This thread is a perfect example of the problem with PvP in MMORPGs. And that problem is that many people playing MMORPGs simply do not understand the meaning of what game play in an MMORPG entails.
Many of the posts in this thread continue to allude to claims such as all we need for a good MMORPG is to get rid of gear and levels. Little do these posters realize that a game without gears and levels is not an MMORPG by the truest definition of the genre. A PVP game without gears and levels is an FPS platform shooter game not an MMORPG.
Another claim that you hear often is that MMORPGs need PvP because PvE presents no challenge. The solution to this claim is not the need for more PvP. The solution to this claim is the development of a smarter and more challenging AI mechanic in MMORPGs. Make PvE MMORPGs with better more challenging AI, and there would be no need for this so called challenging game play many PvPers claim as their reason for the necessary existance of PvP in MMORPGs.
90% of PvP in MMORPGs consists of nothing but ganking, trolling and trash talking. That's not what I and many others would consider fun and engaging cooperative game play. On the contrary, its more often than not an annoying and game breaking mechanic that in short order drives people away from games leaving those games to die a slow but certain death.
Another misconception that PvPers have about PvEers is that they are all carebears who are weak and afraid to engage, yet nothing could be further from the truth. Its a computer game people ...
PvE players do not fear PvP, they are annoyed by it.
Levels and power gaps are not required to make an RPG or MMORPG. There are "advantages" to shallow vertical progression. In PvP MMORPG most people rather have player skill determine battle not character worship and endless grinds.
Online roleplaying is the point of MMORPG. Being a warrior, explorer, crafted, politician and whatever in an online community should be the goal of all MMORPG. Not endless grind of "content."
You have it reversed. If all there is to the game is grinding content it just as well not be a MMORPG. You can make a single player RPG with multiplayer options for quest, dungeons and raids.
This thread is a perfect example of the problem with PvP in MMORPGs. And that problem is that many people playing MMORPGs simply do not understand the meaning of what game play in an MMORPG entails.
Many of the posts in this thread continue to allude to claims such as all we need for a good MMORPG is to get rid of gear and levels. Little do these posters realize that a game without gears and levels is not an MMORPG by the truest definition of the genre. A PVP game without gears and levels is an FPS platform shooter game not an MMORPG.
Another claim that you hear often is that MMORPGs need PvP because PvE presents no challenge. The solution to this claim is not the need for more PvP. The solution to this claim is the development of a smarter and more challenging AI mechanic in MMORPGs. Make PvE MMORPGs with better more challenging AI, and there would be no need for this so called challenging game play many PvPers claim as their reason for the necessary existance of PvP in MMORPGs.
90% of PvP in MMORPGs consists of nothing but ganking, trolling and trash talking. That's not what I and many others would consider fun and engaging cooperative game play. On the contrary, its more often than not an annoying and game breaking mechanic that in short order drives people away from games leaving those games to die a slow but certain death.
Another misconception that PvPers have about PvEers is that they are all carebears who are weak and afraid to engage, yet nothing could be further from the truth. Its a computer game people ...
PvE players do not fear PvP, they are annoyed by it.
Levels and power gaps are not required to make an RPG or MMORPG. There are "advantages" to shallow vertical progression. In PvP MMORPG most people rather have player skill determine battle not character worship and endless grinds.
Online roleplaying is the point of MMORPG. Being a warrior, explorer, crafted, politician and whatever in an online community should be the goal of all MMORPG. Not endless grind of "content."
You have it reversed. If all there is to the game is grinding content it just as well not be a MMORPG. You can make a single player RPG with multiplayer options for quest, dungeons and raids.
No one is specifically advocating for levels, power gaps, and/or grind in MMORPGs. Levels and power gaps my not be required to make an RPG or MMORPG but journey, story, and character progression are fundamental to the essence from which the MMORPG genre was founded. Again, without those all you have is a PvP FPS platform shooter.
If your argument is to state that an MMORPG should be consistent with those qualities inherent to FPS shooters and MOBA's, in that gamers in MMORPGs should be able to log in and at level one be able to compete with players who have been playing the game for months, if not years, then you are misguided as to the principle and philosophy of MMORPG game play. Which does not surprise me because I am a firm believer in that the reason these debates continue to come up in MMORPG game forums is because the MMORPG genre has been bastardized to such an extent that a portion of the gamer population simply do not understand what the term MMORPG, as it was originally conceptualized and developed, means.
In short, levels, power gaps, and/or grind should not define or symbolize MMORPG game play. Journey, story, and progression are what define MMORPG game play. The fact that the MMORPG genre has not evolved beyond levels, power gaps, and/or grind have nothing to do with the genre and everything to do with game developers who have not met the challenge of evolving and progressing the genre from the state in which they were presented nearly three decades ago.
You claiming others obviously don't know what they're talking about just because they like OTHER/more realistic forms of real war PvP annoyed me.
No, I'm claiming you can't speak from a position of authority on the subject because you haven't tried the 2nd most popular form of MMO PvP. Arguably the most popular form among people who play MMOs to PvP.
Not only not tried, you aren't even aware how it works because when I described participating in it you said "I'm talking about MMO PvP" giving away the fact you weren't even aware players could do these kinds of things in MMOs.
Ignorance is ok. Nobody is all-knowing in every subject. The thing is you are saying things like:
"The strength of MMO PvP is..."
"I prefer more realistic forms of real war PvP..."
You aren't qualified to say those things. You only know the strength of PvP in the MMOs you've played. You aren't qualified to compare the realism of genres who's PvP you can't even describe with those you've played.
It's not clear if you are talking about MMOs without stat disparity being more realistic than ones without it or Themeparks being more realistic than PvP Sandboxes. I would consider both of those to be false statements so I'll address both.
Having actually played both Themeparks and PvP Sandboxes here are the major differences in realism I have noted:
In a Themepark, if there is a major war between player factions happening the borders remain static despite the actions of the players. Faction A can push Faction B all day long the the point that the population of Faction B starts to dwindle and no exchange of territory or meaningful advancement of the war will take place. The Factions are locked in a constant state of artificial stalemate. If the major war is between players and NPCs then the game follows a scripted storyline. The events in this storyline are not unique and make no lasting impact on the game. After you kill non-instanced boss for instance, you will see the same boss respawn a minute later and someone else kill it. In-fact if you try to roleplay you have to create a character story separate the scripted hero's journey of the game because everyone else is on the same exact hero's journey and has the same backstory.
In a PvP sandbox the major war is between player factions. Factions rise, factions fall, territory trade hands, the world has a living history shaped by the players. You can rise to the position of ruler or a major position directly under the ruler of a faction. You can be the leader or a major contributor in a battle that permanently shapes the world of the game. If you want to roleplay your backstory can be based on your actual accomplishments and your true hero's journey in game because it is unique to you. In a Themepark if you die you respawn. Maybe with a debuff timer. Maybe completely unphased. Death is insignificant. Victory is insignificant. Defeat is insignificant. Combat itself is insignificant. It is purely an epeen measuring contest without the implementation of an artificial objective. In most PvP sandboxes if you die you lose most of all of your gear which can then be at least partially looted by your opponent. Victory presents spoils. Defeat presents meaningful loss. All combat has purpose. Now if we are talking realism in stat disparity...
In Themeparks players can rise to the point that they can stand in place doing nothing and all of the attacks of a lower level place miss, bounce off etc. Higher level characters are essentially god's versus lower level players. You can rise to this status doing mundane tasks that don't challenge you or force you to learn at all.
In games without power disparity. After training long and hard over the course of years I have taken part in battles where I defeated multiple opponents on my own. During the entire battle their attacks hit just as hard as mine, and my defences could take just as many hits as theirs. I used my knowledge of the game and years of practice to ensure their attacks did not hit and exploited their poor movements to pick them off one by one.
Player skill is most comparable to skills and techniques learned IRL. For instance my ability to defeat those multiple players even though each one of them was on even footing with me in terms of character stats and equipment.
Character stats is most comparable to physical training. The idea that your punch will land for more damage, or you can take a hit better than someone else.
Now realism would fall somewhere in-between in most cases. Physical training actually will allow you to use repetitive tasks to gain an advantage over opponents but people who focus on PT over technique are going to get destroyed in the majority of scenarios.
I feel in this scenario no vertical progression is infinitely more realistic than absurd character progression that makes one character immune to the assault of another while they can one shot them with their weakest attack. After all, all characters in MMOs are generally said to be heroes or people possessed of exceptional talents and can be assumed to be in better than average physical condition.
The other scenario is equipment and the difference in power it can give. Given I am ok with gear progression as long as gear is lost upon death I feel I'm seeking a more realistic option in that regard almost undebatably. The idea that you could get super powerful equipment that can turn the tide of battles and none of it will be destroyed / your opponents will allow you to walk away from it in the case of a defeat is laughable.
This thread is a perfect example of the problem with PvP in MMORPGs. And that problem is that many people playing MMORPGs simply do not understand the meaning of what game play in an MMORPG entails.
Many of the posts in this thread continue to allude to claims such as all we need for a good MMORPG is to get rid of gear and levels. Little do these posters realize that a game without gears and levels is not an MMORPG by the truest definition of the genre. A PVP game without gears and levels is an FPS platform shooter game not an MMORPG.
Another claim that you hear often is that MMORPGs need PvP because PvE presents no challenge. The solution to this claim is not the need for more PvP. The solution to this claim is the development of a smarter and more challenging AI mechanic in MMORPGs. Make PvE MMORPGs with better more challenging AI, and there would be no need for this so called challenging game play many PvPers claim as their reason for the necessary existance of PvP in MMORPGs.
90% of PvP in MMORPGs consists of nothing but ganking, trolling and trash talking. That's not what I and many others would consider fun and engaging cooperative game play. On the contrary, its more often than not an annoying and game breaking mechanic that in short order drives people away from games leaving those games to die a slow but certain death.
Another misconception that PvPers have about PvEers is that they are all carebears who are weak and afraid to engage, yet nothing could be further from the truth. Its a computer game people ...
PvE players do not fear PvP, they are annoyed by it.
Ok let us start by clearing something up, you don't get to just change the definition of what is and what is not a MMORPG.
Side note, if you do a search you can find some pretty humorous definitions of MMORPG.
So contrary to YOUR OPINION, no you do not need gear stats and levels to be a true MMORPG, at least by those two reliable sources.
Now I take issue with your statement; "90% of PvP in MMORPGs consists of nothing but ganking, trolling and trash talking". I would like to know where you got this statistic? Or is this just another opinion based on your personal experience? Because mine, and I would like to think (although I won't be so arrogant as to speak for them) several others on the forums have had vastly different experiences. I enjoy PvP, and while I tend to be mediocre at it, I have a weird ability to not take it personally and to get over being ganked.
Speaking to ganking. Yes, it happens, and yes it is not the most fun you can have with PvP, but in my experience, there is usually someone around that is more than willing to put a stop to it. The exception being Eve, if you want to solo PvP in Eve, you get what you get and it won't be fun. However, I have seldom had that bad of a time, even in the hay day of Lineage 2, when we had Red Army running around that could and usually did clear whole zones, they often just came through, issued ass beatings and then moved on. So while I agree that ganking does happen, and it can end up in a camping situation, it is not nearly as catastrophic as some would want the world to believe.
Speaking more to your last paragraph and comments, you speak for the entire PvE community? I do PvE as well, and I enjoy it at least as much as I do PvP, and my opinions are exactly contrary to yours. Also backed up with facts, which you have yet to do.
If you are stating your opinions you should state it as such and not try to speak from a platform of fact. Especially when there are very few facts out there to support what you are saying.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Not open world. Faction based. No economy. No diplomacy. No room for meaningful interaction or player driven narratives. It's nothing like what I want.
I want an Open World PvP Sandbox MMO with horizontal progression.
What about other forms of progression?
I believe in a prior post you said you wanted crafting (or maybe that was someone else..). If a game was open world PvP sandbox with horizontal character progression but you joined and other people still had better armor or weapons they could kill you quickly. Should all crafters be able to create all items of equal quality from day 1?
If their cities had a 2 year headstart and they could produce the best stuff and have the best defenses and you could not challenge them at the start. Or should cities not be able to be developed either? Even if they were static, but some locations were more desireable than others, that would give some people a tangible advantage unless all PCs were literally the same.
To me personally, if there is no "better" to strive for.. there is no point. Again, I prefer the Hero's Journey for my character.
Putting in more work deserves payoffs but I think what payoffs is something that needs to be more carefully considered.
Things I am ok with:
1. Economically stronger players and nations being able to produce better gear more easily. 2. Diplomatically savvy nations having more allies / less enemies. 3. Groups that entrench themselves in an area and put resources and time into fortifications being exceptionally hard to push out. 4. Ending up in an unwinnable fight because you made bad tactical decisions.
Things I am not ok with:
1. Things that give you massive stat advantages you don't lose when you die. 2. Cities/territory that give your group a huge advantage that you can't lose because the game mechanics won't allow it to be sieged or taken by any means. 3. Ending up in unwinnable fights because the other player simply can't be beaten by someone your level.
In terms of crafting progression, minus the absence of a exceptionally engaging and skill based system for crafting I am ok with crafting having levels. Levels are a good placeholder for systems that do not allow for meaningful progression in terms of a player's actual skill.
The balancing factor that would make that non-game breaking is loot drop and the need for rare materials from the world to craft the highest grades of crafted gear. Having skilled crafters on your side definitely does present your group with a distinct advantage in that scenario, but:
A. If your guys are not smart about what gear they bring to the field or perform poorly in the field that advantage can be squandered.
B. If your guys are unable to bring rare resources home from the field you will not be able to make proper use of that advantage.
This thread is a perfect example of the problem with PvP in MMORPGs. And that problem is that many people playing MMORPGs simply do not understand the meaning of what game play in an MMORPG entails.
Many of the posts in this thread continue to allude to claims such as all we need for a good MMORPG is to get rid of gear and levels. Little do these posters realize that a game without gears and levels is not an MMORPG by the truest definition of the genre. A PVP game without gears and levels is an FPS platform shooter game not an MMORPG.
Another claim that you hear often is that MMORPGs need PvP because PvE presents no challenge. The solution to this claim is not the need for more PvP. The solution to this claim is the development of a smarter and more challenging AI mechanic in MMORPGs. Make PvE MMORPGs with better more challenging AI, and there would be no need for this so called challenging game play many PvPers claim as their reason for the necessary existance of PvP in MMORPGs.
90% of PvP in MMORPGs consists of nothing but ganking, trolling and trash talking. That's not what I and many others would consider fun and engaging cooperative game play. On the contrary, its more often than not an annoying and game breaking mechanic that in short order drives people away from games leaving those games to die a slow but certain death.
Another misconception that PvPers have about PvEers is that they are all carebears who are weak and afraid to engage, yet nothing could be further from the truth. Its a computer game people ...
PvE players do not fear PvP, they are annoyed by it.
Ok let us start by clearing something up, you don't get to just change the definition of what is and what is not a MMORPG.
Side note, if you do a search you can find some pretty humorous definitions of MMORPG.
So contrary to YOUR OPINION, no you do not need gear stats and levels to be a true MMORPG, at least by those two reliable sources.
Now I take issue with your statement; "90% of PvP in MMORPGs consists of nothing but ganking, trolling and trash talking". I would like to know where you got this statistic? Or is this just another opinion based on your personal experience? Because mine, and I would like to think (although I won't be so arrogant as to speak for them) several others on the forums have had vastly different experiences. I enjoy PvP, and while I tend to be mediocre at it, I have a weird ability to not take it personally and to get over being ganked.
Speaking to ganking. Yes, it happens, and yes it is not the most fun you can have with PvP, but in my experience, there is usually someone around that is more than willing to put a stop to it. The exception being Eve, if you want to solo PvP in Eve, you get what you get and it won't be fun. However, I have seldom had that bad of a time, even in the hay day of Lineage 2, when we had Red Army running around that could and usually did clear whole zones, they often just came through, issued ass beatings and then moved on. So while I agree that ganking does happen, and it can end up in a camping situation, it is not nearly as catastrophic as some would want the world to believe.
Speaking more to your last paragraph and comments, you speak for the entire PvE community? I do PvE as well, and I enjoy it at least as much as I do PvP, and my opinions are exactly contrary to yours. Also backed up with facts, which you have yet to do.
If you are stating your opinions you should state it as such and not try to speak from a platform of fact. Especially when there are very few facts out there to support what you are saying.
It would do you well understand the content of a poster's post before responding to it. No where in any of my posts did I opine that gear stats and levels were necessary to a true MMORPG. On the contrary, I specifically stated that they were not. I also never stated that I speak for the entire PvE community. As a matter of fact i specifically stated that i did not represent the neither the PvE nor the PvP community. I appreciate the notion that some of you may want to declare me the spokesperson for the PvE community. I, however, am far from that. I am simply speaking for myself and expressing an opinion based on the hundreds, if not, thousands of PvE vs PvP threads that seemingly pop up every couple of weeks or so on every gaming forum. This is not a new topic. None of this should be breaking news to anyone.
Lastly, your opinion based on your biased PvP-centric preferences is well noted. I understand there is a portion of the gaming demographic that enjoy PvP, of which you appear to be a part of. I have also been around these PvE vs PvP threads long enough to know that you will not be the last PvP-centric poster that my post will offend. There will be more. It doesn't take much to trigger you PvP-centirc folks. I only hope that, unlike yourself, they are able to contain their emotions long enough to be able to read, and comprehend, my post before posting inaccuracies as to the content of my posts.
MMORPGs will never be good. The earliest ones had good ideas, but changed to attract more players. When Ultima Online released Renaissance in 2000, it was over. Everquest was the cause of that. The picture-gamers bemoaned player-killing. Sony saw that and courted them.
The same ones bemoaned groups, camping, challenge and so forth. Blizzard saw that and courted them.
The companies that spent millions on these games were flexible to a fault. Every expansion pack was a bad move. The players governed the game.
Shadowbane and Darkfall were the specialized offspring of Ultima Online. They have both been shut down, proving what had long been common knowledge in the '90s, that MUDs need players of all type to thrive.
Text is the only hope for online RPGs. MUD1 from 1978 still exists in its original form. How many MMORPGs can you say that about?
" Little do these posters realize that a game without gears and levels is not an MMORPG by the truest definition of the genre. A PVP game without gears and levels is an FPS platform shooter game not an MMORPG"
I've never quite understood these threads, or most of the discussions that revolve around PVP. As long as there are MMORPGs there are going to be MMORPGs made that fill a PVP niche. There will also be servers and modes offered that fill that itch. Don't like it? don't play games centered around it, don't join matches or servers for it. Problem solved.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Little do these posters realize that a game without gears and levels is not an MMORPG by the truest definition of the genre. A PVP game without gears and levels is an FPS platform shooter game not an MMORPG.
First off nobody is saying there should be not gear. We're saying that the gear you acquire should not become a permanent feature of your character.
Second off nobody is saying there should be no levels or progression of any form. We're saying that levels and progression should be removed from areas like HP and damage output or at a bare minimum reduced to fall within semi-realistic levels so that grinding is not a necessary component of competing and having fun.
Define it however you will but what we are advocating for bears a far stronger resemblance to MMORPGs like EVE than any FPS currently in existence.
" Little do these posters realize that a game without gears and levels is not an MMORPG by the truest definition of the genre. A PVP game without gears and levels is an FPS platform shooter game not an MMORPG"
There is no need to link what has just recently been posted in this very thread. It is there for everyone to read. Linking the post as some sort of additional proof of anything is really not necessary. Now, once again, I am speaking for myself, based on my experience based on the hundreds, if not thousands, of posts on past threads regarding the topic of PvE vs PvP. I am not a spokesperson, nor do I represent any group. There is a difference. You are free to agree, or disagree, with any of it in part or in whole. We can all stick our heads in the sand and make like non-consensual OWPvP has not been a thorn on the side of the MMORPG genre, ignoring all of the proof that has been clearly evident by the myriad of games that have died that slow death and no longer exist because of the bane that is non-consenual OWPvP in the MMORPG genre, but that would just fly in the face of fact and reality, wouldn't it? That all being said, I have also been around these type PvE vs PvP threads to know that nothing will ever be said in these threads to cure the malady that is non-consensual OWPvP in MMORPGs. So I will make my exit. It is what it is. At some point, and I think we are getting there, you will have no alternative but to face the reality when the majority gaming demographic finally convince developers that there is no future in mixing non-consensual OWPvP with the MMORPG genre. Thankfully, that experiment is nearing its end. And that will be much to the relief of true MMORPG fans.
It's time for MMO developers to return to cooperative PvE as their primary focus. Virtually every new title that comes out has to highlight PvP as a feature; every survival MMO, every sandbox MMO, only the so-called "themepark" MMOs are somewhat immune from this bandwagon. And what has it brought us? Impossible balancing issues, griefers, and split communities.
I remember the glory days of EverQuest when cooperative PvE was everything. Grouping was (to an extreme extent) essentially required and cooperative, high-quality play was critical to reputations on the server. Then came Asheron's Call, EverQuest II, and of course World of Warcraft, where developers started to segregate PvP players onto their own servers. The first thing they noticed, however, was how hard it was to balance spells and abilities for both PvE and PvP.
The most successful triple-A titles learned that it was a mistake to force non-consensual PvP on to their player base. World of Warcraft, Elder Scrolls Online, FFXIV, and other big subscription based titles maintained huge client bases who were willing to pay monthly fees because, I would argue, players got what they wanted. If they wanted PvP, they could go to PvP servers. If they didn't, they could play on PvE servers. In the case of ESO, the PvP was limited to structured PvP in an isolated region that was purely opt-in.
I've been playing Albion Online in beta and love the game's gathering and crafting, they're really developed some nice mechanics that appeal to players of all types, but their full-loot non-consensual PvP once you get up into the Tier 5 and above just kills it for me. And the devs see that they've created something special that appeals to all players, and now they're struggling to find a way to reconcile the two. So they introduce a "reputation" system that punishes PvP and winds up making NO ONE happy, neither the PvPers nor the PvE'ers. Trying to serve two masters never works, and even if you could balance all abilities to make them equally effective in both PvP and PvE, you'd still have the problem that, if your game is any good, PvE players are going to want to play it too. The tension in the Albion Online community is palpable, you see it in the forums every day.
Enough with the fighting between "carebears" and the hardcore. It's time for developers to return to what made MMOs great in the first place and develop games that allow players to CHOOSE to play co-operative PvE with their friends and stop being expected to kill each other. Every survey that has EVER been done relative to MMOs has shown that there is always a much higher percentage of the player base that is not interested in non-consensual PvP. Why alienate the largest plurality of players only to create balancing headaches and leave everyone unhappy as a result?
In the real world, there are limits to how much of an advantage better equipment can give a soldier or any person from any walk of life. There are also limited resources and a limit to the quality and attributes of any particular resource. If we don't decide to start making MMORPGs more like real life at some point, they will never be anything more than illogical, nonsensical games for children that adults like to play as well.
One almost wonders if there's some corporation or entity paying developers not to make a decent mmorpg. It's not as if people like Eldurian and myself can be the only ones who are interested in playing a true, dynamic role-playing game in a persistent virtual world. Games could even be used to teach people things. What if you had an MMORPG that taught you how to be, or at least what it was actually like, to be a doctor or a policeman or any real world profession?
1. Power disparity. Nobody has gotten it through their heads this needs to be much lower in competitive PvP scenarios for them to be any fun at all for people on the wrong side of that power disparity.
2. The "Hardcore" Community. Many existing PvP games have given undue representation to elements of the community that perceive any ability of people to choose how much PvP they want to be subjected to or avoid unwanted PvP as a "dumbing down" of the game and give these players mechanics intentionally designed to allow them to grief these players within the supposedly safer areas of the game.
3. Nobody has ever invested any significant amount of money into an Open World PvP sandbox. The only such title that has significant resources is EVE, which got it's significant resources by being insanely successful for a title that started as indie because people absolutely LOVED what they had to offer.
It's like if people tried the first few prototype airplanes, watched them crashed, and then said. "Whelp, that was a waste of time. These airplanes are never going to be a thing. Let's just give up."
How stupid that would be when the market demand is clearly so huge. Look at the top hyped games. All of them except Pantheon are promising Open World PvP as a major focus of the game. Most of them with full loot.
If the "true MMORPG fans" get their way this genre is only going to continue on it's slow decline straight into the ground. You can only grind raids for so long before repetitive PvE grinding becomes so boring you never want to do it again. Ever. The constantly evolving threat of other players is the answer to the boring repetitive PvE grind that people are clearly getting tired of.
By definition... if you have CHOSEN to play a game with PvP you have in effect consented to it. It's not like someone went into your home, downloaded the game, made an account, and pulled a gun and forced you to play such a game.
Now if I went into a fully PvE game and somehow hacked it so I could kill players.. THAT would be non-consentual PvP.
I don't think PvP is a hidden feature that people are unaware of when they buy it.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Why are you explaining the differences between sandbox and themepark?
I clearly stated MMORPGs PvP strength over other PvP games is large scale warfare and what comes with large scale warfare is unbalanced, unfair encounters.
So I'm comparing MMO PvP to none MMO PvP, not sandbox vs themepark.
Take the RTS game Starcraft for example.
It has faction warfare. 3 factions in total. Maps allowed upto 8 players. In FFA mode it allowed for alliances to be formed dynamically, but also opened you up to be betrayed by other players.
It has very meaningful territory control. Resources are highly sort after as you need them to build your army. So setting up defenses on your borders imperative.
You had to scout enemy bases to see what they are upto etc.
This highly dynamic PvP all coming from a themepark game btw.
Perhaps people merely differ on what a true, dynamic, role playing game in a persistent virtual world actually means.
Well, first let's define dynamic. This is what pops up if you "google" it.
dy·nam·ic
dīˈnamik/
adjective
adjective: dynamic
1.
(of a process or system) characterized by constant change, activity, or progress.
"a dynamic economy"
Constant change
I believe a true role-playing game means that my character's decisions and choices, words and deeds, have the capability and potential to change any particular aspect of the game world. Now, of course, there are limits to this based on such things as the skill of programmers and processing speed of computers. But humans have made a lot of progress in these categories over the years.
We don't need incredibly advanced artificial intelligence and/or virtual reality in order to create a true role-playing environment.
What we need are meaningful consequences and rewards for possible actions. Freedom always entails risk and responsibility. Safety and security are largely illusions. Anything can happen in the real world. Well, not quite anything, there are some things that seem to be impossible or rather unlikely to occur. We can exert as much effort as we want (or are capable of) into making ourselves more safe or more secure, but we can never attain a state of 100% safety in life. It doesn't matter how many laws we create or police we hire to patrol the streets. I can still choke on a peanut or slip in the bathtub. Bee stings are quite deadly to people who are allergic to them. Lightning can strike. More people die in car accidents and hospitals (due to errors of medical personnel) than die from gunshot wounds every year in the United States of America. A lot more.
Really, I couldn't disagree more, but this argument has been taking place since the late 1990's and I'm tired. The PvE'ers won this a long time ago, and so did the genre if what we're talking about is market saturation, to the boon of many suited men with no interest in games or MMO's and the fly-on-the-wall gamer who wasn't quite sure their computer did more than chatrooms and IM's (just a joke, chill your shit). That doesn't mean I like it, but I'm also not trying to appeal that every themepark or PvE centric MMO should be re-evaluated to fit my whim or include more risk/reward, open world PvP. As much as I like Rust, it'd be swell to be playing something a bit more traditional with the same philosophical approach. Hell, it'd be great to be playing classic Ultima Online on official servers and paying a subscription to, hopefully, encourage the genre through purchase rather than forum posts, so I play my niche games until they get killed off by this sort of bullshit and wait for something else.
That Darkfall revival looks dope, though.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Everquest was kind of a PvP game in the sense it had contested, non-instanced, zones. You can train each other and people competed for spawns. Pantheon Rise of the Fallen may be like this.
Comments
Levels and power gaps are not required to make an RPG or MMORPG. There are "advantages" to shallow vertical progression. In PvP MMORPG most people rather have player skill determine battle not character worship and endless grinds.
Online roleplaying is the point of MMORPG. Being a warrior, explorer, crafted, politician and whatever in an online community should be the goal of all MMORPG. Not endless grind of "content."
You have it reversed. If all there is to the game is grinding content it just as well not be a MMORPG. You can make a single player RPG with multiplayer options for quest, dungeons and raids.
pvp launching on 5 may..
cu in agon
No one is specifically advocating for levels, power gaps, and/or grind in MMORPGs. Levels and power gaps my not be required to make an RPG or MMORPG but journey, story, and character progression are fundamental to the essence from which the MMORPG genre was founded. Again, without those all you have is a PvP FPS platform shooter.
If your argument is to state that an MMORPG should be consistent with those qualities inherent to FPS shooters and MOBA's, in that gamers in MMORPGs should be able to log in and at level one be able to compete with players who have been playing the game for months, if not years, then you are misguided as to the principle and philosophy of MMORPG game play. Which does not surprise me because I am a firm believer in that the reason these debates continue to come up in MMORPG game forums is because the MMORPG genre has been bastardized to such an extent that a portion of the gamer population simply do not understand what the term MMORPG, as it was originally conceptualized and developed, means.
In short, levels, power gaps, and/or grind should not define or symbolize MMORPG game play. Journey, story, and progression are what define MMORPG game play. The fact that the MMORPG genre has not evolved beyond levels, power gaps, and/or grind have nothing to do with the genre and everything to do with game developers who have not met the challenge of evolving and progressing the genre from the state in which they were presented nearly three decades ago.
No, I'm claiming you can't speak from a position of authority on the subject because you haven't tried the 2nd most popular form of MMO PvP. Arguably the most popular form among people who play MMOs to PvP.
Not only not tried, you aren't even aware how it works because when I described participating in it you said "I'm talking about MMO PvP" giving away the fact you weren't even aware players could do these kinds of things in MMOs.
Ignorance is ok. Nobody is all-knowing in every subject. The thing is you are saying things like:
"The strength of MMO PvP is..."
"I prefer more realistic forms of real war PvP..."
You aren't qualified to say those things. You only know the strength of PvP in the MMOs you've played. You aren't qualified to compare the realism of genres who's PvP you can't even describe with those you've played.
It's not clear if you are talking about MMOs without stat disparity being more realistic than ones without it or Themeparks being more realistic than PvP Sandboxes. I would consider both of those to be false statements so I'll address both.
Having actually played both Themeparks and PvP Sandboxes here are the major differences in realism I have noted:
In a Themepark, if there is a major war between player factions happening the borders remain static despite the actions of the players. Faction A can push Faction B all day long the the point that the population of Faction B starts to dwindle and no exchange of territory or meaningful advancement of the war will take place. The Factions are locked in a constant state of artificial stalemate. If the major war is between players and NPCs then the game follows a scripted storyline. The events in this storyline are not unique and make no lasting impact on the game. After you kill non-instanced boss for instance, you will see the same boss respawn a minute later and someone else kill it. In-fact if you try to roleplay you have to create a character story separate the scripted hero's journey of the game because everyone else is on the same exact hero's journey and has the same backstory.
In a PvP sandbox the major war is between player factions. Factions rise, factions fall, territory trade hands, the world has a living history shaped by the players. You can rise to the position of ruler or a major position directly under the ruler of a faction. You can be the leader or a major contributor in a battle that permanently shapes the world of the game. If you want to roleplay your backstory can be based on your actual accomplishments and your true hero's journey in game because it is unique to you.
In a Themepark if you die you respawn. Maybe with a debuff timer. Maybe completely unphased. Death is insignificant. Victory is insignificant. Defeat is insignificant. Combat itself is insignificant. It is purely an epeen measuring contest without the implementation of an artificial objective.
In most PvP sandboxes if you die you lose most of all of your gear which can then be at least partially looted by your opponent. Victory presents spoils. Defeat presents meaningful loss. All combat has purpose.
Now if we are talking realism in stat disparity...
In Themeparks players can rise to the point that they can stand in place doing nothing and all of the attacks of a lower level place miss, bounce off etc. Higher level characters are essentially god's versus lower level players. You can rise to this status doing mundane tasks that don't challenge you or force you to learn at all.
In games without power disparity. After training long and hard over the course of years I have taken part in battles where I defeated multiple opponents on my own. During the entire battle their attacks hit just as hard as mine, and my defences could take just as many hits as theirs. I used my knowledge of the game and years of practice to ensure their attacks did not hit and exploited their poor movements to pick them off one by one.
Player skill is most comparable to skills and techniques learned IRL. For instance my ability to defeat those multiple players even though each one of them was on even footing with me in terms of character stats and equipment.
Character stats is most comparable to physical training. The idea that your punch will land for more damage, or you can take a hit better than someone else.
Now realism would fall somewhere in-between in most cases. Physical training actually will allow you to use repetitive tasks to gain an advantage over opponents but people who focus on PT over technique are going to get destroyed in the majority of scenarios.
I feel in this scenario no vertical progression is infinitely more realistic than absurd character progression that makes one character immune to the assault of another while they can one shot them with their weakest attack. After all, all characters in MMOs are generally said to be heroes or people possessed of exceptional talents and can be assumed to be in better than average physical condition.
The other scenario is equipment and the difference in power it can give. Given I am ok with gear progression as long as gear is lost upon death I feel I'm seeking a more realistic option in that regard almost undebatably. The idea that you could get super powerful equipment that can turn the tide of battles and none of it will be destroyed / your opponents will allow you to walk away from it in the case of a defeat is laughable.
First
More
Side note, if you do a search you can find some pretty humorous definitions of MMORPG.
So contrary to YOUR OPINION, no you do not need gear stats and levels to be a true MMORPG, at least by those two reliable sources.
Now I take issue with your statement; "90% of PvP in MMORPGs consists of nothing but ganking, trolling and trash talking". I would like to know where you got this statistic? Or is this just another opinion based on your personal experience? Because mine, and I would like to think (although I won't be so arrogant as to speak for them) several others on the forums have had vastly different experiences. I enjoy PvP, and while I tend to be mediocre at it, I have a weird ability to not take it personally and to get over being ganked.
Speaking to ganking. Yes, it happens, and yes it is not the most fun you can have with PvP, but in my experience, there is usually someone around that is more than willing to put a stop to it. The exception being Eve, if you want to solo PvP in Eve, you get what you get and it won't be fun. However, I have seldom had that bad of a time, even in the hay day of Lineage 2, when we had Red Army running around that could and usually did clear whole zones, they often just came through, issued ass beatings and then moved on. So while I agree that ganking does happen, and it can end up in a camping situation, it is not nearly as catastrophic as some would want the world to believe.
Speaking more to your last paragraph and comments, you speak for the entire PvE community? I do PvE as well, and I enjoy it at least as much as I do PvP, and my opinions are exactly contrary to yours. Also backed up with facts, which you have yet to do.
If you are stating your opinions you should state it as such and not try to speak from a platform of fact. Especially when there are very few facts out there to support what you are saying.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
In terms of crafting progression, minus the absence of a exceptionally engaging and skill based system for crafting I am ok with crafting having levels. Levels are a good placeholder for systems that do not allow for meaningful progression in terms of a player's actual skill.
The balancing factor that would make that non-game breaking is loot drop and the need for rare materials from the world to craft the highest grades of crafted gear. Having skilled crafters on your side definitely does present your group with a distinct advantage in that scenario, but:
A. If your guys are not smart about what gear they bring to the field or perform poorly in the field that advantage can be squandered.
B. If your guys are unable to bring rare resources home from the field you will not be able to make proper use of that advantage.
It would do you well understand the content of a poster's post before responding to it. No where in any of my posts did I opine that gear stats and levels were necessary to a true MMORPG. On the contrary, I specifically stated that they were not. I also never stated that I speak for the entire PvE community. As a matter of fact i specifically stated that i did not represent the neither the PvE nor the PvP community. I appreciate the notion that some of you may want to declare me the spokesperson for the PvE community. I, however, am far from that. I am simply speaking for myself and expressing an opinion based on the hundreds, if not, thousands of PvE vs PvP threads that seemingly pop up every couple of weeks or so on every gaming forum. This is not a new topic. None of this should be breaking news to anyone.
Lastly, your opinion based on your biased PvP-centric preferences is well noted. I understand there is a portion of the gaming demographic that enjoy PvP, of which you appear to be a part of. I have also been around these PvE vs PvP threads long enough to know that you will not be the last PvP-centric poster that my post will offend. There will be more. It doesn't take much to trigger you PvP-centirc folks. I only hope that, unlike yourself, they are able to contain their emotions long enough to be able to read, and comprehend, my post before posting inaccuracies as to the content of my posts.
The same ones bemoaned groups, camping, challenge and so forth. Blizzard saw that and courted them.
The companies that spent millions on these games were flexible to a fault. Every expansion pack was a bad move. The players governed the game.
Shadowbane and Darkfall were the specialized offspring of Ultima Online. They have both been shut down, proving what had long been common knowledge in the '90s, that MUDs need players of all type to thrive.
Text is the only hope for online RPGs. MUD1 from 1978 still exists in its original form. How many MMORPGs can you say that about?
http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/463770/the-time-for-pvp-has-come-and-gone/p4#mJ550AwMoKwp2aGP.99
"The post was accurate and true to how the majority of non-biased gamers would describe non-consensual OWPvP games, which is actually what the title of this thread implies. "
http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/463770/the-time-for-pvp-has-come-and-gone/p4#qBvggpH87vKu1gbk.99
Sure sounds like you are speaking for that group.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
First off nobody is saying there should be not gear. We're saying that the gear you acquire should not become a permanent feature of your character.
Second off nobody is saying there should be no levels or progression of any form. We're saying that levels and progression should be removed from areas like HP and damage output or at a bare minimum reduced to fall within semi-realistic levels so that grinding is not a necessary component of competing and having fun.
Define it however you will but what we are advocating for bears a far stronger resemblance to MMORPGs like EVE than any FPS currently in existence.
*laughs*
There is no need to link what has just recently been posted in this very thread. It is there for everyone to read. Linking the post as some sort of additional proof of anything is really not necessary. Now, once again, I am speaking for myself, based on my experience based on the hundreds, if not thousands, of posts on past threads regarding the topic of PvE vs PvP. I am not a spokesperson, nor do I represent any group. There is a difference. You are free to agree, or disagree, with any of it in part or in whole. We can all stick our heads in the sand and make like non-consensual OWPvP has not been a thorn on the side of the MMORPG genre, ignoring all of the proof that has been clearly evident by the myriad of games that have died that slow death and no longer exist because of the bane that is non-consenual OWPvP in the MMORPG genre, but that would just fly in the face of fact and reality, wouldn't it? That all being said, I have also been around these type PvE vs PvP threads to know that nothing will ever be said in these threads to cure the malady that is non-consensual OWPvP in MMORPGs. So I will make my exit. It is what it is. At some point, and I think we are getting there, you will have no alternative but to face the reality when the majority gaming demographic finally convince developers that there is no future in mixing non-consensual OWPvP with the MMORPG genre. Thankfully, that experiment is nearing its end. And that will be much to the relief of true MMORPG fans.
Also when you stated what the majority of non biased gamers would think, you are not speaking for yourself.
LOL wut?
One almost wonders if there's some corporation or entity paying developers not to make a decent mmorpg. It's not as if people like Eldurian and myself can be the only ones who are interested in playing a true, dynamic role-playing game in a persistent virtual world. Games could even be used to teach people things. What if you had an MMORPG that taught you how to be, or at least what it was actually like, to be a doctor or a policeman or any real world profession?
1. Power disparity. Nobody has gotten it through their heads this needs to be much lower in competitive PvP scenarios for them to be any fun at all for people on the wrong side of that power disparity.
2. The "Hardcore" Community. Many existing PvP games have given undue representation to elements of the community that perceive any ability of people to choose how much PvP they want to be subjected to or avoid unwanted PvP as a "dumbing down" of the game and give these players mechanics intentionally designed to allow them to grief these players within the supposedly safer areas of the game.
3. Nobody has ever invested any significant amount of money into an Open World PvP sandbox. The only such title that has significant resources is EVE, which got it's significant resources by being insanely successful for a title that started as indie because people absolutely LOVED what they had to offer.
It's like if people tried the first few prototype airplanes, watched them crashed, and then said. "Whelp, that was a waste of time. These airplanes are never going to be a thing. Let's just give up."
How stupid that would be when the market demand is clearly so huge. Look at the top hyped games. All of them except Pantheon are promising Open World PvP as a major focus of the game. Most of them with full loot.
If the "true MMORPG fans" get their way this genre is only going to continue on it's slow decline straight into the ground. You can only grind raids for so long before repetitive PvE grinding becomes so boring you never want to do it again. Ever. The constantly evolving threat of other players is the answer to the boring repetitive PvE grind that people are clearly getting tired of.
Now if I went into a fully PvE game and somehow hacked it so I could kill players.. THAT would be non-consentual PvP.
I don't think PvP is a hidden feature that people are unaware of when they buy it.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Why are you explaining the differences between sandbox and themepark?
I clearly stated MMORPGs PvP strength over other PvP games is large scale warfare and what comes with large scale warfare is unbalanced, unfair encounters.
So I'm comparing MMO PvP to none MMO PvP, not sandbox vs themepark.
Take the RTS game Starcraft for example.
It has faction warfare. 3 factions in total. Maps allowed upto 8 players. In FFA mode it allowed for alliances to be formed dynamically, but also opened you up to be betrayed by other players.
It has very meaningful territory control. Resources are highly sort after as you need them to build your army. So setting up defenses on your borders imperative.
You had to scout enemy bases to see what they are upto etc.
This highly dynamic PvP all coming from a themepark game btw.
Well, first let's define dynamic. This is what pops up if you "google" it.
Constant change
I believe a true role-playing game means that my character's decisions and choices, words and deeds, have the capability and potential to change any particular aspect of the game world. Now, of course, there are limits to this based on such things as the skill of programmers and processing speed of computers. But humans have made a lot of progress in these categories over the years.
We don't need incredibly advanced artificial intelligence and/or virtual reality in order to create a true role-playing environment.
What we need are meaningful consequences and rewards for possible actions. Freedom always entails risk and responsibility. Safety and security are largely illusions. Anything can happen in the real world. Well, not quite anything, there are some things that seem to be impossible or rather unlikely to occur. We can exert as much effort as we want (or are capable of) into making ourselves more safe or more secure, but we can never attain a state of 100% safety in life. It doesn't matter how many laws we create or police we hire to patrol the streets. I can still choke on a peanut or slip in the bathtub. Bee stings are quite deadly to people who are allergic to them. Lightning can strike. More people die in car accidents and hospitals (due to errors of medical personnel) than die from gunshot wounds every year in the United States of America. A lot more.
That Darkfall revival looks dope, though.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)