Because we need to hurt them, actually. They ARE evil after all, and they can do evil things like stealing us, or occupying our mines. Oh yes, that's true. So we need to have a way to punish them and get them out of our places... Maybe that's the reason why PVP is so coherent : because some people are not sensible to words...
Of course, those same people are the one who can make of pvp a bad experience...
Stop forcing your opinions on those of us who do not enjoy PvP.
I note most of you just consider the pvp "as it is", and not an ounce "as it could be"
Do you really focus on your bad experiences without realizing they are caused bad, incomplete, or just immature game designs ?
Come on... Just imagine that the first two players games had been in the super mario bros fashion : I play, you play, I play, you play. Would you say "two players games suck, it's just boring to have to wait while the other plays" then ? Couldn't you then imagine a game in wich both player can play at the same time ?
It's the same here. Can't you just consider the idea that maybe it would be possible to make a game that would feature a pvp system that would satisfy a wide range of player ?
I don't play MMORPGs for the interaction with other players - I play it to "live" in a persistant world that I enjoy and to continue playing a game that doesn't have to end.
You know, the P of MMORPG doesn't stand for "persistant"... Before being persistant, those games are "Massively Multiplayer". Of course, there is what you do that will impact the world, but what -really- imact the word is the mass of players.
And what kind of imact are we talking about ? What kind of "persistance" ? I suppose you're not talking about the way you can personnalise your house... because you can do the same thing in other offline games (Animal Forest is a good example in the "neverending" kind ~__^) So, what else... Well the way you can conquer lands generally involve pvp, I guess... I know ! Economy ! Of course, you can craft and participate in the economy of the game... But wait. When you sell your cloth/weapon/armor/tool to an other player at a price lower than what yet another player propose... isn't about interaction ? isn't it about "player vs player" ?
A persistant world IS about interaction, and therefore IS about competition between players : because the world isn't large enough to prevent people from meating, interracting, and confronting with each others. A a world large enough to do that would have no interrest as a MMORPG : is would be a solo game.
But I don't say you HAVE to play PVP. Simply I think it is possible to content both pvp and pve adepts in a coherent world.
But anyway, if you really don't want to hear about anything pvp... why are you reading this thread ?
Using EVE as an example of FFA PvP is misleading to those who haven't played it. While EVE does have an excellent ship usefulness system (all sizes of ships are useful, and it is possible to effectively engage larger ships using superior numbers/tactics), it also has large chunks of area that are very much not FFA PvP - Empire space.
Yes, you can still technically kill someone there, but due to the immediate and basically unavoidable concesequence of getting nuked yourself, it functions very much like a safe zone. A more accurate depiction of normal EVE play, is that it has regions - 'safe' regions, FFA PvP regions, and a region that's mostly FFA with a little more security (not much).
And yes, it does work quite well. But I think the fact that a player chooses when they are ready to enter that zone is what enables it to do so. Remove Concord (the police force) from all areas of space, and it would be a completely frustrating experience for newer and less aggressive players, to the point where I think EVE's population would be far lower.
Key factors for PvP seem to be:
Balancing mechnism to reduce simple level-based advantage
The ability to choose whether or not to engage in PvP in a given session.
Interesting tactical decisions to enable skill to play a significant role in combat
Don't get me wrong I do like how EVE has built the PvP Engine.
On the first Key factors EVE does it to a point with Target of Larger weapons (For those who don't know the bigger your ship and the bigger the weapons the less likly you will hit smaller ships making ship agility a factor in EVE.
I Also understand the last key but. I would be interested to hear some ideas about the middle one.
"The ability to choose whether or not to engage in PvP in a given session. "
Now I know that SWG (Ok I played it for a bit, Hard to admit) used a system where you would declare you allegence to Rebel or Empire Poof PVP enabled this became negated by the fact that when I wanted to PvP I would walk around for hours and not find anyone that wanted a we bit of action.
Originally posted by Catox But anyway, if you really don't want to hear about anything pvp... why are you reading this thread ?
Part of any PvP debate is going to be whether or not it is a valid form of gaming in a MMOG. PvP introduces different dynamics that are not part of PvE, and while some would like to debate how to make PvP the "best it can be," there are others that find PvP a fundamentally flawed concept from the get-go. Our position is that any PvP should be consentual or non-existent, or on the other end, it should be "true" and involve permadeath. If you do anything inbetween, you're just asking people to start working out the numbers for what is the easiest way for the fewest number of people to gank the most other people, period. Also, by introducing PvP, you introduce the idea of "balance" between the classes when games are actually made much richer when there is a certain degree of imbalance. The reason is that without holding to a rigid idea of balance, classes can be created on an individual basis, adhering more to a concept than a mathematical model that limits just how strong they can be compared to others. I don't mind arena battling, although I do think that it creates the same "bad blood" as any other PvP dynamic, but personally, I will always feel that a game should either be fully PvP, or not at all. The two types of games are extremely different and focus on very different things. When a person chimes in that they think all forms of PvP are no good, that is simply a vote for games to draw the line distinctly, and either make PvP part of the core of game design (which will keep all of us PvE'ers away), or do not introduce it at all. I'll be perfectly content if they start making games where Garrett and people like him can all run around ganking each other, knowing that I'll never have even a remote chance of running across him in the worlds I'm exploring.
Originally posted by PlanetNiles Paldarion what is it that you object to in PvP and what do you think can be done to improve PvP without removing it all together?
To be honest, I am a "casual" player with a job and a family and I usually prefer to solo. I do belong to a multi-world Guild I helped found and we;ve played them all since MORPGs were first introduced. Many of our members - who are older like me, do not enjoy PvP and find it just a nuisance.
When I'm out adventuring, I don't like the "interruption" of PvP with my limited time. Its just a pain in the ass. Worst of all are the gankers, of course, but those who insist on attacking you, even when you explain that you have no interest in PvP just jade you to the whole PvP thing.
In WoW I would occasionally play a faction for fun, but those times were rare. PvP frankly drove me away from a few games, but in general, I gave up on specific MMORPGs (EQ, AC, AC2, AO, DAoC, and a few other less popular ones) when things became impossible to solo. And ALL MMORPGs I've played so far have that "glass level cap" where groups or megaguilds can advance and solo players are left in the dust.
I don't know how many times I've heard the lame idiots out there saying "well just play single player games." Trust me, if they made single player versions of the MMORPGs I'd be playing them. My on-line time will probably go to near zero as soon as Oblivion comes out (assuming its an OK game).
In the past I'd go ahead and buy and pay monthly fees for games knowing I'd never get to finish them, but not any more. That's why I let D&D Stormreach sit on the shelf. Currently I am only active in GW while I still have characters in at least 5 games.
I knoew I'm not the "average MMORPG player." After all, I'm not in Middle School But I know there is a market for players like me - we are constantly on the forums trying to at least get a few crumbs from the table, so to speak. If a game ever came out catering to casual solo players, they'd have a loyal player base for a long, long time.
Flame away, I habe asbestos grieves of fire protection +5
Comments
Immaturity has no age limit.
As an example
I jumped on EQ2's new PvP server when it came out and they made it sound like it was going to be a epic battle between the good and evil. Yet most of the time (granted everyone had to start characters over) it was more about higher level sneaking into the enemy territory, going into the newbie areas and killing helpless newbs.
That is not my idea of fun.
Everyone bitches and moans on how unfair the system is, but no one stops to consider the oppertunity of creating defensive forces to safeguard the area, rather they are all trying to do the same thing.
They need to use the type of PvP in Conquer online. You can turn pking off or on so when you click a person depending on if you have it set on or off you'll start attacking them or not.
"The one who begins with nothing, gains everything slowly."
Open PvP is a breeding ground for immaturity. People have no interest in anything aside from making the person on the otehr end angry or irritated. Most PvPers in the current gaming community are nothing more than teenage boys (or those that act like one) with a Halo 2 mentality. They want an FPS with a fantasy theme. Most of these people have no interest in actually playing an MMO other than it's a means to the end. What I mean by this is that they play the game so they can gain levels or better equipment to make themselves more powerful and able to pick on those that may be less powerful. It's nothing more than an immature power trip for people who are inadequate losers in real life.
Strategic PvP, and cooperative PvP (DAoC and Guild Wars for example) are at least more well-rounded forms of PvP. Anyone who has played Lineage 2 or WoW's PvP servers know exactly what I'm talking about. They are full of foul-mouthed children who enjoy nothing more than griefing and taunting other players. What the hell is the point in that, I ask. If they want a pure PvP game or just enjoy being bastards to other players, then they should just go back to their FPS and play Halo 2.
The rest of us don't want to be forced into PvP so we can have our game enperience interrupted by obnoxious kids on an ego trip. It's unfair and unbalanced. And no game has any "real" consiquences for this type of PvP action. No one gets killed by the guards for killing other players, except in Lineage 2, but this can easily be remedied by the player going off and killing monsters. In other games that offer PvP, like WoW, there is no penalty to killing other players. It's just for the enjoyment of the higher level person killing those who have NO chance at defending themselves. None of these people want an even battle, they just want to gank and grief. I don't call that entertainment. I graduated from grammar school a long time ago...
I'm don't like to anoy people, so when I try to play the mean rogue I have a hard time deciding if I should attack the poor guy in front of me... But still, pvp is fun.
And, more importantly, I think conflicts are what good roleplay situations revolve around. If you can't hit a character, then you can't threaten him...
But players don't like to be ganked. Maybe a system could help defining what interrest one character could have killing an other one. I mean... you don't attack someone just "like that" (especially in a world where you can't loot the body anyway)... So, if you see someone attacking some fellow humans, then you have a reason to defend them. The reasons defining who and in what situations you can attack someone could be numerous, the factions you hate, the places you protect, etc... You could even be a crazy serial killer... but those reasons would have consequences on the hability of other players (and NPC) to see you as a threat. (of course, you wouldn't be able to redefine those reasons easily, nor quickly). And playing the unmoral fool who kills weak adventurers just for fun would mean having a really hard time entering any city.
Maybe that would fix the gank problem...
The essence of this debate is whether PvP is a condition of the server or areas within the server's world. Of course, for those that only PvE, the debate naturally encourages some to post that any PvP, implemented in any fashion, is not the answer. These posts are legitimate, in that they are encouraging those new games that come out to NOT implement a world PvP option in ANY form. There are plenty of us out there that do not derive any sense of satisfaction from beating up on others. I personally have never seen a PvP system that I liked. It either rewarded the powergamers, or the FoTM builders, or the stealthers, or any other set of ideal conditions that gave one person an edge over another. Of course, this is not fun for any player that does not mimic those ideal actions. PvP then becomes just a special kind of grind that is optimized to produce a toon that has perfect equipment, skills, and strategies to beat others. I, for one, do not find this more specialized, player-killing grind to be any more fun than another. Perhaps it is because I have nothing to prove to anyone else, and that I derive enough satisfaction from playing my avatar well, both solo and cooperatively, to satisfy my ego. The idea of beating another human being does not excite me the way it does some, because I'm not a little kid, thus my motivations in life are different. Little kids are trying to carve out their place in the world, and this involves beating down others in various ways, for most. It's a simplistic life model that PvP emulates fairly well. As others have touched on, maturity often breeds less desire to compete, regardless of how nice the rewards might be. PvP emphasizes the most basic human characteristics, which, if pursued without thought, produce the most base humans. I, for one, cannot support anything that does this, MMOG or otherwise. However, in the interest of fairness, I am more than happy to have a sandbox set up where the kids can throw their toys at one another rather than working together to create something wonderful. I probably won't be visiting that sandbox, and I don't consider it to be the place that will stimulate the most personal growth, but being able to choose such an option is key to being human.
I love a challenging PvE game such as EQ was in the beginning.
I love structured war type PvP such as in DAoC.
I have yet to see a game with open PvP that I like. It isn't that I am totally against open PvP, it is just that they games always turn into a game full of murderers. People who like open PvP often say it is because it makes the game more real, and I would be fine with that if it were true. I would love to see an open PvP game where if you killed someone, you became an outlaw. When you are finally captured, you are taken before a jury and if found guilty, your character is either jailed (unplayable for a set time) or executed (deleted) and all that character's belongings are given to the victim. That would be much closer to realism and people would only PK if they felt they had a justifiable reason to do so. Don't think the gankers would go for it though since their goal in the game seems to be to make other people's gaming experience as uncomfortable as possible.
Ultimately, pvp must be meaningful for the specific player involved.
A player must have the choice whether or not to participate. Because of this, games need to incorporate 2 types of servers: Open pvp for the more hardcore pvp'ers and consensual pvp for those who like to pit themselves against another player but who don't like the trash talk, looting of corpses, ganking etc.
Not everyone wants pvp that has huge consequences. People are different. Not everyone wants pvp without consequences.
The Way EQ2 has done it is very on them money, at least for players who want to participate or not. You want to participate, go to a pvp server. You don't, go to a PvE server where there are arenas.
What people are not realizing is that both sides of the player base just can't be mixed.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
But this choice of "open pvp / occasional pvp / just pve" could be made possible in one server.
Say you want to never engage in any pvp action. Then you chose it and play a character that is protected by gods, no matter what, but that will never be able to defend anyone against other players.
Say you want to be able to attack anyone that is not protected by some of those gods. Well, then you'll play some kind of mad murderer well known by players, and who could get well known by NPCs nearby the places were you commit your filthy actions.
And then you can also play the occasionnal PVPist who want to be able to engage in combat with a determined percent of the population of players. The other faction anywhere anytime, the other faction when they attack your faction, any other player when they attack specific factions, etc.
You'd be able to choose the way you interact with other players.
That's close to the way you set your pvp tag on or off on a WoW PVE server, unless you wouldn't set it on or off. You would first define in what situations you accept or want pvp, and then you would face it once in those situations. Wants none, gets none. And that would be RP considering the way defining those situations would be like defining a background and a personnality to your character... I guess everyone could be content with something like that
PvP has been a big part of my life since UO, but I niether agree nor disagree with eaither of the debators in this case. In my opinion the better the combat system the better the PvP system to a certain point, but to make it a perfect PvP game in my opinion there needs to be FFA areas (Felucia, UO), areas in which only oposing factions may confront each other (Contested Areas, WoW, and leveling zones which only last until your characther is capable of defending itself. Thus, adding 3 difficulty levels to the PvP aspect of the game. None of these should be instanced; Instanced PvP zones takes the whole suprise out of PvPing, and in some cases it takes the PvPing out of a game all at once (ie. WSG, WoW)
The FFA areas should only be accessible to the higher level charachters. Your only ally is your party (15 people or less) this drastically reduces the number of people on each side of the battle. A 15 player party limit is not to big and not too miniscule. Lag shouldn't insue ,and it won't be a zerg-fest.
The Contested Areas should be alot like WoW's contested areas starting at a low level and working their way up to the highest level. These areas would be used for bigger battles like GvG or RvR
The starting areas again alot like WoW's starting areas (aka Faction Alligned Zones). They're soul purpose is a safe haven from what lurks behind every tree past the dreaded line, and to allow players to adjust to the game (Learn the controls, find out how the game works, learn basic strats, ect)
I do believe this system would be superior to most to most systems if not all PvP systems available today.
I like variety, and really, that's what we see in games today. There should DEFINATELY be games where pvp has consequences, permadeath is a possibility, etc. If you don't like that possibility at all, then don't play the game. Simple. Play one of the others out there.
In all "debates" like this, there seems to be a tendancy to assume that there is some "best" situation out there. Not so.
EVE seems to be the best example of pvp without restrictions (except in empire zones). For a while, I liked DAOC, but for me, I need a little bit more purpose in battle. Day to day, aside from large raids, there didn't seem to be a purpose other than gaining realm points. It was fun when it had scale, but otherwise, it just wasn't that entertaining to me (and then there was all the cheating).
Somebody suggested that everybody should go out with the same equipment and basic abilities and there should be no death consequences. Well, that sounds to me like Guildwars. Arena and tournament combat is just like that.
In fact, almost every suggestion exists except . . . there's no decent permadeath game out there that I know about.
For me, PvP imotivates most of my PvE activity. I may play for months at PvE just to gain advantages in PvP (like in DAOC). Otherwise, gaining levels, getting stuff, etc. just seems pointless other than to "look cool." That's the big problem for me in WoW. It's mostly just about obtaining things. They haven't implemented BGs in a meaningful enough way.
For me, most important in PvP is purpose. No rules universes can provide purpose like EVE, but so can battlegrounds, etc. It just has to be done well. If DAOC had special crafting components that had to be farmed inside little dungeons unique to each keep, the battles would have a LOT more meaning for me! People fight over resources in the real world! So we should do in games if we want meaning.
Ooops Double post. Sorry.
Hello again!
I'm interested in getting some feedback about my original post.
As I mentioned, I think that PVP could be interesting, fair, and have that uncertainty factor that would keep danger fans truly interested.
Again, I think that characters should mirror humans in that they will all be equally vulnerable. I'm a 39 year old man that can bench press well over 300 pounds, but if confronted by a 12 year old with a machine gun, I would die. However, if I had full body armor on, then my size and age might provide me with an advantage, but let's hope that I don't need to test that theory.
So:
1. all characters will have much the same HP that will never change.
2. Learned or earned moves/powers provide attacks that lower or different characters do not have. Delivering these attacks is what counts, because if they can't be then the little guy wins.
3. Armor, amulets, spells, weapons, and what have you provide the difference between you and the other guy. That would mean that a fairly new person could get some gear from a vet friend and be able to protect themselves pretty well. Maybe a system of loans could be given in game that one's character would have to pay off, or maybe that's too much like real life.
Anyway, I'm curious about your opinions and whether or not such a system would be interesting and what you see was the cost/benefit of it all.
In reference to the post imediately before this one, that system you propose sounds like how most systems end up once you reach the top level in most of these games out there. For instance, in WoW at level 60, you gear differentiates you from others. In DAOC, if you are a veteran of RvR, you are going to have some moves that other players don't have.
Furthermore, once you have pretty much maxed your level, everybody has pretty much the same hp, excepting special bonuses, skills, etc. It's hard to say what hit points really ARE anyway. Maybe they more reflect your skills at avoiding death until you get too tired, too careless, and that kid with the machine gun finally hits you in the stomach whereas before you were getting away. Perhaps, the difference in hit points between a kid and you reflects the fact that you might survive an encounter with a 12-year old trying to fire a maching gun at you than if the roles are reversed. In other words, he wouldn't know how to avoid getting killed as easily as you would. If it is merely wounding, then it seems like your abilities should drop with your hit points, but I don't see many games where that is the case. You are fine until you die.
I would say that EVE comes close to what you are talking about. You have to have your character learn the proper use of various kinds of technology while good gear gives a decent advantage. You don't have levels, and you are as mortal as the next guy (meaning you have a clone stored away somewhere). If you blow up, you blow up. Friends can give you stuff to help you out early on. You just have to learn how to use it well. It's a space game, of course. Perhaps you are thinking more in line with your fantasy type games. I think more of your skills based games are more what you are talking about.
For example, Ultima Online allowed you to wear anything anybody gave you but you had to practice skills to get good at using that equipment. People had pretty much the same hit points as I recall.
Another example might be Planetside. You can get the exact same equipment, but again, you gradually learn skills over time.
I always considered HP to be "health points". They generally represent, roughly, your endurance, while your ability to avoid hits is define by your agility. Thus a warrior with a lot of endurance should be able to take more hits than a rogue, but this rogue will be able to dodge more than the warrior.
Of course, this is not so balanced, but that's the idea : with time and experience, you gain endurance and the capacity of taking more hits in a row. Give a slap to a child, and he may feel hurt and cry. Give the same slap to an adult, and he will just feel offended. This gun example just represent the highlevel spell that takes anyone 5000 points... Now, in those fantasy games the gun/spell is hard enough to master so that no 12 years old could use it.
Would be interesting to have this fixed.
Just wait for Guild Wars: Factions...
Not equipment based, not level based, both arena and RvR (alliance v alliance) combat, cooperative and competitive PvP and PvE. And all in a tried-and-tested package which already has the BEST skill system around!
Anyone who doesn't like GW PvP is most likely a whining ganker
as a matter of fact i did when it first came out. for a whole 3 HOURS.not only coujld they KILL you as soon as you walked out of a town ,but loot your body. next dumb question
if you want a pvp game play one of the thousands of first person shooters that are out there.like half life.of course like i said they dont play those games cause its sort of EVEN.you have to actually work and hunt people down. its not fun unless you can kill a guy 10 times over,at his corpse.or people 20 lvls lower.
You are both full of it. Your opinions are valid; for yourselves and only for yourselves. Some of us - (actually more than either of you care to admit) do NOT think PvP adds anything positive to MMORPGs.
I don't play MMORPGs for the interaction with other players - I play it to "live" in a persistant world that I enjoy and to continue playing a game that doesn't have to end. Thank God for companies that recognize this and offer PvP free servers. Now if only we could get them to be solo friendly.
Stop forcing your opinions on those of us who do not enjoy PvP.
"Life is too short to play nerfed characters."
Paldarion what is it that you object to in PvP and what do you think can be done to improve PvP without removing it all together?
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
-- The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost
I think Sovrath's Post is on the money, I have played Shadowbane, EVE, EQLive(pvp), PlanetSide on the PVP side. I like Meaningfull PVP Currently I play EQ2 on a Non-PVP server but since the introduction of the PVP servers also have a Char on the PVP servers and do think is has meaning limits and restiction that I enjoy.
Examples are:
EVE online you jump into a system that has a low security level. There is a bigger nastier ship there you have 2 choices die or warp.(If they have no warp Scramblers)
EQ2 fix which is top notch for me was if you leave an area while under pvp agro. you cant come back for a bit. This stops the, I'm going to camp the zone and fight people but if I can't handle the person I attacked I'll touch the perverbial "Base".
Personally, I started SB to try out the PvP, WAY after the game came out. Which means I was at the low end of the totem pole when it came to levels. What was frustrating to me was just like in other games I'm level "X" your level "X times 3" There isn't any way that I can do anything a biting ant can't do to you. So at level 20 I was killed by so many people that I wasn't even a challenge to, then I felt like the Ant under the magnifing glass.
So yes I don't like OPEN PvP because of what everyone would consider as "Teenager" Mentality with a god complex so I stopped playing that.
The only PvP game that comes to mind that is half fair for OPEN pvp is PlanetSide because a rank 5 Can kill a Rank 10 with skill.
In most fantasy based games there isn't any way a lvl 20 is killing a lvl 40. (Unless hes sleeping having a smoke, Taking a bio break, or generally AFK)
The thing is there is no right answer to all for this because, all of the before mentioned games here are still making money. So someone has to like it
I think for now EQ2 or PlanetSide are my nitch in the PvP world.
Or maybe a person who want to play a mmoRPG where his character can possess weapons that can cut plus or less depending of the importance of the endurance of his oponent and of the degree of resistance of his clothes. Well, someone who wants to play something a little bit coherent... like, a world in wich you don't have to be transported into some strange "instance" to be able to fight. Of course, such a thing can be explained by some sort of Gods Protection but... is it ? It's certainly not in WoW, and I would be surprised if it was in any game... I still wait to see the game that will explain the particularities of the gameplay into it's bakground.
PVP has this advantage : it makes the world coherent and prevent it from being uninteresting. I mean... A world where gods prevent the masses from killing each others ? That sure would be beautifull, but in a game that would make a "my little poney" world. Or some things would still have to find a explanation : how come we can fight those monsters and evil PNJs ? Because they're evil, right... But how come Gods don't prevent those mobs from hurting us ? Hard one... oh yes... Maybe... Because we need to hurt them, actually. They ARE evil after all, and they can do evil things like stealing us, or occupying our mines. Oh yes, that's true. So we need to have a way to punish them and get them out of our places... Maybe that's the reason why PVP is so coherent : because some people are not sensible to words...
Of course, those same people are the one who can make of pvp a bad experience...
I note most of you just consider the pvp "as it is", and not an ounce "as it could be"
Do you really focus on your bad experiences without realizing they are caused bad, incomplete, or just immature game designs ?
Come on... Just imagine that the first two players games had been in the super mario bros fashion : I play, you play, I play, you play. Would you say "two players games suck, it's just boring to have to wait while the other plays" then ? Couldn't you then imagine a game in wich both player can play at the same time ?
It's the same here. Can't you just consider the idea that maybe it would be possible to make a game that would feature a pvp system that would satisfy a wide range of player ?
You know, the P of MMORPG doesn't stand for "persistant"... Before being persistant, those games are "Massively Multiplayer". Of course, there is what you do that will impact the world, but what -really- imact the word is the mass of players.
And what kind of imact are we talking about ? What kind of "persistance" ? I suppose you're not talking about the way you can personnalise your house... because you can do the same thing in other offline games (Animal Forest is a good example in the "neverending" kind ~__^) So, what else... Well the way you can conquer lands generally involve pvp, I guess... I know ! Economy ! Of course, you can craft and participate in the economy of the game... But wait. When you sell your cloth/weapon/armor/tool to an other player at a price lower than what yet another player propose... isn't about interaction ? isn't it about "player vs player" ?
A persistant world IS about interaction, and therefore IS about competition between players : because the world isn't large enough to prevent people from meating, interracting, and confronting with each others. A a world large enough to do that would have no interrest as a MMORPG : is would be a solo game.
But I don't say you HAVE to play PVP. Simply I think it is possible to content both pvp and pve adepts in a coherent world.
But anyway, if you really don't want to hear about anything pvp... why are you reading this thread ?
Using EVE as an example of FFA PvP is misleading to those who haven't played it. While EVE does have an excellent ship usefulness system (all sizes of ships are useful, and it is possible to effectively engage larger ships using superior numbers/tactics), it also has large chunks of area that are very much not FFA PvP - Empire space.
Yes, you can still technically kill someone there, but due to the immediate and basically unavoidable concesequence of getting nuked yourself, it functions very much like a safe zone. A more accurate depiction of normal EVE play, is that it has regions - 'safe' regions, FFA PvP regions, and a region that's mostly FFA with a little more security (not much).
And yes, it does work quite well. But I think the fact that a player chooses when they are ready to enter that zone is what enables it to do so. Remove Concord (the police force) from all areas of space, and it would be a completely frustrating experience for newer and less aggressive players, to the point where I think EVE's population would be far lower.
Key factors for PvP seem to be:
Provide these things, and PvP becomes desirable.
Don't get me wrong I do like how EVE has built the PvP Engine.
On the first Key factors EVE does it to a point with Target of Larger weapons (For those who don't know the bigger your ship and the bigger the weapons the less likly you will hit smaller ships making ship agility a factor in EVE.
I Also understand the last key but. I would be interested to hear some ideas about the middle one.
"The ability to choose whether or not to engage in PvP in a given session. "
Now I know that SWG (Ok I played it for a bit, Hard to admit) used a system where you would declare you allegence to Rebel or Empire Poof PVP enabled this became negated by the fact that when I wanted to PvP I would walk around for hours and not find anyone that wanted a we bit of action.
How would you combat that?
To be honest, I am a "casual" player with a job and a family and I usually prefer to solo. I do belong to a multi-world Guild I helped found and we;ve played them all since MORPGs were first introduced. Many of our members - who are older like me, do not enjoy PvP and find it just a nuisance.
When I'm out adventuring, I don't like the "interruption" of PvP with my limited time. Its just a pain in the ass. Worst of all are the gankers, of course, but those who insist on attacking you, even when you explain that you have no interest in PvP just jade you to the whole PvP thing.
In WoW I would occasionally play a faction for fun, but those times were rare. PvP frankly drove me away from a few games, but in general, I gave up on specific MMORPGs (EQ, AC, AC2, AO, DAoC, and a few other less popular ones) when things became impossible to solo. And ALL MMORPGs I've played so far have that "glass level cap" where groups or megaguilds can advance and solo players are left in the dust.
I don't know how many times I've heard the lame idiots out there saying "well just play single player games." Trust me, if they made single player versions of the MMORPGs I'd be playing them. My on-line time will probably go to near zero as soon as Oblivion comes out (assuming its an OK game).
In the past I'd go ahead and buy and pay monthly fees for games knowing I'd never get to finish them, but not any more. That's why I let D&D Stormreach sit on the shelf. Currently I am only active in GW while I still have characters in at least 5 games.
I knoew I'm not the "average MMORPG player." After all, I'm not in Middle School
But I know there is a market for players like me - we are constantly on the forums trying to at least get a few crumbs from the table, so to speak. If a game ever came out catering to casual solo players, they'd have a loyal player base for a long, long time.
Flame away, I habe asbestos grieves of fire protection +5
"Life is too short to play nerfed characters."