the advocates of more realistic, more ruthless pvp who have no restraints sometimes hunting their pray and so on prefer open-world. gankrs ar a small and un-representative segemnt of this playerbase.
sorry, but - are you serious? what is "more realistic" about open pvp? do you see in RL people just running around killing anyone they could w/o serious (and usually pernament) consequences?
edit: and no - gankers are not small and unrepresentative segment of open pvp fans.
Actually Chess is mostly about who has played longer. Only extremely high level chess is about intellectual capacity. Same for soccer. In fact skill in general is mostly about practice.
The only real test of skill would be to match up people who have spent the same amount of time, or very similar, on a skill. Its also about training. One player of chess spending 100 hours with a skilled teacher will almost always outplay another player who learned the moves of the pieces and was alone from then on with 100 hours of practice.
RPGs are about character skills. My character spent 500 hours training to cast those level 15 fireballs and yours spent 20 hours so he lost.
Why do you think top players in esports have up to 10x more games played as the average person. I have over 3000 games played in LoL. Competitive players have 30000+. But somehow their skills have nothing to do with how long they ahve played right?
The fact is that the same players who never had a chance against my level 1000 paladin probably never had a chance against DoubleLift either, because doublelift put in 5000-10000 hours of time or more.
There is this weird disconnect in people's minds where those two quite comparable things are totally different. And by weird disconnect I mean that there is no culturally accepted excuse to fall back on for failure. The reason that people don't complain about character skill vs player skill is that everyone would laugh in their face. Not because they actually consider it any different. They still make the excuses to themselves, they just don't say it out loud.
And we aren't even getting into the more obscure reasons for why one person has an advantage that isn't some sort of natural superiority but just something hidden that you never thought of. Its possible to trace the paths of one player who really likes a certain character or playstyle based on nothing more than random chance that later ends up not being competitive but which ate all of their time while the other player had picked a viable path.
Player one can do things with character a that would blow your mind but he sucks at competitive player because character a is garbage in the meta or garbage no matter what.
This is not a complicated concept. Chess is a controlled arena focused on skillful competition:
Population: People would laugh if you suggested being able to bring in guild mates to do a 2v1 chess match.
Progression: People would laugh if you suggested being able to start with 2 queens after winning 100 chess matches and "leveling up".
Player Skill: People would say "yeah, that's the point obviously" if you pointed out that playtime loosely translates to player skill, which decides who wins.
Obviously in competitive games if you're outplayed you should lose. That's the point. But with progression systems (game-rule advantages gained through playtime) you create the potential for an unskilled player to beat a newer (but more skilled) opponent, purely on the basis of playing longer. If the playing field were even, the unskilled player would lose.
For this reason, serious competitive PVP games seek to eliminate most or all non-skill elements.
Whereas casual PVP games (like MMORPG PVP) allow non-skill elements to exist, which really dilutes it as a competitive platform because bad players will win much more often than they otherwise would. If you're a bad player, casual PVP has a certain appeal. But the human mind is pretty good at identifying just how meaningless casual PVP is, and despite the fact that it's so damn casual this style of PVP isn't actually all that popular (real PVP games are vastly more popular.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Ever heard of games like Soccer or Chess? In these controlled-arena games players actually compete to seewho is more skilled(as opposed to who has played longer or who brings more friends.)
So basically arena PVP is the closest MMORPG PVP gets to being real PVP. Normally MMORPG PVP is Casual PVP.
Actually Chess is mostly about who has played longer. Only extremely high level chess is about intellectual capacity. Same for soccer. In fact skill in general is mostly about practice.
The only real test of skill would be to match up people who have spent the same amount of time, or very similar, on a skill. Its also about training. One player of chess spending 100 hours with a skilled teacher will almost always outplay another player who learned the moves of the pieces and was alone from then on with 100 hours of practice.
RPGs are about character skills. My character spent 500 hours training to cast those level 15 fireballs and yours spent 20 hours so he lost.
Why do you think top players in esports have up to 10x more games played as the average person. I have over 3000 games played in LoL. Competitive players have 30000+. But somehow their skills have nothing to do with how long they ahve played right?
The fact is that the same players who never had a chance against my level 1000 paladin probably never had a chance against DoubleLift either, because doublelift put in 5000-10000 hours of time or more.
There is this weird disconnect in people's minds where those two quite comparable things are totally different. And by weird disconnect I mean that there is no culturally accepted excuse to fall back on for failure. The reason that people don't complain about character skill vs player skill is that everyone would laugh in their face. Not because they actually consider it any different. They still make the excuses to themselves, they just don't say it out loud.
And we aren't even getting into the more obscure reasons for why one person has an advantage that isn't some sort of natural superiority but just something hidden that you never thought of. Its possible to trace the paths of one player who really likes a certain character or playstyle based on nothing more than random chance that later ends up not being competitive but which ate all of their time while the other player had picked a viable path.
Player one can do things with character a that would blow your mind but he sucks at competitive player because character a is garbage in the meta or garbage no matter what.
Yes and no. This was discussed before, not too long a go, I think. Most people have a sort of "skill cap" where, upon reaching it, they will not improve much if at all after that. I've regularly beaten players that have more playtime or more matches under their belt than me. And its not even the quantity alone but quality too. One of the top League of Legends teams in some major tournament (I forget which) had a player in their ranks who had started playing the game just two months before and they made it to the final.
It matters who is your training partner, is someone coaching you, who do you play with and who do you play against. There are numerous ways you can maximize your speed of improvement and most people just don't apply them - most don't even want to. One thing is certain: You don't learn PvP by playing PvE.
Skill and, more importantly, mindset carries over from other games. Some players can never adopt the right mindset and therefore will never achieve the level of skill some of these competitive players achieve. It doesn't help that this mindset is very alien to your common sunday gamer and it usually requires breaking some illusions - something some people would much rather hold on to.
You see, sometimes ignorance is bliss and I'm not going to jugde how anyone plays their game. If they don't wish to know which build is best and why or the nuts and bolts how the game really works - its fine; they'll still have just as much fun. Only they will be harsly disappointed if they have high aspirations in PvP.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by ShakyMo Actually in the middle ages people did go around killing people and getting away with it.
for some time, sure - but once you got "caught" you were permadead
depends how rich you were
...or if you hung out with the right people, mainly the church.
...and didn't do anything that pissed off the Pope. Right, Henry?
(They got 'Liz too, the early Tudors weren't very popular in Rome).
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Ever heard of games like Soccer or Chess? In these controlled-arena games players actually compete to seewho is more skilled(as opposed to who has played longer or who brings more friends.)
So basically arena PVP is the closest MMORPG PVP gets to being real PVP. Normally MMORPG PVP is Casual PVP.
Actually Chess is mostly about who has played longer. Only extremely high level chess is about intellectual capacity. Same for soccer. In fact skill in general is mostly about practice.
The only real test of skill would be to match up people who have spent the same amount of time, or very similar, on a skill. Its also about training. One player of chess spending 100 hours with a skilled teacher will almost always outplay another player who learned the moves of the pieces and was alone from then on with 100 hours of practice.
RPGs are about character skills. My character spent 500 hours training to cast those level 15 fireballs and yours spent 20 hours so he lost.
Why do you think top players in esports have up to 10x more games played as the average person. I have over 3000 games played in LoL. Competitive players have 30000+. But somehow their skills have nothing to do with how long they ahve played right?
The fact is that the same players who never had a chance against my level 1000 paladin probably never had a chance against DoubleLift either, because doublelift put in 5000-10000 hours of time or more.
There is this weird disconnect in people's minds where those two quite comparable things are totally different. And by weird disconnect I mean that there is no culturally accepted excuse to fall back on for failure. The reason that people don't complain about character skill vs player skill is that everyone would laugh in their face. Not because they actually consider it any different. They still make the excuses to themselves, they just don't say it out loud.
And we aren't even getting into the more obscure reasons for why one person has an advantage that isn't some sort of natural superiority but just something hidden that you never thought of. Its possible to trace the paths of one player who really likes a certain character or playstyle based on nothing more than random chance that later ends up not being competitive but which ate all of their time while the other player had picked a viable path.
Player one can do things with character a that would blow your mind but he sucks at competitive player because character a is garbage in the meta or garbage no matter what.
Yes and no. This was discussed before, not too long a go, I think. Most people have a sort of "skill cap" where, upon reaching it, they will not improve much if at all after that. I've regularly beaten players that have more playtime or more matches under their belt than me. And its not even the quantity alone but quality too. One of the top League of Legends teams in some major tournament (I forget which) had a player in their ranks who had started playing the game just two months before and they made it to the final.
It matters who is your training partner, is someone coaching you, who do you play with and who do you play against. There are numerous ways you can maximize your speed of improvement and most people just don't apply them - most don't even want to. One thing is certain: You don't learn PvP by playing PvE.
Skill and, more importantly, mindset carries over from other games. Some players can never adopt the right mindset and therefore will never achieve the level of skill some of these competitive players achieve. It doesn't help that this mindset is very alien to your common sunday gamer and it usually requires breaking some illusions - something some people would much rather hold on to.
You see, sometimes ignorance is bliss and I'm not going to jugde how anyone plays their game. If they don't wish to know which build is best and why or the nuts and bolts how the game really works - its fine; they'll still have just as much fun. Only they will be harsly disappointed if they have high aspirations in PvP.
Well yes, those are some of the other factors. But the point is that for the majority of people who are NOT competitive league players they are good or bad based on their time spent, just like an RPG is. And in most games the level cap is so short that honestly its only the casuals who are worried about the time investment. But none of those people would be top tier even in a MOBA anyways. Saying that time investment is unfair is just a bullshit excuse that people make for themselves.
Well yes, those are some of the other factors. But the point is that for the majority of people who are NOT competitive league players they are good or bad based on their time spent, just like an RPG is. And in most games the level cap is so short that honestly its only the casuals who are worried about the time investment. But none of those people would be top tier even in a MOBA anyways. Saying that time investment is unfair is just a bullshit excuse that people make for themselves.
Its not if time and power are directly related (Eve Online) or if you can gear up with grinding PvE.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I remember when Battlegrounds came out in WoW, i hated them so much. Not only were they boring and repetitive, the open world just felt dead once they were online. The most infuriating thing ever was when people started to refer to Battlegrounds as PVP and the world "World" had to be inserted in front of PVP to denominate open world pvp. I quit WoW fairly soon after, but i can only imagine how bad the pvp got once the dungeon finder stuff went in game.
I like the ideas of MMORPGs because they are virtual worlds, where anything can happen (depending on the game). Killing and hiding from players in the open world is fun. Queing up to do a 10 on 10 might be fun once or twice but after that it will become pretty repetitive. MMORPGs aren't the best platform for E-Sport types so i don't know why devs catered to them so much.
I agree with the OP 100% but have long given up on that argument. Some people seem to like it for reasons that will never make sense to me. I just avoid games that have it as a feature.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now! I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
MMO's were originally more along the line of a thinking game, then twitch play, obviously. Open PvP settings encourage this, there is terrain, positioning, group composition, countering, flanking, feigning. etc. Arena PvP is more on balance with twich play, removes all the uncontrollable variables, and makes it into a shitty fps. I for one HATE area PvP, i want Open PvP. This is why game after game after game after game fails that tries to impliment shitty battlegrounds. You can't make a half ass twitch game out of an mmo, the depth is too shallow, you need to keep Open PvP to keep people interested. Not the mention the SOCIAL aspect that is lost, i.e. politics and rivalries.
Originally posted by ShakyMo I'm amazed no ones made a dota / lol type f2p game but that clones wow arena. Surely it would make a fortune, why would people pay a wow sub if they can get the same thing for free, and probably have to queue less with a global match maker.
Rennaisance Heroes?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Please help me understand the appeal for such a terrible PvP concept...
#1. Everyone looks the same (Everyone of the same class will ultimately be wearing the same PvP gear).
#2. Redundant Gameplay - In order to obtain PvP gear, you must play the same few instances over and over and over again.
#3. What is "Massively Multiplayer" about 10 vs 10 Team Deathmatch, Domination, or Capture the Flag?
#4. Since there are so few instances, the best and obvious strategies are learned by all within the first month. Thus, gameplay becomes a rinse and repeat process.
#5. There is literally zero element of surprise. Everyone is pre-buffed and expecting combat. Everyone knows where the opposition is coming from. Everyone is ready. There is no such thing as an ambush or grand escape. There is no such thing as infiltration.
#6. Immersion Breaking... especially with concepts such as Huttball. Arena PvP ultimately makes the MMO feel dumbed down for children.
Instanced PvP is simply Developer Laziness. Instead of actually thinking about how to make a worldly and mature PvP system, developers decide that it's cheaper and easier to make these small instanced PvP zones. They know people will play anything for some type of item reward.
I say this with 100% confidence: If rewards were removed from Battlegrounds / Arenas, nobody would play them. Why? Because they are boring.
Someone could also ask you. Who would play wow if there was no arena+bg's...
My wild guess is at least half Blizzard's subscribers would /quit wow .
I said about wow cause this is one game most ppl played at least for a while.If we are talking about all upcoming mmos you should speak to a friend of mine where every game that comes out he asks only one thing.is there Arena?
And every time u try to explin him how gorgeus world pvp could be in that game he comes with an answer. Whats the fun in slaghtering outnumbered ppl ??
Only working formula so far for world pvp is from what ppl claim Daoc's and icant express an opinion cause i havdnt the luck to play it back then.
When u find a great mmorpg with good fun and working world pvp my friend Dauzqul come and tell us mate .
Originally posted by ShakyMo I'm amazed no ones made a dota / lol type f2p game but that clones wow arena. Surely it would make a fortune, why would people pay a wow sub if they can get the same thing for free, and probably have to queue less with a global match maker.
Originally posted by ShakyMo I'm amazed no ones made a dota / lol type f2p game but that clones wow arena. Surely it would make a fortune, why would people pay a wow sub if they can get the same thing for free, and probably have to queue less with a global match maker.
Rennaisance Heroes?
I guess i mean made one and had a decent marketing campaign behind it then, ive never heard of these games
Originally posted by ShakyMo I'm amazed no ones made a dota / lol type f2p game but that clones wow arena. Surely it would make a fortune, why would people pay a wow sub if they can get the same thing for free, and probably have to queue less with a global match maker.
Rennaisance Heroes?
also Forge.
+1 for Forge.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Fair PvP. Thats all. In terms of how much 'skill' and all that takes place, that can be very subjective. I personally do support it to a degree... though at the same times its not exactly something that can be balanced out very well without harming the ability for classes to feel unique.
I don't really feel it feeling 'dumbed down' or 'unimerssive' really. I'm the type though that finds ganking quite silly to find enjoyable, killing people who aren't ready/stand a chance to me is quite a pathetic calling and yet some people enjoy that, perhaps being able to hide the fact they suck at fair fights.
Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with it, its hilarious to see terrible players fail against me in a fight they should win, but at the same time I don't know why that type of pvp to them is 'fine' but having a scenario or actual organization is stupid. More seen as a type of way to 'grief' players, not really showing much class or for the purpose of 'fighting the other faction' in those types of games.
Again just me, maybe I'm just weird for prefering a fair fight (if I EVER pvp) over killing people with no chance to fight back.
Instanced PvP is simply Developer Laziness. Instead of actually thinking about how to make a worldly and mature PvP system, developers decide that it's cheaper and easier to make these small instanced PvP zones. They know people will play anything for some type of item reward.
If we are talking about all upcoming mmos you should speak to a friend of mine where every game that comes out he asks only one thing.is there Arena?
And every time u try to explin him how gorgeus world pvp could be in that game he comes with an answer. Whats the fun in slaghtering outnumbered ppl ??
Only working formula so far for world pvp is from what ppl claim Daoc's and icant express an opinion cause i havdnt the luck to play it back then.
Your friend sums up the #1 reason World PVP is a casual niche: what's the fun in slaughtering outnumbered people?
I wouldn't say DAOC is the "only working formula". If anything, EVE is the "only working" world PVP formula, and is relegated to an appropriately niche level of success. Impressive longevity, but way less popular than mainstream PVP titles.
Dauz's comment that instanced PVP is dev laziness conveniently ignores the history of every PVP game ever, from Go to Chess to Soccer to TF2 to LoL to Arenas, where you see a consistent pattern of 99% of those games being controlled arenas where skill decides the victor. It's not dev laziness. It's pure competition, pure PVP, unmarred by non-skill factors.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Actually Chess is mostly about who has played longer. Only extremely high level chess is about intellectual capacity. Same for soccer. In fact skill in general is mostly about practice.
The only real test of skill would be to match up people who have spent the same amount of time, or very similar, on a skill. Its also about training. One player of chess spending 100 hours with a skilled teacher will almost always outplay another player who learned the moves of the pieces and was alone from then on with 100 hours of practice.
RPGs are about character skills. My character spent 500 hours training to cast those level 15 fireballs and yours spent 20 hours so he lost.
Why do you think top players in esports have up to 10x more games played as the average person. I have over 3000 games played in LoL. Competitive players have 30000+. But somehow their skills have nothing to do with how long they ahve played right?
The fact is that the same players who never had a chance against my level 1000 paladin probably never had a chance against DoubleLift either, because doublelift put in 5000-10000 hours of time or more.
There is this weird disconnect in people's minds where those two quite comparable things are totally different. And by weird disconnect I mean that there is no culturally accepted excuse to fall back on for failure. The reason that people don't complain about character skill vs player skill is that everyone would laugh in their face. Not because they actually consider it any different. They still make the excuses to themselves, they just don't say it out loud.
And we aren't even getting into the more obscure reasons for why one person has an advantage that isn't some sort of natural superiority but just something hidden that you never thought of. Its possible to trace the paths of one player who really likes a certain character or playstyle based on nothing more than random chance that later ends up not being competitive but which ate all of their time while the other player had picked a viable path.
Player one can do things with character a that would blow your mind but he sucks at competitive player because character a is garbage in the meta or garbage no matter what.
This is not a complicated concept. Chess is a controlled arena focused on skillful competition:
Population: People would laugh if you suggested being able to bring in guild mates to do a 2v1 chess match.
Progression: People would laugh if you suggested being able to start with 2 queens after winning 100 chess matches and "leveling up".
Player Skill: People would say "yeah, that's the point obviously" if you pointed out that playtime loosely translates to player skill, which decides who wins.
Obviously in competitive games if you're outplayed you should lose. That's the point. But with progression systems (game-rule advantages gained through playtime) you create the potential for an unskilled player to beat a newer (but more skilled) opponent, purely on the basis of playing longer. If the playing field were even, the unskilled player would lose.
For this reason, serious competitive PVP games seek to eliminate most or all non-skill elements.
Whereas casual PVP games (like MMORPG PVP) allow non-skill elements to exist, which really dilutes it as a competitive platform because bad players will win much more often than they otherwise would. If you're a bad player, casual PVP has a certain appeal. But the human mind is pretty good at identifying just how meaningless casual PVP is, and despite the fact that it's so damn casual this style of PVP isn't actually all that popular (real PVP games are vastly more popular.)
No, the more skill characters win every time. It just happens that we measure this in different ways.
I never said anything about bringing guild mates. My comment was about time translating to skill.
How is "non-casual" pvp not meaningless? It means absolutely nothing. It has no value outside of a single game that you are good at. There is no benefit to real life that is greater for "competitive" pvp vs "casual."
Just because you PERSONALLY enjoy it doesn't make it objectively more meaningful.
I was once a top tier player of a competitive battle chess game. I prefer PvE and "casual" PvP because its less repetitive and more interesting. Not because I am "bad." There are WAY more shitty players of competitive PvP than FFA MMOs. LoL alone has 35million registered accounts and 99% of them are terrible players. The reason they prefer LoL has nothing to do with their skill at it. Your obnoxious insistence on making value judgements over decisions primarily mediated by random and relative cultural influence is so annoying.
You are basically just a cleverer version of NariusSeldon. The amount of dogwhistle based trolling you do is pretty much on par with his.
Comments
sorry, but - are you serious? what is "more realistic" about open pvp? do you see in RL people just running around killing anyone they could w/o serious (and usually pernament) consequences?
edit: and no - gankers are not small and unrepresentative segment of open pvp fans.
This is not a complicated concept. Chess is a controlled arena focused on skillful competition:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
for some time, sure - but once you got "caught" you were permadead
depends how rich you were
Yes and no. This was discussed before, not too long a go, I think. Most people have a sort of "skill cap" where, upon reaching it, they will not improve much if at all after that. I've regularly beaten players that have more playtime or more matches under their belt than me. And its not even the quantity alone but quality too. One of the top League of Legends teams in some major tournament (I forget which) had a player in their ranks who had started playing the game just two months before and they made it to the final.
It matters who is your training partner, is someone coaching you, who do you play with and who do you play against. There are numerous ways you can maximize your speed of improvement and most people just don't apply them - most don't even want to. One thing is certain: You don't learn PvP by playing PvE.
Skill and, more importantly, mindset carries over from other games. Some players can never adopt the right mindset and therefore will never achieve the level of skill some of these competitive players achieve. It doesn't help that this mindset is very alien to your common sunday gamer and it usually requires breaking some illusions - something some people would much rather hold on to.
You see, sometimes ignorance is bliss and I'm not going to jugde how anyone plays their game. If they don't wish to know which build is best and why or the nuts and bolts how the game really works - its fine; they'll still have just as much fun. Only they will be harsly disappointed if they have high aspirations in PvP.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
...or if you hung out with the right people, mainly the church.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Arena PvP beats PvE because it is always more fun and challenging to play against real people rather than an AI.
But yeah, Arena PvP is nothing compared to proper open world PvP with territorial control.
My gaming blog
...and didn't do anything that pissed off the Pope. Right, Henry?
(They got 'Liz too, the early Tudors weren't very popular in Rome).
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Well yes, those are some of the other factors. But the point is that for the majority of people who are NOT competitive league players they are good or bad based on their time spent, just like an RPG is. And in most games the level cap is so short that honestly its only the casuals who are worried about the time investment. But none of those people would be top tier even in a MOBA anyways. Saying that time investment is unfair is just a bullshit excuse that people make for themselves.
Its not if time and power are directly related (Eve Online) or if you can gear up with grinding PvE.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I remember when Battlegrounds came out in WoW, i hated them so much. Not only were they boring and repetitive, the open world just felt dead once they were online. The most infuriating thing ever was when people started to refer to Battlegrounds as PVP and the world "World" had to be inserted in front of PVP to denominate open world pvp. I quit WoW fairly soon after, but i can only imagine how bad the pvp got once the dungeon finder stuff went in game.
I like the ideas of MMORPGs because they are virtual worlds, where anything can happen (depending on the game). Killing and hiding from players in the open world is fun. Queing up to do a 10 on 10 might be fun once or twice but after that it will become pretty repetitive. MMORPGs aren't the best platform for E-Sport types so i don't know why devs catered to them so much.
I agree with the OP 100% but have long given up on that argument. Some people seem to like it for reasons that will never make sense to me. I just avoid games that have it as a feature.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!
I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
Rennaisance Heroes?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Someone could also ask you. Who would play wow if there was no arena+bg's...
My wild guess is at least half Blizzard's subscribers would /quit wow .
I said about wow cause this is one game most ppl played at least for a while.If we are talking about all upcoming mmos you should speak to a friend of mine where every game that comes out he asks only one thing.is there Arena?
And every time u try to explin him how gorgeus world pvp could be in that game he comes with an answer. Whats the fun in slaghtering outnumbered ppl ??
Only working formula so far for world pvp is from what ppl claim Daoc's and icant express an opinion cause i havdnt the luck to play it back then.
When u find a great mmorpg with good fun and working world pvp my friend Dauzqul come and tell us mate .
also Forge.
I guess i mean made one and had a decent marketing campaign behind it then, ive never heard of these games
+1 for Forge.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
More like 90%, but yeah.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Fair PvP. Thats all. In terms of how much 'skill' and all that takes place, that can be very subjective. I personally do support it to a degree... though at the same times its not exactly something that can be balanced out very well without harming the ability for classes to feel unique.
I don't really feel it feeling 'dumbed down' or 'unimerssive' really. I'm the type though that finds ganking quite silly to find enjoyable, killing people who aren't ready/stand a chance to me is quite a pathetic calling and yet some people enjoy that, perhaps being able to hide the fact they suck at fair fights.
Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with it, its hilarious to see terrible players fail against me in a fight they should win, but at the same time I don't know why that type of pvp to them is 'fine' but having a scenario or actual organization is stupid. More seen as a type of way to 'grief' players, not really showing much class or for the purpose of 'fighting the other faction' in those types of games.
Again just me, maybe I'm just weird for prefering a fair fight (if I EVER pvp) over killing people with no chance to fight back.
Your friend sums up the #1 reason World PVP is a casual niche: what's the fun in slaughtering outnumbered people?
I wouldn't say DAOC is the "only working formula". If anything, EVE is the "only working" world PVP formula, and is relegated to an appropriately niche level of success. Impressive longevity, but way less popular than mainstream PVP titles.
Dauz's comment that instanced PVP is dev laziness conveniently ignores the history of every PVP game ever, from Go to Chess to Soccer to TF2 to LoL to Arenas, where you see a consistent pattern of 99% of those games being controlled arenas where skill decides the victor. It's not dev laziness. It's pure competition, pure PVP, unmarred by non-skill factors.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No, the more skill characters win every time. It just happens that we measure this in different ways.
I never said anything about bringing guild mates. My comment was about time translating to skill.
How is "non-casual" pvp not meaningless? It means absolutely nothing. It has no value outside of a single game that you are good at. There is no benefit to real life that is greater for "competitive" pvp vs "casual."
Just because you PERSONALLY enjoy it doesn't make it objectively more meaningful.
I was once a top tier player of a competitive battle chess game. I prefer PvE and "casual" PvP because its less repetitive and more interesting. Not because I am "bad." There are WAY more shitty players of competitive PvP than FFA MMOs. LoL alone has 35million registered accounts and 99% of them are terrible players. The reason they prefer LoL has nothing to do with their skill at it. Your obnoxious insistence on making value judgements over decisions primarily mediated by random and relative cultural influence is so annoying.
You are basically just a cleverer version of NariusSeldon. The amount of dogwhistle based trolling you do is pretty much on par with his.