Seems we have a stalker on this forum who instead of responding to my post accordingly, just cowardly LoLs my every post. Hopefully he isn't losing sleep over me every night. Keep feeding me those LOLs buddy :awesome:
Edit: ... oh look, and he has an alt .. or is it another cowardly gopher minion?
/childish and immature *smh*
Up yours. The shit your saying is laughable. You don't even know wtf PvP is, as evidence by your reply to DMKano chess example.
Any one reading my reply to Kano's post can see for themselves that my post makes perfect sense. Only those with a blind ganker type PvP mentality, or with a vested interest that would lead them to respond with an alt so as not to stain the reputation of their main, would think otherwise.
Seems we have a stalker on this forum who instead of responding to my post accordingly, just cowardly LoLs my every post. Hopefully he isn't losing sleep over me every night. Keep feeding me those LOLs buddy :awesome:
Edit: ... oh look, and he has an alt .. or is it another cowardly gopher minion?
/childish and immature *smh*
Up yours. The shit your saying is laughable. You don't even know wtf PvP is, as evidence by your reply to DMKano chess example.
Any one reading my reply to Kano's post can see for themselves that my post makes perfect sense. Only those with a blind ganker type PvP mentality or, with a vested interest that would lead them to respond with an alt so as not to stain the reputation of their main, would think otherwise.
Which one, pray tell, are you?
I'm not the butthurt baby that has to call people alts when they can't handle someone clicking LOL.
Also I already posted I like both PvP and PvE.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
PvP can impose their style of play on anyone by simply sticking a sword in them. Defend yourself or die horribly (or possibly both). The PvP player dictates the type of player interaction - when and where. Engaging the PvP player by defense or retaliation accommodates the PvP player's desired play style.
There's not a corresponding mechanism where a PvE player can 'force' another player into their style of play. A role player can't give someone an e-beer and force them to sit around in a tavern for an hour listening to a bard. Players can't force others to group up to kill a mob and can't force another to engage them in a verbal debate or help corner the market on Wolf Spleens.
PvP is non-cooperative; PvE is cooperative. It's a chaos versus order thing, and I know where my preference is.
Well if you are in a PVP enabled zone you have already consented to PVP so they didn't really force you into PVP now did they?
You can also mess with people in a PVE setting by stealing kills, taking mobs, and otherwise slowing down progress, the same as PVP.
The difference is that you can defend yourself in PVP, you just have to leave in PVE.
Seems we have a stalker on this forum who instead of responding to my post accordingly, just cowardly LoLs my every post. Hopefully he isn't losing sleep over me every night. Keep feeding me those LOLs buddy :awesome:
Edit: ... oh look, and he has an alt .. or is it another cowardly gopher minion?
/childish and immature *smh*
Up yours. The shit your saying is laughable. You don't even know wtf PvP is, as evidence by your reply to DMKano chess example.
Any one reading my reply to Kano's post can see for themselves that my post makes perfect sense. Only those with a blind ganker type PvP mentality or, with a vested interest that would lead them to respond with an alt so as not to stain the reputation of their main, would think otherwise.
Which one, pray tell, are you?
I'm not the butthurt baby that has to call people alts when they can't handle someone clicking LOL.
Also I already posted I like both PvP and PvE.
Butthurt would best describe your behavior, partner. I can handle someone clicking LOL just fine. I love humor, and to be seen as a person having humor, so this accomplishes that objective just fine. Knock yourself out. But that is not the point. I just find it rather cowardly that a poster would resort to the constant and excessive abuse of that feature, in a manner in which it is not intended, instead of having the courage to make their point by posting their disagreement. It comes across as rather cowardly. There is nothing to be afraid of. Forums don't bite.
I will leave it at that. This is not worth derailing the thread over.
What does chess have anything to do relating to video gaming combat PvP? People who play games love competition. Competition can be derived in any of a myriad of ways, including playing games against a computer.
You do realize that playing chess against a computer is vastly more popular nowadays than playing chess against another person? As is black jack, solitaire, checkers or almost any other type of gaming.
The point of his post is not all types of competition are equally interesting.
It's very interesting to many when there's a wide breadth of skills to master in a game (as a result of that game's PVP being both deep and fair.)
It's much less interesting when mastering a game is simple and easy (as a result of PVP being won by shallow factors like "bring more friends" or "be higher level").
Because mastery is the most common way games are fun to players, it matters a lot that one form of competition offers dramatically less to master.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I love PVP in a game designed around PVP (preferably an arena FPS). I loathe PVP in a predominantly PVE game, particularly when classes are homogenized for PVP balance.
You received 25 LOLs. You are posting some laughably bad content, please desist.
What does chess have anything to do relating to video gaming combat PvP? People who play games love competition. Competition can be derived in any of a myriad of ways, including playing games against a computer.
You do realize that playing chess against a computer is vastly more popular nowadays than playing chess against another person? As is black jack, solitaire, checkers or almost any other type of gaming.
The point of his post is not all types of competition are equally interesting.
It's very interesting to many when there's a wide breadth of skills to master in a game (as a result of that game's PVP being both deep and fair.)
It's much less interesting when mastering a game is simple and easy (as a result of PVP being won by shallow factors like "bring more friends" or "be higher level").
Because mastery is the most common way games are fun to players, it matters a lot that one form of competition offers dramatically less to master.
I was waiting for this response and I thank you for raising it. Here is where I will see you, and raise you one. There seems to be this preconceived wide-spread misconception among the PvP crowd that, as a rule, PvP game play is deeper, fairer, more interesting, and/or tougher to master than PvE game play when nothing could be further from the truth. In any computerized chess game, or any computerized game for that matter, the competition provided to the player is only as deep, fair, more interesting, or tougher to master as the developers/programmers of that game make it.
The bad rap that PvE game play has received as being easy mode in MMORPGs has very little to do with the lack of skill in the PvE players that play them, and everything to do with the developers that make them. Anyone claiming that the PvE AI of an MMORPG can not be programmed and developed in a manner that would make it deeper, fairer, more interesting, or tougher to master than PvP, frankly knows very little when it comes to computer technology. The only reason developers do not make deeper, fairer, more interesting, or tougher to master PvE game play is because of money.
In an effort to appeal to the widest audience and thereby garner the largest profit, developers must find a happy medium that is inclusive of the lowest denominator. PvE games are intentionally developed to be easy-mode but they don't have to be, and it is through no fault of PvE game play or the players who prefer that game style, that they are saddled with this type of game play as many of them would love nothing more than deeper, fairer, more interesting, and tougher to master PvE game play.
In short, a computerized chess game can be programmed to play just as difficult, and in most cases programmed to be much more difficult to master, than the competition presented by the vast majority of human opponents. This principle applies to the vast majority of computerized games, with the MMORPG genre being no exception. The adversity that PvE players harbor against PvP is not due to it being deeper, fairer, more interesting, or tougher to master than PvE. Their adversity is rooted in the toxic, rude and obnoxious behavior often displayed by those in the PvP community. You can rest assured that if humans behaved like computers, there would be very little, if any, adversity to PvP in the MMORPG video game genre.
Well, there's also the point that mos PvP games aren't actually all that fair.
Take LoL for example. Before a match even begins you are presented with the potential offsets generated by team builds. What characters, archetypes, and setups/specializations are chosen affects the strength of one team versus it's opposition greatly.
Add to that the in-game spectrum of items and leveling and you have now the ability for a team to outpace competition in statistical strength as well.
Then there is the strategies. One of the most common and fundamental strategies in MOBAs is having characters that can lane-hop to stack up and gank another lane.
IE, push a numeric advantage against the opponent rather than besting them in a purely skill based scenario. Is it a fair strategy? Yeah. Is it semantically balanced since globally each team has the same number of player? Yeah.
Is it victory based on player skill? Arguably...not so much.
There are a lot of elements that are not player skill driven even in a MOBA like LoL, so people need to be careful with the arguments which center on such a thing.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Seems we have a stalker on this forum who instead of responding to my post accordingly, just cowardly LoLs my every post. Hopefully he isn't losing sleep over me every night. Keep feeding me those LOLs buddy :awesome:
Oh, he does that to a lot of people including myself. Pay no mind.
Yeah, he's been at it with my posts for as long as I can remember.
What does chess have anything to do relating to video gaming combat PvP? People who play games love competition. Competition can be derived in any of a myriad of ways, including playing games against a computer.
You do realize that playing chess against a computer is vastly more popular nowadays than playing chess against another person? As is black jack, solitaire, checkers or almost any other type of gaming.
The point of his post is not all types of competition are equally interesting.
It's very interesting to many when there's a wide breadth of skills to master in a game (as a result of that game's PVP being both deep and fair.)
It's much less interesting when mastering a game is simple and easy (as a result of PVP being won by shallow factors like "bring more friends" or "be higher level").
Because mastery is the most common way games are fun to players, it matters a lot that one form of competition offers dramatically less to master.
What about the players that like to find a challenge fighting against the odds? Wouldnt that require a higher lvl of mastery than 100% fair play?
Survival games are very popular and are basically gankboxes. Whats the difference with MMORPGS? The combat is FPS so the skill ceilling is higher, and equipment doesnt make that much of a difference. If you can land headshots consistently with a bow or even a wood spear, you might be able to kill a full armored lesser skilled player. This also make your 2nd point less valid, since there ARE ways to fight back against "shallow" factors like getting zerged, hell I can link you to videos of people 1v10ing other players in equal/better gear. I guess you could say they could always bring 20, but you always have the chance to at least escape, which is impossible in normal mmorpgs due to hard CC like stuns.
There are also lots of shallow ways to "win" in even 100% fair play games. Camping in FPS? Ganking lanes in MOBAS? Those scenarios dont seem to require much skills or "mastery" either...
I love to PvP.... it's the people who ALSO love to PvP that I can't stand. They are gankers, whiners, min/maxers, and in general griefers of the worst sort. Not everyone, but it only takes 1 a-hole to ruin a fun game for you.
It's generally always my end goal. I'm not a fan of raids and just grinding for gear for PvE, it seems a little bit pointless to me. I'd much rather do competitive PvP.
"God, please help us sinful children of Ivalice.."
I dislike PvE in MMOS. I'm more of a PvP kinda guy. All in did in WoW was arenas. So it saddens me greatly that other MMOs dont have arena PvP, and if they do its pretty bad.
I love to PvP.... it's the people who ALSO love to PvP that I can't stand. They are gankers, whiners, min/maxers, and in general griefers of the worst sort. Not everyone, but it only takes 1 a-hole to ruin a fun game for you.
I'm not a PvP guy (though Crowfall seems interesting oddly), and it is directly due to the 'bad element' that stalks the genre. The griefer/ganker types flock to those systems that more easily allow them to cause trouble to others. They are not playing the same game as everyone else. Theirs is 'Cause distress to others behind the keyboard'.
Not interesting in putting up with that crap when there are so many alternatives now. So I don't give my money to developers that ignore or facilitate that gameplay.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I might be late to the discussion. I love PVP. I hate the way its implemented, and so I didn't PVP in WOW for instance. I want to PVP for strategic reasons, not for e-pen. I'm to old for that.
Another big issue I have with PVP in most games I've played (EVE excluded) is that it's horribly hard to avoid conflict if I so want to. Take Rogue or Druids for instance, I can't even foresee the attack before I'm in it. Or if there's someone with higher level, they are better equipped to engage or chase a fight then I am to avoid it - what's that about?
If there's heavy conflict in one area while I'm levelling, there's usually not a second or third spot I can do my quest, I actually HAVE to be there to progress my quest chain.
I can't strategically avoid a fight I understand I'll lose unless I logout and wait.
I'm all for OWPVP if it's a vital part of the game. Arenas and BG's are lazy implementations because it's no longer about persistency. If I want to have Arena or BG-like experiences, then I'll just play a MOBA.
TL:DR; I want OWPVP, but I hate how it's been implemented (in games I've played except for EVE, though in my opinion EVE has other issues that I'm not fond of).
Players love 100% skill based PvP - heck look at chess etc... games that have stood the test of times before video games came along.
That sentence doesn't even make sense lol
What does chess have anything to do relating to video gaming combat PvP? People who play games love competition. Competition can be derived in any of a myriad of ways, including playing games against a computer.
You do realize that playing chess against a computer is vastly more popular nowadays than playing chess against another person? As is black jack, solitaire, checkers or almost any other type of gaming.
Context - read the rest of my post.
I use chess as an example of a player vs player game that has existed since 6th century - and is still played today, it speaks volumes for it's longevity and popularity.
What made chess popular for more than 1500 years - it's 100% skill based, it's deep and it's 100% balanced.
The question was "do players hate PvP" - obviously not if it's 100% skill based and balanced.
Again - context is key - pulling a single sentence from anything and debating that is pretty pointless.
I don't think providing context is going to do anything to help him connect the dots.
It about the nuances (balance, skill) in PvP not competition, and not AI.
I think your post will be completely lost on him but props for trying Kano.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Here's a twist how about PVE is ruining PVP. When you have a game that has both, then there is going to be two sides. The PVE crowd and the PVP crowd. When a game tries to balance it out to make both parties happy it fails every time. In my experience, notice I said my; the PVE folks seems to get what they want. The PVP folks always get the shaft and become the bastard step child. There are exceptions from time to time and the coin is flipped, but for the most part PVP becomes ruined because of the PVE side. I say have only PVE games, and PVP games. Never try to do both because it always becomes a big mess.
There a good example of this from a game called Tree of Life. The game was a building/pvp game where u build towns and defended them from players who could attack it and so on. there was about 10k active users (servers were literaly full with queue until the patch), pve players got rather vocal at times on the forums and one patch later where they made PvP impossible cause if you were a red player (PvPer) and died you lost 10% of ur total level and respawned with nothing. (Red players use to drop everything on death while yellow player (PvE players only dropped 3 items randomy) so when a red player died they lost 10% of the progress along with all items, respawning somewhere red again naked and dieing again before u can regear till your back to level 1 again.
This one patch literaly killed the game 80% of the server stopped playing within the week and then over half of the remaining player base left soon after that because the game world was empty and items that were crafted were useless so all the crafter left. the remaining players were just builders last i log in there was a total of 3 players on in the whole world that could hold 1500 players at a time. after a single patch lol
I really won't play an MMO without some type of PvP/RVR.
Unfortunately good ones seem pretty rare at the moment, and why I'm not playing much these days. Though I remain hopeful with some of the crowd funded games coming out.
Here's a twist how about PVE is ruining PVP. When you have a game that has both, then there is going to be two sides. The PVE crowd and the PVP crowd. When a game tries to balance it out to make both parties happy it fails every time. In my experience, notice I said my; the PVE folks seems to get what they want. The PVP folks always get the shaft and become the bastard step child. There are exceptions from time to time and the coin is flipped, but for the most part PVP becomes ruined because of the PVE side. I say have only PVE games, and PVP games. Never try to do both because it always becomes a big mess.
There a good example of this from a game called Tree of Life. The game was a building/pvp game where u build towns and defended them from players who could attack it and so on. there was about 10k active users (servers were literaly full with queue until the patch), pve players got rather vocal at times on the forums and one patch later where they made PvP impossible cause if you were a red player (PvPer) and died you lost 10% of ur total level and respawned with nothing. (Red players use to drop everything on death while yellow player (PvE players only dropped 3 items randomy) so when a red player died they lost 10% of the progress along with all items, respawning somewhere red again naked and dieing again before u can regear till your back to level 1 again.
This one patch literaly killed the game 80% of the server stopped playing within the week and then over half of the remaining player base left soon after that because the game world was empty and items that were crafted were useless so all the crafter left. the remaining players were just builders last i log in there was a total of 3 players on in the whole world that could hold 1500 players at a time. after a single patch lol
So what you are saying is.....
When they changed it so the reds couldn't grief the yellows the pvp fell apart because reds didn't want to fight other reds. That is the usual outcome when pvp'rs actually have to fight other pvp'rs.
I certainly don't hate PvP but I think most MMOs have implemented it poorly at best. In good PvP a veteran player will have a bonus against a newer player but the fight should still be able to go either way (so fighting actually is exciting).
Most MMOs have PvP that seems made so high level players can wade through floods of noob blood with zero risk and that bores most of us, and not just because getting killed with zero chanse to win is boring, fighting other players without being able to loose is just as bad. It is like they design them just for griefers or something.
I am not saying MMOs should do just like FPS games, gear and stats should matter but only to a certain degree. Now skill only matter when 2 players of the same level and about the same gear tier fight.
One simple solution is to do like GW2 and have all players level down to the level of the zone. Another is to lower the powergap a lot.
Players love 100% skill based PvP - heck look at chess etc... games that have stood the test of times before video games came along.
That sentence doesn't even make sense lol
What does chess have anything to do relating to video gaming combat PvP? People who play games love competition. Competition can be derived in any of a myriad of ways, including playing games against a computer.
You do realize that playing chess against a computer is vastly more popular nowadays than playing chess against another person? As is black jack, solitaire, checkers or almost any other type of gaming.
Context - read the rest of my post.
I use chess as an example of a player vs player game that has existed since 6th century - and is still played today, it speaks volumes for it's longevity and popularity.
What made chess popular for more than 1500 years - it's 100% skill based, it's deep and it's 100% balanced.
The question was "do players hate PvP" - obviously not if it's 100% skill based and balanced.
Again - context is key - pulling a single sentence from anything and debating that is pretty pointless.
I don't think providing context is going to do anything to help him connect the dots.
It about the nuances (balance, skill) in PvP not competition, and not AI.
I think your post will be completely lost on him but props for trying Kano.
Except the comparison is irrelevant. It simply makes no sense and trying to rationalize the analogy with word semantics and other nonsense is an effort in futility. As repeatedly mentioned, time and again, ad nauseum, in this very thread, the reason the vast majority of players who "hate" PvP in MMORPGs do not "hate" it because it lacks in competition, skill, depth, or balance. They "hate" it because of the rude, toxic and obnoxious behavior that is often displayed by the people who play it. That type of toxic, rude, and obnoxious behavior simply does not exist, and indeed is impossible to display, in any chess game. It is a flawed analogy, without basis whatsoever.
I can somewhat understand the above analogy being applicable to PvPers, such as Kano, because they enjoy said toxic, rude, and obnoxious behavior and have been often known in this very forum to actively support it. They therefore totally dismiss its importance as to the reason why people "hate" PvP and assign a different reality for the hate based on their own PvP perspectives. But that is not the reality of the vast majority of players who "hate" PvP, as evidenced by what is being said in this very thread and others over a very long period of time. To repeat for emphasis, it does no matter how competitive, skilled, deep or balanced a developer makes a PvP game, players will continue to hate PvP. Not because it lacks competition, is not 100% skill based, deep or balanced, but because of the inherent toxic, rude and obnoxious cultural behavior currently displayed and, unfortunately, all too prevalent in MMO PvP communities.
I enjoy PvP if its done correctly. Giving someone vastly superior gear over someone else is not my idea of fun PvP. I can't put that much time into gaming to acquire the gear needed to complete in most games.
DAoC was perfect for that. Can't believe we've never seen a similar game.
I mostly enjoy BG/Instanced PvP. I don't have the time to run around looking for people that are probably trying to PvE or harvest. That's not fun. Its like playing basketball against someone in a wheelchair. That's not competitve.
I was waiting for this response and I thank you for raising it. Here is where I will see you, and raise you one. There seems to be this preconceived wide-spread misconception among the PvP crowd that, as a rule, PvP game play is deeper, fairer, more interesting, and/or tougher to master than PvE game play when nothing could be further from the truth. In any computerized chess game, or any computerized game for that matter, the competition provided to the player is only as deep, fair, more interesting, or tougher to master as the developers/programmers of that game make it.
The bad rap that PvE game play has received as being easy mode in MMORPGs has very little to do with the lack of skill in the PvE players that play them, and everything to do with the developers that make them. Anyone claiming that the PvE AI of an MMORPG can not be programmed and developed in a manner that would make it deeper, fairer, more interesting, or tougher to master than PvP, frankly knows very little when it comes to computer technology. The only reason developers do not make deeper, fairer, more interesting, or tougher to master PvE game play is because of money.
In an effort to appeal to the widest audience and thereby garner the largest profit, developers must find a happy medium that is inclusive of the lowest denominator. PvE games are intentionally developed to be easy-mode but they don't have to be, and it is through no fault of PvE game play or the players who prefer that game style, that they are saddled with this type of game play as many of them would love nothing more than deeper, fairer, more interesting, and tougher to master PvE game play.
In short, a computerized chess game can be programmed to play just as difficult, and in most cases programmed to be much more difficult to master, than the competition presented by the vast majority of human opponents. This principle applies to the vast majority of computerized games, with the MMORPG genre being no exception. The adversity that PvE players harbor against PvP is not due to it being deeper, fairer, more interesting, or tougher to master than PvE. Their adversity is rooted in the toxic, rude and obnoxious behavior often displayed by those in the PvP community. You can rest assured that if humans behaved like computers, there would be very little, if any, adversity to PvP in the MMORPG video game genre.
A Straw Man is a fallacy where, essentially, you're arguing with an imaginary opponent.
Your post is about PVP vs. PVE. You're the only one who brought up PVE.
So your post is a Straw Man: You're not replying to what was actually said, but to some imaginary opponent.
If you have any interest in joining the conversation and replying to what people are actually saying, here's a recap:
In PVP, not all forms of competition are equally interesting.
Deep PVP is more interesting than shallow
A significant portion of MMORPG PVP (and specifically: nearly all World PVP) is Shallow PVP.
To fill in slightly more details:
Depth is the result of a game offering challenging decisions (decisions which aren't easily mastered.) Chess' decisions are difficult to master; Tic-Tac-Toe's are not.
Depth also requires a certain frequency of decision-making. One deep decision for 1% of the gameplay won't offset the remaining 99% of gameplay being shallow. This is present in a lot of time-constrained games (both MMORPG and otherwise), and just arbitrarily makes these games take longer to play, but isn't actually deeper.
Depth also requires that shallow decisions aren't allowed to trump deeper ones. Chess is deep, but if you could bring 5 friends into a Chess match Chess would be shallow (even though we haven't removed Chess' deep decision set, the fact that one easy decision now dominates gameplay will have made Chess incredibly shallow.)
Most MMORPGs don't have particularly deep systems in the first place (#1), but when they have excessive timesinks they fail #2, and with "bring more friends" and "be higher level" they often fail #3 (especially in any World PVP game, MMORPG or otherwise.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Answers
Any one reading my reply to Kano's post can see for themselves that my post makes perfect sense. Only those with a blind ganker type PvP mentality, or with a vested interest that would lead them to respond with an alt so as not to stain the reputation of their main, would think otherwise.
Which one, pray tell, are you?
Also I already posted I like both PvP and PvE.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/You can also mess with people in a PVE setting by stealing kills, taking mobs, and otherwise slowing down progress, the same as PVP.
The difference is that you can defend yourself in PVP, you just have to leave in PVE.
Waiting for:
The Repopulation
Albion Online
Butthurt would best describe your behavior, partner. I can handle someone clicking LOL just fine. I love humor, and to be seen as a person having humor, so this accomplishes that objective just fine. Knock yourself out. But that is not the point. I just find it rather cowardly that a poster would resort to the constant and excessive abuse of that feature, in a manner in which it is not intended, instead of having the courage to make their point by posting their disagreement. It comes across as rather cowardly. There is nothing to be afraid of. Forums don't bite.
I will leave it at that. This is not worth derailing the thread over.
- It's very interesting to many when there's a wide breadth of skills to master in a game (as a result of that game's PVP being both deep and fair.)
- It's much less interesting when mastering a game is simple and easy (as a result of PVP being won by shallow factors like "bring more friends" or "be higher level").
Because mastery is the most common way games are fun to players, it matters a lot that one form of competition offers dramatically less to master."What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You are posting some laughably bad content, please desist.
I was waiting for this response and I thank you for raising it. Here is where I will see you, and raise you one. There seems to be this preconceived wide-spread misconception among the PvP crowd that, as a rule, PvP game play is deeper, fairer, more interesting, and/or tougher to master than PvE game play when nothing could be further from the truth. In any computerized chess game, or any computerized game for that matter, the competition provided to the player is only as deep, fair, more interesting, or tougher to master as the developers/programmers of that game make it.
The bad rap that PvE game play has received as being easy mode in MMORPGs has very little to do with the lack of skill in the PvE players that play them, and everything to do with the developers that make them. Anyone claiming that the PvE AI of an MMORPG can not be programmed and developed in a manner that would make it deeper, fairer, more interesting, or tougher to master than PvP, frankly knows very little when it comes to computer technology. The only reason developers do not make deeper, fairer, more interesting, or tougher to master PvE game play is because of money.
In an effort to appeal to the widest audience and thereby garner the largest profit, developers must find a happy medium that is inclusive of the lowest denominator. PvE games are intentionally developed to be easy-mode but they don't have to be, and it is through no fault of PvE game play or the players who prefer that game style, that they are saddled with this type of game play as many of them would love nothing more than deeper, fairer, more interesting, and tougher to master PvE game play.
In short, a computerized chess game can be programmed to play just as difficult, and in most cases programmed to be much more difficult to master, than the competition presented by the vast majority of human opponents. This principle applies to the vast majority of computerized games, with the MMORPG genre being no exception. The adversity that PvE players harbor against PvP is not due to it being deeper, fairer, more interesting, or tougher to master than PvE. Their adversity is rooted in the toxic, rude and obnoxious behavior often displayed by those in the PvP community. You can rest assured that if humans behaved like computers, there would be very little, if any, adversity to PvP in the MMORPG video game genre.
Take LoL for example. Before a match even begins you are presented with the potential offsets generated by team builds. What characters, archetypes, and setups/specializations are chosen affects the strength of one team versus it's opposition greatly.
Add to that the in-game spectrum of items and leveling and you have now the ability for a team to outpace competition in statistical strength as well.
Then there is the strategies. One of the most common and fundamental strategies in MOBAs is having characters that can lane-hop to stack up and gank another lane.
IE, push a numeric advantage against the opponent rather than besting them in a purely skill based scenario. Is it a fair strategy? Yeah. Is it semantically balanced since globally each team has the same number of player? Yeah.
Is it victory based on player skill? Arguably...not so much.
There are a lot of elements that are not player skill driven even in a MOBA like LoL, so people need to be careful with the arguments which center on such a thing.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Yeah, he's been at it with my posts for as long as I can remember.
Pretty pathetic.
Survival games are very popular and are basically gankboxes. Whats the difference with MMORPGS? The combat is FPS so the skill ceilling is higher, and equipment doesnt make that much of a difference. If you can land headshots consistently with a bow or even a wood spear, you might be able to kill a full armored lesser skilled player. This also make your 2nd point less valid, since there ARE ways to fight back against "shallow" factors like getting zerged, hell I can link you to videos of people 1v10ing other players in equal/better gear. I guess you could say they could always bring 20, but you always have the chance to at least escape, which is impossible in normal mmorpgs due to hard CC like stuns.
There are also lots of shallow ways to "win" in even 100% fair play games. Camping in FPS? Ganking lanes in MOBAS? Those scenarios dont seem to require much skills or "mastery" either...
"God, please help us sinful children of Ivalice.."
I'm not a PvP guy (though Crowfall seems interesting oddly), and it is directly due to the 'bad element' that stalks the genre. The griefer/ganker types flock to those systems that more easily allow them to cause trouble to others. They are not playing the same game as everyone else. Theirs is 'Cause distress to others behind the keyboard'.
Not interesting in putting up with that crap when there are so many alternatives now. So I don't give my money to developers that ignore or facilitate that gameplay.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I can't strategically avoid a fight I understand I'll lose unless I logout and wait.
It about the nuances (balance, skill) in PvP not competition, and not AI.
I think your post will be completely lost on him but props for trying Kano.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/This one patch literaly killed the game 80% of the server stopped playing within the week and then over half of the remaining player base left soon after that because the game world was empty and items that were crafted were useless so all the crafter left. the remaining players were just builders last i log in there was a total of 3 players on in the whole world that could hold 1500 players at a time. after a single patch lol
Unfortunately good ones seem pretty rare at the moment, and why I'm not playing much these days. Though I remain hopeful with some of the crowd funded games coming out.
When they changed it so the reds couldn't grief the yellows the pvp fell apart because reds didn't want to fight other reds. That is the usual outcome when pvp'rs actually have to fight other pvp'rs.
Most MMOs have PvP that seems made so high level players can wade through floods of noob blood with zero risk and that bores most of us, and not just because getting killed with zero chanse to win is boring, fighting other players without being able to loose is just as bad. It is like they design them just for griefers or something.
I am not saying MMOs should do just like FPS games, gear and stats should matter but only to a certain degree. Now skill only matter when 2 players of the same level and about the same gear tier fight.
One simple solution is to do like GW2 and have all players level down to the level of the zone. Another is to lower the powergap a lot.
Except the comparison is irrelevant. It simply makes no sense and trying to rationalize the analogy with word semantics and other nonsense is an effort in futility. As repeatedly mentioned, time and again, ad nauseum, in this very thread, the reason the vast majority of players who "hate" PvP in MMORPGs do not "hate" it because it lacks in competition, skill, depth, or balance. They "hate" it because of the rude, toxic and obnoxious behavior that is often displayed by the people who play it. That type of toxic, rude, and obnoxious behavior simply does not exist, and indeed is impossible to display, in any chess game. It is a flawed analogy, without basis whatsoever.
I can somewhat understand the above analogy being applicable to PvPers, such as Kano, because they enjoy said toxic, rude, and obnoxious behavior and have been often known in this very forum to actively support it. They therefore totally dismiss its importance as to the reason why people "hate" PvP and assign a different reality for the hate based on their own PvP perspectives. But that is not the reality of the vast majority of players who "hate" PvP, as evidenced by what is being said in this very thread and others over a very long period of time. To repeat for emphasis, it does no matter how competitive, skilled, deep or balanced a developer makes a PvP game, players will continue to hate PvP. Not because it lacks competition, is not 100% skill based, deep or balanced, but because of the inherent toxic, rude and obnoxious cultural behavior currently displayed and, unfortunately, all too prevalent in MMO PvP communities.
DAoC was perfect for that. Can't believe we've never seen a similar game.
I mostly enjoy BG/Instanced PvP. I don't have the time to run around looking for people that are probably trying to PvE or harvest. That's not fun. Its like playing basketball against someone in a wheelchair. That's not competitve.
- Kano's post was only about PVP.
- My post was only about PVP.
- Your post is about PVP vs. PVE. You're the only one who brought up PVE.
- So your post is a Straw Man: You're not replying to what was actually said, but to some imaginary opponent.
If you have any interest in joining the conversation and replying to what people are actually saying, here's a recap:- In PVP, not all forms of competition are equally interesting.
- Deep PVP is more interesting than shallow
- A significant portion of MMORPG PVP (and specifically: nearly all World PVP) is Shallow PVP.
To fill in slightly more details:"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver