While I do believe PVP centric games can be incredible experiences, my 10+ years in EVE have allowed me to understand that there is something truly amazing when the symbiotic relationship between PVP and PVE is given an environment in which to flourish together.
All or nothing? Hello no. Not in my experience.
That is your preference.
Eve is a boring game to me.
That speaks more to the player than the game.
Just like the wow haters here? Speak more to the player than the game?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The truth is there can't be "meaningful" PvP in a game.
No, the truth is any meaning causes it to be meaningful PVP.
The most basic and common meaning being skill competition: winning means you're more skilled than the other player/team.
So meaningful PVP is commonplace. Even the games where PVP is won largely by population or progression are meaningful (winning means you brought more friends). And that's where we realize "meaningful" isn't a particularly useful word for describing how interesting a game is going to be (since if PVP is so shallow that bringing more friends has a strong influence over the outcome, then it doesn't matter whether that's meaningful, because it's shallow. So "game depth" is the more useful term; it's a measure of how difficult a game is to master.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No PvP flags, but if you avoid downtown, you should be ok. There are a lot more police in midtown and uptown. (But again, the CEOs and politicians will mostly live Uptown, so still watch yourself.)
wait ... if i don't like pvp, how would i like this game? There is no option to turn it off, and I have to avoid some part of the game?
It is worse than a pay wall.
Again. Not talking to you.
In fact, unless I quote you or say your name directly, just assume that I'm not talking to you.
No PvP flags, but if you avoid downtown, you should be ok. There are a lot more police in midtown and uptown. (But again, the CEOs and politicians will mostly live Uptown, so still watch yourself.)
wait ... if i don't like pvp, how would i like this game? There is no option to turn it off, and I have to avoid some part of the game?
It is worse than a pay wall.
Again. Not talking to you.
In fact, unless I quote you or say your name directly, just assume that I'm not talking to you.
lol .. yet you replied to my post.
You don't have to talk to me. You can ignore my comments on your post. This is a public forum, i certainly can and will comment on anything i like.
The truth is there can't be "meaningful" PvP in a game.
No, the truth is any meaning causes it to be meaningful PVP.
The most basic and common meaning being skill competition: winning means you're more skilled than the other player/team.
So meaningful PVP is commonplace. Even the games where PVP is won largely by population or progression are meaningful (winning means you brought more friends). And that's where we realize "meaningful" isn't a particularly useful word for describing how interesting a game is going to be (since if PVP is so shallow that bringing more friends has a strong influence over the outcome, then it doesn't matter whether that's meaningful, because it's shallow. So "game depth" is the more useful term; it's a measure of how difficult a game is to master.)
I think I didn't make myself clear.
If we want the game to be a GAME, then there cannot be what I term "meaningful" PvP. By "meaningful" I don't mean a player receives a reward of some kind for simply engaging in a PvP event of any kind. That's just a participation trophy and gamers have shown again and again that the vast majority won't engage in anything remotely approximating PvP (or anything else for that matter) unless they receive some kind of shiny for doing it. Thus the response by the Devs in rewarding people for every single little thing ("Exploration Experience" anyone?). By "meaningful" I mean engaging in PvP is a choice that impacts a players game play experience on a profound level, such as landing in jail, losing items in compensation for injuring others and/or being banned from certain in game territories. In order for there to be truly "meaningful" PvP there would have to be a risk of consequences such as there are in real life. As you know those consequences keep most people from major violations of the law such as Assault and Battery and Robbery (which is what full loot PvP would be in real life). However who wants their gaming to mimic life that closely? In truth, no one. Thus my statement that there cannot be "meaningful" PvP in a game.
On a base level you are right that as soon as you add a reward for PvPing, yes the PvP becomes "meaningful". However as experience has shown most gamers will adopt strategies to get the most reward for the least effort, such as in the Battlegrounds in WoW where you would get yelled at by your own team for actually fighting the enemies because fighting slowed down the farming of the reward that both sides would receive simply for showing up, win lose or draw. There was actually a tacit agreement between the combatants to not engage in actual combat in order to maximize the reward received per time in game. Thus when the "meaning" or, in this case, reward was not linked to actually killing the enemy people actually engaged in what were supposed to be PvP events without engaging in combat. So in that sense I agree. I just point out that people who don't have the best stuff and powers and highest number of friends simply won't show up to PvP unless they are rewarded for simply participating.
And just as quickly strategies will develop so that the maximum number of people get the maximum reward for participation only. As soon as the gamers figure out that they can sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya and get more of the reward than they can for actually killing one another, they'll circle jerk instantly.
Therefore I suggest in an open world having full loot open PvP, but have consequences such as listed before. With that you'll get the development of real villains who need to be combated by real heroes. The villains would have a true goal (to destroy the established order) while the heroes would have a true goal (to maintain the established order) and those two goals do not allow for a tacit agreement that will amount to farming of a participation trophy. That also allows for a more exciting metamorphosis of criminals into rebels and heroes into oppressors.
It would be hard to implement, but have a profound effect on the way people played the game.
Just my two coppers.
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
I have always liked the concept of PvP in an online world, but I have never seen an implementation that I could tolerate.
<stuff>
Anyway, as you can probably tell I am PvP averse in MMORPGs so feel free to ignore my post
Actually, I think you would like my game.
First, no one will have god-like power over you. There are some perks to having a high Pistol skill, but if you shoot someone, there's a good chance you'll kill them, regardless of who's been playing longer. So, as Captain Mal once said, "Someone tries to kill you, you kill em' right back."
If you are killed, you'll lay there for a bit (depending on your fame) and then be whisked away to the nearest hospital or clinic (or Street Surgeon if you have the contacts). You'll have a pesky hospital bill, and there's a good chance you won't be running back out into the fray. After getting gunned down, it may be best to just go home and get some rest.
Also! If someone kills you (unprovoked), depending on where you are, there's a good chance that they'll be getting picked up by the men in blue (blue and white armor actually) and hauled off to the clink. Nothing says "don't be a dick" like a hefty fine and a night in the slammer. NOTE: Don't piss off politicians. It's kinda tricky to get warrants for them.
No PvP flags, but if you avoid downtown, you should be ok. There are a lot more police in midtown and uptown. (But again, the CEOs and politicians will mostly live Uptown, so still watch yourself.)
Sounds interesting. I like to think that I have an open mind so I will keep an eye on your game
No PvP flags, but if you avoid downtown, you should be ok. There are a lot more police in midtown and uptown. (But again, the CEOs and politicians will mostly live Uptown, so still watch yourself.)
wait ... if i don't like pvp, how would i like this game? There is no option to turn it off, and I have to avoid some part of the game?
It is worse than a pay wall.
I realize this may be hard for you to imagine, but I have a feeling this game is not being made for your tastes. Haven't you got enough games that you do enjoy already? Must every game ever made please you?
If we want the game to be a GAME, then there cannot be what I term "meaningful" PvP. By "meaningful" I don't mean a player receives a reward of some kind for simply engaging in a PvP event of any kind. That's just a participation trophy and gamers have shown again and again that the vast majority won't engage in anything remotely approximating PvP (or anything else for that matter) unless they receive some kind of shiny for doing it. Thus the response by the Devs in rewarding people for every single little thing ("Exploration Experience" anyone?). By "meaningful" I mean engaging in PvP is a choice that impacts a players game play experience on a profound level, such as landing in jail, losing items in compensation for injuring others and/or being banned from certain in game territories. In order for there to be truly "meaningful" PvP there would have to be a risk of consequences such as there are in real life. As you know those consequences keep most people from major violations of the law such as Assault and Battery and Robbery (which is what full loot PvP would be in real life). However who wants their gaming to mimic life that closely? In truth, no one. Thus my statement that there cannot be "meaningful" PvP in a game.
On a base level you are right that as soon as you add a reward for PvPing, yes the PvP becomes "meaningful". However as experience has shown most gamers will adopt strategies to get the most reward for the least effort, such as in the Battlegrounds in WoW where you would get yelled at by your own team for actually fighting the enemies because fighting slowed down the farming of the reward that both sides would receive simply for showing up, win lose or draw. There was actually a tacit agreement between the combatants to not engage in actual combat in order to maximize the reward received per time in game. Thus when the "meaning" or, in this case, reward was not linked to actually killing the enemy people actually engaged in what were supposed to be PvP events without engaging in combat. So in that sense I agree. I just point out that people who don't have the best stuff and powers and highest number of friends simply won't show up to PvP unless they are rewarded for simply participating.
And just as quickly strategies will develop so that the maximum number of people get the maximum reward for participation only. As soon as the gamers figure out that they can sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya and get more of the reward than they can for actually killing one another, they'll circle jerk instantly.
Therefore I suggest in an open world having full loot open PvP, but have consequences such as listed before. With that you'll get the development of real villains who need to be combated by real heroes. The villains would have a true goal (to destroy the established order) while the heroes would have a true goal (to maintain the established order) and those two goals do not allow for a tacit agreement that will amount to farming of a participation trophy. That also allows for a more exciting metamorphosis of criminals into rebels and heroes into oppressors.
It would be hard to implement, but have a profound effect on the way people played the game.
Just my two coppers.
You define what you don't believe meaningful is (participation trophy,) but that's not a definition. That's just something you believe isn't meaningful.
1. We should point out that making games more rewarding isn't a bad thing and is generally the point of games.
2. I have bad news: exploration was already rewarding before XP. Why do you think people explore? They're not being driven towards pain, they're being driven by the motivation of a potential reward. The reward in this case just happens to take a different form (knowledge, pleasant vistas, etc.)
3. Which is why no PVP doesn't "become meaningful" when you add a reward for PVPing, because the activity already was rewarding due to the competition involved. There was already meaning, because PVP was won through some combination of skill, progression, or population (...but hopefully just skill because that's been shown to be the most popular type of PVP, because it's deeper gameplay.)
So your entire framework for the conversation is too limited to make much sense. Perhaps you just need to play more non-MMORPG PVP to understand that the majority of PVP that's happening exists outside MMORPGs, and is predominantly driven by the enjoyment of competition -- the rewards are an additional factor improving the fun, but aren't the reason players are playing.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think the true question would be "what have PvPers done to and also with PvP". For PvP to be meaningful in a mmoRPg, it would imply RP. Something people where very rarely doing during the Ultima Online pre-trammel times, and which they are even more rarely doing nowadays. By making PvP in a mmoRPg mean "free for all mindless gankfest", the PvPers themself ruined it. They aren't soldiers. They aren't warriors. They aren't even bandits doing their bandit stuff. They are mostly bullies. If you wonder why the "best" PvP MMORPG nowadays is EvE and its high security zones where the vast majority of players spend most of their time, search no longer. The fault lies on the players and how they have abused the freedom given to them by previous games which offered open world PvP.
Baldur's Gate server for Neverwinter Nights 2 has open world PVP in most game zones but with very elaborate set of rules for PvP tied strongly with RP. It protects people from bullies and PvP is much more meaningful there than in other persistent multiplayer online games. On the other hand, PvP is rare because complex rules discourage some people from even trying PvP in fear of punishment from game masters and dungeon masters.
No PvP flags, but if you avoid downtown, you should be ok. There are a lot more police in midtown and uptown. (But again, the CEOs and politicians will mostly live Uptown, so still watch yourself.)
wait ... if i don't like pvp, how would i like this game? There is no option to turn it off, and I have to avoid some part of the game?
It is worse than a pay wall.
I realize this may be hard for you to imagine, but I have a feeling this game is not being made for your tastes. Haven't you got enough games that you do enjoy already? Must every game ever made please you?
wait .. did i say every game needs to cater to my taste? I said nothing of that sort.
And at the same time, is that a reason why I cannot voice my opinion about this game? I just point out how i do not like it, i did NOT ask the devs to change it.
Do YOU voice your preference on this website? Isn't it a bit hypocritical to ask others NOT to do so?
You define what you don't believe meaningful is (participation trophy,) but that's not a definition. That's just something you believe isn't meaningful.
"meaningful" is subjective.
For example, e-sports is considered meaningful by e-sports fans (who are many).
Back when I played The Matrix Online, the game involved a lot of mystery and secret meetings. It was kinda cool. BUT! Our secret meetings were often interrupted by rival factions. It was PvE at the time, so the best we could do was challenge them to a duel, use harsh language, or just go to a different location. It really broke the immersion, and I thought, "Wouldn't it be nice (and realistic) if we could shoot these infiltrators?"
The problem, of course, is that if a game is PvP it is ONLY PvP. It's essentially just a bloodbath shooting range with no rhyme or reason. That works fine for games like COD, or MOBAs, but not an RPG.
So the question is this; is it possible to walk the line? Can you create a realistic, immersive world that focuses on exploration, crafting, socializing and a fair amount of PvE, AND allow PvP without it degrading into a warzone? Or is PvP all or nothing?
Of course, games like Eve have done it already, altho not in a fantasy setting. Having to compete for resources creates conflicts that give meaning to pvp, and this is non existant in pve games.
No PvP flags, but if you avoid downtown, you should be ok. There are a lot more police in midtown and uptown. (But again, the CEOs and politicians will mostly live Uptown, so still watch yourself.)
wait ... if i don't like pvp, how would i like this game? There is no option to turn it off, and I have to avoid some part of the game?
It is worse than a pay wall.
I realize this may be hard for you to imagine, but I have a feeling this game is not being made for your tastes. Haven't you got enough games that you do enjoy already? Must every game ever made please you?
wait .. did i say every game needs to cater to my taste? I said nothing of that sort.
And at the same time, is that a reason why I cannot voice my opinion about this game? I just point out how i do not like it, i did NOT ask the devs to change it.
Do YOU voice your preference on this website? Isn't it a bit hypocritical to ask others NOT to do so?
You've already voiced your opinion; the game is obviously not for you. Move on with life and carry on with your "common usage of the term MMO" campaign/hobby.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
You've already voiced your opinion; the game is obviously not for you. Move on with life and carry on with your "common usage of the term MMO" campaign/hobby.
wait ..you can express the same opinion more than one time, and I should not? Isn't that also hypocritical?
Yes, this game is obviously not for me ... but certainly i see no reason why i should not have more discussion about how to (or not to) set up pvp.
Of course, games like Eve have done it already, altho not in a fantasy setting. Having to compete for resources creates conflicts that give meaning to pvp, and this is non existant in pve games.
"meaning" is subjective .. and there are more than one way to do it.
For example, some think that competing in ladders is meaningful (otherwise, why would they even do it).
"meaningful" is subjective.
For example, e-sports is considered meaningful by e-sports fans (who are many).
Well the way I've been using meaningful is admittedly the looser definition:
Individually, I found no fun (a subjective word) in EVE.
But I wouldn't say EVE is devoid of fun (even though it is for me.) Because some find it fun, I admit it'd be reasonable to call it a fun game.
Similarly even if you didn't attach meaning (a subjective word) to anything in a game, you'd still have to admit there was meaning if others found it there.
And honestly "meaning" is a bit less subjective than fun. It's more about whether something means something, whereas with "fun" it's more of an opinion. Meaning isn't always opinion -- in a pure skill game, winning means you're more skilled and there's no subjective opinion involved.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You've already voiced your opinion; the game is obviously not for you. Move on with life and carry on with your "common usage of the term MMO" campaign/hobby.
wait ..you can express the same opinion more than one time, and I should not? Isn't that also hypocritical?
Yes, this game is obviously not for me ... but certainly i see no reason why i should not have more discussion about how to (or not to) set up pvp.
Because you think this game needs to cater to you? See the difference here? Why on earth would anyone wish to discuss something they have no desire to play?
Most importantly, why on earth would anyone listen to your views on this particular game? Oh, right. You fully believe EVERY game MUST carter to you.
When I say "meaningful PvP", I mean that there is an in-game reason for attacking another player. Granted, this could be for mechanical reasons, or simply for roleplay reasons, but not "cuz it's fun to shoot someone". It's meaningful to the character rather than satisfying the sadism of the player.
Dark Age of Camelot has pve and rvr(realm vs realm). you can choose one or the other.The reason for playing is the rvr.its the best ever made....for now.
The truth is there can't be "meaningful" PvP in a game.
No, the truth is any meaning causes it to be meaningful PVP.
The most basic and common meaning being skill competition: winning means you're more skilled than the other player/team.
So meaningful PVP is commonplace. Even the games where PVP is won largely by population or progression are meaningful (winning means you brought more friends). And that's where we realize "meaningful" isn't a particularly useful word for describing how interesting a game is going to be (since if PVP is so shallow that bringing more friends has a strong influence over the outcome, then it doesn't matter whether that's meaningful, because it's shallow. So "game depth" is the more useful term; it's a measure of how difficult a game is to master.)
You are right, in any combat between 2 relatively close opponents there certainly is a meaning. But the problem is that most fights in PvP MMOs tend to be rather unfair with one player have far better odds or can't fail no matter what he or she do. It are those fights that needs to be fixed.
One things is similar with PvE and PvP, neither is particularly fun if you either can't win or lose no matter how good or bad you play. For PvP MMOs to actually become more popular they need to implement some kind of mechanics that means most fights could go either way.
There are mechanics that can do this, stuff like restricting which levels you can fight, level you down to the level of the zone you are in or seriously restricting the powergap between players.
Your other point about bringing more friends is harder to fix, numbers have always been important in any battle and I am not sure buffing players with a numerical disadvantage would work.
@Tanemund - Just wanted to point out that such systems have been used in quite a few games over the years, several of which i was quite into playing for awhile. Unfortunately other aspects of the game caused them to go down the shitter. One such game, which had some interesting PvP and consequences was Rohan.
It had open world PvP, but with a murderer flagging system. If you attacked players who were not members of a guild who your guild was officialy at war with, or who were not flagged red, you used up a kill point (1 point was restored every 3 hours of play without a kill). After a certain number of kills you became flagged as a murderer and were unable to access most towns and NPCs, use most teleporters, etc because guards would be hostile to you. Along with that, there were basically 3 different "ranks" - white, pink, and red. If you were white (no kill meter) and got killed by another player you did not drop items. If you were pink (a few kills, but not full murdered status) you could drop inventory items. The 3rd rank, where you are full red (murder status or assassination mode), you could drop both inventory and equipped items.
The assassination mode i mentioned was a pretty fun feature which was reserved for 2 specific races / classes, both of which could be considered somewhat OP if geared, built, and played properly, but for a reason. They were often the solo PvPer class. Basically, you could go to an NPC and enable assassination mode. in assassination mode you were red to everyone and could not party with others. However killing other players rewarded you with XP AND you did not show up on their hit / vengeance list (more on this below). getting killed while in assassination mode had a chance for you to drop both inventory items and equipment, as well as a higher chance of XP loss upon death.
There was also a hit list / vengeance system. Basically if anyone (besides someone in assassination mode) killed you, the game kept track of this for up to 50 kills. You could use the system to teleport to the players current location for revenge. This also worked with parties. So say some guy 10 levels higher than you came by and ganked you, but youre too weak to get revenge on your own. You could form a party, then use the vengeance system to teleport your entire party to his location and watch some of your higher level friends kill them for you.
Along with all the open world pvp stuff the game also had arenas, and a form of guild battles called township Battles where there were scheduled matches that guilds could register for in various regions of the world. Winning the battle for that region gave your guild temporary control over the cities and allowed you to do things like control the taxes levied on NPC transactions, which were then given to your guild. They also later added in a guild castle battle, which guilds who won in the smaller township battles qualified for, and the winners of the guild castle matches received even more tax rewards and other items.
You are right, in any combat between 2 relatively close opponents there certainly is a meaning. But the problem is that most fights in PvP MMOs tend to be rather unfair with one player have far better odds or can't fail no matter what he or she do. It are those fights that needs to be fixed.
One things is similar with PvE and PvP, neither is particularly fun if you either can't win or lose no matter how good or bad you play. For PvP MMOs to actually become more popular they need to implement some kind of mechanics that means most fights could go either way.
There are mechanics that can do this, stuff like restricting which levels you can fight, level you down to the level of the zone you are in or seriously restricting the powergap between players.
Your other point about bringing more friends is harder to fix, numbers have always been important in any battle and I am not sure buffing players with a numerical disadvantage would work.
Well again, just because skill is the meaning that I find most meaningful, that doesn't mean that those unfair fights in MMORPGs lack meaning. Winning because you brought more friends to the fight means you brought more friends, and winning because you are further progressed means you played longer. But those are shallow reasons to win a fight, compared with combat that revolves around skill.
And that depth is the most common reason games are fun (Koster, A Theory of Fun, 2004). Because yeah, games aren't really fun when skill is sidelined for progression or population or other non-skill factors outside your control.
All of these things have been fixed. Mostly because they weren't ever broken in other game genres:
RPGs have progression. Progression is one of the broken elements that ruins PVP. Level restrictions vaguely improve the problem, but the full fix means no longer being an RPG: WOW Arena Tournaments give players maxed characters with maxed gear, and at least in those tournaments the game is no longer an RPG at all.
Population is easy to solve as all it means is forcing a team limit. This is done in Arenas, Battlegrounds, and basically every regular PVP game (you can't "bring a friend" in Chess.) This means that within the context of any given match if you ever find yourself outnumbered it's because you screwed up (skill) or your opponents outplayed you (skill), not because they've simply amassed more friends in the long-term outside the match.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
An important selling point of MMORPG PvP is that it doesn't require as much skill as competitive PvP. You don't need to be good in MMORPG PvP, you only need to have better gear, more skill points/level, more friends or attack someone who is not specced/prepared for PvP.
To some people, its the place where they can get a win every once in a while.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
An important selling point of MMORPG PvP is that it doesn't require as much skill as competitive PvP. You don't need to be good in MMORPG PvP, you only need to have better gear, more skill points/level, more friends or attack someone who is not specced/prepared for PvP.
To some people, its the place where they can get a win every once in a while.
You've just described the thing I hate most about MMOs. They tend to be gear-centric grindfests with "sandwich" combat (start combat, go make a sandwich) They require no skill whatsoever, just a better spreadsheet. I prefer to actually be involved in gameplay.
Comments
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The most basic and common meaning being skill competition: winning means you're more skilled than the other player/team.
So meaningful PVP is commonplace. Even the games where PVP is won largely by population or progression are meaningful (winning means you brought more friends). And that's where we realize "meaningful" isn't a particularly useful word for describing how interesting a game is going to be (since if PVP is so shallow that bringing more friends has a strong influence over the outcome, then it doesn't matter whether that's meaningful, because it's shallow. So "game depth" is the more useful term; it's a measure of how difficult a game is to master.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In fact, unless I quote you or say your name directly, just assume that I'm not talking to you.
You don't have to talk to me. You can ignore my comments on your post. This is a public forum, i certainly can and will comment on anything i like.
If we want the game to be a GAME, then there cannot be what I term "meaningful" PvP. By "meaningful" I don't mean a player receives a reward of some kind for simply engaging in a PvP event of any kind. That's just a participation trophy and gamers have shown again and again that the vast majority won't engage in anything remotely approximating PvP (or anything else for that matter) unless they receive some kind of shiny for doing it. Thus the response by the Devs in rewarding people for every single little thing ("Exploration Experience" anyone?). By "meaningful" I mean engaging in PvP is a choice that impacts a players game play experience on a profound level, such as landing in jail, losing items in compensation for injuring others and/or being banned from certain in game territories. In order for there to be truly "meaningful" PvP there would have to be a risk of consequences such as there are in real life. As you know those consequences keep most people from major violations of the law such as Assault and Battery and Robbery (which is what full loot PvP would be in real life). However who wants their gaming to mimic life that closely? In truth, no one. Thus my statement that there cannot be "meaningful" PvP in a game.
On a base level you are right that as soon as you add a reward for PvPing, yes the PvP becomes "meaningful". However as experience has shown most gamers will adopt strategies to get the most reward for the least effort, such as in the Battlegrounds in WoW where you would get yelled at by your own team for actually fighting the enemies because fighting slowed down the farming of the reward that both sides would receive simply for showing up, win lose or draw. There was actually a tacit agreement between the combatants to not engage in actual combat in order to maximize the reward received per time in game. Thus when the "meaning" or, in this case, reward was not linked to actually killing the enemy people actually engaged in what were supposed to be PvP events without engaging in combat. So in that sense I agree. I just point out that people who don't have the best stuff and powers and highest number of friends simply won't show up to PvP unless they are rewarded for simply participating.
And just as quickly strategies will develop so that the maximum number of people get the maximum reward for participation only. As soon as the gamers figure out that they can sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya and get more of the reward than they can for actually killing one another, they'll circle jerk instantly.
Therefore I suggest in an open world having full loot open PvP, but have consequences such as listed before. With that you'll get the development of real villains who need to be combated by real heroes. The villains would have a true goal (to destroy the established order) while the heroes would have a true goal (to maintain the established order) and those two goals do not allow for a tacit agreement that will amount to farming of a participation trophy. That also allows for a more exciting metamorphosis of criminals into rebels and heroes into oppressors.
It would be hard to implement, but have a profound effect on the way people played the game.
Just my two coppers.
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
VG
1. We should point out that making games more rewarding isn't a bad thing and is generally the point of games.
2. I have bad news: exploration was already rewarding before XP. Why do you think people explore? They're not being driven towards pain, they're being driven by the motivation of a potential reward. The reward in this case just happens to take a different form (knowledge, pleasant vistas, etc.)
3. Which is why no PVP doesn't "become meaningful" when you add a reward for PVPing, because the activity already was rewarding due to the competition involved. There was already meaning, because PVP was won through some combination of skill, progression, or population (...but hopefully just skill because that's been shown to be the most popular type of PVP, because it's deeper gameplay.)
So your entire framework for the conversation is too limited to make much sense. Perhaps you just need to play more non-MMORPG PVP to understand that the majority of PVP that's happening exists outside MMORPGs, and is predominantly driven by the enjoyment of competition -- the rewards are an additional factor improving the fun, but aren't the reason players are playing.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Baldur's Gate server for Neverwinter Nights 2 has open world PVP in most game zones but with very elaborate set of rules for PvP tied strongly with RP. It protects people from bullies and PvP is much more meaningful there than in other persistent multiplayer online games. On the other hand, PvP is rare because complex rules discourage some people from even trying PvP in fear of punishment from game masters and dungeon masters.
* more info, screenshots and videos here
And at the same time, is that a reason why I cannot voice my opinion about this game? I just point out how i do not like it, i did NOT ask the devs to change it.
Do YOU voice your preference on this website? Isn't it a bit hypocritical to ask others NOT to do so?
"meaningful" is subjective. For example, e-sports is considered meaningful by e-sports fans (who are many).
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Yes, this game is obviously not for me ... but certainly i see no reason why i should not have more discussion about how to (or not to) set up pvp.
"meaning" is subjective .. and there are more than one way to do it. For example, some think that competing in ladders is meaningful (otherwise, why would they even do it).
- Individually, I found no fun (a subjective word) in EVE.
- But I wouldn't say EVE is devoid of fun (even though it is for me.) Because some find it fun, I admit it'd be reasonable to call it a fun game.
Similarly even if you didn't attach meaning (a subjective word) to anything in a game, you'd still have to admit there was meaning if others found it there.And honestly "meaning" is a bit less subjective than fun. It's more about whether something means something, whereas with "fun" it's more of an opinion. Meaning isn't always opinion -- in a pure skill game, winning means you're more skilled and there's no subjective opinion involved.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Most importantly, why on earth would anyone listen to your views on this particular game? Oh, right. You fully believe EVERY game MUST carter to you.
VG
you can choose one or the other.The reason for playing is the rvr.its the best ever made....for now.
One things is similar with PvE and PvP, neither is particularly fun if you either can't win or lose no matter how good or bad you play. For PvP MMOs to actually become more popular they need to implement some kind of mechanics that means most fights could go either way.
There are mechanics that can do this, stuff like restricting which levels you can fight, level you down to the level of the zone you are in or seriously restricting the powergap between players.
Your other point about bringing more friends is harder to fix, numbers have always been important in any battle and I am not sure buffing players with a numerical disadvantage would work.
The endgame is based around group pvp but because of these penalties, you won't be bothered much while you're trying to level or craft.
People are freaking out about it but I think it's a good system. I want to at least try it before knocking it.
Anyway, in your Matrix Online example, the two guilds could declare war and then fight each other in Black Desert.
It had open world PvP, but with a murderer flagging system. If you attacked players who were not members of a guild who your guild was officialy at war with, or who were not flagged red, you used up a kill point (1 point was restored every 3 hours of play without a kill). After a certain number of kills you became flagged as a murderer and were unable to access most towns and NPCs, use most teleporters, etc because guards would be hostile to you. Along with that, there were basically 3 different "ranks" - white, pink, and red. If you were white (no kill meter) and got killed by another player you did not drop items. If you were pink (a few kills, but not full murdered status) you could drop inventory items. The 3rd rank, where you are full red (murder status or assassination mode), you could drop both inventory and equipped items.
The assassination mode i mentioned was a pretty fun feature which was reserved for 2 specific races / classes, both of which could be considered somewhat OP if geared, built, and played properly, but for a reason. They were often the solo PvPer class. Basically, you could go to an NPC and enable assassination mode. in assassination mode you were red to everyone and could not party with others. However killing other players rewarded you with XP AND you did not show up on their hit / vengeance list (more on this below). getting killed while in assassination mode had a chance for you to drop both inventory items and equipment, as well as a higher chance of XP loss upon death.
There was also a hit list / vengeance system. Basically if anyone (besides someone in assassination mode) killed you, the game kept track of this for up to 50 kills. You could use the system to teleport to the players current location for revenge. This also worked with parties. So say some guy 10 levels higher than you came by and ganked you, but youre too weak to get revenge on your own. You could form a party, then use the vengeance system to teleport your entire party to his location and watch some of your higher level friends kill them for you.
Along with all the open world pvp stuff the game also had arenas, and a form of guild battles called township Battles where there were scheduled matches that guilds could register for in various regions of the world. Winning the battle for that region gave your guild temporary control over the cities and allowed you to do things like control the taxes levied on NPC transactions, which were then given to your guild. They also later added in a guild castle battle, which guilds who won in the smaller township battles qualified for, and the winners of the guild castle matches received even more tax rewards and other items.
And that depth is the most common reason games are fun (Koster, A Theory of Fun, 2004). Because yeah, games aren't really fun when skill is sidelined for progression or population or other non-skill factors outside your control.
All of these things have been fixed. Mostly because they weren't ever broken in other game genres:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To some people, its the place where they can get a win every once in a while.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky