You are right, in any combat between 2 relatively close opponents there certainly is a meaning. But the problem is that most fights in PvP MMOs tend to be rather unfair with one player have far better odds or can't fail no matter what he or she do. It are those fights that needs to be fixed.
One things is similar with PvE and PvP, neither is particularly fun if you either can't win or lose no matter how good or bad you play. For PvP MMOs to actually become more popular they need to implement some kind of mechanics that means most fights could go either way.
There are mechanics that can do this, stuff like restricting which levels you can fight, level you down to the level of the zone you are in or seriously restricting the powergap between players.
Your other point about bringing more friends is harder to fix, numbers have always been important in any battle and I am not sure buffing players with a numerical disadvantage would work.
Well again, just because skill is the meaning that I find most meaningful, that doesn't mean that those unfair fights in MMORPGs lack meaning. Winning because you brought more friends to the fight means you brought more friends, and winning because you are further progressed means you played longer. But those are shallow reasons to win a fight, compared with combat that revolves around skill.
And that depth is the most common reason games are fun (Koster, A Theory of Fun, 2004). Because yeah, games aren't really fun when skill is sidelined for progression or population or other non-skill factors outside your control.
All of these things have been fixed. Mostly because they weren't ever broken in other game genres:
RPGs have progression. Progression is one of the broken elements that ruins PVP. Level restrictions vaguely improve the problem, but the full fix means no longer being an RPG: WOW Arena Tournaments give players maxed characters with maxed gear, and at least in those tournaments the game is no longer an RPG at all.
Population is easy to solve as all it means is forcing a team limit. This is done in Arenas, Battlegrounds, and basically every regular PVP game (you can't "bring a friend" in Chess.) This means that within the context of any given match if you ever find yourself outnumbered it's because you screwed up (skill) or your opponents outplayed you (skill), not because they've simply amassed more friends in the long-term outside the match.
It could mean alot more than you just brought more friends, the politics involved in bringing these friends along add alot of depth that goes beyond just combat. You seem to be fixated in combat depth, when theres alot more going on in these sandbox games, grudges, alliances, backstabbings, fights for resources... thats what people call meaningful pvp, something that goes beyond just e-peen or whos the l337 pvper.
The type of combat and progression also plays a huge role in how deep the combat can be in these types of games. In your typical mmorpg this would be horrible, just bringing 1 or 2 friends in good gear would mean you have zero chance of fighting back, thats why a skill based combat system with vertical progression works way better, just look at survival games. Sure theres tons of "unfair" fights and it will never be the same as an e sport if your looking for fair, but you still have a chance, albeit smaller, of winning even if outnumbered and outgeared, and the reward would be alot bigger than if you had to split it with friends.
An important selling point of MMORPG PvP is that it doesn't require as much skill as competitive PvP. You don't need to be good in MMORPG PvP, you only need to have better gear, more skill points/level, more friends or attack someone who is not specced/prepared for PvP.
To some people, its the place where they can get a win every once in a while.
You've just described the thing I hate most about MMOs. They tend to be gear-centric grindfests with "sandwich" combat (start combat, go make a sandwich) They require no skill whatsoever, just a better spreadsheet. I prefer to actually be involved in gameplay.
This is where we differ. I enjoy "sandwich combat" where my mouse and keyboard skills mean nothing. The less my skill is involved, the better for me.
I know that "RPG" means different things to different people, but for me, it means playing a character that I am not in real life. When my warrior character dies because I did not block fast enough instead of their lack of skill, it ceases to be an RPG for me. When my warrior character does something amazing that I could never do with my mouse/keyboard skills, then it is an RPG for me.
I realize this is not for everyone. Just sharing how I view combat in video games. I dislike button mashing hoping for the right key combo, which is what most action combat deteriorates to for me. Then again, I do not play MMORPGs for the combat, though that seems to be the main activity these days, doesn't it?
You've already voiced your opinion; the game is obviously not for you. Move on with life and carry on with your "common usage of the term MMO" campaign/hobby.
wait ..you can express the same opinion more than one time, and I should not? Isn't that also hypocritical?
Yes, this game is obviously not for me ... but certainly i see no reason why i should not have more discussion about how to (or not to) set up pvp.
Because you think this game needs to cater to you? See the difference here? Why on earth would anyone wish to discuss something they have no desire to play?
Most importantly, why on earth would anyone listen to your views on this particular game? Oh, right. You fully believe EVERY game MUST carter to you.
When did i say this game needs to cater to me? This is no different than many of you who criticize WoW, or any other game.
There is no difference. Again, you can criticize some games and I cannot ..that is the height of hypocrisy.
I believe everyone has the right to air their opinions about any game. Do you disagree to that? Or you just believe you, and no one else should air their opinion about games.
When I say "meaningful PvP", I mean that there is an in-game reason for attacking another player. Granted, this could be for mechanical reasons, or simply for roleplay reasons, but not "cuz it's fun to shoot someone". It's meaningful to the character rather than satisfying the sadism of the player.
But that is not the ONLY meaning to others. Obviously people think e-sports are meaningful. Do you have a problem if others find other meaning in their pvp?
It could mean alot more than you just brought more friends, the politics involved in bringing these friends along add alot of depth that goes beyond just combat. You seem to be fixated in combat depth, when theres alot more going on in these sandbox games, grudges, alliances, backstabbings, fights for resources... thats what people call meaningful pvp, something that goes beyond just e-peen or whos the l337 pvper.
The type of combat and progression also plays a huge role in how deep the combat can be in these types of games. In your typical mmorpg this would be horrible, just bringing 1 or 2 friends in good gear would mean you have zero chance of fighting back, thats why a skill based combat system with vertical progression works way better, just look at survival games. Sure theres tons of "unfair" fights and it will never be the same as an e sport if your looking for fair, but you still have a chance, albeit smaller, of winning even if outnumbered and outgeared, and the reward would be alot bigger than if you had to split it with friends.
"Alot" oversells it.
In good PVP, lots of skill is required by everyone.
With politics, a little skill is experienced by a tiny minority. You have guild leadership debating who to ally with (or maybe who to betray), but that's (a) a fraction of the playerbase, (b) a rare decision, and (c) not all that difficult or deep a decision (oh gosh, we should all form a dominant super-alliance. Done.)
So essentially you've exchanged lots of skill experienced by everyone for a little skill infrequently experienced by a minority with that type of PVP. What I'm fixated on is PVP depth, and the simple fact is that type of MMORPG PVP the depth you experience is infrequent and mostly experienced by a minority. Most of your time isn't spent PVPing (because you've also exchanged short-term meaning for long-term meaning.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This argument reminds me of the revolutionary war... we won because we didn't fight in a civilized fashion but as sneaky little back-stabbing bastards. PVP isn't a game of honor and chivalry, it's a game of win or lose... and winning is the only point of the game.
This argument reminds me of the revolutionary war... we won because we didn't fight in a civilized fashion but as sneaky little back-stabbing bastards. PVP isn't a game of honor and chivalry, it's a game of win or lose... and winning is the only point of the game.
This is particularly true of e-sports pvp .. except that the playing field is leveled.
An important selling point of MMORPG PvP is that it doesn't require as much skill as competitive PvP. You don't need to be good in MMORPG PvP, you only need to have better gear, more skill points/level, more friends or attack someone who is not specced/prepared for PvP.
To some people, its the place where they can get a win every once in a while.
You've just described the thing I hate most about MMOs. They tend to be gear-centric grindfests with "sandwich" combat (start combat, go make a sandwich) They require no skill whatsoever, just a better spreadsheet. I prefer to actually be involved in gameplay.
This is where we differ. I enjoy "sandwich combat" where my mouse and keyboard skills mean nothing. The less my skill is involved, the better for me.
I know that "RPG" means different things to different people, but for me, it means playing a character that I am not in real life. When my warrior character dies because I did not block fast enough instead of their lack of skill, it ceases to be an RPG for me. When my warrior character does something amazing that I could never do with my mouse/keyboard skills, then it is an RPG for me.
I realize this is not for everyone. Just sharing how I view combat in video games. I dislike button mashing hoping for the right key combo, which is what most action combat deteriorates to for me. Then again, I do not play MMORPGs for the combat, though that seems to be the main activity these days, doesn't it?
I can understand that. In standalone RPGs, I actually prefer the classic, turn-based combat myself. I've always been frustrated with MMO combat though because it's typically somewhere in the middle.
Your aim and skill with mouse and keyboard aren't really important, but you also don't get time to think about your actions. You still have to click quickly, you're just clicking icons rather than shooting at a target.
So! In my opinion, if I can't have tactical turn-based, then give me twitch.
This argument reminds me of the revolutionary war... we won because we didn't fight in a civilized fashion but as sneaky little back-stabbing bastards. PVP isn't a game of honor and chivalry, it's a game of win or lose... and winning is the only point of the game.
See if you follow me here: 1. The point of games is fun. 2. The most common way fun is achieved is by offering interesting gameplay patterns (Koster, 2004.) 3. "Realistic" PVP offers poor patterns. This is because shallow decisions (like bringing more friends or better gear) are allowed to dominate the experience (preventing deeper decisions from mattering.) I've covered before how the political layer to these games isn't a particularly deep set of decisions, and is made infrequently by a minority, which leaves such a game with little redeeming value to most players. 4. Meanwhile "chivalry" PVP doesn't allow shallow things to dominate the experience, which means that as long as what's included is an interesting enough pattern the resulting gameplay will be deep and fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm afraid I'm going to hit you up with a real oldie, but I can't remember the name of the game, it was way back in the 80s, and it's graphics were ascii. Back them MMO wasn't a term that existed, though multiplayer online games certainly did. I guess the use of Massive depends on who you talk to, but anything that had a hundred or more players at the same time was doing fantastic with the communication limits of that time period. With that set, there was a MUD (Multi User Dimension, the same thing MMOs are today) that used ascii graphics (it was the 80s, remember?) and it had a system in place. You could have a consensual private duel with someone at any time, just issue the challenge and hope they accepted. You could go participate in the arena, and fight whomever was there. There were also certain areas where no pvp was allowed. The noob starting area, the login gate area, the marketplace, and the inns. Everywhere else was fair game. On the other hand, PVP wasn't a safe activity. Doing so in the city tended to get noticed by the guards, and you don't want to attack guards. The more 'wilderness' an area was, the less guard there were. However, the guards weren't the only thing. You got criminal points for attacking and also killing other PCs. More in or close to the city, a lot less in the deep wilderness. This acted as a kind of reputation, and it was a real pain in the posterior to reduce those. (No convenient log off for a few days and I'm clear garbage.) As they went up, so did prices, while reactions from NPCs (most of them) went down. You also got criminal points for stealing from PCs and NPCs in the city, but they were far less. Once you'd accumulated enough points, the guards will try to arrest you. Your character was locked up and unable to do anything for a certain period of online time, not offline. I've heard there were also fines to pay, and if you didn't pay them, your time extended in exchange. That reduced your points by a portion, but not all. If your points got high enough, several other things happened. To start with, you wouldn't go to jail, instead you were executed. Executions were permadeath, the character ceases to exist. On top of that, you are now on the bounties list, and anyone with that list can attack you without penalty, and get paid if they kill you. To add insult to stupidity, if the criminal fought back, that added more pvp guilt points, and if they killed the bounty hunter, same thing, more points. As your points got higher, so did your bounty. After a while, it would start sending NPC assassins after you. And those assassins kept getting stronger and stronger. The lesson was simple, become a mass murderer or otherwise hated criminal, and you will eventually be wiped out. Now someone might wonder what if someone found a way to attack someone in the few safe areas? Actually that was pretty simple. If anyone got killed in those places, it was logged with when, where, and who did it. Then the next time an admin logged in, he would review it, and then execute all their characters, and ban their account. I'd seen it happen to creep that was ganking people logging in to the game at the gate area.
Was the system perfect? No. On the other hand, not many people went the pvp route. Those that did kept trying to find ways to beat the system, but none of them lasted very long. (Not counting the ones that reached execute on sight levels, and then didn't play that character again.) Also, if it wasn't obvious, duels and arena didn't generate the pvp points, whatever they were actually called. (I keep thinking it was a secret stat, but it was a LONG time ago.)
It could mean alot more than you just brought more friends, the politics involved in bringing these friends along add alot of depth that goes beyond just combat. You seem to be fixated in combat depth, when theres alot more going on in these sandbox games, grudges, alliances, backstabbings, fights for resources... thats what people call meaningful pvp, something that goes beyond just e-peen or whos the l337 pvper.
The type of combat and progression also plays a huge role in how deep the combat can be in these types of games. In your typical mmorpg this would be horrible, just bringing 1 or 2 friends in good gear would mean you have zero chance of fighting back, thats why a skill based combat system with vertical progression works way better, just look at survival games. Sure theres tons of "unfair" fights and it will never be the same as an e sport if your looking for fair, but you still have a chance, albeit smaller, of winning even if outnumbered and outgeared, and the reward would be alot bigger than if you had to split it with friends.
"Alot" oversells it.
In good PVP, lots of skill is required by everyone.
With politics, a little skill is experienced by a tiny minority. You have guild leadership debating who to ally with (or maybe who to betray), but that's (a) a fraction of the playerbase, (b) a rare decision, and (c) not all that difficult or deep a decision (oh gosh, we should all form a dominant super-alliance. Done.)
So essentially you've exchanged lots of skill experienced by everyone for a little skill infrequently experienced by a minority with that type of PVP. What I'm fixated on is PVP depth, and the simple fact is that type of MMORPG PVP the depth you experience is infrequent and mostly experienced by a minority. Most of your time isn't spent PVPing (because you've also exchanged short-term meaning for long-term meaning.)
Even if its only guild leaders who make these decisions, their effects are experienced by everyone. Say an enemy guild decides to siege your castle, you never took part in this decision, but you still get to experience an epic battle defending your base.
To say mmorpg pvp is only casual is wrong, its a matter of perspective. For the lone farmer thats getting ganked by 3 bandit players, the pvp would be on hard mode. But at the same time, the 3 gankers are playing on easy mode. Its not like a MOBA where the experience is the same for all. Ultimately you decide how much pvp depth you want to experience in these games and how many friends you bring.
Even if its only guild leaders who make these decisions, their effects are experienced by everyone. Say an enemy guild decides to siege your castle, you never took part in this decision, but you still get to experience an epic battle defending your base.
To say mmorpg pvp is only casual is wrong, its a matter of perspective. For the lone farmer thats getting ganked by 3 bandit players, the pvp would be on hard mode. But at the same time, the 3 gankers are playing on easy mode. Its not like a MOBA where the experience is the same for all. Ultimately you decide how much pvp depth you want to experience in these games and how many friends you bring.
Well the original point was that the majority of gameplay in that type of PVP game is shallow because any potential depth is overwhelmed by shallow systems (progression or population advantages). Your counterpoint was politics, but then it was pointed out how that's not gameplay for the majority of players.
It is gameplay (decisions and effect) that creates the fun patterns that constitute the main way players enjoy games (Koster, 2004.) Without decisions, it's not gameplay; it's merely a tidal force that stacks the deck one way or another and predetermines the victor entirely outside your control -- which is why no it's not fun and that battle isn't epic (it's just one side or the other having the stacked deck and going through the motions to carry out the infrequent decisions of the minority.)
Citing the 3v1 fails to take an objective/analytical look at what's going on:
In a 3v1 fight, one factor dominated the outcome: population. Bringing more friends is a shallow factor, yet so powerful that it will usually trump all other factors.
Whereas in a 1v1 fight, those other factors matter. The exact mix of skills involved varies from game to game (ambush skill, aim skill, TF2's rocket-jumping, MMORPG's ability-rotations, SC2's macro/micro, etc) but in a well-designed game players will be challenged to develop multiple distinct skillsets related to playing the game well, and that's deep gameplay.
So yes, MMORPG PVP is casual. Instead of being games where skill is highly rewarded, they're games where your skill is largely irrelevant due to shallow factors like population or progression. That's casual PVP.
Post edited by Axehilt on
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I believe that it is possible, but not without a genre shift.
Too many people see themselves as the General, except you can't enforce any kind of discipline in the rabble (other gamers). The "wars" in MMOs are decidedly NOT very war-like affairs. Because that honestly wouldn't be any fun at all.
If you did a cold-war James Bond spy conflict kind of thing, I can see individually-based PVP making some kind of sense. IF you can make an appealing world that resists "every player is a Jedi." "You are the HERO" storylines make sensible PVP essentially impossible. An mob of 10000 generals and one private?
Don't think it'll ever work well with dragons, period.
And (dare I ponder it?) because players frequently become involved in gaming as teens, the aggressive/competitive level of the entire "gaming industry" is just too high.
I believe that it is possible, but not without a genre shift.
Too many people see themselves as the General, except you can't enforce any kind of discipline in the rabble (other gamers). The "wars" in MMOs are decidedly NOT very war-like affairs. Because that honestly wouldn't be any fun at all.
If you did a cold-war James Bond spy conflict kind of thing, I can see individually-based PVP making some kind of sense. IF you can make an appealing world that resists "every player is a Jedi." "You are the HERO" storylines make sensible PVP essentially impossible. An mob of 10000 generals and one private?
Don't think it'll ever work well with dragons, period.
And (dare I ponder it?) because players frequently become involved in gaming as teens, the aggressive/competitive level of the entire "gaming industry" is just too high.
Fortunately, I'm not making a high fantasy game. In fact, one of my joking taglines for X-Shift is "No Quests. No Levels. No Heroes. Cuz F**k You." You are not a unique butterfly in X-Shift. You may very well be a grocer who gets mugged on his way home from the bar.
On a side yet related note, I think the game Mag handled the war setting very well. It was an FPS that supported battle of up to 256 people at a time. High ranking players could be elected as Commanders and Generals for each battle. They could then call in airstrikes and set objectives for their squad. Members of the squad would then get bonus XP for completing tasks that were assigned (repair this, protect that, destroy the turret, etc.)
You are right, in any combat between 2 relatively close opponents there certainly is a meaning. But the problem is that most fights in PvP MMOs tend to be rather unfair with one player have far better odds or can't fail no matter what he or she do. It are those fights that needs to be fixed.
One things is similar with PvE and PvP, neither is particularly fun if you either can't win or lose no matter how good or bad you play. For PvP MMOs to actually become more popular they need to implement some kind of mechanics that means most fights could go either way.
There are mechanics that can do this, stuff like restricting which levels you can fight, level you down to the level of the zone you are in or seriously restricting the powergap between players.
Your other point about bringing more friends is harder to fix, numbers have always been important in any battle and I am not sure buffing players with a numerical disadvantage would work.
Well again, just because skill is the meaning that I find most meaningful, that doesn't mean that those unfair fights in MMORPGs lack meaning. Winning because you brought more friends to the fight means you brought more friends, and winning because you are further progressed means you played longer. But those are shallow reasons to win a fight, compared with combat that revolves around skill.
And that depth is the most common reason games are fun (Koster, A Theory of Fun, 2004). Because yeah, games aren't really fun when skill is sidelined for progression or population or other non-skill factors outside your control.
All of these things have been fixed. Mostly because they weren't ever broken in other game genres:
RPGs have progression. Progression is one of the broken elements that ruins PVP. Level restrictions vaguely improve the problem, but the full fix means no longer being an RPG: WOW Arena Tournaments give players maxed characters with maxed gear, and at least in those tournaments the game is no longer an RPG at all.
Population is easy to solve as all it means is forcing a team limit. This is done in Arenas, Battlegrounds, and basically every regular PVP game (you can't "bring a friend" in Chess.) This means that within the context of any given match if you ever find yourself outnumbered it's because you screwed up (skill) or your opponents outplayed you (skill), not because they've simply amassed more friends in the long-term outside the match.
Age of wulin/wushu called, they do not agree, progression and cashboosts is the future of worldpvp, and i love it.
All my favorite PvP games have heavy progression, pvp without progression is booring and grindy, like overwatch or CS:go.
Age of wulin/wushu called, they do not agree, progression and cashboosts is the future of worldpvp, and i love it.
All my favorite PvP games have heavy progression, pvp without progression is booring and grindy, like overwatch or CS:go.
Peace.
At no point did I say there was zero audience for casual PVP. I'm just pointing out that with DOTA2, LoL, CoD, Battlefront, and Battlefield there's like 30x the audience seeking pure PVP rather than casual PVP.
Typically "casual" attracts a dramatically larger audience, but in this case casual PVP is dramatically less popular than pure PVP where the focus is skill.
It's no big deal if you're suckered into casual money-competition PVP, as I'm a game designer who's made several PVP games like that. I directly benefit from players' foolishness. That said, I'd certainly prefer to work on deeper PVP games with a level playing field, and even in the unfair games I work on I strive to keep things as fair as possible (because it's more fun.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You've already voiced your opinion; the game is obviously not for you. Move on with life and carry on with your "common usage of the term MMO" campaign/hobby.
wait ..you can express the same opinion more than one time, and I should not? Isn't that also hypocritical?
Yes, this game is obviously not for me ... but certainly i see no reason why i should not have more discussion about how to (or not to) set up pvp.
Because you think this game needs to cater to you? See the difference here? Why on earth would anyone wish to discuss something they have no desire to play?
Most importantly, why on earth would anyone listen to your views on this particular game? Oh, right. You fully believe EVERY game MUST carter to you.
When did i say this game needs to cater to me? This is no different than many of you who criticize WoW, or any other game.
There is no difference. Again, you can criticize some games and I cannot ..that is the height of hypocrisy.
I believe everyone has the right to air their opinions about any game. Do you disagree to that? Or you just believe you, and no one else should air their opinion about games.
There really is no use trying to explain to you and this is way off topic. But one last time.
You do not express opinions. You fill threads with them. A smart person states their opinons and moves on if they do not even like a game. A not-so-smart person keeps harping in a thread about a game they have no vested interest in.
You will not find one single post from me in ANY specific game sub-forum. Why? Because I do not play MMOs right now. You? Your posts are everywhere, especially in game threads you despise.
Are you getting the picture yet? By all means, share your opinions. Just dial back on them and target your audience better. Just a suggestion, as you are as free to do whatever you like, within the rules of this site.
the name is PVP ffs player versus player yes it has to be PVP or it will not be pvp, it will just be another game feature
stop trying to turn "PVP into somthing that its not.
if you dont like PVP play another game that dose not have it
other wise leave the PVP (player v Player) to the people that like it
I'm referring to the ability to attack another player, not a specific game genre. Clearly you think a game with PvP has to be nothing but PvP. I don't think that's the case any more than a game with crafting has to be all about crafting.
You do not express opinions. You fill threads with them. A smart person states their opinons and moves on if they do not even like a game. A not-so-smart person keeps harping in a thread about a game they have no vested interest in.
Are you getting the picture yet? By all means, share your opinions. Just dial back on them and target your audience better. Just a suggestion, as you are as free to do whatever you like, within the rules of this site.
wait .. where is the rules on this site that limits how may times I can express an opinion?
It is not like you express your opinion only once and move on either. In fact, tell me, how many times do people repeat their opinions here?
Again, it is the height of hypocrisy that you repeatedly states your opinion that I express my opinion too many times.
Narius, you should know that I can see that you've posted, but not what you've posted. I've blocked you, and now, coming to these forums is far more pleasant.
You do not express opinions. You fill threads with them. A smart person states their opinons and moves on if they do not even like a game. A not-so-smart person keeps harping in a thread about a game they have no vested interest in.
Are you getting the picture yet? By all means, share your opinions. Just dial back on them and target your audience better. Just a suggestion, as you are as free to do whatever you like, within the rules of this site.
wait .. where is the rules on this site that limits how may times I can express an opinion?
Right there is your answer. Common sense does not need rules. I'm done. Post to your hearts desire.
Narius, you should know that I can see that you've posted, but not what you've posted. I've blocked you, and now, coming to these forums is far more pleasant.
See .. you should have done that much earlier if you don't like my opinions.
Comments
The type of combat and progression also plays a huge role in how deep the combat can be in these types of games. In your typical mmorpg this would be horrible, just bringing 1 or 2 friends in good gear would mean you have zero chance of fighting back, thats why a skill based combat system with vertical progression works way better, just look at survival games. Sure theres tons of "unfair" fights and it will never be the same as an e sport if your looking for fair, but you still have a chance, albeit smaller, of winning even if outnumbered and outgeared, and the reward would be alot bigger than if you had to split it with friends.
I know that "RPG" means different things to different people, but for me, it means playing a character that I am not in real life. When my warrior character dies because I did not block fast enough instead of their lack of skill, it ceases to be an RPG for me. When my warrior character does something amazing that I could never do with my mouse/keyboard skills, then it is an RPG for me.
I realize this is not for everyone. Just sharing how I view combat in video games. I dislike button mashing hoping for the right key combo, which is what most action combat deteriorates to for me. Then again, I do not play MMORPGs for the combat, though that seems to be the main activity these days, doesn't it?
VG
There is no difference. Again, you can criticize some games and I cannot ..that is the height of hypocrisy.
I believe everyone has the right to air their opinions about any game. Do you disagree to that? Or you just believe you, and no one else should air their opinion about games.
But that is not the ONLY meaning to others. Obviously people think e-sports are meaningful. Do you have a problem if others find other meaning in their pvp?
In good PVP, lots of skill is required by everyone.
With politics, a little skill is experienced by a tiny minority. You have guild leadership debating who to ally with (or maybe who to betray), but that's (a) a fraction of the playerbase, (b) a rare decision, and (c) not all that difficult or deep a decision (oh gosh, we should all form a dominant super-alliance. Done.)
So essentially you've exchanged lots of skill experienced by everyone for a little skill infrequently experienced by a minority with that type of PVP. What I'm fixated on is PVP depth, and the simple fact is that type of MMORPG PVP the depth you experience is infrequent and mostly experienced by a minority. Most of your time isn't spent PVPing (because you've also exchanged short-term meaning for long-term meaning.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Your aim and skill with mouse and keyboard aren't really important, but you also don't get time to think about your actions. You still have to click quickly, you're just clicking icons rather than shooting at a target.
So! In my opinion, if I can't have tactical turn-based, then give me twitch.
1. The point of games is fun.
2. The most common way fun is achieved is by offering interesting gameplay patterns (Koster, 2004.)
3. "Realistic" PVP offers poor patterns. This is because shallow decisions (like bringing more friends or better gear) are allowed to dominate the experience (preventing deeper decisions from mattering.) I've covered before how the political layer to these games isn't a particularly deep set of decisions, and is made infrequently by a minority, which leaves such a game with little redeeming value to most players.
4. Meanwhile "chivalry" PVP doesn't allow shallow things to dominate the experience, which means that as long as what's included is an interesting enough pattern the resulting gameplay will be deep and fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
With that set, there was a MUD (Multi User Dimension, the same thing MMOs are today) that used ascii graphics (it was the 80s, remember?) and it had a system in place. You could have a consensual private duel with someone at any time, just issue the challenge and hope they accepted. You could go participate in the arena, and fight whomever was there. There were also certain areas where no pvp was allowed. The noob starting area, the login gate area, the marketplace, and the inns. Everywhere else was fair game. On the other hand, PVP wasn't a safe activity. Doing so in the city tended to get noticed by the guards, and you don't want to attack guards. The more 'wilderness' an area was, the less guard there were. However, the guards weren't the only thing. You got criminal points for attacking and also killing other PCs. More in or close to the city, a lot less in the deep wilderness. This acted as a kind of reputation, and it was a real pain in the posterior to reduce those. (No convenient log off for a few days and I'm clear garbage.) As they went up, so did prices, while reactions from NPCs (most of them) went down. You also got criminal points for stealing from PCs and NPCs in the city, but they were far less.
Once you'd accumulated enough points, the guards will try to arrest you. Your character was locked up and unable to do anything for a certain period of online time, not offline. I've heard there were also fines to pay, and if you didn't pay them, your time extended in exchange. That reduced your points by a portion, but not all. If your points got high enough, several other things happened. To start with, you wouldn't go to jail, instead you were executed. Executions were permadeath, the character ceases to exist. On top of that, you are now on the bounties list, and anyone with that list can attack you without penalty, and get paid if they kill you. To add insult to stupidity, if the criminal fought back, that added more pvp guilt points, and if they killed the bounty hunter, same thing, more points. As your points got higher, so did your bounty. After a while, it would start sending NPC assassins after you. And those assassins kept getting stronger and stronger.
The lesson was simple, become a mass murderer or otherwise hated criminal, and you will eventually be wiped out.
Now someone might wonder what if someone found a way to attack someone in the few safe areas? Actually that was pretty simple. If anyone got killed in those places, it was logged with when, where, and who did it. Then the next time an admin logged in, he would review it, and then execute all their characters, and ban their account. I'd seen it happen to creep that was ganking people logging in to the game at the gate area.
Was the system perfect? No. On the other hand, not many people went the pvp route. Those that did kept trying to find ways to beat the system, but none of them lasted very long. (Not counting the ones that reached execute on sight levels, and then didn't play that character again.) Also, if it wasn't obvious, duels and arena didn't generate the pvp points, whatever they were actually called. (I keep thinking it was a secret stat, but it was a LONG time ago.)
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
To say mmorpg pvp is only casual is wrong, its a matter of perspective. For the lone farmer thats getting ganked by 3 bandit players, the pvp would be on hard mode. But at the same time, the 3 gankers are playing on easy mode. Its not like a MOBA where the experience is the same for all. Ultimately you decide how much pvp depth you want to experience in these games and how many friends you bring.
It is gameplay (decisions and effect) that creates the fun patterns that constitute the main way players enjoy games (Koster, 2004.) Without decisions, it's not gameplay; it's merely a tidal force that stacks the deck one way or another and predetermines the victor entirely outside your control -- which is why no it's not fun and that battle isn't epic (it's just one side or the other having the stacked deck and going through the motions to carry out the infrequent decisions of the minority.)
Citing the 3v1 fails to take an objective/analytical look at what's going on:
- In a 3v1 fight, one factor dominated the outcome: population. Bringing more friends is a shallow factor, yet so powerful that it will usually trump all other factors.
- Whereas in a 1v1 fight, those other factors matter. The exact mix of skills involved varies from game to game (ambush skill, aim skill, TF2's rocket-jumping, MMORPG's ability-rotations, SC2's macro/micro, etc) but in a well-designed game players will be challenged to develop multiple distinct skillsets related to playing the game well, and that's deep gameplay.
So yes, MMORPG PVP is casual. Instead of being games where skill is highly rewarded, they're games where your skill is largely irrelevant due to shallow factors like population or progression. That's casual PVP."What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Too many people see themselves as the General, except you can't enforce any kind of discipline in the rabble (other gamers). The "wars" in MMOs are decidedly NOT very war-like affairs. Because that honestly wouldn't be any fun at all.
If you did a cold-war James Bond spy conflict kind of thing, I can see individually-based PVP making some kind of sense. IF you can make an appealing world that resists "every player is a Jedi." "You are the HERO" storylines make sensible PVP essentially impossible. An mob of 10000 generals and one private?
Don't think it'll ever work well with dragons, period.
And (dare I ponder it?) because players frequently become involved in gaming as teens, the aggressive/competitive level of the entire "gaming industry" is just too high.
On a side yet related note, I think the game Mag handled the war setting very well. It was an FPS that supported battle of up to 256 people at a time. High ranking players could be elected as Commanders and Generals for each battle. They could then call in airstrikes and set objectives for their squad. Members of the squad would then get bonus XP for completing tasks that were assigned (repair this, protect that, destroy the turret, etc.)
All my favorite PvP games have heavy progression, pvp without progression is booring and grindy, like overwatch or CS:go.
Peace.
Herald of innovation, Vanquisher of the old! - Awake a few hours almost everyday!
Typically "casual" attracts a dramatically larger audience, but in this case casual PVP is dramatically less popular than pure PVP where the focus is skill.
It's no big deal if you're suckered into casual money-competition PVP, as I'm a game designer who's made several PVP games like that. I directly benefit from players' foolishness. That said, I'd certainly prefer to work on deeper PVP games with a level playing field, and even in the unfair games I work on I strive to keep things as fair as possible (because it's more fun.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
the OP question was "
Does PvP have to be PvP"
the name is PVP ffs player versus player yes it has to be PVP or it will not be pvp, it will just be another game featurestop trying to turn "PVP into somthing that its not.
if you dont like PVP play another game that dose not have it
other wise leave the PVP (player v Player) to the people that like it
You do not express opinions. You fill threads with them. A smart person states their opinons and moves on if they do not even like a game. A not-so-smart person keeps harping in a thread about a game they have no vested interest in.
You will not find one single post from me in ANY specific game sub-forum. Why? Because I do not play MMOs right now. You? Your posts are everywhere, especially in game threads you despise.
Are you getting the picture yet? By all means, share your opinions. Just dial back on them and target your audience better. Just a suggestion, as you are as free to do whatever you like, within the rules of this site.
VG
It is not like you express your opinion only once and move on either. In fact, tell me, how many times do people repeat their opinions here?
Again, it is the height of hypocrisy that you repeatedly states your opinion that I express my opinion too many times.
e-sports are so popular now that the market is going towards "fair" pvp games.
PS: khanstruct, I'm following suit here.
VG
Lol .. as if everyone agrees what common sense is. Of course, i am posting to my hearts desire. What do you think i have been doing?