I remember my guildmates trying to console me saying we will help you get everything back as the timer kept going. I was not even able to answer, I was in that much anxiety.
I think that pretty much nails it. It's not really about pvp it's about loss and the time it takes to acquire things.
I will admit there was a day when I died 4 times within an hour in Lineage 2. That's 4% exp loss and at a very high level.
I did have to log off.
However, I've learned to put things in perspective since then and don't really mind loss in video games as by regular play the experience, the items, the gold always replenishes itself.
Having said that, I think it would be exhausting (to use Torval's word) to play at a high level in EVE.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Ive been killed sooo many times .. And never once did i get upset , even when losing gear ..
I actually use it as a learning experience , replay the combat in my head ..
Examine the combat log if the game has one ..
Look up info on the opposing class to see what str/weaknesses and how to approach that combat next time ..
To see where i can improve ..
heck i have even messaged the person many times that i was in the fight with .. Congratulating them .. You would be amazed at what knowledge you can garner with this approach and how to better prepare yourself..
Most people will take the time to talk to you ..
And last but not least .. Keep things in perspective....
I figured out - it's not dying that bothers me - I die often enough in PvE environments.
Two things that get me with PvP: people who harass (spawn camp, stalking, etc), and getting ganged up on that prevents me from being able to progress.
I don't get any kind of thrill killing another player in PvP either. It just doesn't interest me I guess, I don't really see it as a challenge to figure out and overcome like I do PvE, I just feel like I'm getting in the way of another person and interfering in their game in the same manner that I feel other PvPers interfere in mine.
Neither of those am I able to figure out a way on my own, apart from the standard "git gud". Now, that sounds kind of contradictory in an MMO, I acknowledge that. But as much as I love the social aspect of MMOs, I hate it when I have to impose on others to further my own progression.
Here;s what bothers me: I did nothing to provoke that other player into killing me....It is strictly an act of evil/hatred/malice or whatever you want to call it.....In PVE, I attack the monster....It has every right to kill me...In PVP, I mind my own business...I don't enjoy attacking other players and taking their stuff....It isn't right in the real world, and I dont like it in the fake, virtual world either.
Here;s what bothers me: I did nothing to provoke that other player into killing me....It is strictly an act of evil/hatred/malice or whatever you want to call it.....In PVE, I attack the monster....It has every right to kill me...In PVP, I mind my own business...I don't enjoy attacking other players and taking their stuff....It isn't right in the real world, and I dont like it in the fake, virtual world either.
except most open world pvp games (all?) are about war and resources.
Doesn't matter that you are minding your own business if you are taking resources from an area where one guild wants those resources.
that's what you and others fail to understand: "that's the game."
The game is about attacking others, the game is about consolidating resources. Whether it's EVE, Lineage 2, or pick your open world poison.
In Lineage 2 of someone wanted a hunting spot then they would try to remove you if they could.
If they "couldn't" then they might try to get more people. You would then get more people.
That's the game!
If a person doesn't want that type of game play they shouldn't play that game. Because what you are asking them to do is to buy and play an open world pvp game but NOT play it the way the game was designed.
Doesn't seem fair.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
When people suggest removing power gaps, "But I want to 1 shot lowbie mobs to feel powerful!!!." But that is really the answer to games that are more PvP orientated. As long as you can become ultra powerful you will have someone come and smash you.
Then remove the PvE. If the PvP is so important, and anyone who PvEs must be at the mercy of PvPers, why are you even including PvE?
The truth is: PvPers *want* PvEers to hunt. Not other PvPers: PvEers. Those "carebears." Anyone think EVE would've enjoyed the success it's had if security zones didn't exist to *highly* discourage random ganking in new player zones? Nope. It *needs* the PvEers just as much as it needs the PvPers, and only one of those groups has to interrupt another's player's experience to have "fun." And since that's the case, those PvPers need to be willing to share the game vision. The devs need to realize this, too. If they do, you get EVE. If they don't, you get things like Mortal Online.
If you want to create a game that caters to PvPers exclusively, you don't want to create an MMORPG with PvE content. If you do, then you need to admit to yourself that PvEers are as important an ingredient to success as PvPers (probably moreso, as open world PvPers left unchecked can wreck your game population much faster than any sort of PvE gamer behavior).
In short: PvPers depend upon having PvEers to hunt in games with both PvP and PvE content. PvEers don't depend upon having the other group. Only one of those groups needs the other for their preferred playstyle to work.
It is all about whether you opted in. You opt in to the paintball match, knowing you may get a few sore spots but that is ok because it was all fair competition. However if the rule allowed anyone to empty a round on you while you were buying groceries, that would not be ok - And it changes NOTHING that they get bad rep, karma, flag or any other consequence - You still stand in the supermarket covered in paint and sore spots.
Revenge, justice, or eye for eye mentality is not doing anything good for humanity, and I see no positive reason to foster it in games.
Then remove the PvE. If the PvP is so important, and anyone who PvEs must be at the mercy of PvPers, why are you even including PvE?
The truth is: PvPers *want* PvEers to hunt. Not other PvPers: PvEers. Those "carebears." Anyone think EVE would've enjoyed the success it's had if security zones didn't exist to *highly* discourage random ganking in new player zones? Nope. It *needs* the PvEers just as much as it needs the PvPers, and only one of those groups has to interrupt another's player's experience to have "fun." And since that's the case, those PvPers need to be willing to share the game vision. The devs need to realize this, too. If they do, you get EVE. If they don't, you get things like Mortal Online.
If you want to create a game that caters to PvPers exclusively, you don't want to create an MMORPG with PvE content. If you do, then you need to admit to yourself that PvEers are as important an ingredient to success as PvPers (probably moreso, as open world PvPers left unchecked can wreck your game population much faster than any sort of PvE gamer behavior).
In short: PvPers depend upon having PvEers to hunt in games with both PvP and PvE content. PvEers don't depend upon having the other group. Only one of those groups needs the other for their preferred playstyle to work.
Because it's a progression based PvP game so there is "PvPvE" in there as a basis for contention. In Lineage 1 players would farm mobs and hunt for drops. The PvP was an option and another aspect of the risk vs reward. Do I hunt peacefully (if not competitively) alongside another person and we share the area, or do I fight with them for exclusive access to it? Both have their advantages and costs. If I fight with them and lose then I can't hunt there, I might drop items, and I might lose XP (depending on the game).
There are all kinds of PvP games and those that don't have "PvE" typically are not progression based, like FPS shooters, MOBAs, BRs, etc.
Just because a game has a system doesn't entitle people the option to exclusively engage in that. That is, just because there is PvP doesn't mean a player is entitled to engage only with that. A game is an entire package and all the baggage comes with.
In a game like Lineage there are no PvE players. Everyone is a PvP player by virtue of logging into the server.
Again: if that were actually true, there would be no conflict between PvEers and PvPers regarding game systems like we've seen. That's not true, because the mental state you described is actually very rare among players of either group. It's generally far less nuanced towards the following extremes: "he's red, he's dead" and "I just want to grind mobs in peace."
You can call a player a PvP player because the MMORPG he's playing includes a robust PvP system, but that's not really accurate in how that player behaves or views him or herself, so it's not a useful label. Just like calling a player a PvEer because he/she loved Titanfall's PvPvE modes would be folly.
Considering we've got ample evidence of there being conflict between PvEers and PvPers in terms of game vision (Trammel is one of the oldest), and only one group has to force a competitive encounter where one player loses, I'd say it's the PvPers who need to assimilate into an MMORPG with PvPvE, not the other way around. Or, we could insist Trammel didn't actually increase UO player counts, or that the sector Security system in EVE isn't necessary for it to be successful, or that Zeni hasn't largely abandoned PvP as a focus for ESO, or that PvP-focused MMORPGs have been more successful than PvE-focused MMORPGs, etc etc.
But I don't see a lot of evidence that it's the carebears who are doing it wrong.
Then remove the PvE. If the PvP is so important, and anyone who PvEs must be at the mercy of PvPers, why are you even including PvE?
The truth is: PvPers *want* PvEers to hunt. Not other PvPers: PvEers. Those "carebears." Anyone think EVE would've enjoyed the success it's had if security zones didn't exist to *highly* discourage random ganking in new player zones? Nope. It *needs* the PvEers just as much as it needs the PvPers, and only one of those groups has to interrupt another's player's experience to have "fun." And since that's the case, those PvPers need to be willing to share the game vision. The devs need to realize this, too. If they do, you get EVE. If they don't, you get things like Mortal Online.
If you want to create a game that caters to PvPers exclusively, you don't want to create an MMORPG with PvE content. If you do, then you need to admit to yourself that PvEers are as important an ingredient to success as PvPers (probably moreso, as open world PvPers left unchecked can wreck your game population much faster than any sort of PvE gamer behavior).
In short: PvPers depend upon having PvEers to hunt in games with both PvP and PvE content. PvEers don't depend upon having the other group. Only one of those groups needs the other for their preferred playstyle to work.
Because it's a progression based PvP game so there is "PvPvE" in there as a basis for contention. In Lineage 1 players would farm mobs and hunt for drops. The PvP was an option and another aspect of the risk vs reward. Do I hunt peacefully (if not competitively) alongside another person and we share the area, or do I fight with them for exclusive access to it? Both have their advantages and costs. If I fight with them and lose then I can't hunt there, I might drop items, and I might lose XP (depending on the game).
There are all kinds of PvP games and those that don't have "PvE" typically are not progression based, like FPS shooters, MOBAs, BRs, etc.
Just because a game has a system doesn't entitle people the option to exclusively engage in that. That is, just because there is PvP doesn't mean a player is entitled to engage only with that. A game is an entire package and all the baggage comes with.
In a game like Lineage there are no PvE players. Everyone is a PvP player by virtue of logging into the server.
Again: if that were actually true, there would be no conflict between PvEers and PvPers regarding game systems like we've seen. That's not true, because the mental state you described is actually very rare among players of either group. It's generally far less nuanced towards the following extremes: "he's red, he's dead" and "I just want to grind mobs in peace."
You can call a player a PvP player because the MMORPG he's playing includes a robust PvP system, but that's not really accurate in how that player behaves or views him or herself, so it's not a useful label. Just like calling a player a PvEer because he/she loved Titanfall's PvPvE modes would be folly.
Considering we've got ample evidence of there being conflict between PvEers and PvPers in terms of game vision (Trammel is one of the oldest), and only one group has to force a competitive encounter where one player loses, I'd say it's the PvPers who need to assimilate into an MMORPG with PvPvE, not the other way around. Or, we could insist Trammel didn't actually increase UO player counts, or that the sector Security system in EVE isn't necessary for it to be successful, or that Zeni hasn't largely abandoned PvP as a focus for ESO, or that PvP-focused MMORPGs have been more successful than PvE-focused MMORPGs, etc etc.
But I don't see a lot of evidence that it's the carebears who are doing it wrong.
DAoC got this right.
It was a game loved by PvE AND PvP fans... and also the much larger percentage that like both.
Post edited by Slapshot1188 on
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Agreed, it struck a nice balance by separating PvP and PvE, but providing an *incentive* for PvEers to *choose* to engage in PvP.
The words I highlighted are important because, due to the nature of the experiences, PvEers *must* be incentivized to *choose* to PvP if the devs want PvE gamers to endure PvP at all, much less engage PvP in the open world.
Remember: only one group needs another player to lose to complete their preferred game loop. That's the key difference, and is why games that try to force PvEers to adhere to a PvP game loop fare poorly, while those that force PvPers to adhere to a set of rules protecting PvEers (usually enforced by PvE methods, such as EVE's Security system) generally fare better.
Then remove the PvE. If the PvP is so important, and anyone who PvEs must be at the mercy of PvPers, why are you even including PvE?
While I know there are pvp players who never want to pve, not every pvp player dislikes it.
Why remove an aspect of the game that is still considered fun if the players who enjoy pvp also enjoy pve?
This argument always seems to come down to a group who feels like they are being wronged and inconvenienced when the reality is they are playing the wrong game.
The real solution is not to remove the pve. The real solution is for players who dislike pvp to not buy a game that has open world pvp.
problem solved.
As for cheyene's post, again, I think it's just about loss, not pvp.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I have racked my brians and that is bad considering how little I have of it at my advancing age. I should treat them gently. This question looms. I read other people's accounts of PvP and try to vicariously enjoy their perspective but I keep thinking about how awful I would feel.
[snip]
First up cheyane, don't feel bad about not liking PvP. There is nothing wrong with your feelings at all, you don't need to change if you don't want to. You are also in good company, the majority of MMO players don't enjou MMORPG PvP. You are one of the many, not one of the few.
Second, here are a few bits of advice / guidance / support that might help you out.
1) Pick the right game
MMORPG PvP usually sucks. Right from the start, the games are designed in a way that ensures the PvP will suck. So, if you aren't enjoying it, it's probably not your fault, the game has simply been designed badly.
What you want to look for are MMORPGs with minimal power gaps (or exceptionally easy gearing up) so that you're not just getting stomped due to a numerical advantage.
Also try to look for MMORPGs with longer time-to-kill (TTK). If you get into a 2 minute fight, and lose, you still got to experience 2 minutes of fun and you hopefully learned soemthing. If you get smashed in under 10 seconds.....well, thats no fun for you, and probably no fun for your killer either.
2) Assess your motivation
I didn't see anything in your post about why you want to PvP. Your motivation will have a big effect on your enjoyment. For me, these are my motivations:
Scale - PvP is usually the only massively multiplayer content in the game, and I still get a thrill participating in large scale content. It puts a smile on my face seeing 100s of other players fighting.
Challenge - I've been playing games long enough that PvE is simply too easy and predictable. Even raiding, the challenge is less about the content and more about the social coordination. If content is easy, it gets boring. PvP provides a constant challenge, forcing me to play at my best. This helps me get in the zone, experience flow, and makes me happy.
Relaxation - this may seem counter-intuitive considering your post, but I find PvP very relaxing. There are no consequences! Death is normal! When I'm PvPing, im not looking for gear, no-one is depending on me, dying doesn't mess up anyone's day. There is no outside pressure. This is very relaxing for me.
Roleplaying - I do the majority of my roleplaying in PvP. I do not enjoy roleplaying with words, I roleplay through my actions. PvP gives me the opportunity to do this a lot. I can be the reckless nutter, the fearless charger, the noble leader, the cowardly ninja, the supportive teammeate, or whatever else I can think of. I tend to choose a different personality for each of my toons, then act that out in PvP.
If you are only PvPing because you want rewards, then every death will seem like a setback. If you want bragging rights or to be the best, then every death will remind you that you aren't the best. If you are only there to support your friends, then every death will feel like you're letting them down.
3) Don't be afraid to walk away
PvP is, naturally, 100% dependent on other players to be fun. That means you have no control at all. If the populations are imbalanced then it won't be any fun. If a hardcore guild turns up, they can ruin everything.
It may take you a little while to figure out the rhythms of PvP on your server, but after a while you'll figure out when is a good time to PvP and when its best to just walk away. It doesn't matter how good you are, if the enemy outnumber you 5:1, you're gonna lose. Repeatedly.
On those nights, just play an alt, or grind some dailies, or log off and read a book.
4) Pick a suitable class
I hate givign this advice as I'm very much a "play what you enjoy" kinda guy. However, some classes are simply easier to play in PvP than others.
Ranged is nearly always the easiest. You can stand at the back and lob spells at the enemy from relative safety. You can see more of the battlefield and so can spot incoming enemies and run away first.
Playing as ranged (to start with) will give you an opportunity to get a feel for the PvP. Then, you can start to see which class you might actually enjoy, and start PvPing with that class.
Every class also tends to play very differently between PvE and PvP. You may love healing in raids, but healing in PvP is so different taht you might hate it.
This advice is also much less about the meta, and more about what you personally would enjoy in PvP in terms of gameplay.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Then remove the PvE. If the PvP is so important, and anyone who PvEs must be at the mercy of PvPers, why are you even including PvE?
While I know there are pvp players who never want to pve, not every pvp player dislikes it.
Why remove an aspect of the game that is still considered fun if the players who enjoy pvp also enjoy pve?
This argument always seems to come down to a group who feels like they are being wronged and inconvenienced when the reality is they are playing the wrong game.
The real solution is not to remove the pve. The real solution is for players who dislike pvp to not buy a game that has open world pvp.
problem solved.
As for cheyene's post, again, I think it's just about loss, not pvp.
Again, only one group needs to another player to lose to complete their preferred game loop. Only one actually needs those other players you're telling to get lost because they're confused.
Merely having open world PvP does not make a game PvP-focused. WoW servers include open PvP, but does anyone actually think WoW is a PvP game along the lines of, say, Albion Online?
Cheyane's post reveals one of the largest determining forces behind not only PvEers accepting PvP, but PvP players themselves sticking around: losing.
Even the most hardcore PvPer won't continue playing a game where they only lose. Nobody, *nobody*, wants to lose. So if you're the type of player that has to have somebody else lose for you to fulfill your fun (PvP) and you're interested in games that cater to both PvPers and PvEers (as UO, EVE, and others undoubtedly do), you need to be prepared to endure a system that protects the PvE loop, because their loop has pretty much zero disruptive bearing on yours, is generally more popular, and actually helps provide opportunities for you to engage in the sort of gameplay you want.
As a dev, you definitely don't want to tell those PvEers to just get lost, not when you've spent thousands creating assets and designing your PvE content. That's how you kill your own game. If you want to tell PvEers to get lost, you don't spend money on creating PvE content.
Dying is natural. It is the end of life and everything as we know it. It is safe to be afraid of dying.
Dying and resurrecting is unnatural. At best, this situation is a pause and a brief reset. There's a lot more there to be afraid of.
Immersion into a game character causes people to feel emotions in response to simulated in-game activities, events, and experiences. This includes death. We're inherently afraid of death. Or basic reaction is fear.
So, the more you relate to your in-game persona, the more you have those feelings.
At least, that's what I tell myself.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Cheyane, there is no reason to have to change to "like" pvp.
Having said that, if you want to play games that have open world pvp then you'll have to shift your thinking a bit.
For many people, being killed is part of the fun but you don't like that aspect. I would say that you should try change your thinking and do a few things.
1, expect to be killed a few times. Set a number. I expect to be killed a few times. set a number and see if it happens.
2, reward yourself. lay out, say, 4 chocolates, or small glasses of wine or whatever you like.
expect and "want" to get killed. If someone kills you, eat a chocolate or takea sip of wine.
You need to let go of the "getting killed = bad" mentality. Most death penalties can be navigated.
But again, the best way to not have to deal with it is to not play pvp games. Nothing wrong with that.
The only way I can see myself doing it is by not at all caring about the toon I'm playing. Having no incentive to grow it or spend any resources on it so that when it dies I feel no loss since I devoted almost nothing in it. I have tried to think of it in those terms in Archeage. Yet when I died I was slightly miffed but I was in enemy territory and that game there is no real loss when you die. So it does not count when you lose nothing except some travel time.
I'm talking about real loss. Games where the only thing you lose is time like WoW BG does not upset me that much, just a little. I do get the rush and it is fun but in a lot of ways WoW BGs are not at all representative of how it is in open world PvP. When you lose things for good that is when all the hate and anger comes.
It is totally understandable that you don't like ffa full or partial loot pvp. However, mmos/games that have "real loss" on death are pretty niche at the moment, and I think the "push to include pvp" in more games that you mentioned earlier is focused on the type of pvp that you yourself acknowledged as as giving you a rush and being fun.
Therefore, for you personally at least, the push to put more pvp in games (if that is even true) should be a positive as it will give you more options to participate in an activity you enjoy.
The thing that gets me in open PvP games is how I'm always looking over my shoulder, so to speak. Another player comes on the screen and I can no longer relax. I have to be prepared for conflict at any given moment. That's exhausting to me.
That's the #1 reason I avoid open world PvP. I don't want to always be "on." I too find that exhausting.
I do PvP quite a bit but only when I'm in the mood for it and I've never just PvPd. I need a break from it and just chill questing, or harvesting or crafting.
It's why I always gravitate to games that keep the PvP separate as DAoC, GW2, ESO and others have done. That's the right way to do it as far as i'm concerned.
You should try some large group PvP. It's always more chill when you're just one of 20 in a group rather than being 1 of 2 or 3 or worse, solo. The smaller the scale the more intense it gets IMO.
Zergs get a bad name but they can be a lot of fun and a good place for those who don't PvP a lot to get more comfortable with it. There's also the social aspect bonus when you play with the same 20 or so every day.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
For many people, being killed is part of the fun but you don't like that aspect. I would say that you should try change your thinking and do a few things.
I don't think this is true.
If that were the case, ganking lowbies or ganging up on other players would not be such a norm. If dying were fun, EVE PvP would be far fairer fights far more of the time. They rarely are.
Judging by actual player behavior, I'd say most of the fun in PvP is "winning" over another gamer in a competitive sense.
I think your assertion is a bit off as it has nothing to do with ganking lowbies or newbies.
And, "Yes" the real fun is "PvP winning." No one is being ganked and saying "yay I was ganked and I lost shit!"
But what they are saying, those with an attitude at least more congruent with that type of game type, is (and you can change the verbiage however you'd like) "hmmm ok, you win now but when you least expect it ... expect it ..."
It's not about losing it's about doing what it takes to win AFTER you lose.
When my character was killed in Lineage 2 I didn't say "oh my, what a grand evening! Let's just circle back tomorrow and see if we can make this happen again!"
I said "ok, I see how it is, I need to be powerful. Then, my friend, I WILL be powerful and my revenge will not only be cold it will be liquid nitrogen up your nose cold."
Possibly with a rubber hose.
Once I was trying out an S grade bit of gear which made my casting speed slow (Stormscreamer class) but it gave a lot of damage. Now, the Stormscreamer (yeah I know who makes these names) casts slow in the first place. A bit of gear that makes it cast even more slowly is a bit of a risk. However, the class is about large swaths of damage.
I was trying to level in an area when this guy who was a bit lower than I, but faster, came in and pk'ed me. He kept interrupting my spells and I died.
Did I cry? Did I yell? No.
I scouted the area for the next few days with an alt I hid in the brush. When I finally saw him I logged in my character, with pvp gear and headed straight for him. I didn't sneak up on him or take him by surprise, I came right for him.
He never had a chance.
A few minutes later he regained his wits (such as he had as he really didn't have much wits) and he started pm'ing me all sorts of threats. threats that were never completed.
So yeah, I learned what was needed to win and I tried my best to achieve it.
That's the fun!
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
The fundamental problem with non consentual pvp is that it only favors the aggressor(s). Ignoring for a moment the very few who truly like the constant danger, also when they have their activity disrupted.
When a player logs in to a mmo they take the decision "what would a rather do roght now", and this could be running a dungeon, crafting, building, farming, pvp or any activity the game offers. Whatever choice is what they would like to do. If your choice is I want to be a highwayman and rob some players, then that is what you would like to do. The problem now is, as the agressor you decide what other players can do - They don't get to do the activity they wanted, only you did.
Lots of very good ideas. I think I will try more large scale PvP.
Considering I have also played League of Legends I didn't have any issue dying there because it was a team thing. Of course my team mates thought I sucked but that was another story.
I need you to understand my thread isn't about sticking to PvE games, I want to change and get more comfortable. I feel that one on one PvP is where my problem lies and @Sovrath is right, that it is about loss. Just not any old loss but the loss of items I have taken months to accumulate. That would devastate me for sure.
When I played Valheim I handled the loss just fine and just went about getting everything back. I think in a PvP game where what you have on you can be easily replaced my anger and hate at the person killing me may be largely mitigated. I will only wish for slightly less misfortunes on their head. I can be quite vicious when no one can hear me.
Also I am not very nimble and I perform better in support roles which large scale PvP can afford me a good role in. One of the reason I enjoyed WoW BGs was that I was always playing support. I even earned Stoneguard on an Orc shaman back when the ranks deteriorated so you can imagine how much PvP I engaged in. It is not the PvP, as I read through your posts, this has dawned on me but the type of engagement.
Thank you for taking my new approach to PvP seriously and giving me a lot to ruminate on.
Can I equate the two feelings? No being killed and looted by another player would have been far worse. I cannot explain why but there it is.
Agency: One was "your fault", while the other is theft. You lost items due to your "mistakes." Losing in PvP and the "winner" takes your items, they stole from you.
When your corpse decays, those items are gone from the world. When the player runs off with your items, they are still in the world. You may see that player again and see them wearing/using your items.
That's how I look at it
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I find your post reductive, inaccurate, and misleading because you refuse to acknowledge that there is a demographic of PvP players that enjoy battling over contested resources and farming mobs while fighting each other. They don't need PvE players because in that environment those players usually offer little value.
It seems to me you see PvE content and something exclusive to players who like PvE only environments, but that isn't reality.
The reality no one cares if PvE only players (I hate the term carebear) don't want to play a PvPvE game.
I totally get not wanting to PvP in a lot of games. I would really enjoy a PvE take on Albion because I really like the skill and crafting system. And indeed there are lowbie areas where people can enjoy just that up to a point, but not after that unless they stay hidden in their guild halls or islands. However, that isn't the game as it stands so what's the point in rallying about that.
There have been some PvP games which have tried to lure in PvE exclusive players and that's a shame. And yes, WoW is a PvP game at its core because if you stray into the wrong area in a zone and trigger opposite faction NPCs you'll be auto-flagged with a 5 minute timer.
I'm super picky about PvP and don't play it often, but I also don't expect PvPvE games cater to me. I skip them.
Iselin above me provided a good rebuttal to this. He enjoys PvP often by his measure. But when he wants to PvE... He doesn't want to be fooled with bring interrupted.
I argue that, even among PvPers, most would dislike being interrupted constantly by PvP when they just wanted to grind some mobs. I further argue that if these players were consistently forced into PvP by poor game design when they just wanna PvE, they would not stick with the game, either. This is because having control over what type of content you engage with is a desire consistent among *all* player types. Which brings me back to: when your desired type of gameplay requires that you force someone else into it, you're always going to need to be prepared to endure systems to protect those you're trying to force into your preferred type of encounter. Again: see EVE security rating for a good example. Separating them into zones like DAoC is another example of systems protecting the PvEers' gameplay loops.
Indeed, to your Albion example: Albion has a tracker that tells you how many PvP flagged players are in your zone to help protect PvEers in PvP zones. Systems to help protect the PvEers game loops...
MOBAs are good examples of games where the devs had a vision for PvPvE and created enough PvE to enhance the PvP portion, nothing more. Adding a bunch more PvE encounters to MOBAs wouldn't serve to make it any more enjoyable a PvP experience.
Quite simply: the demographic you describe is too small to sustain an MMORPG by themselves. You need folks like Iselin and Cheyane to help sustain the game you want to play.
So tell me again why they should get lost? To what purpose? To leave your game to be shuttered?
It's not about losing it's about doing what it takes to win AFTER you lose.
This right here just made sense to me right now. I've never though of it all in this way!
Thanks for enlightening me
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Iselin above me provided a good rebuttal to this. He enjoys PvP often by his measure. But when he wants to PvE... He doesn't want to be fooled with bring interrupted.
It's not so much that as it is respite from always being on your toes.
Well designed games with separate 24/7 PvP zones do give you the full open world PvP experience with a mix of PvE in there so you do get the "need to look over your shoulder" part while PvEing also when you choose to PvE in those zones.
ESO for example, has nearly the full range of PvE activities in Cyrodiil with quests, delves, harvesting, skyshard hunting and group dolmens in there. They're even incentivized for PvP purposes with dolmens and delves giving you temp PvP buffs and a chance to drop better quality "cold fire" siege equipment. PvEvP is fully integrated in that zone as if it were an open world PvP game. I enjoy that PvE also but like I said, only when I'm in the mood and choose to go there.
The difference is that it is just 1 of 45 zones you can choose to play in. Anywhere else you get the relaxed PvE experience with no one bothering you.
Real choice in those separate zone(s) PvP games is the difference for me. You decide when and where to do it.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
I will admit there was a day when I died 4 times within an hour in Lineage 2. That's 4% exp loss and at a very high level.
I did have to log off.
However, I've learned to put things in perspective since then and don't really mind loss in video games as by regular play the experience, the items, the gold always replenishes itself.
Having said that, I think it would be exhausting (to use Torval's word) to play at a high level in EVE.
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
Here;s what bothers me: I did nothing to provoke that other player into killing me....It is strictly an act of evil/hatred/malice or whatever you want to call it.....In PVE, I attack the monster....It has every right to kill me...In PVP, I mind my own business...I don't enjoy attacking other players and taking their stuff....It isn't right in the real world, and I dont like it in the fake, virtual world either.
Doesn't matter that you are minding your own business if you are taking resources from an area where one guild wants those resources.
that's what you and others fail to understand: "that's the game."
The game is about attacking others, the game is about consolidating resources. Whether it's EVE, Lineage 2, or pick your open world poison.
In Lineage 2 of someone wanted a hunting spot then they would try to remove you if they could.
If they "couldn't" then they might try to get more people. You would then get more people.
That's the game!
If a person doesn't want that type of game play they shouldn't play that game. Because what you are asking them to do is to buy and play an open world pvp game but NOT play it the way the game was designed.
Doesn't seem fair.
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
The truth is: PvPers *want* PvEers to hunt. Not other PvPers: PvEers. Those "carebears." Anyone think EVE would've enjoyed the success it's had if security zones didn't exist to *highly* discourage random ganking in new player zones? Nope. It *needs* the PvEers just as much as it needs the PvPers, and only one of those groups has to interrupt another's player's experience to have "fun." And since that's the case, those PvPers need to be willing to share the game vision. The devs need to realize this, too. If they do, you get EVE. If they don't, you get things like Mortal Online.
If you want to create a game that caters to PvPers exclusively, you don't want to create an MMORPG with PvE content. If you do, then you need to admit to yourself that PvEers are as important an ingredient to success as PvPers (probably moreso, as open world PvPers left unchecked can wreck your game population much faster than any sort of PvE gamer behavior).
In short: PvPers depend upon having PvEers to hunt in games with both PvP and PvE content. PvEers don't depend upon having the other group. Only one of those groups needs the other for their preferred playstyle to work.
Revenge, justice, or eye for eye mentality is not doing anything good for humanity, and I see no positive reason to foster it in games.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
You can call a player a PvP player because the MMORPG he's playing includes a robust PvP system, but that's not really accurate in how that player behaves or views him or herself, so it's not a useful label. Just like calling a player a PvEer because he/she loved Titanfall's PvPvE modes would be folly.
Considering we've got ample evidence of there being conflict between PvEers and PvPers in terms of game vision (Trammel is one of the oldest), and only one group has to force a competitive encounter where one player loses, I'd say it's the PvPers who need to assimilate into an MMORPG with PvPvE, not the other way around. Or, we could insist Trammel didn't actually increase UO player counts, or that the sector Security system in EVE isn't necessary for it to be successful, or that Zeni hasn't largely abandoned PvP as a focus for ESO, or that PvP-focused MMORPGs have been more successful than PvE-focused MMORPGs, etc etc.
But I don't see a lot of evidence that it's the carebears who are doing it wrong.
It was a game loved by PvE AND PvP fans... and also the much larger percentage that like both.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The words I highlighted are important because, due to the nature of the experiences, PvEers *must* be incentivized to *choose* to PvP if the devs want PvE gamers to endure PvP at all, much less engage PvP in the open world.
Remember: only one group needs another player to lose to complete their preferred game loop. That's the key difference, and is why games that try to force PvEers to adhere to a PvP game loop fare poorly, while those that force PvPers to adhere to a set of rules protecting PvEers (usually enforced by PvE methods, such as EVE's Security system) generally fare better.
Why remove an aspect of the game that is still considered fun if the players who enjoy pvp also enjoy pve?
This argument always seems to come down to a group who feels like they are being wronged and inconvenienced when the reality is they are playing the wrong game.
The real solution is not to remove the pve. The real solution is for players who dislike pvp to not buy a game that has open world pvp.
problem solved.
As for cheyene's post, again, I think it's just about loss, not pvp.
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
Merely having open world PvP does not make a game PvP-focused. WoW servers include open PvP, but does anyone actually think WoW is a PvP game along the lines of, say, Albion Online?
Cheyane's post reveals one of the largest determining forces behind not only PvEers accepting PvP, but PvP players themselves sticking around: losing.
Even the most hardcore PvPer won't continue playing a game where they only lose. Nobody, *nobody*, wants to lose. So if you're the type of player that has to have somebody else lose for you to fulfill your fun (PvP) and you're interested in games that cater to both PvPers and PvEers (as UO, EVE, and others undoubtedly do), you need to be prepared to endure a system that protects the PvE loop, because their loop has pretty much zero disruptive bearing on yours, is generally more popular, and actually helps provide opportunities for you to engage in the sort of gameplay you want.
As a dev, you definitely don't want to tell those PvEers to just get lost, not when you've spent thousands creating assets and designing your PvE content. That's how you kill your own game. If you want to tell PvEers to get lost, you don't spend money on creating PvE content.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
It is totally understandable that you don't like ffa full or partial loot pvp. However, mmos/games that have "real loss" on death are pretty niche at the moment, and I think the "push to include pvp" in more games that you mentioned earlier is focused on the type of pvp that you yourself acknowledged as as giving you a rush and being fun.
Therefore, for you personally at least, the push to put more pvp in games (if that is even true) should be a positive as it will give you more options to participate in an activity you enjoy.
I do PvP quite a bit but only when I'm in the mood for it and I've never just PvPd. I need a break from it and just chill questing, or harvesting or crafting.
It's why I always gravitate to games that keep the PvP separate as DAoC, GW2, ESO and others have done. That's the right way to do it as far as i'm concerned.
------------------------
@cheyane
You should try some large group PvP. It's always more chill when you're just one of 20 in a group rather than being 1 of 2 or 3 or worse, solo. The smaller the scale the more intense it gets IMO.
Zergs get a bad name but they can be a lot of fun and a good place for those who don't PvP a lot to get more comfortable with it. There's also the social aspect bonus when you play with the same 20 or so every day.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
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
Ignoring for a moment the very few who truly like the constant danger, also when they have their activity disrupted.
When a player logs in to a mmo they take the decision "what would a rather do roght now", and this could be running a dungeon, crafting, building, farming, pvp or any activity the game offers.
Whatever choice is what they would like to do.
If your choice is I want to be a highwayman and rob some players, then that is what you would like to do.
The problem now is, as the agressor you decide what other players can do - They don't get to do the activity they wanted, only you did.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Considering I have also played League of Legends I didn't have any issue dying there because it was a team thing. Of course my team mates thought I sucked but that was another story.
I need you to understand my thread isn't about sticking to PvE games, I want to change and get more comfortable. I feel that one on one PvP is where my problem lies and @Sovrath is right, that it is about loss. Just not any old loss but the loss of items I have taken months to accumulate. That would devastate me for sure.
When I played Valheim I handled the loss just fine and just went about getting everything back. I think in a PvP game where what you have on you can be easily replaced my anger and hate at the person killing me may be largely mitigated. I will only wish for slightly less misfortunes on their head. I can be quite vicious when no one can hear me.
Also I am not very nimble and I perform better in support roles which large scale PvP can afford me a good role in. One of the reason I enjoyed WoW BGs was that I was always playing support. I even earned Stoneguard on an Orc shaman back when the ranks deteriorated so you can imagine how much PvP I engaged in. It is not the PvP, as I read through your posts, this has dawned on me but the type of engagement.
Thank you for taking my new approach to PvP seriously and giving me a lot to ruminate on.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I argue that, even among PvPers, most would dislike being interrupted constantly by PvP when they just wanted to grind some mobs. I further argue that if these players were consistently forced into PvP by poor game design when they just wanna PvE, they would not stick with the game, either. This is because having control over what type of content you engage with is a desire consistent among *all* player types. Which brings me back to: when your desired type of gameplay requires that you force someone else into it, you're always going to need to be prepared to endure systems to protect those you're trying to force into your preferred type of encounter. Again: see EVE security rating for a good example. Separating them into zones like DAoC is another example of systems protecting the PvEers' gameplay loops.
Indeed, to your Albion example: Albion has a tracker that tells you how many PvP flagged players are in your zone to help protect PvEers in PvP zones. Systems to help protect the PvEers game loops...
MOBAs are good examples of games where the devs had a vision for PvPvE and created enough PvE to enhance the PvP portion, nothing more. Adding a bunch more PvE encounters to MOBAs wouldn't serve to make it any more enjoyable a PvP experience.
Quite simply: the demographic you describe is too small to sustain an MMORPG by themselves. You need folks like Iselin and Cheyane to help sustain the game you want to play.
So tell me again why they should get lost? To what purpose? To leave your game to be shuttered?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Well designed games with separate 24/7 PvP zones do give you the full open world PvP experience with a mix of PvE in there so you do get the "need to look over your shoulder" part while PvEing also when you choose to PvE in those zones.
ESO for example, has nearly the full range of PvE activities in Cyrodiil with quests, delves, harvesting, skyshard hunting and group dolmens in there. They're even incentivized for PvP purposes with dolmens and delves giving you temp PvP buffs and a chance to drop better quality "cold fire" siege equipment. PvEvP is fully integrated in that zone as if it were an open world PvP game. I enjoy that PvE also but like I said, only when I'm in the mood and choose to go there.
The difference is that it is just 1 of 45 zones you can choose to play in. Anywhere else you get the relaxed PvE experience with no one bothering you.
Real choice in those separate zone(s) PvP games is the difference for me. You decide when and where to do it.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED