Originally posted by Adalwulff As a die hard PvPer, I disagree with the OP
MMOs must have balance. There is not one group large enough to support a AAA MMO.
The devs need to figure out how to balance it all.
I really enjoy PvP, but not really in MMORPGs*. That said, I think Adalwulff's view is probably the best possible scenario, if it were possible. A complete OW PvP MMORPG in the same world as a complete PvE MMORPG with PvP Flags or something like that. I like this idea because it would involve creating a very large world and could encompass a very large number of activities. This probably isn't what Adalwulff is talking about, but I still like the idea of "having it all".
I don't know that this is even remotely possible, but I really like the idea.
**
Specifically, I'm not a fan of OW or FFA PvP in MMORPGs. Match based shooters, RTS, even MOBAs are all OK, but put it in an MMORPG and it seems to suck the fun out of it for me.
**
Even PvP flags, battle grounds and PvP zones are fine with me and I enjoy them all. So really, I just don't like OW PvP in MMORPGs. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
As a roleplayer, I would welcome an open world pvp if there is a motivation behind it - either ideological or other, and the story sticks. If there is an objective, victory conditions, strategy, sacrifices and heroism. I want a war that allows me to choose a distinctive side which alligns with my personal beliefs. The devil is in the details here, what are we fighting for? A free-for-all has no flavour for me.
Originally posted by flizzer I would never play a full open PvP game either and neither would most of the MMO community. You are delusional if you think otherwise.
After some time to think about it... I believe that the OP and the many post like it are due to the cool-aid.
You know this guy once upon a time convinced a whole bunch of people to drink the cool-aid. So its kind of like if someone keeps posting about Full PvP (and why you really want to play it even tho you don't) eventually people will just give in..
Tho I would say the simple logic is this...
People talk about FFA (or open) worlds and freedom... but that "freedom" only works if you choose to play their way. Which by any logical thought process would not be relative to freedom.
Oddly the "carebears" are entirely open to PvP servers and/or PvP areas that they don't have to go into.. which of course is actually "freedom" because everyone can go play in the place (or server) that meets their playstyle.
So using logic once again... trying to force people into a "full open pvp" world... is simply trying to impose your playstyle on someone else aka grief them.
Originally posted by flizzer I would never play a full open PvP game either and neither would most of the MMO community. You are delusional if you think otherwise.
After some time to think about it... I believe that the OP and the many post like it are due to the cool-aid.
You know this guy once upon a time convinced a whole bunch of people to drink the cool-aid. So its kind of like if someone keeps posting about Full PvP (and why you really want to play it even tho you don't) eventually people will just give in..
Tho I would say the simple logic is this...
People talk about FFA (or open) worlds and freedom... but that "freedom" only works if you choose to play their way. Which by any logical thought process would not be relative to freedom.
Oddly the "carebears" are entirely open to PvP servers and/or PvP areas that they don't have to go into.. which of course is actually "freedom" because everyone can go play in the place (or server) that meets their playstyle.
So using logic once again... trying to force people into a "full open pvp" world... is simply trying to impose your playstyle on someone else aka grief them.
Here we go again...
The myths
1. You just want to grief me.
This is the self-centered argument of someone who was scarred for life in Ultima Online a decade ago and can’t move on. We actually don’t care if you play the game. In fact, if you dislike full PVP then we hope you don’t play
Originally posted by Bidwood Here we go again... The myths1. You just want to grief me. This is the self-centered argument of someone who was scarred for life in Ultima Online a decade ago and cant move on. We actually dont care if you play the game. In fact, if you dislike full PVP then we hope you dont play
If people really don't care, why then does this thread exist, if not to convince people that their ideas about PvP games and servers are wrong, and that they should give them a chance?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This is the self-centered argument of someone who was scarred for life in Ultima Online a decade ago and can’t move on. We actually don’t care if you play the game. In fact, if you dislike full PVP then we hope you don’t play
If people really don't care, why then does this thread exist, if not to convince people that their ideas about PvP games and servers are wrong, and that they should give them a chance?
You don't have to change your mind or give anything a chance. The point of this thread was to get you to see the point of view of me and others like me--that we aren't just out to grief you, your "solutions" (e.g. PVP servers) don't work for us, etc. Because every time I describe the game I want, someone inevitably comes rushing in to drop one of the myth's off as a reason why I shouldn't have that game and should be happy with one of their solutions.
Originally posted by flizzer I would never play a full open PvP game either and neither would most of the MMO community. You are delusional if you think otherwise.
After some time to think about it... I believe that the OP and the many post like it are due to the cool-aid.
You know this guy once upon a time convinced a whole bunch of people to drink the cool-aid. So its kind of like if someone keeps posting about Full PvP (and why you really want to play it even tho you don't) eventually people will just give in..
Tho I would say the simple logic is this...
People talk about FFA (or open) worlds and freedom... but that "freedom" only works if you choose to play their way. Which by any logical thought process would not be relative to freedom.
Oddly the "carebears" are entirely open to PvP servers and/or PvP areas that they don't have to go into.. which of course is actually "freedom" because everyone can go play in the place (or server) that meets their playstyle.
So using logic once again... trying to force people into a "full open pvp" world... is simply trying to impose your playstyle on someone else aka grief them.
Here we go again...
The myths
1. You just want to grief me.
This is the self-centered argument of someone who was scarred for life in Ultima Online a decade ago and can’t move on. We actually don’t care if you play the game. In fact, if you dislike full PVP then we hope you don’t play
It is definitely a self centered arrogant argument to try and impose something on other people and then blame them for not wanting this "thing" they never wanted.
Here is a fact... there are almost no full PvP games because almost no one plays them in relation to market size. Even a failed PvE game (with opt in pvp) does better.
So where is the arguement even coming from? There is no full pvp game anybody has asked to be changed into something else... while there ARE plenty of games a certain self centered portion of the community want changed... even tho developers aren't changing them.
Nobody that I know of was scarred for life in UO... in fact its the best MMO ever created (in my opinion) and that was certainly before Trammel ever existed or the various versions of murder penalties. Of course let's avoid the fact that UO would have done much better had Trammel existed at launch and we might have avoided the endless EQ clones that eventually led to WoW... because we'd rather just have these veiled discussions that really revolved around some unskilled persons desire to kill hapless miners and their mules...
*edited to add* When UO added the ability to declare war on other guilds through your guild stone (which they had to consent to). That evolved into some of the best/wildest fights I've ever seen in a game. Adding into the fact that you obviously had to consent to PvP when you knew your guild was at war... that you could fight in guard zones (no place was safe unlike the FFA version where the guards 1 shot killed you) ... those are the kinds of systems that could exist in ANY game... and allow people to take part in the play style they like.... that's the logical path... the path that doesn't end up in dead games or games that never happen because nobody is going to invest the 100 Million plus $$'s to make that FFA game.
Originally posted by Bidwood Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by BidwoodHere we go again...The myths1. You just want to grief me.This is the self-centered argument of someone who was scarred for life in Ultima Online a decade ago and cant move on. We actually dont care if you play the game. In fact, if you dislike full PVP then we hope you dont play
If people really don't care, why then does this thread exist, if not to convince people that their ideas about PvP games and servers are wrong, and that they should give them a chance?You don't have to change your mind or give anything a chance. The point of this thread was to get you to see the point of view of me and others like me--that we aren't just out to grief you, your "solutions" (e.g. PVP servers) don't work for us, etc. Because every time I describe the game I want, someone inevitably comes rushing in to drop one of the myth's off as a reason why I shouldn't have that game and should be happy with one of their solutions.
Why does that matter? I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but who cares if you're not out to grief me? If I'm not into OW PvP or FFA PvP games, then the thoughts and feelings of the people who are into those games aren't really that relevant, are they?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Well Bidwood the question still remains, if you do not care if we play OWPVP, why do you then bother to explain your idea again and again? Ok we understand, you personally do now want to gank us. Your idea might actually work, the reason that no game studio have released a game like that is most likely that the demand is not there. And that the production costs would be way to high (and interestingly enenough OWPVP games must according to al who writes about them be absolutely perfect, in it self a reason not to try to design one). I play EQ2 a far from perfect game, stop trying to find the holy grail and have fun instead.
Another long winded drawn out thread made by someone that just plain doesn't get it.
A game does not have to be 100% FFA PvP...create a FFA PvP server for those that want it and a PvE server for those that want that. Problem sovled. You get what you want, others get what they want and ANYONE that doesn't agree to that is only thinking of themselves and are blind to the fact that it can be done and in a way that isn't harmfull to either play style.
I would truly love to have the perfect PvP character on a PvP game and just fight and jump out and get jumped on. I would need plenty of nicotine and caffeine to do so, but it would be fun.
But sadly, there is not enough cigarettes and mountain dew on Earth to allow me to build and level that toon and keep up with all the other elements of the game. Perhaps I could do what I needed in the hours when few were online in an obscure realm or whatever. But its just not for me. I could never calm back down to do the other 90% of the content.
Now start me off with an op'd assassin type in a pvp world......sure......big fun......mean and nasty.....but big fun.
These games do have many different aspects to them that appeal to varying tastes. Its ok to just like pvp and its ok to just like pve. I enjoy pve with pvp events and such.
In the game I enjoy the most, we have pvp and pve servers. Cross server talk on the forum is bitter at best. The pvp servers make valid points like how we are so op'd compared to them and how spoiled we are because they have to fight tooth and nail just to gather plants or try to complete a basic quest. Well that is the nature of the beast and the choice we make. Each wants their gaming style catered to. The problem is we each enjoy a game for many reasons, not all are the same.
There are several reasons why the PvP crowd cannot accept the reasonable solutions such as PvP servers, zone, flags or any other form of consensual PvP -- without the PvE crowd, the PvP game doesn't exist. Here's some factors to consider.
Without PvE players, there's not enough players to populate PvP servers fully. The PvP players are a distinct minority within the MMORPG community (just like the RPing crowd). It's a niche market, unable to sustain healthy server populations.
Without PvE players, there aren't easy targets to be killed. The griefers thrive on the ability to ambush someone and disrupt their game play with unilateral violence, frequently while the victim is unaware or distracted by another game element.
While I recognize that not all PvP advocates are griefers, a vast majority of griefers are PvP advocates. Anyone with a semi-decent education can present themselves as reasonable, but when presented with a player 7 levels lower and recovering from a tough fight, those players will often choose to become opportunity predators.
There are always excuses for this bad behavior. The game allows me to do that. I was role-playing a serial murderer. They (the victim) should have been more alert. All platitudes to excuse the interjection of one play style over another, or an attempt to push the blame on the victim, like the rapist who claims their victim was 'asking for it' by the way they dressed. It's all deflection and selfishness. My fun. Not a thought for the victim's fun.
The PvE game is all about willingness and cooperation. People work together to accomplish goals, either individual or shared. Two players might need to cooperate to build something (crafting), or to debate which god is cleverest (RPing) or to defeat a tough monster (combat). There are possibly many other elements of game play that people might enjoy.
Non-consensual PvP asks all players to participate in a single, unified play style. This style moves all the other elements into a secondary role. The PvP play style become an interruption on all other elements that players might have fun, because ignoring the PvP element will result in an in-game death, something that is generally undesired.
Suppose for a moment that there was a way for the PvE crowd to interpose its play style on the PvP player. A PvP player sets up his ambush, and... suddenly, and without their consent, they are sitting speaking to another player in an odd language for the rest of the evening. For a good number of players, that would be an intolerable situation.
But, that is the very nature of non-consensual PvP. One play style is forced on another player. Even if there isn't an actual attack, PvP activity in the area causes a reaction from everyone nearby, whether that is running for safety, organizing a resistance, moving to a less-desirable hunting spot, or remaining in-place with the higher-than-anticipated risk. It impacts other players (perhaps) negatively.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
There are several reasons why the PvP crowd cannot accept the reasonable solutions such as PvP servers, zone, flags or any other form of consensual PvP -- without the PvE crowd, the PvP game doesn't exist. Here's some factors to consider.
Without PvE players, there's not enough players to populate PvP servers fully. The PvP players are a distinct minority within the MMORPG community (just like the RPing crowd). It's a niche market, unable to sustain healthy server populations.
Without PvE players, there aren't easy targets to be killed. The griefers thrive on the ability to ambush someone and disrupt their game play with unilateral violence, frequently while the victim is unaware or distracted by another game element.
While I recognize that not all PvP advocates are griefers, a vast majority of griefers are PvP advocates. Anyone with a semi-decent education can present themselves as reasonable, but when presented with a player 7 levels lower and recovering from a tough fight, those players will often choose to become opportunity predators.
There are always excuses for this bad behavior. The game allows me to do that. I was role-playing a serial murderer. They (the victim) should have been more alert. All platitudes to excuse the interjection of one play style over another, or an attempt to push the blame on the victim, like the rapist who claims their victim was 'asking for it' by the way they dressed. It's all deflection and selfishness. My fun. Not a thought for the victim's fun.
The PvE game is all about willingness and cooperation. People work together to accomplish goals, either individual or shared. Two players might need to cooperate to build something (crafting), or to debate which god is cleverest (RPing) or to defeat a tough monster (combat). There are possibly many other elements of game play that people might enjoy.
Non-consensual PvP asks all players to participate in a single, unified play style. This style moves all the other elements into a secondary role. The PvP play style become an interruption on all other elements that players might have fun, because ignoring the PvP element will result in an in-game death, something that is generally undesired.
Suppose for a moment that there was a way for the PvE crowd to interpose its play style on the PvP player. A PvP player sets up his ambush, and... suddenly, and without their consent, they are sitting speaking to another player in an odd language for the rest of the evening. For a good number of players, that would be an intolerable situation.
But, that is the very nature of non-consensual PvP. One play style is forced on another player. Even if there isn't an actual attack, PvP activity in the area causes a reaction from everyone nearby, whether that is running for safety, organizing a resistance, moving to a less-desirable hunting spot, or remaining in-place with the higher-than-anticipated risk. It impacts other players (perhaps) negatively.
First of all kodus on comparing attacking a weakened character in a game to rapists. Insulting to both rape victims and pvp'ers.
Many PVP'ers who like full pvp do not because of "easy targets". What you need to realize is that making the game full pvp unlocks a lot of gameplay possibilities. Take EVE online, without full pvp and ships blowing up everywhere the economy would crash and industry/mining would crash as well. On top of that full pvp makes things much spicier. I live in low sec and the existence of constant threat makes PVE more exciting. "Will someone try to disrupt me while i'm clearing this complex? Will I be able to handle him? etc.". On top of that it also adds value to PVE'ing in dangerous zones. Considering there is more danger less people dare do it and those who do are rewarded for their risks.
And you also talk about PVP basically becoming an interruption to all other elements. Well that's also a great thing about it. It adds a level of complexity and challenge. No longer is PVE only about mindlessly hitting dumb NPC's, no now it's also about mitigating risks of other players interrupting you and how to keep yourself safe from them.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
First of all kodus on comparing attacking a weakened character in a game to rapists. Insulting to both rape victims and pvp'ers.
He has a point though. Both actions are basically being violent towards another person who you know is unable to defend herself because weaker than you.
While the comparison may be exaggerated, the similitudes remain. Both are "bully actions", if you prefer.
I still consider the fact he choose rape for his analogy to be quite distasteful. If he truly felt like there was a need to make a real life comparison he could have gone for bullying (which, while still bad, is at least less evil and thus doesn't create the same kind of insanely negative connotation towards the principle of killing a weak game character).
And where you are wrong is that in the case of the game it is not towards a person. It is towards lines of code. Might as well compare hitting a defenseless wall to rape.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Good post OP, but I doubt the closed minded PvE folks will read it.
Why do you need PvE players to read it ? You do not want PvE players because they are the ones who ask for separate servers and flags in games. So why would you want them ?
Actually hardcore PvP players who seem to obsess over having PvE players be victims to there play style, depend upon PvE players to populate there game so that they have easy targets to kill.
FFAPvPers need the easy to kill PvE players to make themselves feel better since they WTFPWNED that noob harvesting that node.
The OP wants PvE players in his FFAPvP game for that reason.
The highlighted part is actually where all FFA PvP proponents are wrong. Everything in a game is towards lines of code... except PvP. There's another real person behind the keyboard of that character you just killed, and your action negatively affect that person. So yes, the bully argument works just fine. The only difference between real life bullies and game bullies is that game bullies have close to no consequences to face... which could be arguably making them cowards as well as bullies. I doubt that more than 5% of the game bullies also behave like asshats in real life, because they would be way too afraid of the real consequences for doing so.
Actually the no consequence part can only be blamed on the "victim". In FFA PVP game nothing prevents you to retaliate or in the case of EVE to put a bounty on your assailant to make other wanna kill him.
Secondly there are many things which negatively affect people behind their PC. An idiot whiping the raid also negatively affects me, someone buying an item on the market i wanted to buy is also negatively affecting me, someone in CoD killing me also negatively affects me. The only way to avoid this is to stick to single player games. If someone feels negatively affected by gameplay in a game to an extend it is comparable to bullying said person should probably not play anything multiplayer. The whole point of games is that you can win and lose. If you can only win it would be boring as hell.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
There are inevitable debates that pop up during the development of high-profile, triple-A MMOs.
This purpose of this thread is to dispel the myths about full PVP that grow back like weeds every time you cut them down. Hopefully this thread helps some folks see the point of view of those who are waiting patiently for a triple-A game with full PVP.
So what is “full” PVP? Here are some of the defining characteristics:
PVP is “on” throughout the entire world. (No place is 100 per cent safe, although there can be some areas with strong protection like hi-sec in EVE.)
It's integrated with the other mature game systems in a meaningful way -- like the economy -- where everything from crafting to territory control are designed with PVP in mind. (Integration with other well-developed systems is where a lot of the indies fall short and why we need a triple-A title.)
It involves risk v.s. reward in a big way. Getting the best resources means venturing into unsafe/contested territories.
I may need to expand on the defining characteristics after other folks weigh in.
The myths
1. You just want to grief me.
This is the self-centered argument of someone who was scarred for life in Ultima Online a decade ago and can’t move on. We actually don’t care if you play the game. In fact, if you dislike full PVP then we hope you don’t play
2. “Why should I be forced to play your way? No one is forcing you to PVE.”
This makes it sound like you’re already a paying customer for a game and we’re pulling the rug out from under you. If a game is in development and you find out it has full PVP, you aren’t forced to do anything. You can simply play a different game. If you do play and get ganked, then you still made a conscious decision with regard to risk v.s. reward. And you lost. No one forced anything on you.
3. It’s PVP v.s. PVE and people who enjoy PVP are a niche.
This creates sort of a false dichotomy where you’re looking at a niche of gamers – those who only want to PVP – and ignoring the huge market of folks who want to PVP AND PVE. So the most passionate arguments are usually between those who want ONLY full PVP and those who want ONLY PVE. Both of these are arguably niche, but then again League of Legends is the most played game in the world with only PVP.
4. Okay - but the majority of people want PVP on their terms.
How many triple-A MMOs with full PVP have they even been able to try in the last 15 years? Who's to say they would find a triple-A game with full PVP distasteful? Games like Darkfall don't count, because they don't have mature systems to integrate with the PVP.
5. The answer is simple: Just let people flag themselves for PVP when they want to engage in it.
Things go wrong when you take a game designed for full PVP and let people opt in/out whenever they want. Take, for example, the risk v.s. reward characteristic. Human nature compels us to get rewards using the path that involves as little risk as possible. Even people who love risk would be stupid not to turn PVP off because it puts them at a distinct tactical disadvantage. This is like Game Geenie or any number of other hacks and it would break any game designed with full PVP.
6. The answer is simple: Just implement PVP and non-PVP servers.
You might as well have two different games, because full PVP requires a dedicated dev team to succeed. Remember, it’s not just the ability to attack people. It’s the integration of PVP with other game systems and risk v.s. reward. While a game with dedicated full-service dev teams for each server type would be great for players, it could also hurt publishers’ return on investment.
7. Look around at the limited number of PVP servers on popular games. This is proof that the market for open-world PVP games is niche.
The only thing this proves is that gamers don’t like a server where a core game mechanic has been merely “turned on” as an afterthought to the game’s design. The PVP is often meaningless in these games because it isn’t “full” PVP and is essentially in its own vaccuum.
Okay, so that’s what I was able to come up with so far. I’ll probably refine this and come up with a “v 2.0” after all of the arguments are made.
This form of pvp game should be titled: WARNING: NOT FOR THOSE WHO WORK FULL TIME AND HAVE FAMILIES.
The pvp you refer to is the same grief pvp crap that has existed for years in games that merely lift the coding between players so they can tear the face off of Bob the Banker who, by 8 pm has the kids to bed and has a few hours to play...tops.
I came from Dark Age of Camelot where pvp had meaning. Three realms existed - the kind where a punk can't just bounce between guilds at will but had to truly choose an identity and defend that realm (this is a complex concept for the typical pvp bottom feeder). We actually got to fight folks that were different races and classes...none of this more watered down elementary stuff where a corn field = pvp between all the races of a spawning point.
The pvp you are referring to is the old school bottom feed off of people as they log in with few hours to play with style. That format is obviously not working, hence why it only vaguely exists. Pvp needs to be meaningful and creative...massive sprawling territories with castles and towers, each territory being unique in architecture and design to fit in with the culture that built it.
^^This concept alone is far more than any pvp game has ever considered since the advent of Dark Age of Camelot. But anyway - you aren't going to care and not a single developer reads this stuff since no corporate sponsors wrote it, lol.
Bounty systems are awesome... so not only you get punished for being killed and losing all your stuff, but then you have to pay to get revenge. Double punishment for the victim, which the aggressor most likely has already stored everything he stole safely in his bank. Awesome concept.
None of the activities you describe (except CoD, which is a PvP game so I don't see the point...) are forced upon you like FFA PvP. A guy wiping the raid not only doesn't stop me from playing the game, but he can be completely excluded from the activity if it is malicious. That doesn't work for FFA PvP. Someone buying an item I wanted doesn't stop me from playing the game, and eventually buying the next item. That doesn't work for FFA PvP.
PvP is the strongest possible interaction between players in a multiplayer game. Nothing else permits them to affect each other that much. I don't expect a FFA PvP proponent to accept that, but it's an undeniable fact.
Whether it is enforced is highly irrelevant to the concept of negatively affecting someone behind the pc. Heck you seemed to exclude CoD because it was a PvP game... Well that's the whole point an MMO with FFA PVP is a PVP game.
And the idea that someone killing you in a FFA PVP game prevents you to play the game is ridiculous. I guess there are no PVE'ers in EVE online? If you get killed all that happens is that you lose stuff. Just like wiping in a raid also results in losses (the amount depends on the game), and not being able to buy something you wanted to is also a loss. You will not be able to own said items. Someone actively prevented you to play with said item. So if I were to hyperbole as you do that would also be "preventing me to play the game".
If your gameplay stops the moment you get attacked by a PVP'er you're doing it wrong. That's it. I've never been unable to play in EVE online because I was ganked at a gate or suicide ganked in high sec.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Anyone who wants to promote "full PVP" needs to first answer this question:
Should full PVP games have severe consequences for ganking unsuspecting weaker players who don't have a fighting chance against you?
If you can't answer "yes - up to permanent bans for repeat offenders" to that, you have no business promoting full PVP. That's the one "risk vs. reward" detail that's usually avoided.
I haven't seen many full PVP evangelists who are ok with the concept that repeat griefers are bad for the game and should be booted. The just like to preach about an idealized PVP system where this type of griefing doesn't happen or, if they're honest enough to admit that it's a frequent occurrence, that it's somehow the victim's fault because "they knew what they were signing up for" or "it's stupid for a low level player to be alone" or another equally idiotic rationalization.
"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
Anyone who wants to promote "full PVP" needs to first answer this question:
Should full PVP games have severe consequences for ganking unsuspecting weaker players who don't have a fighting chance against you?
If you can't answer "yes - up to permanent bans for repeat offenders" to that, you have no business promoting full PVP. That's the one "risk vs. reward" detail that's usually avoided.
I haven't seen many full PVP evangelists who are ok with the concept that repeat griefers are bad for the game and should be booted. The just like to preach about an idealized PVP system where this type of griefing doesn't happen or, if they're honest enough to admit that it's a frequent occurrence, that it's somehow the victim's fault because "they knew what they were signing up for" or "it's stupid for a low level player to be alone" or another equally idiotic rationalization.
You're doing it wrong. If it's wrong to attack unsuspecting and weaker opponents you're reducing the risks for them. Which for instance would break many gameplay mechanics in games like EVE online where hauling and mining ships are almost totally defenseless. According to you that would mean no one should be able to attack them and that would make their jobs risk free. What you need in a full PVP game are good mechanics not simple blanket rules which can be incompatible with gameplay mechanics. For instance in EVE online the bulk of your force stems from your ships and equipment. Which the better it is the more it costs. So while your risks of dying are dropping the potential loss when you do is increasing. This is why only the spacerich people or cowards who only engage in battles with 99.9% odds of winning use pimped up fancy ships.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Anyone who wants to promote "full PVP" needs to first answer this question:
Should full PVP games have severe consequences for ganking unsuspecting weaker players who don't have a fighting chance against you?
If you can't answer "yes - up to permanent bans for repeat offenders" to that, you have no business promoting full PVP. That's the one "risk vs. reward" detail that's usually avoided.
I haven't seen many full PVP evangelists who are ok with the concept that repeat griefers are bad for the game and should be booted. The just like to preach about an idealized PVP system where this type of griefing doesn't happen or, if they're honest enough to admit that it's a frequent occurrence, that it's somehow the victim's fault because "they knew what they were signing up for" or "it's stupid for a low level player to be alone" or another equally idiotic rationalization.
You're doing it wrong. If it's wrong to attack unsuspecting and weaker opponents you're reducing the risks for them. Which for instance would break many gameplay mechanics in games like EVE online where hauling and mining ships are almost totally defenseless. According to you that would mean no one should be able to attack them and that would make their jobs risk free. What you need in a full PVP game are good mechanics not simple blanket rules which can be incompatible with gameplay mechanics. For instance in EVE online the bulk of your force stems from your ships and equipment. Which the better it is the more it costs. So while your risks of dying are dropping the potential loss when you do is increasing. This is why only the spacerich people or cowards who only engage in battles with 99.9% odds of winning use pimped up fancy ships.
You call them cowards yourself but you defend the system that allows them play right along with the majority of non-cowards? EVE is actually a good example of how not to do it - it's a simulation of anarchy where the only solution to bullying is to bully them back. How about they lose their ships AND get a "sentence." What's wrong with them running that risk?
"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
- Some idiot wipes the raid? Two things: 1) you can completely exclude him from that activity and 2) you aren't forced to raid.
- Some guy buys the item you wanted? Big deal, buy the next one. No real harm done, nothing forced on you.
- You're out there minding your own business and some guy 20 levels higher than you ganks you and takes everything you had? You have to choice, it's forced on you, you can't even fight back, you are screwed. You are never "safe" in FFA PvP, it's forced on you everywhere.
I will repeat: PvP is the strongest possible interaction between players in a multiplayer game.Undeniable fact. And the with by far the strongest ability to disrupts other people's gameplay, notably weaker characters.
1) Some idiot still enforced a wipe onto me. If I could have chosen I would have chosen not to wipe. And the idea i'm not forced to raid is silly. You're basically saying "if there is an idiot wiping just don't raid!". Might as well say "if there is someone ganking you there, just don't do whatever you were doing and go elsewhere".
2) The guy buying the item can have very big consequences. Who says said item will be on the market again any time soon? And whether or not there is no real harm done is subjective.
3) Actually no, if the game is done right there are ways to mitigate risks and if you do it right you can often avoid being attacked and dying.
And what is also undeniable is that PVP can also be a great tool to disrupt people disrupting you. The only useful part of PVP in WoW was being able to kill those pesky hordes trying mine the ore i had my eyes on. PVP allowed me to disrupt someone else so he wouldn't disrupt me.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
7. Look around at the limited number of PVP servers on popular games. This is proof that the market for open-world PVP games is niche.
The only thing this proves is that gamers don’t like a server where a core game mechanic has been merely “turned on” as an afterthought to the game’s design. The PVP is often meaningless in these games because it isn’t “full” PVP and is essentially in its own vaccuum.
This right here, I can't remember the last AAA game that was designed around full pvp. Its always an afterthought or an optional server and of course some instanced crap, can't have pvp in the open world. The problem with these games is pvp is just that, an afterthought with no real meaning. Give me territory and resource control, cities that can be sieged or destroyed, a meaningful death penalty (like full loot) and a game at its core designed around pvp. Give us meaningful objectives and real reasons to fight.
Nothings worse than trying to pvp in any of these AAA pve games where they added a pvp server, its just not fun.
P.S. Darkfall UW is the closest thing to this out atm, it needs alot more work and still doesn't come close to the first game, but they are working on it. It is also not a AAA title but an indie title, if darkfall had the money that a AAA company has it would be amazaing, but they don't. Give it a try if you want something new, its definitely worth the box price if only for its uniqueness there really isn't any other game like it.
Comments
I really enjoy PvP, but not really in MMORPGs*. That said, I think Adalwulff's view is probably the best possible scenario, if it were possible. A complete OW PvP MMORPG in the same world as a complete PvE MMORPG with PvP Flags or something like that. I like this idea because it would involve creating a very large world and could encompass a very large number of activities. This probably isn't what Adalwulff is talking about, but I still like the idea of "having it all".
I don't know that this is even remotely possible, but I really like the idea.
**
Specifically, I'm not a fan of OW or FFA PvP in MMORPGs. Match based shooters, RTS, even MOBAs are all OK, but put it in an MMORPG and it seems to suck the fun out of it for me.
**
Even PvP flags, battle grounds and PvP zones are fine with me and I enjoy them all. So really, I just don't like OW PvP in MMORPGs. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
After some time to think about it... I believe that the OP and the many post like it are due to the cool-aid.
You know this guy once upon a time convinced a whole bunch of people to drink the cool-aid. So its kind of like if someone keeps posting about Full PvP (and why you really want to play it even tho you don't) eventually people will just give in..
Tho I would say the simple logic is this...
People talk about FFA (or open) worlds and freedom... but that "freedom" only works if you choose to play their way. Which by any logical thought process would not be relative to freedom.
Oddly the "carebears" are entirely open to PvP servers and/or PvP areas that they don't have to go into.. which of course is actually "freedom" because everyone can go play in the place (or server) that meets their playstyle.
So using logic once again... trying to force people into a "full open pvp" world... is simply trying to impose your playstyle on someone else aka grief them.
Here we go again...
The myths
1. You just want to grief me.
If people really don't care, why then does this thread exist, if not to convince people that their ideas about PvP games and servers are wrong, and that they should give them a chance?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You don't have to change your mind or give anything a chance. The point of this thread was to get you to see the point of view of me and others like me--that we aren't just out to grief you, your "solutions" (e.g. PVP servers) don't work for us, etc. Because every time I describe the game I want, someone inevitably comes rushing in to drop one of the myth's off as a reason why I shouldn't have that game and should be happy with one of their solutions.
It is definitely a self centered arrogant argument to try and impose something on other people and then blame them for not wanting this "thing" they never wanted.
Here is a fact... there are almost no full PvP games because almost no one plays them in relation to market size. Even a failed PvE game (with opt in pvp) does better.
So where is the arguement even coming from? There is no full pvp game anybody has asked to be changed into something else... while there ARE plenty of games a certain self centered portion of the community want changed... even tho developers aren't changing them.
Nobody that I know of was scarred for life in UO... in fact its the best MMO ever created (in my opinion) and that was certainly before Trammel ever existed or the various versions of murder penalties. Of course let's avoid the fact that UO would have done much better had Trammel existed at launch and we might have avoided the endless EQ clones that eventually led to WoW... because we'd rather just have these veiled discussions that really revolved around some unskilled persons desire to kill hapless miners and their mules...
*edited to add* When UO added the ability to declare war on other guilds through your guild stone (which they had to consent to). That evolved into some of the best/wildest fights I've ever seen in a game. Adding into the fact that you obviously had to consent to PvP when you knew your guild was at war... that you could fight in guard zones (no place was safe unlike the FFA version where the guards 1 shot killed you) ... those are the kinds of systems that could exist in ANY game... and allow people to take part in the play style they like.... that's the logical path... the path that doesn't end up in dead games or games that never happen because nobody is going to invest the 100 Million plus $$'s to make that FFA game.
But you know... whatever...
You don't have to change your mind or give anything a chance. The point of this thread was to get you to see the point of view of me and others like me--that we aren't just out to grief you, your "solutions" (e.g. PVP servers) don't work for us, etc. Because every time I describe the game I want, someone inevitably comes rushing in to drop one of the myth's off as a reason why I shouldn't have that game and should be happy with one of their solutions.
Why does that matter? I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but who cares if you're not out to grief me? If I'm not into OW PvP or FFA PvP games, then the thoughts and feelings of the people who are into those games aren't really that relevant, are they?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Chi puo dir com'egli arde é in picciol fuoco.
He who can describe the flame does not burn.
Petrarch
Another long winded drawn out thread made by someone that just plain doesn't get it.
A game does not have to be 100% FFA PvP...create a FFA PvP server for those that want it and a PvE server for those that want that. Problem sovled. You get what you want, others get what they want and ANYONE that doesn't agree to that is only thinking of themselves and are blind to the fact that it can be done and in a way that isn't harmfull to either play style.
Chi puo dir com'egli arde é in picciol fuoco.
He who can describe the flame does not burn.
Petrarch
I would truly love to have the perfect PvP character on a PvP game and just fight and jump out and get jumped on. I would need plenty of nicotine and caffeine to do so, but it would be fun.
But sadly, there is not enough cigarettes and mountain dew on Earth to allow me to build and level that toon and keep up with all the other elements of the game. Perhaps I could do what I needed in the hours when few were online in an obscure realm or whatever. But its just not for me. I could never calm back down to do the other 90% of the content.
Now start me off with an op'd assassin type in a pvp world......sure......big fun......mean and nasty.....but big fun.
These games do have many different aspects to them that appeal to varying tastes. Its ok to just like pvp and its ok to just like pve. I enjoy pve with pvp events and such.
In the game I enjoy the most, we have pvp and pve servers. Cross server talk on the forum is bitter at best. The pvp servers make valid points like how we are so op'd compared to them and how spoiled we are because they have to fight tooth and nail just to gather plants or try to complete a basic quest. Well that is the nature of the beast and the choice we make. Each wants their gaming style catered to. The problem is we each enjoy a game for many reasons, not all are the same.
This thread's still alive?
There are several reasons why the PvP crowd cannot accept the reasonable solutions such as PvP servers, zone, flags or any other form of consensual PvP -- without the PvE crowd, the PvP game doesn't exist. Here's some factors to consider.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
a-t-t-e-n-t-i-o-n
First of all kodus on comparing attacking a weakened character in a game to rapists. Insulting to both rape victims and pvp'ers.
Many PVP'ers who like full pvp do not because of "easy targets". What you need to realize is that making the game full pvp unlocks a lot of gameplay possibilities. Take EVE online, without full pvp and ships blowing up everywhere the economy would crash and industry/mining would crash as well. On top of that full pvp makes things much spicier. I live in low sec and the existence of constant threat makes PVE more exciting. "Will someone try to disrupt me while i'm clearing this complex? Will I be able to handle him? etc.". On top of that it also adds value to PVE'ing in dangerous zones. Considering there is more danger less people dare do it and those who do are rewarded for their risks.
And you also talk about PVP basically becoming an interruption to all other elements. Well that's also a great thing about it. It adds a level of complexity and challenge. No longer is PVE only about mindlessly hitting dumb NPC's, no now it's also about mitigating risks of other players interrupting you and how to keep yourself safe from them.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
I still consider the fact he choose rape for his analogy to be quite distasteful. If he truly felt like there was a need to make a real life comparison he could have gone for bullying (which, while still bad, is at least less evil and thus doesn't create the same kind of insanely negative connotation towards the principle of killing a weak game character).
And where you are wrong is that in the case of the game it is not towards a person. It is towards lines of code. Might as well compare hitting a defenseless wall to rape.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Actually hardcore PvP players who seem to obsess over having PvE players be victims to there play style, depend upon PvE players to populate there game so that they have easy targets to kill.
FFAPvPers need the easy to kill PvE players to make themselves feel better since they WTFPWNED that noob harvesting that node.
The OP wants PvE players in his FFAPvP game for that reason.
Lolipops !
Actually the no consequence part can only be blamed on the "victim". In FFA PVP game nothing prevents you to retaliate or in the case of EVE to put a bounty on your assailant to make other wanna kill him.
Secondly there are many things which negatively affect people behind their PC. An idiot whiping the raid also negatively affects me, someone buying an item on the market i wanted to buy is also negatively affecting me, someone in CoD killing me also negatively affects me. The only way to avoid this is to stick to single player games. If someone feels negatively affected by gameplay in a game to an extend it is comparable to bullying said person should probably not play anything multiplayer. The whole point of games is that you can win and lose. If you can only win it would be boring as hell.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
This form of pvp game should be titled: WARNING: NOT FOR THOSE WHO WORK FULL TIME AND HAVE FAMILIES.
The pvp you refer to is the same grief pvp crap that has existed for years in games that merely lift the coding between players so they can tear the face off of Bob the Banker who, by 8 pm has the kids to bed and has a few hours to play...tops.
I came from Dark Age of Camelot where pvp had meaning. Three realms existed - the kind where a punk can't just bounce between guilds at will but had to truly choose an identity and defend that realm (this is a complex concept for the typical pvp bottom feeder). We actually got to fight folks that were different races and classes...none of this more watered down elementary stuff where a corn field = pvp between all the races of a spawning point.
The pvp you are referring to is the old school bottom feed off of people as they log in with few hours to play with style. That format is obviously not working, hence why it only vaguely exists. Pvp needs to be meaningful and creative...massive sprawling territories with castles and towers, each territory being unique in architecture and design to fit in with the culture that built it.
^^This concept alone is far more than any pvp game has ever considered since the advent of Dark Age of Camelot. But anyway - you aren't going to care and not a single developer reads this stuff since no corporate sponsors wrote it, lol.
/cheers
Whether it is enforced is highly irrelevant to the concept of negatively affecting someone behind the pc. Heck you seemed to exclude CoD because it was a PvP game... Well that's the whole point an MMO with FFA PVP is a PVP game.
And the idea that someone killing you in a FFA PVP game prevents you to play the game is ridiculous. I guess there are no PVE'ers in EVE online? If you get killed all that happens is that you lose stuff. Just like wiping in a raid also results in losses (the amount depends on the game), and not being able to buy something you wanted to is also a loss. You will not be able to own said items. Someone actively prevented you to play with said item. So if I were to hyperbole as you do that would also be "preventing me to play the game".
If your gameplay stops the moment you get attacked by a PVP'er you're doing it wrong. That's it. I've never been unable to play in EVE online because I was ganked at a gate or suicide ganked in high sec.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Anyone who wants to promote "full PVP" needs to first answer this question:
Should full PVP games have severe consequences for ganking unsuspecting weaker players who don't have a fighting chance against you?
If you can't answer "yes - up to permanent bans for repeat offenders" to that, you have no business promoting full PVP. That's the one "risk vs. reward" detail that's usually avoided.
I haven't seen many full PVP evangelists who are ok with the concept that repeat griefers are bad for the game and should be booted. The just like to preach about an idealized PVP system where this type of griefing doesn't happen or, if they're honest enough to admit that it's a frequent occurrence, that it's somehow the victim's fault because "they knew what they were signing up for" or "it's stupid for a low level player to be alone" or another equally idiotic rationalization.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
You're doing it wrong. If it's wrong to attack unsuspecting and weaker opponents you're reducing the risks for them. Which for instance would break many gameplay mechanics in games like EVE online where hauling and mining ships are almost totally defenseless. According to you that would mean no one should be able to attack them and that would make their jobs risk free. What you need in a full PVP game are good mechanics not simple blanket rules which can be incompatible with gameplay mechanics. For instance in EVE online the bulk of your force stems from your ships and equipment. Which the better it is the more it costs. So while your risks of dying are dropping the potential loss when you do is increasing. This is why only the spacerich people or cowards who only engage in battles with 99.9% odds of winning use pimped up fancy ships.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
You call them cowards yourself but you defend the system that allows them play right along with the majority of non-cowards?
EVE is actually a good example of how not to do it - it's a simulation of anarchy where the only solution to bullying is to bully them back. How about they lose their ships AND get a "sentence." What's wrong with them running that risk?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
1) Some idiot still enforced a wipe onto me. If I could have chosen I would have chosen not to wipe. And the idea i'm not forced to raid is silly. You're basically saying "if there is an idiot wiping just don't raid!". Might as well say "if there is someone ganking you there, just don't do whatever you were doing and go elsewhere".
2) The guy buying the item can have very big consequences. Who says said item will be on the market again any time soon? And whether or not there is no real harm done is subjective.
3) Actually no, if the game is done right there are ways to mitigate risks and if you do it right you can often avoid being attacked and dying.
And what is also undeniable is that PVP can also be a great tool to disrupt people disrupting you. The only useful part of PVP in WoW was being able to kill those pesky hordes trying mine the ore i had my eyes on. PVP allowed me to disrupt someone else so he wouldn't disrupt me.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
This right here, I can't remember the last AAA game that was designed around full pvp. Its always an afterthought or an optional server and of course some instanced crap, can't have pvp in the open world. The problem with these games is pvp is just that, an afterthought with no real meaning. Give me territory and resource control, cities that can be sieged or destroyed, a meaningful death penalty (like full loot) and a game at its core designed around pvp. Give us meaningful objectives and real reasons to fight.
Nothings worse than trying to pvp in any of these AAA pve games where they added a pvp server, its just not fun.
P.S. Darkfall UW is the closest thing to this out atm, it needs alot more work and still doesn't come close to the first game, but they are working on it. It is also not a AAA title but an indie title, if darkfall had the money that a AAA company has it would be amazaing, but they don't. Give it a try if you want something new, its definitely worth the box price if only for its uniqueness there really isn't any other game like it.