I was waiting for this response and I thank you for raising it. Here is where I will see you, and raise you one. There seems to be this preconceived wide-spread misconception among the PvP crowd that, as a rule, PvP game play is deeper, fairer, more interesting, and/or tougher to master than PvE game play when nothing could be further from the truth. In any computerized chess game, or any computerized game for that matter, the competition provided to the player is only as deep, fair, more interesting, or tougher to master as the developers/programmers of that game make it.
The bad rap that PvE game play has received as being easy mode in MMORPGs has very little to do with the lack of skill in the PvE players that play them, and everything to do with the developers that make them. Anyone claiming that the PvE AI of an MMORPG can not be programmed and developed in a manner that would make it deeper, fairer, more interesting, or tougher to master than PvP, frankly knows very little when it comes to computer technology. The only reason developers do not make deeper, fairer, more interesting, or tougher to master PvE game play is because of money.
In an effort to appeal to the widest audience and thereby garner the largest profit, developers must find a happy medium that is inclusive of the lowest denominator. PvE games are intentionally developed to be easy-mode but they don't have to be, and it is through no fault of PvE game play or the players who prefer that game style, that they are saddled with this type of game play as many of them would love nothing more than deeper, fairer, more interesting, and tougher to master PvE game play.
In short, a computerized chess game can be programmed to play just as difficult, and in most cases programmed to be much more difficult to master, than the competition presented by the vast majority of human opponents. This principle applies to the vast majority of computerized games, with the MMORPG genre being no exception. The adversity that PvE players harbor against PvP is not due to it being deeper, fairer, more interesting, or tougher to master than PvE. Their adversity is rooted in the toxic, rude and obnoxious behavior often displayed by those in the PvP community. You can rest assured that if humans behaved like computers, there would be very little, if any, adversity to PvP in the MMORPG video game genre.
A Straw Man is a fallacy where, essentially, you're arguing with an imaginary opponent.
Your post is about PVP vs. PVE. You're the only one who brought up PVE.
So your post is a Straw Man: You're not replying to what was actually said, but to some imaginary opponent.
If you have any interest in joining the conversation and replying to what people are actually saying, here's a recap:
In PVP, not all forms of competition are equally interesting.
Deep PVP is more interesting than shallow
A significant portion of MMORPG PVP (and specifically: nearly all World PVP) is Shallow PVP.
To fill in slightly more details:
Depth is the result of a game offering challenging decisions (decisions which aren't easily mastered.) Chess' decisions are difficult to master; Tic-Tac-Toe's are not.
Depth also requires a certain frequency of decision-making. One deep decision for 1% of the gameplay won't offset the remaining 99% of gameplay being shallow. This is present in a lot of time-constrained games (both MMORPG and otherwise), and just arbitrarily makes these games take longer to play, but isn't actually deeper.
Depth also requires that shallow decisions aren't allowed to trump deeper ones. Chess is deep, but if you could bring 5 friends into a Chess match Chess would be shallow (even though we haven't removed Chess' deep decision set, the fact that one easy decision now dominates gameplay will have made Chess incredibly shallow.)
Most MMORPGs don't have particularly deep systems in the first place (#1), but when they have excessive timesinks they fail #2, and with "bring more friends" and "be higher level" they often fail #3 (especially in any World PVP game, MMORPG or otherwise.)
Ironically enough, you are the one presenting a straw man argument. You probably missed my most recent post which addressed Kano's post. Please go back an read it as it applies specifically to my reply to Kano's post. My reply to your post had nothing to do with Kano's post and everything to do with the content of your post in which you described PvP as being deeper, fairer, more interesting, and/or tougher to master. If your reference was not in comparison to PvE game play, then you need to be specific as to what it is that you are making your comparison. I presumed your comparison was being made to PvE game play, which stands as the only viable comparison given the topic at hand, and my post response reflected that presumption.
That said, the title of this thread is "Does everyone hate PvP? not "Does everyone hate PvP, and do not mention anything as to how that may relate to PvE." A vast majority of posters who "hate' PvP, are of the PvE variety. And their reasons for "hating" PvP is because of how it affects their PvE game play. If this thread's intent was to exclude their input, then it should have specified that intent. Yet it did not.
Posters are offering their reasons as to "why they hate PvP," and since the question is open ended, it stands to reason that their reasons for hating PvP should be open ended as well. Just because you and Kano chose to make it just about PvP, and your opinions as to why you hate, or think people hate, PvP without regard to how it affects PvE or a PvE player's opinion as to why the hate PvP, does not mean PvE should not come into the discussion. If you want to post a thread discussing why people hate PvP, without mention of PvE, then you may want to narrow that thread discussion to that topic and title it "Does everyone hate PvP, and do not mention anything as to how that may relate to PvE or anything else," and you will receive the narrower version of discussion that you so ardently seek.
What about the players that like to find a challenge fighting against the odds? Wouldnt that require a higher lvl of mastery than 100% fair play?
Survival games are very popular and are basically gankboxes. Whats the difference with MMORPGS? The combat is FPS so the skill ceilling is higher, and equipment doesnt make that much of a difference. If you can land headshots consistently with a bow or even a wood spear, you might be able to kill a full armored lesser skilled player. This also make your 2nd point less valid, since there ARE ways to fight back against "shallow" factors like getting zerged, hell I can link you to videos of people 1v10ing other players in equal/better gear. I guess you could say they could always bring 20, but you always have the chance to at least escape, which is impossible in normal mmorpgs due to hard CC like stuns.
There are also lots of shallow ways to "win" in even 100% fair play games. Camping in FPS? Ganking lanes in MOBAS? Those scenarios dont seem to require much skills or "mastery" either...
Well for starters that just isn't necessary. Those players definitely aren't consistently the #1 player worldwide in the PVP games they play.
Also, localized pop imbalances happen anyway. If I rush in around that corner without seeing teammate indicators in Overwatch, then I fight a 6v1 against unfair odds. Critically this was the result of my decision in the match, rather than simply arranging unfair odds for the entirety of the match.
_ON SURVIVAL GAMES_ It's possible that, as ultra-casual PVP, the survival genre will eventually catch up to other PVP. After all you'd expect the "casual" thing to be more popular than the thing that requires skill, right?
Well currently that's still not the case as peak players today (early Sunday) of DOTA 2 (1.1 million), CS:GO (479k), and ARK (68k), with a nine-year old skill-focused FPS trailing only slightly behind that (TF2, 63k). In 2013, LoL had 12 million DAU (daily active players). It seems safe to assume more multiplayer CoD is played than singleplayer, and COD:BO3 (2015) sold 22.52 million, trailing behind MW2 (25.01), Ghost (27.52), BO2 (29.57), BO1 (30.26), and MW3 (30.7).
With an ultra-conservative estimate that only 30% of interest in CoD:BO3 was multiplayer, that leaves us with 6.76 million sales. That still dwarfs ARK's 3.3 mill (if we assume 100% of interest in ARK was PVP, which isn't the case) added to H1Z1's 2.5 mill. Maybe if you added up all the other survival games, pretended 100% of interest in those games was PVP, and continued pretending only 30% of interest in CoD was PVP, maybe you'd finally have stretched the numbers enough at that point to surpass one single PVP game. But then you'd look around and realize LoL and DoTA2 and SF5 and Overwatch are all out there, and they're all competition-focused PVP.
So currently, the hard numbers show that interest in this type of casual PVP is still very small (in spite of being casual.)
_ON THE STUPIDITY OF PLAYING THE LOTTERY_ I could post data on the odds of winning the lottery. It would show that it's an objectively bad choice.
Someone might respond with a video of someone winning the lottery, claiming it invalidated my point.
Of course any sane onlooker will immediately realize it doesn't invalidate my point -- the objective evidence never claimed that winning never happened, it merely pointed out that it's not a good choice (the odds of a negative outcome are dramatically higher than those of a positive outcome.)
Unfortunately you've made that same exact mistake by bringing up your videos of 1v10 fights. Yeah once every so often a player does that, but it doesn't exactly change the overall reality we're discussing now, does it? Nobody claimed it's impossible to beat the odds. It's only being pointed out that it's stupid to even bother, because better games exist.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
One game that pure PVE'er's always seem to mention when they talk about their hate of PVP is EVE Online. When they do this, however, it makes me wonder if they've actually played it, or just heard about it and believed the lies.
To be quite honest, EVE gives PVE'ers tons of game mechanics that can be used to easily avoid PVP. In fact, you pretty much have be trying to PVP in order to get blown up in EVE. It's so incredibly easy to avoid a fight, that my fleets sometimes undock and roam for two hours without finding anyone who is willing to fight, and we simply don't get to PVP.
This is very true. PvP is a constant in EvE. But as H0urg1ass said, its very easy to react to or even avoid. I believe that EvE works so well as a PvP sandbox because of its absolute reliance between PvP and PvE players. Without miners and industrialists, the PvP players would have no ships to fly. Everything is made by the players. More MMO's need to have this dynamic. Make PvP players rely on PvE players to make the equipment they use. Make PvP players actually want to defend their gatherer and crafters. Have some crafting materials drop in more dangerous areas (i.e. Raids, Dungeons, or contested areas). Make territory actually matter. The divide between PvP and PvE will always exist but interdependance between both sides would lessen it.
Nah in EVE the main game is interstellar PvP. The Miners and Industrialists only exist to fuel the PvP actions. The non-combat suppliers just exist to free up fighters to concentrate on fighting time. Everything the miner or Industrialist accomplishes means little unless they choose to fight, or have a dependent fighter protecting them.
EVE is just a prison simulator.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Love pvp, love full loot, dont love ganking new people. Love the challege of fighting out numbered and playing smart to win! Pvp will always make games more fun, most of the time it also makes pve fun for me as well.
Nothing is more boring than killing mindless npc's with predictable reactions. Maybe i am weird but i enjoy having to watch my back while I grind.
I had so few fair fights in PVP...Either the opponent was way higher in level/skill/gear or I was outnumbered...Eventually I just hit a point where I didnt care...Also the playerbases in many of the PVP games were just awful
MMO PVP has always been just stupid to me. But devs have to get as many players in their game as they can so its there. Its a waste of resources. And classes are always changing with so called re balancing because some QQ warrior got beat in PVP by a mage. PVP belongs only in shooters which i love.
PvP = You are fighting an opponent that is not predictable to a certain degree.
Been pvping on FFXIV's mana JP data center in the new "shatter" frontlines map. JP pvp actually has incredible teamwork, unlike the NA data center PvP which has imploded itself due to overwhelming toxicity in the community.
I like the concept of PvP - it is just implemented poorly (in my opinion) in MMORPGs.
Caveat: I play PvE and avoid PvP as a matter of preference so take this post from this point of view.
In the ones I have played PvP seems to have been an after thought. There is no reason for it and there are no consequences for frivolous attacks. It is lauded as smart game play to wait for someone to finish a fight and then jump them (how heroic O.o ). Then there are the spawn campers - I understand this is theoretically a small percentage, but is it worth my time? I would have to say 'no'.
You might say that all of this could be fixed in development - It has been my experience that the playerbase can always find ways to get around the restrictions placed. For some people that is a game itself
So after these semi-coherent musings I would say that I 'hate' PvP because it is not worth the hassle. So you stick to PvP and I will play the games I like (without or refusing to participate in PvP).
For the love of all that is holy, DO NOT compare FPS, MOBAs or any of those !@#% games to MMORPGs. Doing so just proves what is wrong with the MMORPG community and why it's so @#%@ed up now because you keep trying to bring that single serving, fast paced, instant gratification crap into a genre that was never meant to please that crowd.
MMORPGs are...
Adventurous aka SLOW PROGRESSION
Gear Based aka TIERED PROGRESSION
Trinity System aka NOT UNIVERSAL SOLDIER
Huge Worlds aka NOT 2 - 64 PLAYER MAPS
Interactive / Dynamic aka NOT MEANINGLESS
Tab Targeting aka NOT ACTION COMBAT
Aside from that, PvP has become a joke, even in your so called PvP focused genres, such as FPS and so on. There isn't a single FPS game, even OW that doesn't have cheaters using 3rd party computer programs to either make the game fun for them or make the game less fun for others. If the competition is so popular, than why do so many people cheat? Because developers create a game where PvP skill = hand eye coordination aka TWITCH combat and that only appeals to younger players.
The MMORPG genre was built on the concept of pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons. There is no TWITCH in a dice rolling game. The skill in PvP comes from thought process, tactics and other similar strategies. The FPS community has simply warped the MMORPG community to please their style of action combat, instant gratification and TWITCH skill nonsense.
This doesn't mean we can't have games for everyone, but it seems to me, a lot of the FPS / MOBA community that play MMO's sure do their best to completely convert MMORPGs into something the veteran / hardcore MMORPG fans do not want. Which is fair PvP based off progression and time invested in your character. We also want consequences for griefing and ganking which does not exist in the FPS / MOBA genre. So, I will repeat for good measure... DO NOT compare that !#%@ to the MMORPG genre.
Your opinion is a bit like some car manufacturer rejecting a superior air filter technology because it came from a truck manufacturer. He rants, "DO NOT compare cars with trucks, you're exactly what's wrong with auto manufacture" and chooses ignorance over knowledge.
Game genres each have unique traits, but there is a ton of similarity too. There is a ton of cross-genre learning which is directly applicable.
Calling PVP "a joke" because of the amount of cheating is as ignorant a belief as calling all Islamic people terrorists. As a skilled FPS player (typically top 1-2%) I haven't seen a single cheater in Overwatch yet. I'm sure I could track down a video of a single cheater online -- just as I could track down a video of a single Islamic terrorist. In both cases, using that single piece of evidence to judge the entire category is ignorance.
MMORPGs are built on 35+ years of videogame RPGs, which only vaguely in that far past are built on D&D. Probably the single greatest improvement to videogame RPGs came when companies stopped replicating the terrible AD&D 2nd Edition combat and did their own thing more often.
AD&D was designed for tabletop play. It works for tabletop play. It doesn't work elsewhere.
That's where our analogy gets a bit more nuanced, because AD&D 2nd Edition was a bit like taking an entire truck engine piece-for-piece and using it in a car: a dumb move. Whereas with the earlier air filter technology, it was the technique that was copied (a smaller car-appropriate version of the air filter would be used, naturally.)
Battlegrounds took existing PVP design and translated it to MMORPGs. When MMORPGs provide both world PVP and Battlegrounds, players choose Battlegrounds. That's just one concrete example of where being inspired by other genres has worked.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To the OP, I'll do this quick, find me a PvE player that enjoys a open PvP world MMORPG with full loot. PvP is a useless feature in a MMORPG, for every 100 PvE'er you got 1 PvP'er, and that 1 PvP'er will find a way to screw the 100 PvE'ers gaming experience. So in the end, take the PvP garbage out of MMORPG's and we might actually get some nice titles in the near future. If I want to PvP, I'll go play CoD with some kids that thinks the world owns them everything, lol.
Many MMORPG PvP fans can't get into games like CoD or even MOBA's, because PvP with a purpose is more fun, and PvP that has a lasting effect on the game. The competition is fun, sure, but it's the overarching meaning attached to it that makes it so enjoyable.
Not really, it's because shooters and MOBAs are more balanced requiring skills. Most MMO pvpers are more interested in gaining power to dominate as opposed to actual competition.
Ironically enough, you are the one presenting a straw man argument. You probably missed my most recent post which addressed Kano's post. Please go back an read it as it applies specifically to my reply to Kano's post. My reply to your post had nothing to do with Kano's post and everything to do with the content of your post in which you described PvP as being deeper, fairer, more interesting, and/or tougher to master. If your reference was not in comparison to PvE game play, then you need to be specific as to what it is that you are making your comparison. I presumed your comparison was being made to PvE game play, which stands as the only viable comparison given the topic at hand, and my post response reflected that presumption.
That said, the title of this thread is "Does everyone hate PvP? not "Does everyone hate PvP, and do not mention anything as to how that may relate to PvE." A vast majority of posters who "hate' PvP, are of the PvE variety. And their reasons for "hating" PvP is because of how it affects their PvE game play. If this thread's intent was to exclude their input, then it should have specified that intent. Yet it did not.
Posters are offering their reasons as to "why they hate PvP," and since the question is open ended, it stands to reason that their reasons for hating PvP should be open ended as well. Just because you and Kano chose to make it just about PvP, and your opinions as to why you hate, or think people hate, PvP without regard to how it affects PvE or a PvE player's opinion as to why the hate PvP, does not mean PvE should not come into the discussion. If you want to post a thread discussing why people hate PvP, without mention of PvE, then you may want to narrow that thread discussion to that topic and title it "Does everyone hate PvP, and do not mention anything as to how that may relate to PvE or anything else," and you will receive the narrower version of discussion that you so ardently seek.
This isn't rocket surgery...
The thread was about whether players hate PVP.
Kano replied to the thread pointing out players don't hate PVP, in fact they enjoy 100% skill based PVP (implying there is PVP which isn't 100% skill based which players aren't as likely to enjoy.)
You implied his sentence didn't make sense, even though it did. Then you immediately launched into comments about non-PVP competition (which is offtopic.)
I replied, pointing out how Kano's point was not all PVP is created equal.
You went off on a straw man tangent, thinking I was talking about PVE.
So everyone's talking about PVP except you, and only you were making a Straw Man argument.
"Does everyone hate PVP?" just isn't asked in FPS, MOBA, RTS forums. It's not asked because people look around and see lots of interest in PVP.
Conversely if you look around MMORPG PVP, you see very little interest. So a handful might assume many dislike PVP, when in fact PVP is incredibly popular when done correctly and it's only a matter of MMORPG PVP being done particularly bad that limits its popularity.
So, understanding that context, the actual answer to the conversation is simply "They don't, they just hate bad PVP and MMORPG PVP is bad PVP."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Ironically enough, you are the one presenting a straw man argument. You probably missed my most recent post which addressed Kano's post. Please go back an read it as it applies specifically to my reply to Kano's post. My reply to your post had nothing to do with Kano's post and everything to do with the content of your post in which you described PvP as being deeper, fairer, more interesting, and/or tougher to master. If your reference was not in comparison to PvE game play, then you need to be specific as to what it is that you are making your comparison. I presumed your comparison was being made to PvE game play, which stands as the only viable comparison given the topic at hand, and my post response reflected that presumption.
That said, the title of this thread is "Does everyone hate PvP? not "Does everyone hate PvP, and do not mention anything as to how that may relate to PvE." A vast majority of posters who "hate' PvP, are of the PvE variety. And their reasons for "hating" PvP is because of how it affects their PvE game play. If this thread's intent was to exclude their input, then it should have specified that intent. Yet it did not.
Posters are offering their reasons as to "why they hate PvP," and since the question is open ended, it stands to reason that their reasons for hating PvP should be open ended as well. Just because you and Kano chose to make it just about PvP, and your opinions as to why you hate, or think people hate, PvP without regard to how it affects PvE or a PvE player's opinion as to why the hate PvP, does not mean PvE should not come into the discussion. If you want to post a thread discussing why people hate PvP, without mention of PvE, then you may want to narrow that thread discussion to that topic and title it "Does everyone hate PvP, and do not mention anything as to how that may relate to PvE or anything else," and you will receive the narrower version of discussion that you so ardently seek.
This isn't rocket surgery...
The thread was about whether players hate PVP.
Kano replied to the thread pointing out players don't hate PVP, in fact they enjoy 100% skill based PVP (implying there is PVP which isn't 100% skill based which players aren't as likely to enjoy.)
You implied his sentence didn't make sense, even though it did. Then you immediately launched into comments about non-PVP competition (which is offtopic.)
I replied, pointing out how Kano's point was not all PVP is created equal.
You went off on a straw man tangent, thinking I was talking about PVE.
So everyone's talking about PVP except you, and only you were making a Straw Man argument.
"Does everyone hate PVP?" just isn't asked in FPS, MOBA, RTS forums. It's not asked because people look around and see lots of interest in PVP.
Conversely if you look around MMORPG PVP, you see very little interest. So a handful might assume many dislike PVP, when in fact PVP is incredibly popular when done correctly and it's only a matter of MMORPG PVP being done particularly bad that limits its popularity.
So, understanding that context, the actual answer to the conversation is simply "They don't, they just hate bad PVP and MMORPG PVP is bad PVP."
Your and Kano's post didn't make sense in the initial posts I responded to, and I clearly delineated in very simple terms the common sense reasons why they did not given the thread topic at hand. They did not make sense then, they are not making sense now, and they will never make sense no matter how much you try to muddy the conversation with word semantics and your narrow PvP-centric points of view.
You can continue posting till your face turns blue but you aren't posting in a vacuum. Everyone else can clearly read what we're all posting. Sometimes its just a lot smarter for a person to cut their losses and stop while they're behind, than to continue making a fool of themselves in an attempt to defend the indefensible.
My prior posts explain it all in very clear detail. You add nothing to the conversation with your above post but to reinforce the notion that only your PvP-centric point of view is important, and to hell with anyone else who dares present a differing point of view. You are a legend in your own mind, Mr. Skilled Top 1-2% FPS player *sic*. It is abundantly clear that I am wasting my time attempting to reason with narcissistic PvP-centric folk who believe that their narrow-minded opinions speak for us all, even when the threat title invites all manner of response with an open ended question like "Does e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e hate PvP?
You and Kano didn't make sense in the respective initial posts I responded to, and I clearly delineated, in very simple terms, the common sense reasons why those posts were flawed. Your posts did not make sense then, they are not making sense now, and no matter how much you try to muddy the conversation with word semantics and your narrow PvP-centric point of view, what you are trying to sell will never make sense. It's almost as if you are totaling disregarding the common sense responses I have provided you in my posts and are barreling ahead like a headless chicken.
You can keep posting till your face turns blue but you aren't posting in a vacuum. Everyone else can clearly read what we're all posting. Sometimes its just a lot smarter for a person to cut their losses and stop while they're behind, than to continue making a fool of themselves in an attempt to defend the indefensible.
My prior posts explain it all in very clear detail. You add nothing to the conversation with your above post but to reinforce the notion that only your PvP-centric point of view is important, and the hell with anyone else who dares present a differing point of view. You are a legend in your own mind, only. I will not repeat myself. I am done wasting my time responding to nonsense retorts.
It did make sense though.
He said people like skill-based PVP and gave an example (Chess.)
He cited specific non-skill factors plaguing bad PVP games (progression and population imbalances.)
He described another widely disliked MMORPG mechanic (not keeping PVE and PVP game modes sufficiently separate.)
He reached the natural conclusion, supported by the popularity of good vs. bad PVP games, that "players hate UNFAIR, UNBALANCED PvP"
Everything he said made sense.
Those are the reasons MMORPG PVP is unpopular while typical PVP is quite popular.
It's NOT rational to barge into a thread about Basketball, start talking about Overwatch, and then have the nerve to call someone "Basketball-centric" just because they ask you to keep conversation to the topic at hand.
It's NOT rational to do that with PVE in this PVP thread. I play a broad mix of both types of games, and spend slightly more time in PVE than PVP games.
It's NOT rational to be the guy bringing up PVE in a PVP thread, and simultaneously complaining about "muddying" conversation. It's a conversation about PVP, and the answer to the OP is a simple
PVP isn't hated
Only MMORPG PVP is unpopular
The bullets above (from Kano's post) explain why.
As for my adding "nothing to the conversation"?
Let's say I post evidence showing Newton's Laws of Motion.
You might make a post saying "I don't believe that."
I would repeat the evidence.
From your point of view I've "added nothing". But the actual catalyst for the conversational standstill was your unwillingness to accept logic or evidence.
Truth doesn't magically change just because you toss a forum post at it. Either you throw something with weight behind it (logic and evidence) or you accept it, or conversation sits at a standstill as you continually fail to dispute what was said.
Kano's points stand. They make sense and you haven't disputed them, so conversation won't proceed past this point unless you choose to behave rationally. Additionally, PVE continues to be off-topic and it'd be great if you didn't make Overwatch posts in a Basketball thread. Apart from that, if you feel like discussing things rationally that'd be great!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
He said people like skill-based PVP and gave an example (Chess.)
He cited specific non-skill factors plaguing bad PVP games (progression and population imbalances.)
He described another widely disliked MMORPG mechanic (not keeping PVE and PVP game modes sufficiently separate.)
He reached the natural conclusion, supported by the popularity of good vs. bad PVP games, that "players hate UNFAIR, UNBALANCED PvP"
Everything he said made sense.
Those are the reasons MMORPG PVP is unpopular while typical PVP is quite popular.
It's NOT rational to barge into a thread about Basketball, start talking about Overwatch, and then have the nerve to call someone "Basketball-centric" just because they ask you to keep conversation to the topic at hand.
It's NOT rational to do that with PVE in this PVP thread. I play a broad mix of both types of games, and spend slightly more time in PVE than PVP games.
It's NOT rational to be the guy bringing up PVE in a PVP thread, and simultaneously complaining about "muddying" conversation. It's a conversation about PVP, and the answer to the OP is a simple
PVP isn't hated
Only MMORPG PVP is unpopular
The bullets above (from Kano's post) explain why.
As for my adding "nothing to the conversation"?
Let's say I post evidence showing Newton's Laws of Motion.
You might make a post saying "I don't believe that."
I would repeat the evidence.
From your point of view I've "added nothing". But the actual catalyst for the conversational standstill was your unwillingness to accept logic or evidence.
Truth doesn't magically change just because you toss a forum post at it. Either you throw something with weight behind it (logic and evidence) or you accept it, or conversation sits at a standstill as you continually fail to dispute what was said.
Kano's points stand. They make sense and you haven't disputed them, so conversation won't proceed past this point unless you choose to behave rationally. Additionally, PVE continues to be off-topic and it'd be great if you didn't make Overwatch posts in a Basketball thread. Apart from that, if you feel like discussing things rationally that'd be great!
PvP players do not "hate" PvP. They may "dislike" PvP in the manner it is implemented in some MMORPGs, but they do not not "hate" it. If PvPers "hated" PvP, they would just quit PvPing in whatever form it is presented. But they do not. They continue PvPing because they, in fact, enjoy it, not "hate" it. Many PvEers, on the other hand, do, in fact, "hate" PvP, and they especially "hate" PvP in their MMORPGs. They actively avoid it, and openly proclaim their "hate" for it in every PvE MMORPG that has ever been released featuring PvP.
So it stands to reason that the "hate" this thread title is alluding to would be more applicalbe to the "hate" more commonly associated and discussed in the thousands of PvE vs PvP threads that repeatedly surface with every MMORPG released featuring PvE and PvP in the past 10+ decade, and not the "dislike, "dissapointment," or "dissenchantment" that may, from time to time, pop up in threads discussing lack of skill, balance, fairness or depth, which are issues prevalent in all video games irrespective of genre, and not just those featuring PvP.
Long story short, this thread is about "hating" PvP and many posters have chimed in supporting the fact that they "hate" PvP for the rude, toxic, and obnoxious behavior exhibited by PvPers and not those "indifferences" you speak of regarding skill, fairness, balance, or depth. The "hate" that myself and others are alluding to in this thread is, therefore, a lot more applicable to this thread than those common game development issues that you and a few other PvP-centric folk are narrowly attempting to assigning to it.
I will leave it at that since I genuinely feel that we have arrived at a point in which you are not offering a valid debate, but are instead going around in circles in an attempt to save face and somehow defend a flawed, narrow, and indefensible point of view.
PvP players do not "hate" PvP. They may "dislike" PvP in the manner it is implemented in some MMORPGs, but they do not not "hate" it. If PvPers "hated" PvP, they would just quit PvPing in whatever form it is presented. But they do not. They continue PvPing because they, in fact, enjoy it, not "hate" it. Many PvEers, on the other hand, do, in fact, "hate" PvP, and they especially "hate" PvP in their MMORPGs. They actively avoid it, and openly proclaim their "hate" for it in every PvE MMORPG that has ever been released featuring PvP.
So it stands to reason that the "hate" this thread title is alluding to would be more applicalbe to the "hate" more commonly associated and discussed in the thousands of PvE vs PvP threads that repeatedly surface with every MMORPG released featuring PvE and PvP in the past 10+ decade, and not the "dislike, "dissapointment," or "dissenchantment" that may, from time to time, pop up in threads discussing lack of skill, balance, fairness or depth.
Long story short, this thread is about "hating" PvP and many posters have chimed in supporting the fact that they "hate" PvP for the rude, toxic, and obnoxious behavior exhibited by PvPers and not those "indifferences" PvPers may feel about skill, fairness, balance, or depth. The "hate" that myself and others are alluding to in this thread is, therefore, a lot more applicable to this thread than those common game development issues that you and a few other PvP-centric folk are narrowly attempting to assigning to it.
I will leave it at that since I genuinely feel that we have arrived at a point in which you are not offering a valid debate, but are instead going around in circles in an attempt to save face and somehow defend a flawed and indefensible point of view.
Did you quote the wrong person?
Are you only responding to the thread title? "Does everyone hate PVP?" was just clickbait. After suckering people in with clickbait the OP stuck to very reasonable comments like "I often see negative opinions about PvP and the people who like it" and "for those of you who really really don't like PvP".
You certainly aren't replying to me. "PVP isn't hated" refers to the significant player interest in FPSes, MOBAs, RTSes, and other PVP-centric genres. Which should be obvious and we can cite game sales if you are unfamiliar with the popularity of those genres' PVP. Similarly calling MMORPG PVP unpopular doesn't resort to the inaccurate extremism of the words "hated" or "everyone" and simply states an accurate fact that it isn't very popular compared with PVP-centric genres.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Two people ranting nonsense at each other isn't very productive y'know.
The premise in the first place of "MMORPG PvP is hated" isn't even accurate as we've seen that there is a variety of way to do MMORPG PvP in the first place and that some such as with DAoC and the Lineage titles have had vastly more well reviewed PvP using their mechanics than the likes of WoW's PvP.
The solution to compartmentalize the PvP into "Battlegrounds" is simply the act of turning the PvP into a lobby game within the MMO.
The more comprehensive solution that game like Lineage 2 did with PvP flagging and guild/faction conflicts driving the PvP helped direct a lot of the PvPers into a form of play that they and the PvE crowd could largely be comfortable with, forcing things like griefing to be relegated more so to abuse of other mechanics such as running trains of mobs into town.
Open world PvP is not a singularly terrible system, but when coupled with the mechanics that games like WoW utilizes it becomes one. Given the majority of titles behave in a similar manner and use similar rule sets, that means a vast sum of MMOs have bad OWPvP because they set the concept up for abuse and failure.
For most developers, it's easier to do what is most common and most familiar, which at this point means rehashing a lobby style mechanic since they then don't have to consider any extra mechanics surrounding PvP to make it work. But at the same time this fragments the game world more and more.
Where the bulk of the problem rests is as others have stated as far back as page one with the likes of what Sov and Camel said, ganking/griefing, loss, confrontation/competition, balance, and sportsmanship are all major factors that influence the bias on such PvP. It's much ado about the mechanics in play that enable many of these elements to be a problem as well as some mindset issues that makes it into the issue it is.
When games force PvP as part of the experience it can immediately throw a wrench into the works in this manner. With contested territories and mechanics that expose players to harm without their ability to consent or reject it becomes a flaw that opens things to griefing. The solution doesn't mandate removing PvP from the game world though, simply making it a choice.
If players consent to participate in PvP then they get to participate in and benefit from the PvP mechanics and faction conflicts. That's as simple of a solution as there needs to be to let Open World PvP go from the non-functional mess that games like WoW operate it as into something that most participants can actually enjoy.
Extend that with faction conflict incentives like how DAoC had relics or into some kind of faction/guild perk system and now you have something that offers them value in opting into PvP as well.
Back when WoW first launched, for example, it was already clear that the changes Blizzard went with for their PvP and non-PvP servers was enough of a change that it was going to run into trouble. When the inevitable happened, the change to providing PvP as a lobby game was apparently easier to them than changing the rule sets and management of the PvP system.
In short, the problem is horrible rule sets and supporting mechanics that, well, fail to support anything properly.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I'm only going to respond to your last paragraph because that's basically the meat and potatoes of what you wrote. So, if we were to go back and read my other comments, we'd realize I'm not against ALL PvP, just OWPvP which is what FPS and MOBA games are based on. Just like your analogy of what works well with cars and trucks, OWPvP does not mesh well in MMORPGs. It never has and it never will, UNLESS a developer stops catering to the griefer / ganker aka FPS / MOBA genre.
I also stated in my post that this doesn't mean we can't have all kinds of games for everyone. I was merely saying people from each genre need to stop trying to hybrid them because it DOES NOT work. So, you can have an MMOFPS like Planetside 2, which I do in fact enjoy from time to time. However, action combat in an MMORPG is what I call a poor adaptation of FPS mechanics in an MMORPG. It's not so bad when it still incorporates the Trinity System such as ESO or TERA. However, MMORPGs such as GW2, while still popular to a lot of people falls short in more than a few ways in regards to meaningful or logical combat mechanics.
By OWPvP you mean open world PVP? Open world isn't about whether there's a roof over your head. OWPVP is mostly about whether team size is policed. FPSes and MOBAs are definitely not "based on" OWPVP.
But yeah, most of what you're saying here is accurate. OWPVP hasn't ever been popular. The analogy of poorly-ported mechanics doesn't fit too well, because OWPVP didn't work well in MUDs (where it originated) and didn't work well in MMORPGs (where it was ported to.) It was a bad idea everywhere, basically.
One oddity is calling action MMORPG combat "adaptation of FPS mechanics". It's a mix of WOW and Diablo style combat. FPS aiming isn't really a significant component (if at all.) Only Fallen Earth and that really old FPS-aiming MMORPG could be said to have adapted FPS mechanics. Stuff like TERA and B&S are their own unique blends of WOW/Diablo stuff, almost totally unrelated to FPSes.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm only going to respond to your last paragraph because that's basically the meat and potatoes of what you wrote. So, if we were to go back and read my other comments, we'd realize I'm not against ALL PvP, just OWPvP which is what FPS and MOBA games are based on. Just like your analogy of what works well with cars and trucks, OWPvP does not mesh well in MMORPGs. It never has and it never will, UNLESS a developer stops catering to the griefer / ganker aka FPS / MOBA genre.
I also stated in my post that this doesn't mean we can't have all kinds of games for everyone. I was merely saying people from each genre need to stop trying to hybrid them because it DOES NOT work. So, you can have an MMOFPS like Planetside 2, which I do in fact enjoy from time to time. However, action combat in an MMORPG is what I call a poor adaptation of FPS mechanics in an MMORPG. It's not so bad when it still incorporates the Trinity System such as ESO or TERA. However, MMORPGs such as GW2, while still popular to a lot of people falls short in more than a few ways in regards to meaningful or logical combat mechanics.
By OWPvP you mean open world PVP? Open world isn't about whether there's a roof over your head. OWPVP is mostly about whether team size is policed. FPSes and MOBAs are definitely not "based on" OWPVP.
But yeah, most of what you're saying here is accurate. OWPVP hasn't ever been popular. The analogy of poorly-ported mechanics doesn't fit too well, because OWPVP didn't work well in MUDs (where it originated) and didn't work well in MMORPGs (where it was ported to.) It was a bad idea everywhere, basically.
One oddity is calling action MMORPG combat "adaptation of FPS mechanics". It's a mix of WOW and Diablo style combat. FPS aiming isn't really a significant component (if at all.) Only Fallen Earth and that really old FPS-aiming MMORPG could be said to have adapted FPS mechanics. Stuff like TERA and B&S are their own unique blends of WOW/Diablo stuff, almost totally unrelated to FPSes.
Survival games tell another story, "hasnt ever been popular" doesnt really apply. Maybe in traiditional MMORPGs with huge power/gear gaps.
The last bit is true tho, action combat isnt anything remotely like FPS. Only MMORPG that fits that category would be Darkfall.
Survival games tell another story, "hasnt ever been popular" doesnt really apply. Maybe in traiditional MMORPGs with huge power/gear gaps.
The last bit is true tho, action combat isnt anything remotely like FPS. Only MMORPG that fits that category would be Darkfall.
Survival games are dwarfed by mainstream PVP (FPS / MOBA.) It's not impossible that at some point in the future that may change. I'm pretty sure this was the thread where I added up the total sales of several major survival games and noted how they don't even add up to 30% of the sales of a single CoD game (30% being the ultra-conservative estimate of the portion of CoD players buying it for PVP; and 100% of survival game sales being the ultra-generous estimate of what portion of Survival game players are buying them for PVP.) That's one single Competitive PVP game vs. the entire survival genre.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
im mostly a PVE player and i do like pvp but i hate when they try to separete the PVE from the PVP....
for me the best pvp are those who are linked to the pve aspect of the game......
special pvp gear ? that sux...
battleground , arenas ? that sux....
balance class so pvp gets "balanced" ? that sux...
i want RPG :P
so lovely to be inside a dungeon knowing someone can come thru ur back and mess all ur way.... yea it s frustrating if u loose it.... but its awesome when you win and the feeling of achievement s great....
i wish developers would stop bein so hyped and give us options...games for all the taste instead of followin ONE trendy of the moment.... like now the special is to make sandbox with generic pve, partial pvp loot , no class specialization, zerg pve world bosses, zerg pvp aspects etc...
Answers
Ironically enough, you are the one presenting a straw man argument. You probably missed my most recent post which addressed Kano's post. Please go back an read it as it applies specifically to my reply to Kano's post. My reply to your post had nothing to do with Kano's post and everything to do with the content of your post in which you described PvP as being deeper, fairer, more interesting, and/or tougher to master. If your reference was not in comparison to PvE game play, then you need to be specific as to what it is that you are making your comparison. I presumed your comparison was being made to PvE game play, which stands as the only viable comparison given the topic at hand, and my post response reflected that presumption.
That said, the title of this thread is "Does everyone hate PvP? not "Does everyone hate PvP, and do not mention anything as to how that may relate to PvE." A vast majority of posters who "hate' PvP, are of the PvE variety. And their reasons for "hating" PvP is because of how it affects their PvE game play. If this thread's intent was to exclude their input, then it should have specified that intent. Yet it did not.
Posters are offering their reasons as to "why they hate PvP," and since the question is open ended, it stands to reason that their reasons for hating PvP should be open ended as well. Just because you and Kano chose to make it just about PvP, and your opinions as to why you hate, or think people hate, PvP without regard to how it affects PvE or a PvE player's opinion as to why the hate PvP, does not mean PvE should not come into the discussion. If you want to post a thread discussing why people hate PvP, without mention of PvE, then you may want to narrow that thread discussion to that topic and title it "Does everyone hate PvP, and do not mention anything as to how that may relate to PvE or anything else," and you will receive the narrower version of discussion that you so ardently seek.
Also, localized pop imbalances happen anyway. If I rush in around that corner without seeing teammate indicators in Overwatch, then I fight a 6v1 against unfair odds. Critically this was the result of my decision in the match, rather than simply arranging unfair odds for the entirety of the match.
_ON SURVIVAL GAMES_
It's possible that, as ultra-casual PVP, the survival genre will eventually catch up to other PVP. After all you'd expect the "casual" thing to be more popular than the thing that requires skill, right?
Well currently that's still not the case as peak players today (early Sunday) of DOTA 2 (1.1 million), CS:GO (479k), and ARK (68k), with a nine-year old skill-focused FPS trailing only slightly behind that (TF2, 63k). In 2013, LoL had 12 million DAU (daily active players). It seems safe to assume more multiplayer CoD is played than singleplayer, and COD:BO3 (2015) sold 22.52 million, trailing behind MW2 (25.01), Ghost (27.52), BO2 (29.57), BO1 (30.26), and MW3 (30.7).
With an ultra-conservative estimate that only 30% of interest in CoD:BO3 was multiplayer, that leaves us with 6.76 million sales. That still dwarfs ARK's 3.3 mill (if we assume 100% of interest in ARK was PVP, which isn't the case) added to H1Z1's 2.5 mill. Maybe if you added up all the other survival games, pretended 100% of interest in those games was PVP, and continued pretending only 30% of interest in CoD was PVP, maybe you'd finally have stretched the numbers enough at that point to surpass one single PVP game. But then you'd look around and realize LoL and DoTA2 and SF5 and Overwatch are all out there, and they're all competition-focused PVP.
So currently, the hard numbers show that interest in this type of casual PVP is still very small (in spite of being casual.)
_ON THE STUPIDITY OF PLAYING THE LOTTERY_
I could post data on the odds of winning the lottery. It would show that it's an objectively bad choice.
Someone might respond with a video of someone winning the lottery, claiming it invalidated my point.
Of course any sane onlooker will immediately realize it doesn't invalidate my point -- the objective evidence never claimed that winning never happened, it merely pointed out that it's not a good choice (the odds of a negative outcome are dramatically higher than those of a positive outcome.)
Unfortunately you've made that same exact mistake by bringing up your videos of 1v10 fights. Yeah once every so often a player does that, but it doesn't exactly change the overall reality we're discussing now, does it? Nobody claimed it's impossible to beat the odds. It's only being pointed out that it's stupid to even bother, because better games exist.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
EVE is just a prison simulator.
Nothing is more boring than killing mindless npc's with predictable reactions. Maybe i am weird but i enjoy having to watch my back while I grind.
PvP = You are fighting an opponent that is not predictable to a certain degree.
Been pvping on FFXIV's mana JP data center in the new "shatter" frontlines map. JP pvp actually has incredible teamwork, unlike the NA data center PvP which has imploded itself due to overwhelming toxicity in the community.
Caveat: I play PvE and avoid PvP as a matter of preference so take this post from this point of view.
In the ones I have played PvP seems to have been an after thought. There is no reason for it and there are no consequences for frivolous attacks. It is lauded as smart game play to wait for someone to finish a fight and then jump them (how heroic O.o ). Then there are the spawn campers - I understand this is theoretically a small percentage, but is it worth my time? I would have to say 'no'.
You might say that all of this could be fixed in development - It has been my experience that the playerbase can always find ways to get around the restrictions placed. For some people that is a game itself
So after these semi-coherent musings I would say that I 'hate' PvP because it is not worth the hassle. So you stick to PvP and I will play the games I like (without or refusing to participate in PvP).
But once the trash talk and epeen-waggling takes over, I find other things to do. The more immature the chatter, the faster I'm gone.
The best pvp I've ever experienced was in Lineage due to its clan war-pvp-pk-flag system rules.
Game genres each have unique traits, but there is a ton of similarity too. There is a ton of cross-genre learning which is directly applicable.
Calling PVP "a joke" because of the amount of cheating is as ignorant a belief as calling all Islamic people terrorists. As a skilled FPS player (typically top 1-2%) I haven't seen a single cheater in Overwatch yet. I'm sure I could track down a video of a single cheater online -- just as I could track down a video of a single Islamic terrorist. In both cases, using that single piece of evidence to judge the entire category is ignorance.
MMORPGs are built on 35+ years of videogame RPGs, which only vaguely in that far past are built on D&D. Probably the single greatest improvement to videogame RPGs came when companies stopped replicating the terrible AD&D 2nd Edition combat and did their own thing more often.
AD&D was designed for tabletop play. It works for tabletop play. It doesn't work elsewhere.
That's where our analogy gets a bit more nuanced, because AD&D 2nd Edition was a bit like taking an entire truck engine piece-for-piece and using it in a car: a dumb move. Whereas with the earlier air filter technology, it was the technique that was copied (a smaller car-appropriate version of the air filter would be used, naturally.)
Battlegrounds took existing PVP design and translated it to MMORPGs. When MMORPGs provide both world PVP and Battlegrounds, players choose Battlegrounds. That's just one concrete example of where being inspired by other genres has worked.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
- The thread was about whether players hate PVP.
- Kano replied to the thread pointing out players don't hate PVP, in fact they enjoy 100% skill based PVP (implying there is PVP which isn't 100% skill based which players aren't as likely to enjoy.)
- You implied his sentence didn't make sense, even though it did. Then you immediately launched into comments about non-PVP competition (which is offtopic.)
- I replied, pointing out how Kano's point was not all PVP is created equal.
- You went off on a straw man tangent, thinking I was talking about PVE.
So everyone's talking about PVP except you, and only you were making a Straw Man argument."Does everyone hate PVP?" just isn't asked in FPS, MOBA, RTS forums. It's not asked because people look around and see lots of interest in PVP.
Conversely if you look around MMORPG PVP, you see very little interest. So a handful might assume many dislike PVP, when in fact PVP is incredibly popular when done correctly and it's only a matter of MMORPG PVP being done particularly bad that limits its popularity.
So, understanding that context, the actual answer to the conversation is simply "They don't, they just hate bad PVP and MMORPG PVP is bad PVP."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Your and Kano's post didn't make sense in the initial posts I responded to, and I clearly delineated in very simple terms the common sense reasons why they did not given the thread topic at hand. They did not make sense then, they are not making sense now, and they will never make sense no matter how much you try to muddy the conversation with word semantics and your narrow PvP-centric points of view.
You can continue posting till your face turns blue but you aren't posting in a vacuum. Everyone else can clearly read what we're all posting. Sometimes its just a lot smarter for a person to cut their losses and stop while they're behind, than to continue making a fool of themselves in an attempt to defend the indefensible.
My prior posts explain it all in very clear detail. You add nothing to the conversation with your above post but to reinforce the notion that only your PvP-centric point of view is important, and to hell with anyone else who dares present a differing point of view. You are a legend in your own mind, Mr. Skilled Top 1-2% FPS player *sic*. It is abundantly clear that I am wasting my time attempting to reason with narcissistic PvP-centric folk who believe that their narrow-minded opinions speak for us all, even when the threat title invites all manner of response with an open ended question like "Does e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e hate PvP?
- He said people like skill-based PVP and gave an example (Chess.)
- He cited specific non-skill factors plaguing bad PVP games (progression and population imbalances.)
- He described another widely disliked MMORPG mechanic (not keeping PVE and PVP game modes sufficiently separate.)
- He reached the natural conclusion, supported by the popularity of good vs. bad PVP games, that "players hate UNFAIR, UNBALANCED PvP"
Everything he said made sense.Those are the reasons MMORPG PVP is unpopular while typical PVP is quite popular.
It's NOT rational to barge into a thread about Basketball, start talking about Overwatch, and then have the nerve to call someone "Basketball-centric" just because they ask you to keep conversation to the topic at hand.
It's NOT rational to do that with PVE in this PVP thread. I play a broad mix of both types of games, and spend slightly more time in PVE than PVP games.
It's NOT rational to be the guy bringing up PVE in a PVP thread, and simultaneously complaining about "muddying" conversation. It's a conversation about PVP, and the answer to the OP is a simple
- PVP isn't hated
- Only MMORPG PVP is unpopular
- The bullets above (from Kano's post) explain why.
As for my adding "nothing to the conversation"?- Let's say I post evidence showing Newton's Laws of Motion.
- You might make a post saying "I don't believe that."
- I would repeat the evidence.
- From your point of view I've "added nothing". But the actual catalyst for the conversational standstill was your unwillingness to accept logic or evidence.
- Truth doesn't magically change just because you toss a forum post at it. Either you throw something with weight behind it (logic and evidence) or you accept it, or conversation sits at a standstill as you continually fail to dispute what was said.
Kano's points stand. They make sense and you haven't disputed them, so conversation won't proceed past this point unless you choose to behave rationally. Additionally, PVE continues to be off-topic and it'd be great if you didn't make Overwatch posts in a Basketball thread. Apart from that, if you feel like discussing things rationally that'd be great!"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
PvP players do not "hate" PvP. They may "dislike" PvP in the manner it is implemented in some MMORPGs, but they do not not "hate" it. If PvPers "hated" PvP, they would just quit PvPing in whatever form it is presented. But they do not. They continue PvPing because they, in fact, enjoy it, not "hate" it. Many PvEers, on the other hand, do, in fact, "hate" PvP, and they especially "hate" PvP in their MMORPGs. They actively avoid it, and openly proclaim their "hate" for it in every PvE MMORPG that has ever been released featuring PvP.
So it stands to reason that the "hate" this thread title is alluding to would be more applicalbe to the "hate" more commonly associated and discussed in the thousands of PvE vs PvP threads that repeatedly surface with every MMORPG released featuring PvE and PvP in the past 10+ decade, and not the "dislike, "dissapointment," or "dissenchantment" that may, from time to time, pop up in threads discussing lack of skill, balance, fairness or depth, which are issues prevalent in all video games irrespective of genre, and not just those featuring PvP.
Long story short, this thread is about "hating" PvP and many posters have chimed in supporting the fact that they "hate" PvP for the rude, toxic, and obnoxious behavior exhibited by PvPers and not those "indifferences" you speak of regarding skill, fairness, balance, or depth. The "hate" that myself and others are alluding to in this thread is, therefore, a lot more applicable to this thread than those common game development issues that you and a few other PvP-centric folk are narrowly attempting to assigning to it.
I will leave it at that since I genuinely feel that we have arrived at a point in which you are not offering a valid debate, but are instead going around in circles in an attempt to save face and somehow defend a flawed, narrow, and indefensible point of view.
Are you only responding to the thread title? "Does everyone hate PVP?" was just clickbait. After suckering people in with clickbait the OP stuck to very reasonable comments like "I often see negative opinions about PvP and the people who like it" and "for those of you who really really don't like PvP".
You certainly aren't replying to me. "PVP isn't hated" refers to the significant player interest in FPSes, MOBAs, RTSes, and other PVP-centric genres. Which should be obvious and we can cite game sales if you are unfamiliar with the popularity of those genres' PVP. Similarly calling MMORPG PVP unpopular doesn't resort to the inaccurate extremism of the words "hated" or "everyone" and simply states an accurate fact that it isn't very popular compared with PVP-centric genres.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The premise in the first place of "MMORPG PvP is hated" isn't even accurate as we've seen that there is a variety of way to do MMORPG PvP in the first place and that some such as with DAoC and the Lineage titles have had vastly more well reviewed PvP using their mechanics than the likes of WoW's PvP.
The solution to compartmentalize the PvP into "Battlegrounds" is simply the act of turning the PvP into a lobby game within the MMO.
The more comprehensive solution that game like Lineage 2 did with PvP flagging and guild/faction conflicts driving the PvP helped direct a lot of the PvPers into a form of play that they and the PvE crowd could largely be comfortable with, forcing things like griefing to be relegated more so to abuse of other mechanics such as running trains of mobs into town.
Open world PvP is not a singularly terrible system, but when coupled with the mechanics that games like WoW utilizes it becomes one. Given the majority of titles behave in a similar manner and use similar rule sets, that means a vast sum of MMOs have bad OWPvP because they set the concept up for abuse and failure.
For most developers, it's easier to do what is most common and most familiar, which at this point means rehashing a lobby style mechanic since they then don't have to consider any extra mechanics surrounding PvP to make it work. But at the same time this fragments the game world more and more.
Where the bulk of the problem rests is as others have stated as far back as page one with the likes of what Sov and Camel said, ganking/griefing, loss, confrontation/competition, balance, and sportsmanship are all major factors that influence the bias on such PvP. It's much ado about the mechanics in play that enable many of these elements to be a problem as well as some mindset issues that makes it into the issue it is.
When games force PvP as part of the experience it can immediately throw a wrench into the works in this manner. With contested territories and mechanics that expose players to harm without their ability to consent or reject it becomes a flaw that opens things to griefing. The solution doesn't mandate removing PvP from the game world though, simply making it a choice.
If players consent to participate in PvP then they get to participate in and benefit from the PvP mechanics and faction conflicts. That's as simple of a solution as there needs to be to let Open World PvP go from the non-functional mess that games like WoW operate it as into something that most participants can actually enjoy.
Extend that with faction conflict incentives like how DAoC had relics or into some kind of faction/guild perk system and now you have something that offers them value in opting into PvP as well.
Back when WoW first launched, for example, it was already clear that the changes Blizzard went with for their PvP and non-PvP servers was enough of a change that it was going to run into trouble. When the inevitable happened, the change to providing PvP as a lobby game was apparently easier to them than changing the rule sets and management of the PvP system.
In short, the problem is horrible rule sets and supporting mechanics that, well, fail to support anything properly.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
But yeah, most of what you're saying here is accurate. OWPVP hasn't ever been popular. The analogy of poorly-ported mechanics doesn't fit too well, because OWPVP didn't work well in MUDs (where it originated) and didn't work well in MMORPGs (where it was ported to.) It was a bad idea everywhere, basically.
One oddity is calling action MMORPG combat "adaptation of FPS mechanics". It's a mix of WOW and Diablo style combat. FPS aiming isn't really a significant component (if at all.) Only Fallen Earth and that really old FPS-aiming MMORPG could be said to have adapted FPS mechanics. Stuff like TERA and B&S are their own unique blends of WOW/Diablo stuff, almost totally unrelated to FPSes.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The last bit is true tho, action combat isnt anything remotely like FPS. Only MMORPG that fits that category would be Darkfall.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
im mostly a PVE player and i do like pvp but i hate when they try to separete the PVE from the PVP....
for me the best pvp are those who are linked to the pve aspect of the game......
special pvp gear ? that sux...
battleground , arenas ? that sux....
balance class so pvp gets "balanced" ? that sux...
i want RPG :P
so lovely to be inside a dungeon knowing someone can come thru ur back and mess all ur way.... yea it s frustrating if u loose it.... but its awesome when you win and the feeling of achievement s great....
i wish developers would stop bein so hyped and give us options...games for all the taste instead of followin ONE trendy of the moment.... like now the special is to make sandbox with generic pve, partial pvp loot , no class specialization, zerg pve world bosses, zerg pvp aspects etc...