I like the idea of being attacked anywhere, even cities, though they should be gaurded. I also like the idea of being able to capture, destroy, and rebuild cities and other structures, it gives PvP/RvR more point, so in that sense I like FFA PvP.
But I am also in favour of lower death penalties, maybe just durability loss or a short ammount of time loss ( like 10 - 30 seconds to a minute or so). And PvP should be much more player skill based, both in terms of physical and mental, and much less character skill based. Of course no hierarchal ,stat boosting, uber loot, just balanced gear, where there is no such thing as better other than simple preferance. Balanced more commonsensical characters are needed to get rid of the peon to demi-god complex that most MMOGs have, and level the playing field.
The only things that should be lost in PvP/RvR are things that do not keep you from enjoying the game. You should never lose your gear, character/skill levels or money. Anything, from cities to territory, should be what is at stake in PvP/RvR, it creates more organized goals for factions, and it becomes more of a burden on the entire faction while not punishing the players. There should also be a way to change factions including joining more third party ones, or not be a member of a faction at all.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
I enjoy the teamwork aspect of RvR a lot. Fighting for keeps and relics that benefit everyone of your realm where ever they are. Sure when I enter the frontier there is the risk that I could get splattered all over the map by a roving speed-enhanced kill squad, but the frontier is so big that it is realistically only a small worry. Unless of course I go near a keep.
Also, how guilds can claim keeps and upgrade also made for bettter pvp. If your keep was being attacked you're more inclined to care than if it's just "a keep".
Also the way CoX does their pvp with zone-specific missions, repeatable missions for zone buffs/debuffs or just FFA pvp is quite fun. Depending on your pvp mood, there is something for you to do. I found that Sirens Call is more popular with the "wanna PK" crowd. That rather NASTY combo of stalkers + a teleport foe. "Ok I just need to speak to this contact.... *POOF*... huh where am I? ... Assassin Strike... You have been defeated". Ouchies.
Accountability for one's actions is what is missing in most games. You can treat people on your side of the racial divide with complete disdain and there are very few repurcussions. People camp out in battlegrounds nearly afk just to soak up a few points towards their next set of "PvP" gear. They are rewarded for being useless members of their team and those that must pick up the slack for their lack of help are given nothing in return. The social aspect of an MMOG really comes into play when what you do matters.
I believe that there is a place for sandbox style games where people and clans can be accountable for their actions. I look forward to the time when there is a game that has great PvE content along with the ability to attack anyone at anytime with consequences. I also believe that the appeal is greater than most people think.
I'm tired of running a PvE instance only to find the leader loot everything, turns to run and I can't do anything about it. I'm tired of players not participating and still being rewarded. I'm tired of being prevented from participating with the rest of a clan/guild because the instance is limited to 5, 10, 15 etc..Most of all, I'm just plain tired of the no risk environments that most games provide.
Once games provide a situation where choices have risk, where risk can provide reward and where accountability is king then go ahead and sign me up.
I like the idea of being attacked anywhere, even cities, though they should be gaurded. I also like the idea of being able to capture, destroy, and rebuild cities and other structures, it gives PvP/RvR more point, so in that sense I like FFA PvP. But I am also in favour of lower death penalties, maybe just durability loss or a short ammount of time loss ( like 10 - 30 seconds to a minute or so). And PvP should be much more player skill based, both in terms of physical and mental, and much less character skill based. Of course no hierarchal ,stat boosting, uber loot, just balanced gear, where there is no such thing as better other than simple preferance. Balanced more commonsensical characters are needed to get rid of the peon to demi-god complex that most MMOGs have, and level the playing field. The only things that should be lost in PvP/RvR are things that do not keep you from enjoying the game. You should never lose your gear, character/skill levels or money. Anything, from cities to territory, should be what is at stake in PvP/RvR, it creates more organized goals for factions, and it becomes more of a burden on the entire faction while not punishing the players. There should also be a way to change factions including joining more third party ones, or not be a member of a faction at all.
What would be the point of PvP if you were not able to lose something? Mirror the idea at PvE, if you die, you lose xp, your location is moved, your inventory is somewhere else and in most cases a death effect. If someone killed me, and i had nothing to lose- there wouldnt be a reason to even fight back. i would just stand there and take punishment, eventually die, and hope he moved on to another area of the game when i run back. What is the push to pvp if there is nothing to obtain? What is the desire TO pvp if no reward?
Spawl, everything that you are talking about comes through player reputation. Countless times Ive heard about Blacklists for players. Players come up with their own standards- programmers and devs do not need to take part in systemic watch dog commands to show "Hey this guy is no good." Most games you run into have dozens of server communications where someone will say something in general where an average of 200 or so players will read it. It sucks when your leader is a loot whore, but then why did you wait until the end of the instance to find that out? And why do you group with players that cant keep up with the mission? Those are the questions I would be asking. You should not be a victim and you can really make sure it doesnt happen again. If you are a really good player- then make your group experiences with players really exclusive. I only group with people who i have grouped with before. When I play a healer, I play it so well, no one will ever want someone else to heal for them. Exclusive grouping strengthens guilds with players trusting their teammates to know what the hell is going on.
I just want to say it is great to see a lot of voices when it comes to the state of PvP. It shows that this special community does care where games are headed. Hats off to our circle. If i may say "Red=Dead" is not Dead.
"Tell me what your gamer plays. Show me why you pay. Teach me every single part. I'll be your guide. You are a prisoner. Cash-cowing slows you down. You can change your game. But can't change your mind. No matter what they do."
there are 3 types of players that always surface when we talk FFA PvP.
1. "I wanna PvE and enjoy the lore setting of the game, with the option to b*chslap the dude who KS /ninjaloot /offend me /etc and keep up my good name as a player. I have no desire to go after random (noob or otherwise) kills as long as I can PvP with my guild or realm. But I also don't want the agrevation of being constantly harassed by any and every fool who sees me as luna park target practise and I do NOT want to be always on the lookout to defend, never trusting anyone thus forfeiting the possibility of making new friends."
2. "PvP should be simple, I wanna kill you so I do, if you can defend yourself do so. Why should I give better chances to my oponent by asking him to PvP or duel him? I lose my advantage of surprise attack. Besides, life is not a safe shelter why should the game be? Afterall this is FFA server, If you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen! The best aspect of PvP is that you fight real people and not AI -run NPCs. If I can't have that the game sucks."
3. "I want FFA PvP but with some rules. Cities guarded and starter zones safe. I also want level restriction and if I'm a harvester no-one should touch me while I hammer my quarry. When I'm ready and feel like it I put on my gear and buffs and go out to PvP whoever I see."
Well, sorry to all 3 chaps but the options are ALL challenged in-game. Player type 3 is really a carebear who wants to safely exploit the system and kill when he's ready. Player type 2 is the kind of player who leads to griefing and alienated communities where a player's development is mostly wrapped around killing other players, but a game is more than that, else we'd settle for a circular arena. Player type 1 does have a point but what he really needs is not FFA PvP -he'd rather pick an RvR server where he'll get PK flagged if he ever "b*chslaps" the "rude" guy (). He PvP's so rarely afterall that he barely will remain red for over 10 mins.
In my opinion, a FFA PvP game should be trully Free For All and challenging. What's the point of killing someone if you only need to camp him or he can't and will never retaliate? Furthermore, what's the point of playing online if killing others is all you do? MMOs are also about community, lore, crafting, exploring a fantasy world, -hell it's about living in there!
I wouldn't want a useless dead world to play in. (which reminds me of a few games I've been in recently ) From another perspective, programmers try their best to create safety triggers against exploits and take all opinions from community boards analyzing player desires and making charts of every weird demand, thus leading to some pretty disturbed PvP rulesets out there...
And I always wonder, is it that hard to apply the easiest idea? They could place guards in town AND NPC military patrols. Guards will have agro range that depends on the player's PK score. If you can avoid them, beat them or tactically use your friend to lure them away, by all means -kill on. But you'll be doing it with style and cunning. And if they also implemented bounties, they could involve players into the lore and (usually boring) quests. The Guard Captain says: "There is a player who roams the town outskirts and kills innocent people. The bounty is (amount of PK score X coin -for example) and evades our efforts to catch him. Can you help us rid of him?" If a player does some really despicable actions (like spawn-camp, kill crafter at the job, repeatedly grief a player to the point of deleveling him, etc) the PK score will rise faster, and thus his bounty, NPC patrol frequency and agro range, but also his notoriety. If he's a genuine cool customer, he'll kill & evade long enough to ultimately have the whole server looking for him! Maybe player build mansions and guardposts (also using NPC guards) can take up some of the load of guarding an area or providing safe haven for travellers (after some commision fee? ). It sounds cool doesn't it?
...now let me look at it from the victim's perspective...
Just by imagining it, makes me wanna spend time on such a game aspect. I know the hardcore PvPers will claim that this is not FFA, or is it? You are free to kill anyone, anywhere, anytime, so it's free alright. It simply has complexity and consequences. And if you want to avoid those, move out of the zones that NPC guards most frequent. Distant lands and cities could have nothing but the bounties to stop you, but -since they are also higher level populated- the notion of a lvl12 griefing lvl5 noobs is out the window. A high level killer that can -not just survive, but utterly ignore the resident mobs around, who kills you there can hardly be accused of griefing or noob-camping. He certainly has played the game in EVERY aspect and deserves the right to even claim an area. If at lvl 40+ you still don't have a guild or friends to support you and hunt with, or at least enough money to place a huge bounty on him, you really should be playing something offline dude.
I like FFA PVP because its a sandbox element that empowers gamers to control the virtual world they inhabit.
I really dont have much problem with RvR I like roleplay. but PVPers dont really roleplay. They get on ventrillo and exploit. There really isnt a good way to make these fake point systems work. WoW has diminishing returns and suffers from AFK pvpers absorbing the points. Plus, RvR seperates real life friends. for instance you meet a guy and he plays on the other faction?? So now you gotta reroll just to play together
I also have no love for Levels....
The big sting in RvR is what comes with them like the absence of death penalty. This means when I takeover a town with my buddies we'll never have victory due to the victims always respawning. no clear winners.
this is why I'm not excited about the latest crop of clones coming out ( one reason).
I'm a pretty big fan of risk vs reward whereas we fight over real resources like fighting for possession of land, etc. making an impact.
right now I'm playing EVE and hope to get into 0.0 within next 3-4 days so I'm interested in seeing how this all works out. Off hand, I cant see nothing wrong with what they've done.
Also thought Starport totally handled their open PVP flawlessly. Too bad most based their experiences on current gen or bad experiences with older titles
This may be weird but I really like Lineage II pvp...
Sure the game is 90% grind but what I do like is you can be friends with any race, class, person, and also enimies. No restrictions. If my best friend wants to play a Dark Elf and I play a Light Elf we can still fight together.
I like clan based pvp where the clans form for the players and not the mechanics of the game.
L2 has some problems with botting and of course pvp is largely based on gear and classes vs. other classes, but there is still an element of strategy to a degree.
Still this is my favorite pvp game in an MMO. I know some may call me crazy, but eh? What can I say?
the single most important factor for PvP to be succesful is not levels, skills, FFA or factions. It is objectives. if you have something to gain and something to loose (and not talking about stupid pvp points, fame or honor), then pvp will be a success.
if not, all there is will be a stupid competition more similar to a sport than a real war.
Let me preface this by saying that I find the words of this author to be insightful and interesting on the regular, however I feel the need to point out several fallacies in many of the statements and arguments rendered.
"but the fact that this type of games usually draws a smaller audience could definitely factor into the equation. It must be hard to sell a game to a publisher if your game design only caters to an admittedly elitist section of gamers."
This right off the bat seriously irritated me. Admittedly elitist by whom.....them....or you? Some clarification is needed here because regardless of who you are claiming is "admitting" this it is simply untrue and a hasty generalization based on little fact. On the contrary I have seen many many more "carebear" types who I would say fall into the category of outright "elitist" than your typical "hardcore" PvPer. The problem with using stereotypes with this type of thing is that you, having the power of the word on forums and websites that are the communal spot for thousands of gamers, can influence people with incorrect generalizations by making statements like this. To accuse the FFA PvP community as being "admittedly elitist" in contrast with any other subgroup in the MMORPG world is both wrong and biased. This does not help us all cooperate in a better thought out and more immersive future for our games. Not as PvPers or PvPers but as gamers.
"Most of the more successful MMOs with strong PvP elements use a structured PvP system that either forced the player into pre-made factions at the character creation screen or shortly thereafter."
I believe this to be a misleading statement whether arbitrarily or not. This argument is a logical fallacy called "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc". Simply because these games were both successfull and incorporated a structured system of PvP does not indicate that any of their success was as a result of that PvP system. Perhaps people that subscribe to these games have done so for reasons that have nothing to do with PvP. I don't think you intended to make that correlation intentionally, but the insinuation is there in the article.
"While this restriction was lifted for the most part in the pure PvP servers, the majority of players spent their entire career grouping with people they couldn't ever attack under any circumstance. While the more radical camps see this as a weakness, it also promotes some kind of order into the way that teams are designed and makes it easier to identify the strengths and weakness of your opponents."
While I won't attempt to speak on behalf of what I know to be a hefty group of gamers, I do not liken people that support an "open PvP" system to radicalists or extremists of any form. In fact I think many supporters of the "sandbox" mentality have very refined views of what a true next generation game could be like and may even understand the intricacies and impacts of such a PvP system on the sociopolitical landscape of a player influenced dynamic world. Making it easier to identify the strengths and weaknesses of your opponents is purely a matter of personal preference and supposes what you have referred to as a "structured PvP system". In an open system perhaps it is more intriguing and thrilling to rely on reconnaissance to find out what those strengths or weaknesses are or perhaps having a different plan to defend/attack for several different situations. There is much to be considered in a world of open warfare and player conflict. Just by referring to it as a PvP system one is totally selling it short as the reason most players would embrace such a system would be to open up a plethora of possibilities; the effects of which would echo throughout the economy, politics, diplomacy, and terrain of a truly dynamic world.
"A large part of the reason we see this type of structured PvP in the mainstream titles is simple: It's easier to manage. When you set predefined allies, it makes the job of balancing sets of special abilities much less of a chore."
Honestly this is a ridiculous concept. The one thing I think you got right here is that "the reason we see this type of structured PvP in the mainstream titles is simple", however let's be honest with ourselves, those reasons have nothing to do with ease of management. They have everything to do with removing risk and "hurt feelings" from the average gamer. This is a mechanism that gives players complete control over when and where they will have PvP and it is precisely the reason it was implemented in this way. PvP remains consentual in the mainstream because quite simply with the status quo of games influencing gamers heavily, most of them are opposed to any situation where they can be killed without warning or consent. Developers have noted this and built their systems around it. Even Mythic which is marketing itself as the maker of the next great "PvP" game has put ample effort into making sure that noone would get "owned" too hard. There is safety nets all throughout the game that remove the sting and unpredictability of PvP.
"Even the most ardent FFA purist would scoff at a game that allowed players to kill each other anywhere, right off the bat, with no consequence. That would be less a game and more of a virtual carnival game and most folks that want to invest their time in-game expect at least some level of protection from players they have no chance to beat. "
You know it is interesting to me how few people actually have the experience or foresight to predict the difference in virtual worlds created with different types of systems for player interaction. Honestly though I think most would be surprised to find as much or more griefing going on in games like World of Warcraft than in games like Eve Online or Shadowbane. Stringent developer safety nets and rules are typically circumnavigated by those who wish to prey on the general populace, and although I experienced many "ganks" in Shadowbane....they paled in comparison as far as frustration to what the average "graveyard" camping situation was like in WoW. So much for all of that "protection" and "organization". It is my belief that players will always maintain order more effeciently than developers will on a sociopolitical level
To close this I'd really like to say that to label certain kinds of PvP interactions as "implementations" or "systems" can be very destructive in a certain sense because it creates this term "PvP" for gamers to dote on and really puts an unecessary focus on PvP. There are systems where the bite of being killed can be removed in other ways other than limiting the PvP itself. Namely the removal of all of these epic items and level grinding systems (yes it can be done). What if open PvP or progressively open PvP was presupposed? What if it wasn't a "type" of game and instead a building block of a new kind of game? We spend so much time arguing back and forth about whether or not PvP is this or that, or acceptable in this regard or whatever, that we continually miss all of the incredible impacts it can have on a world that is free of constraint and shaped by the players. PvP is the means to an end not the end itself.
-Lindorn
www.revolutiong.com Stand up and take part in the evolution of MMORPG's.
Just check DARKFALL it say it all, true open pvp, that game makes it perfect!
And again some about UO,s pvp its old and prehistoric comepare everytime old open pvp with todays games is bit silly Darkfall will deliver believe it or not:)
Beaware of day when darkfall will hit the shelfs and go retail every true ffa pvper must play this game its only hardcore pvp game thats wurth playing for next 10 years:)
P.S. And asheron calls was also good choice back in 1999 byfar superior to UO pvp. EVE maybe good pvp but only when you like spacegames.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77 CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now)) MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB PSU:Corsair AX1200i OS:Windows 10 64bit
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Asheron's Call yet. In my opinion AC1 had/has some of the best PvP action available in a MMO. If you're brave enough, or foolish enough to play on the Darktide server you'll experience some of the most exciting PvP ever (imo). Back in the day it was really interesting to see the PK and anit-PK allegiances spring up on the servers. A trip to town was a heart-quickening event as any red dot was a potential agressor, and uttering "Peace" was akin to asking a Pirate to "Parlay".
Granted I haven't visited Dereth for quite a while now so I can't comment on the current state of PvP activities in AC1, but in the beginning I think it was probably about the best PvP you could find.
Lindorn, your analasys is as interesting as a trigonometry class friday afternoon.
I've given up trying to make everything I say appeal to those who aren't willing to put out a little effort to grasp a concept or understand it. My post was more directed at the author who I think will appreciate some good natured debate.
Regardless though if you aren't willing to read 6 paragraphs of text that pretty well outline someone's entire structure of beliefs then I guess I feel sorry for you.
www.revolutiong.com Stand up and take part in the evolution of MMORPG's.
Well I don't have time to read over the previous 45 post to see if any veteran, (veteran in the sense that person has been playing mmorpg's since their creation) of mmorpg's posted on the correct reply so here you go.
PvP's place in mmorpg's are basically prefered by people who use scripts, exploits or hacks. Also by griefers who have no life and have 24/7 to play over other gamers to max or close to maxing out their characters to go back and kill low level players.
As well as that there are those griefers who find a group to gang up on or what is called ganking another player.
No...there is no skill in fighting other players in mmorpg type of games whatsoever.
True skill are those individuals who are skilled with the keyboard and mouse fighting another player hence FPS online games.
You take the majority of the mmorpg PvPers and throw them into that world with me which I have seen before, they lack true skill and get owned everytime.
So what is skill then???? How well your scripts work? How well you utilize exploits within the game? How well your hack works?
Or how truly good you are when it is pure skill with the keyboard and mouse vs skill of character, how many potions you have to survive or the scripts, exploits and hacks you use??
Whatever your method of PvP in mmorpg's these are the questions to ask which are based 100% on FACT.
Yes players use hacks in FPS online games as well but not to the extent they are in mmorpg's.
Don't reply to my post, don't even reply with a stupid comeback. Instead ponder on what is FACT which I listed among the many and ask these questions to yourself.
Originally posted by DeathWolf2u Well I don't have time to read over the previous 45 post to see if any veteran, (veteran in the sense that person has been playing mmorpg's since their creation) of mmorpg's posted on the correct reply so here you go. PvP's place in mmorpg's are basically prefered by people who use scripts, exploits or hacks. Also by griefers who have no life and have 24/7 to play over other gamers to max or close to maxing out their characters to go back and kill low level players. As well as that there are those griefers who find a group to gang up on or what is called ganking another player. No...there is no skill in fighting other players in mmorpg type of games whatsoever. True skill are those individuals who are skilled with the keyboard and mouse fighting another player hence FPS online games. You take the majority of the mmorpg PvPers and throw them into that world with me which I have seen before, they lack true skill and get owned everytime. So what is skill then???? How well your scripts work? How well you utilize exploits within the game? How well your hack works? Or how truly good you are when it is pure skill with the keyboard and mouse vs skill of character, how many potions you have to survive or the scripts, exploits and hacks you use?? Whatever your method of PvP in mmorpg's these are the questions to ask which are based 100% on FACT. Yes players use hacks in FPS online games as well but not to the extent they are in mmorpg's. Don't reply to my post, don't even reply with a stupid comeback. Instead ponder on what is FACT which I listed among the many and ask these questions to yourself.
if you dont understand that RPGs are about your characters' skills and not your own, then you have no place on this discussion. take your facts and get back to BF2
"Don't reply to my post, don't even reply with a stupid comeback. Instead ponder on what is FACT which I listed among the many and ask these questions to yourself."
I looked for the facts in your post. There are none. You simply make a bunch of misinformed generalizations and show a total lack of experience and knowledge on just about everything you touched on. But Id don't expect that kind of inane babble to change anytime soon....so carry on.
As for the poster right after who quoted you and said "go back to BF2"....wow......we have some quality talent on these boards don't we. Can I ask you a question? Who are you to ascertain what is or is not the "correct" way to play MMORPG's? You are saying competition has no place in MMORPG's or that player skill has no place. Are you the self proclaimed father of modern gaming? Your definition of a game is not the end all be all. I think people like you are slowly moving to the minority side and for that I thank God. Maybe we can end a decade of shortsightedness and close mindedness in MMORPG's.
www.revolutiong.com Stand up and take part in the evolution of MMORPG's.
Originally posted by Lindorn "Don't reply to my post, don't even reply with a stupid comeback. Instead ponder on what is FACT which I listed among the many and ask these questions to yourself." I looked for the facts in your post. There are none. You simply make a bunch of misinformed generalizations and show a total lack of experience and knowledge on just about everything you touched on. But Id don't expect that kind of inane babble to change anytime soon....so carry on. As for the poster right after who quoted you and said "go back to BF2"....wow......we have some quality talent on these boards don't we. Can I ask you a question? Who are you to ascertain what is or is not the "correct" way to play MMORPG's? You are saying competition has no place in MMORPG's or that player skill has no place. Are you the self proclaimed father of modern gaming? Your definition of a game is not the end all be all. I think people like you are slowly moving to the minority side and for that I thank God. Maybe we can end a decade of shortsightedness and close mindedness in MMORPG's.
whatever... i am not saying player skill has no place. i am saying character skill has a place, in fact, in RPGs, character skill has the prominent place, or else we end with craps like planetside.
the decade you wish would end is the one that started with UO and ended with WoW. i guess that is the direction you like, but i prefer the other one. i wish mmorpgs un-evolutioned back to UO. but what do i know! i am just a shortshighted and close minded father of modern gaming.
Maybe if games tried to stop catering to mass market, and a few developers focused on niche markets. A lot of people i talk too are all for FFA pvp. Its the danger aspect, the need to make a few close friends for support, the social aspect because of the dangers of traveling alone. Sure it's hard to balance, and not everyones cup of tea. But a good number of players do want to see these features.
As an example Darkfall. (Yes, shout vapor, whatever.) But the devs specifically said they are not catering to a mass market, and are making a game for those who want the FFA PvP kind of game, and the political, and social aspects that come along with it. A world of consequence. A game in which the world has little, maybe less protection for the player. But its part of the parcel.
Many are tired with Level/gear Vs Level/Gear, and safety nets for idiots who are protected by their alignment or in which area they are in. Sure chaos may ensue, but just as with UO pre tram, a system of control works itself out. This is what i look forward too, Me, not what i want all games to be like. Let those who like wandering alone in a massive world do just that, free from fear that some jackass will stab them and take their inventory because they might have to actually use some thought process to defend themselves.
I cant understand a carebear mindset, oh yes i can, let me imagine its all real life and im 7 years old. But damn, i just remembered its all a game.
Comments
I like the idea of being attacked anywhere, even cities, though they should be gaurded. I also like the idea of being able to capture, destroy, and rebuild cities and other structures, it gives PvP/RvR more point, so in that sense I like FFA PvP.
But I am also in favour of lower death penalties, maybe just durability loss or a short ammount of time loss ( like 10 - 30 seconds to a minute or so). And PvP should be much more player skill based, both in terms of physical and mental, and much less character skill based. Of course no hierarchal ,stat boosting, uber loot, just balanced gear, where there is no such thing as better other than simple preferance. Balanced more commonsensical characters are needed to get rid of the peon to demi-god complex that most MMOGs have, and level the playing field.
The only things that should be lost in PvP/RvR are things that do not keep you from enjoying the game. You should never lose your gear, character/skill levels or money. Anything, from cities to territory, should be what is at stake in PvP/RvR, it creates more organized goals for factions, and it becomes more of a burden on the entire faction while not punishing the players. There should also be a way to change factions including joining more third party ones, or not be a member of a faction at all.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
I enjoy the teamwork aspect of RvR a lot. Fighting for keeps and relics that benefit everyone of your realm where ever they are. Sure when I enter the frontier there is the risk that I could get splattered all over the map by a roving speed-enhanced kill squad, but the frontier is so big that it is realistically only a small worry. Unless of course I go near a keep.
Also, how guilds can claim keeps and upgrade also made for bettter pvp. If your keep was being attacked you're more inclined to care than if it's just "a keep".
Also the way CoX does their pvp with zone-specific missions, repeatable missions for zone buffs/debuffs or just FFA pvp is quite fun. Depending on your pvp mood, there is something for you to do. I found that Sirens Call is more popular with the "wanna PK" crowd. That rather NASTY combo of stalkers + a teleport foe. "Ok I just need to speak to this contact.... *POOF*... huh where am I? ... Assassin Strike... You have been defeated". Ouchies.
I like a more structured kind of PVP, where everyone isnt against everyone .. you know who the good guys r
and who the bad guys r ..
On that note, I also prefure having beginner zones safe unless you attack the opponent first .. there are just way too many
people who cant kill others of their same level so they find it fun to one shot new players, it discourages them from
even wanting to play the game, ive left games because I couldnt level out of the new B zones just because people kept
camping you that where way over your level.
That being said, most PVP isnt about ganking every person from the opp side that you see .. a lot of that goes on,
and to me that makes the game exciting knowing that you could find yourself in a battle with someone else other than
a mob that is always stationed at that spot on the game .. I like when games incorporate some kind of events, not just
the same old Battle Ground over and over again .. but have weekly or daily events that players can take part in. ( an
example of this would b, some games Ive been in have had weekend seige's on castles etc .. just having BG's or killing
people of the opp side when u see them questing, while they r fun for a while, gets old.
This is where I'd like to see pvp that mattered, like taking over a castle, the side that won got extra rep in that area, or xp from
the mobs they killed, etc .. would give an incentive to take part in the battle, not just a BG that the outcome doesnt matter once
you get your honor for it and its over ...
PvP == Griefer. pvp b wack.
Well if you like your PvP fast, fun and no grinding then I would suggest taking a look at Fury (http://www.unleashthefury.com)
www.psfei.com
Accountability for one's actions is what is missing in most games. You can treat people on your side of the racial divide with complete disdain and there are very few repurcussions. People camp out in battlegrounds nearly afk just to soak up a few points towards their next set of "PvP" gear. They are rewarded for being useless members of their team and those that must pick up the slack for their lack of help are given nothing in return. The social aspect of an MMOG really comes into play when what you do matters.
I believe that there is a place for sandbox style games where people and clans can be accountable for their actions. I look forward to the time when there is a game that has great PvE content along with the ability to attack anyone at anytime with consequences. I also believe that the appeal is greater than most people think.
I'm tired of running a PvE instance only to find the leader loot everything, turns to run and I can't do anything about it. I'm tired of players not participating and still being rewarded. I'm tired of being prevented from participating with the rest of a clan/guild because the instance is limited to 5, 10, 15 etc..Most of all, I'm just plain tired of the no risk environments that most games provide.
Once games provide a situation where choices have risk, where risk can provide reward and where accountability is king then go ahead and sign me up.
What would be the point of PvP if you were not able to lose something? Mirror the idea at PvE, if you die, you lose xp, your location is moved, your inventory is somewhere else and in most cases a death effect. If someone killed me, and i had nothing to lose- there wouldnt be a reason to even fight back. i would just stand there and take punishment, eventually die, and hope he moved on to another area of the game when i run back. What is the push to pvp if there is nothing to obtain? What is the desire TO pvp if no reward?
Spawl, everything that you are talking about comes through player reputation. Countless times Ive heard about Blacklists for players. Players come up with their own standards- programmers and devs do not need to take part in systemic watch dog commands to show "Hey this guy is no good." Most games you run into have dozens of server communications where someone will say something in general where an average of 200 or so players will read it. It sucks when your leader is a loot whore, but then why did you wait until the end of the instance to find that out? And why do you group with players that cant keep up with the mission? Those are the questions I would be asking. You should not be a victim and you can really make sure it doesnt happen again. If you are a really good player- then make your group experiences with players really exclusive. I only group with people who i have grouped with before. When I play a healer, I play it so well, no one will ever want someone else to heal for them. Exclusive grouping strengthens guilds with players trusting their teammates to know what the hell is going on.
I just want to say it is great to see a lot of voices when it comes to the state of PvP. It shows that this special community does care where games are headed. Hats off to our circle. If i may say "Red=Dead" is not Dead.
"Tell me what your gamer plays.
Show me why you pay.
Teach me every single part. I'll be your guide.
You are a prisoner.
Cash-cowing slows you down.
You can change your game.
But can't change your mind.
No matter what they do."
is it possible for a game not to have pvp, and have more than...hmmm.. i dunno.... 200 players?
As I see it,
there are 3 types of players that always surface when we talk FFA PvP.
1. "I wanna PvE and enjoy the lore setting of the game, with the option to b*chslap the dude who KS /ninjaloot /offend me /etc and keep up my good name as a player. I have no desire to go after random (noob or otherwise) kills as long as I can PvP with my guild or realm. But I also don't want the agrevation of being constantly harassed by any and every fool who sees me as luna park target practise and I do NOT want to be always on the lookout to defend, never trusting anyone thus forfeiting the possibility of making new friends."
2. "PvP should be simple, I wanna kill you so I do, if you can defend yourself do so. Why should I give better chances to my oponent by asking him to PvP or duel him? I lose my advantage of surprise attack. Besides, life is not a safe shelter why should the game be? Afterall this is FFA server, If you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen! The best aspect of PvP is that you fight real people and not AI -run NPCs. If I can't have that the game sucks."
3. "I want FFA PvP but with some rules. Cities guarded and starter zones safe. I also want level restriction and if I'm a harvester no-one should touch me while I hammer my quarry. When I'm ready and feel like it I put on my gear and buffs and go out to PvP whoever I see."
Well, sorry to all 3 chaps but the options are ALL challenged in-game. Player type 3 is really a carebear who wants to safely exploit the system and kill when he's ready. Player type 2 is the kind of player who leads to griefing and alienated communities where a player's development is mostly wrapped around killing other players, but a game is more than that, else we'd settle for a circular arena. Player type 1 does have a point but what he really needs is not FFA PvP -he'd rather pick an RvR server where he'll get PK flagged if he ever "b*chslaps" the "rude" guy (
). He PvP's so rarely afterall that he barely will remain red for over 10 mins.
In my opinion, a FFA PvP game should be trully Free For All and challenging. What's the point of killing someone if you only need to camp him or he can't and will never retaliate? Furthermore, what's the point of playing online if killing others is all you do? MMOs are also about community, lore, crafting, exploring a fantasy world, -hell it's about living in there!
I wouldn't want a useless dead world to play in. (which reminds me of a few games I've been in recently
) From another perspective, programmers try their best to create safety triggers against exploits and take all opinions from community boards analyzing player desires and making charts of every weird demand, thus leading to some pretty disturbed PvP rulesets out there...
And I always wonder, is it that hard to apply the easiest idea? They could place guards in town AND NPC military patrols. Guards will have agro range that depends on the player's PK score. If you can avoid them, beat them or tactically use your friend to lure them away, by all means -kill on. But you'll be doing it with style and cunning. And if they also implemented bounties, they could involve players into the lore and (usually boring) quests. The Guard Captain says: "There is a player who roams the town outskirts and kills innocent people. The bounty is (amount of PK score X coin -for example) and evades our efforts to catch him. Can you help us rid of him?" If a player does some really despicable actions (like spawn-camp, kill crafter at the job, repeatedly grief a player to the point of deleveling him, etc) the PK score will rise faster, and thus his bounty, NPC patrol frequency and agro range, but also his notoriety. If he's a genuine cool customer, he'll kill & evade long enough to ultimately have the whole server looking for him! Maybe player build mansions and guardposts (also using NPC guards) can take up some of the load of guarding an area or providing safe haven for travellers (after some commision fee?
). It sounds cool doesn't it?
...now let me look at it from the victim's perspective...
Just by imagining it, makes me wanna spend time on such a game aspect. I know the hardcore PvPers will claim that this is not FFA, or is it? You are free to kill anyone, anywhere, anytime, so it's free alright. It simply has complexity and consequences. And if you want to avoid those, move out of the zones that NPC guards most frequent. Distant lands and cities could have nothing but the bounties to stop you, but -since they are also higher level populated- the notion of a lvl12 griefing lvl5 noobs is out the window. A high level killer that can -not just survive, but utterly ignore the resident mobs around, who kills you there can hardly be accused of griefing or noob-camping. He certainly has played the game in EVERY aspect and deserves the right to even claim an area. If at lvl 40+ you still don't have a guild or friends to support you and hunt with, or at least enough money to place a huge bounty on him, you really should be playing something offline dude.
At least that's my opinion on this.
I wanna be a bounty hunter, but more like Spike and alot less like that Fet guy.
Execution is key to FFA PvP. Devs don't know how to do that so far in MMOs.
www.oblinq.com/SnowmonkeysTemple/
I like FFA PVP because its a sandbox element that empowers gamers to control the virtual world they inhabit.
I really dont have much problem with RvR I like roleplay. but PVPers dont really roleplay. They get on ventrillo and exploit. There really isnt a good way to make these fake point systems work. WoW has diminishing returns and suffers from AFK pvpers absorbing the points. Plus, RvR seperates real life friends. for instance you meet a guy and he plays on the other faction?? So now you gotta reroll just to play together
I also have no love for Levels....
The big sting in RvR is what comes with them like the absence of death penalty. This means when I takeover a town with my buddies we'll never have victory due to the victims always respawning. no clear winners.
this is why I'm not excited about the latest crop of clones coming out ( one reason).
I'm a pretty big fan of risk vs reward whereas we fight over real resources like fighting for possession of land, etc. making an impact.
right now I'm playing EVE and hope to get into 0.0 within next 3-4 days so I'm interested in seeing how this all works out. Off hand, I cant see nothing wrong with what they've done.
Also thought Starport totally handled their open PVP flawlessly. Too bad most based their experiences on current gen or bad experiences with older titles
Sure the game is 90% grind but what I do like is you can be friends with any race, class, person, and also enimies. No restrictions. If my best friend wants to play a Dark Elf and I play a Light Elf we can still fight together.
I like clan based pvp where the clans form for the players and not the mechanics of the game.
L2 has some problems with botting and of course pvp is largely based on gear and classes vs. other classes, but there is still an element of strategy to a degree.
Still this is my favorite pvp game in an MMO. I know some may call me crazy, but eh? What can I say?
the single most important factor for PvP to be succesful is not levels, skills, FFA or factions. It is objectives. if you have something to gain and something to loose (and not talking about stupid pvp points, fame or honor), then pvp will be a success.
if not, all there is will be a stupid competition more similar to a sport than a real war.
Let me preface this by saying that I find the words of this author to be insightful and interesting on the regular, however I feel the need to point out several fallacies in many of the statements and arguments rendered.
"but the fact that this type of games usually draws a smaller audience could definitely factor into the equation. It must be hard to sell a game to a publisher if your game design only caters to an admittedly elitist section of gamers."
This right off the bat seriously irritated me. Admittedly elitist by whom.....them....or you? Some clarification is needed here because regardless of who you are claiming is "admitting" this it is simply untrue and a hasty generalization based on little fact. On the contrary I have seen many many more "carebear" types who I would say fall into the category of outright "elitist" than your typical "hardcore" PvPer. The problem with using stereotypes with this type of thing is that you, having the power of the word on forums and websites that are the communal spot for thousands of gamers, can influence people with incorrect generalizations by making statements like this. To accuse the FFA PvP community as being "admittedly elitist" in contrast with any other subgroup in the MMORPG world is both wrong and biased. This does not help us all cooperate in a better thought out and more immersive future for our games. Not as PvPers or PvPers but as gamers.
"Most of the more successful MMOs with strong PvP elements use a structured PvP system that either forced the player into pre-made factions at the character creation screen or shortly thereafter."
I believe this to be a misleading statement whether arbitrarily or not. This argument is a logical fallacy called "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc". Simply because these games were both successfull and incorporated a structured system of PvP does not indicate that any of their success was as a result of that PvP system. Perhaps people that subscribe to these games have done so for reasons that have nothing to do with PvP. I don't think you intended to make that correlation intentionally, but the insinuation is there in the article.
"While this restriction was lifted for the most part in the pure PvP servers, the majority of players spent their entire career grouping with people they couldn't ever attack under any circumstance. While the more radical camps see this as a weakness, it also promotes some kind of order into the way that teams are designed and makes it easier to identify the strengths and weakness of your opponents."
While I won't attempt to speak on behalf of what I know to be a hefty group of gamers, I do not liken people that support an "open PvP" system to radicalists or extremists of any form. In fact I think many supporters of the "sandbox" mentality have very refined views of what a true next generation game could be like and may even understand the intricacies and impacts of such a PvP system on the sociopolitical landscape of a player influenced dynamic world. Making it easier to identify the strengths and weaknesses of your opponents is purely a matter of personal preference and supposes what you have referred to as a "structured PvP system". In an open system perhaps it is more intriguing and thrilling to rely on reconnaissance to find out what those strengths or weaknesses are or perhaps having a different plan to defend/attack for several different situations. There is much to be considered in a world of open warfare and player conflict. Just by referring to it as a PvP system one is totally selling it short as the reason most players would embrace such a system would be to open up a plethora of possibilities; the effects of which would echo throughout the economy, politics, diplomacy, and terrain of a truly dynamic world.
"A large part of the reason we see this type of structured PvP in the mainstream titles is simple: It's easier to manage. When you set predefined allies, it makes the job of balancing sets of special abilities much less of a chore."
Honestly this is a ridiculous concept. The one thing I think you got right here is that "the reason we see this type of structured PvP in the mainstream titles is simple", however let's be honest with ourselves, those reasons have nothing to do with ease of management. They have everything to do with removing risk and "hurt feelings" from the average gamer. This is a mechanism that gives players complete control over when and where they will have PvP and it is precisely the reason it was implemented in this way. PvP remains consentual in the mainstream because quite simply with the status quo of games influencing gamers heavily, most of them are opposed to any situation where they can be killed without warning or consent. Developers have noted this and built their systems around it. Even Mythic which is marketing itself as the maker of the next great "PvP" game has put ample effort into making sure that noone would get "owned" too hard. There is safety nets all throughout the game that remove the sting and unpredictability of PvP.
"Even the most ardent FFA purist would scoff at a game that allowed players to kill each other anywhere, right off the bat, with no consequence. That would be less a game and more of a virtual carnival game and most folks that want to invest their time in-game expect at least some level of protection from players they have no chance to beat. "
You know it is interesting to me how few people actually have the experience or foresight to predict the difference in virtual worlds created with different types of systems for player interaction. Honestly though I think most would be surprised to find as much or more griefing going on in games like World of Warcraft than in games like Eve Online or Shadowbane. Stringent developer safety nets and rules are typically circumnavigated by those who wish to prey on the general populace, and although I experienced many "ganks" in Shadowbane....they paled in comparison as far as frustration to what the average "graveyard" camping situation was like in WoW. So much for all of that "protection" and "organization". It is my belief that players will always maintain order more effeciently than developers will on a sociopolitical level
To close this I'd really like to say that to label certain kinds of PvP interactions as "implementations" or "systems" can be very destructive in a certain sense because it creates this term "PvP" for gamers to dote on and really puts an unecessary focus on PvP. There are systems where the bite of being killed can be removed in other ways other than limiting the PvP itself. Namely the removal of all of these epic items and level grinding systems (yes it can be done). What if open PvP or progressively open PvP was presupposed? What if it wasn't a "type" of game and instead a building block of a new kind of game? We spend so much time arguing back and forth about whether or not PvP is this or that, or acceptable in this regard or whatever, that we continually miss all of the incredible impacts it can have on a world that is free of constraint and shaped by the players. PvP is the means to an end not the end itself.
-Lindorn
www.revolutiong.com
Stand up and take part in the evolution of MMORPG's.
Just check DARKFALL it say it all, true open pvp, that game makes it perfect!
And again some about UO,s pvp its old and prehistoric comepare everytime old open pvp with todays games is bit silly Darkfall will deliver believe it or not:)
Beaware of day when darkfall will hit the shelfs and go retail every true ffa pvper must play this game its only hardcore pvp game thats wurth playing for next 10 years:)
P.S. And asheron calls was also good choice back in 1999 byfar superior to UO pvp. EVE maybe good pvp but only when you like spacegames.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
Lindorn, your analasys is as interesting as a trigonometry class friday afternoon.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Asheron's Call yet. In my opinion AC1 had/has some of the best PvP action available in a MMO. If you're brave enough, or foolish enough
to play on the Darktide server you'll experience some of the most exciting PvP ever (imo). Back in the day it was really interesting to see the PK and anit-PK allegiances spring up on the servers. A trip to town was a heart-quickening event as any red dot was a potential agressor, and uttering "Peace" was akin to asking a Pirate to "Parlay".
Granted I haven't visited Dereth for quite a while now so I can't comment on the current state of PvP activities in AC1, but in the beginning I think it was probably about the best PvP you could find.
Woot..Kill or be killed....
Down with the "carbears"....
Bash everything in your way....
Gimme and bigger gun man.....
I'm soooo Ub3r l33t dawg....
sheesh....PvP is part of the game..NOT the game itself...unless it's an FPS...
Rock'em sock'em...yeeehaww.... cowboys and indians...cops and robbers...
www.amazon.com/Rock-Em-Sock-Robots/dp/B00005BY8V
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
John Lennon
I've given up trying to make everything I say appeal to those who aren't willing to put out a little effort to grasp a concept or understand it. My post was more directed at the author who I think will appreciate some good natured debate.
Regardless though if you aren't willing to read 6 paragraphs of text that pretty well outline someone's entire structure of beliefs then I guess I feel sorry for you.
www.revolutiong.com
Stand up and take part in the evolution of MMORPG's.
Well I don't have time to read over the previous 45 post to see if any veteran, (veteran in the sense that person has been playing mmorpg's since their creation) of mmorpg's posted on the correct reply so here you go.
PvP's place in mmorpg's are basically prefered by people who use scripts, exploits or hacks. Also by griefers who have no life and have 24/7 to play over other gamers to max or close to maxing out their characters to go back and kill low level players.
As well as that there are those griefers who find a group to gang up on or what is called ganking another player.
No...there is no skill in fighting other players in mmorpg type of games whatsoever.
True skill are those individuals who are skilled with the keyboard and mouse fighting another player hence FPS online games.
You take the majority of the mmorpg PvPers and throw them into that world with me which I have seen before, they lack true skill and get owned everytime.
So what is skill then???? How well your scripts work? How well you utilize exploits within the game? How well your hack works?
Or how truly good you are when it is pure skill with the keyboard and mouse vs skill of character, how many potions you have to survive or the scripts, exploits and hacks you use??
Whatever your method of PvP in mmorpg's these are the questions to ask which are based 100% on FACT.
Yes players use hacks in FPS online games as well but not to the extent they are in mmorpg's.
Don't reply to my post, don't even reply with a stupid comeback. Instead ponder on what is FACT which I listed among the many and ask these questions to yourself.
if you dont understand that RPGs are about your characters' skills and not your own, then you have no place on this discussion. take your facts and get back to BF2
"Don't reply to my post, don't even reply with a stupid comeback. Instead ponder on what is FACT which I listed among the many and ask these questions to yourself."
I looked for the facts in your post. There are none. You simply make a bunch of misinformed generalizations and show a total lack of experience and knowledge on just about everything you touched on. But Id don't expect that kind of inane babble to change anytime soon....so carry on.
As for the poster right after who quoted you and said "go back to BF2"....wow......we have some quality talent on these boards don't we. Can I ask you a question? Who are you to ascertain what is or is not the "correct" way to play MMORPG's? You are saying competition has no place in MMORPG's or that player skill has no place. Are you the self proclaimed father of modern gaming? Your definition of a game is not the end all be all. I think people like you are slowly moving to the minority side and for that I thank God. Maybe we can end a decade of shortsightedness and close mindedness in MMORPG's.
www.revolutiong.com
Stand up and take part in the evolution of MMORPG's.
whatever... i am not saying player skill has no place. i am saying character skill has a place, in fact, in RPGs, character skill has the prominent place, or else we end with craps like planetside.
the decade you wish would end is the one that started with UO and ended with WoW. i guess that is the direction you like, but i prefer the other one. i wish mmorpgs un-evolutioned back to UO. but what do i know! i am just a shortshighted and close minded father of modern gaming.
have a good day
Maybe if games tried to stop catering to mass market, and a few developers focused on niche markets. A lot of people i talk too are all for FFA pvp. Its the danger aspect, the need to make a few close friends for support, the social aspect because of the dangers of traveling alone. Sure it's hard to balance, and not everyones cup of tea. But a good number of players do want to see these features.
As an example Darkfall. (Yes, shout vapor, whatever.) But the devs specifically said they are not catering to a mass market, and are making a game for those who want the FFA PvP kind of game, and the political, and social aspects that come along with it. A world of consequence. A game in which the world has little, maybe less protection for the player. But its part of the parcel.
Many are tired with Level/gear Vs Level/Gear, and safety nets for idiots who are protected by their alignment or in which area they are in. Sure chaos may ensue, but just as with UO pre tram, a system of control works itself out. This is what i look forward too, Me, not what i want all games to be like. Let those who like wandering alone in a massive world do just that, free from fear that some jackass will stab them and take their inventory because they might have to actually use some thought process to defend themselves.
I cant understand a carebear mindset, oh yes i can, let me imagine its all real life and im 7 years old. But damn, i just remembered its all a game.
Currently playing: Planetside, Americas Army.
Praying to Zeus for: Darkfall.