The few that do, often do it just to see what it is like and what the attraction is. I mean, the way people fuss about loving PvP, you would think it was fun or something.
Few? I disagree. General chat is flooded with these idiots. REEEEEEEEE
Which game? The only game I played where the PvE carebears cried en-mas about PvP was GW2, because they were forced to do it to get their Legendary Weapons.
Happened a bit in Rift too. Same reason you had to regularly participate in 'conquest' (three faction PvP) to get and keep your 'conquest perks' (PvE damage boost etc) there was also a BIS item or two to get that way.
I never quite understood why developers would do this, where they somehow feel the compulsive need to coheres or even force PvE players into doing PvP. What do they hope to accomplish?
The few that do, often do it just to see what it is like and what the attraction is. I mean, the way people fuss about loving PvP, you would think it was fun or something.
Few? I disagree. General chat is flooded with these idiots. REEEEEEEEE
Which game? The only game I played where the PvE carebears cried en-mas about PvP was GW2, because they were forced to do it to get their Legendary Weapons.
Happened a bit in Rift too. Same reason you had to regularly participate in 'conquest' (three faction PvP) to get and keep your 'conquest perks' (PvE damage boost etc) there was also a BIS item or two to get that way.
I never quite understood why developers would do this, where they somehow feel the compulsive need to coheres or even force PvE players into doing PvP. What do they hope to accomplish?
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Why are strictly pve players playing games that have a pvp component?
It's ridiculous. I shudder to think how these people get through life.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
This is like and oil and water ,wasting time trying to force PvE players to PvP. Like me even when I play PvP games I avoid the PvP like a plague like in BDO.
Lineage 1 still is the 2nd biggest MMO worldwide even without western support and is 100% open word pvp based. I'm officially out of MMOs until antoher game like L1 hits the west. I haven't played a MMO for more than one week for over 5 years.
The few that do, often do it just to see what it is like and what the attraction is. I mean, the way people fuss about loving PvP, you would think it was fun or something.
Few? I disagree. General chat is flooded with these idiots. REEEEEEEEE
Which game? The only game I played where the PvE carebears cried en-mas about PvP was GW2, because they were forced to do it to get their Legendary Weapons.
Happened a bit in Rift too. Same reason you had to regularly participate in 'conquest' (three faction PvP) to get and keep your 'conquest perks' (PvE damage boost etc) there was also a BIS item or two to get that way.
I never quite understood why developers would do this, where they somehow feel the compulsive need to coheres or even force PvE players into doing PvP. What do they hope to accomplish?
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Why are strictly pve players playing games that have a pvp component?
It's ridiculous. I shudder to think how these people get through life.
if you played GW2, you would know that under most situations their PvP and PvE have nothing in common. n fact PvE players would never have to even bother with PvP at all, on any level, it is put in for the people that like PvP. However, why they chose to make it so that a PvE player would need to do PvP to get their legendary weapon boggles the mind.
if you played GW2, you would know that under most situations their PvP and PvE have nothing in common. n fact PvE players would never have to even bother with PvP at all, on any level, it is put in for the people that like PvP. However, why they chose to make it so that a PvE player would need to do PvP to get their legendary weapon boggles the mind.
Do they need a legendary weapon in order to pve?
Or I should say, maybe the legendary weapons are more for pvp and pve playesr have decided they want one (?)
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
if you played GW2, you would know that under most situations their PvP and PvE have nothing in common. n fact PvE players would never have to even bother with PvP at all, on any level, it is put in for the people that like PvP. However, why they chose to make it so that a PvE player would need to do PvP to get their legendary weapon boggles the mind.
Do they need a legendary weapon in order to pve?
Or I should say, maybe the legendary weapons are more for pvp and pve playesr have decided they want one (?)
Acquisition of ultra-powerful items has typically been the domain of PvE. After all "pure" PvP requires that the combatants have similar power levels and the outcome be decided by skill.
the very fact that the OP title is even up for debate makes my eyes roll.
like sex maybe some just dont undestand the difference between consensual and non-consensual?
I'm sure they understand. They just have a different preference than yours. That includes forcing others to do certain things. Right now I'm being forced by society to be more empathetic and behave a certain way against my will.
the very fact that the OP title is even up for debate makes my eyes roll.
like sex maybe some just dont undestand the difference between consensual and non-consensual?
I'm sure they understand. They just have a different preference than yours. That includes forcing others to do certain things. Right now I'm being forced by society to be more empathetic and behave a certain way against my will.
well have fun with that, I am not going to get into a debate over why its fun gaming to force other people to do things they dont want to do and no amount of logical gymnastics is going to change that. Its sociopathic bullshit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
the very fact that the OP title is even up for debate makes my eyes roll.
like sex maybe some just dont undestand the difference between consensual and non-consensual?
I'm sure they understand. They just have a different preference than yours. That includes forcing others to do certain things. Right now I'm being forced by society to be more empathetic and behave a certain way against my will.
well have fun with that, I am not going to get into a debate over why its fun gaming to force other people to do things they dont want to do and no amount of logical gymnastics is going to change that. Its sociopathic bullshit
Are we in 50 shades of grey territory? I have not read the book or watched the movie so I'm only going by my assumptions on what that means.
if you played GW2, you would know that under most situations their PvP and PvE have nothing in common. n fact PvE players would never have to even bother with PvP at all, on any level, it is put in for the people that like PvP. However, why they chose to make it so that a PvE player would need to do PvP to get their legendary weapon boggles the mind.
Do they need a legendary weapon in order to pve?
Or I should say, maybe the legendary weapons are more for pvp and pve playesr have decided they want one (?)
Acquisition of ultra-powerful items has typically been the domain of PvE. After all "pure" PvP requires that the combatants have similar power levels and the outcome be decided by skill.
that's not really true. That's something that players want to be true. Myself included fyi. But in mmorpg's it's usually been about leveling a character and that character's stats, skill and gear play a part in it.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
the very fact that the OP title is even up for debate makes my eyes roll.
like sex maybe some just dont undestand the difference between consensual and non-consensual?
I'm sure they understand. They just have a different preference than yours. That includes forcing others to do certain things. Right now I'm being forced by society to be more empathetic and behave a certain way against my will.
well have fun with that, I am not going to get into a debate over why its fun gaming to force other people to do things they dont want to do and no amount of logical gymnastics is going to change that. Its sociopathic bullshit
Are we in 50 shades of grey territory? I have not read the book or watched the movie so I'm only going by my assumptions on what that means.
50 shades of grey is some sociopathic bullshit as well.
The real irony is that I would likely be the one getting a ban talking in a debate over sociopathic practices and how silly the conversation is.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
man gets banned from a web forum calling a the people in the forums soicopaths for wanting to engage in Pvp with people who didnt want to engage in PvP.
yup....that would be me likely
and although he can no longer contribute views to the conversation the conversation about why its awesome to enage people in pvp who dont want it is still continuing.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The main point is probably that making games that cater to sociopaths is the quickest way to shutdown your game and bankrupt your company at this point. People know better these days than to get too involved or spend too much money on something they don't enjoy.
It's probably one of the biggest weaknesses of the current crowdfunded online games too. Their lack of money and/or inability to put together teams that can program simple AI-like behavior led them to embrace a simple PvP model to create content for their game. This should only be a stopgap measure unless your game is designed specifically for PvP from the ground up.
Trying to trick PvE players into playing your game to give the PvP'ers easy kills makes no sense. Why do this? Does this put money in the bank? Am I catering to some design aesthetic, or am I making money? The people who are playing the PvE portion of the game are only so willing to be bothered before they quit. Black Desert is a sort of bait-and-switch from their standpoint. That's not going to fly.
That's a good point about consensual vs non-consensual. What person in their right mind thinks they are going to make money by non-consensual games?
the very fact that the OP title is even up for debate makes my eyes roll.
like sex maybe some just dont undestand the difference between consensual and non-consensual?
I'm sure they understand. They just have a different preference than yours. That includes forcing others to do certain things. Right now I'm being forced by society to be more empathetic and behave a certain way against my will.
well have fun with that, I am not going to get into a debate over why its fun gaming to force other people to do things they dont want to do and no amount of logical gymnastics is going to change that. Its sociopathic bullshit
Are we in 50 shades of grey territory? I have not read the book or watched the movie so I'm only going by my assumptions on what that means.
50 shades of grey is some sociopathic bullshit as well.
The real irony is that I would likely be the one getting a ban talking in a debate over sociopathic practices and how silly the conversation is.
I think nothing could ever be as good as "The Secretary" so I never bothered with this 50 shades craze.
50 shades of grey is some sociopathic bullshit as well.
The real irony is that I would likely be the one getting a ban talking in a debate over sociopathic practices and how silly the conversation is.
I think nothing could ever be as good as "The Secretary" so I never bothered with this 50 shades craze.
also pure bullshit. Frankly people who enjoy that should think about getting head examed, however having said that is it really the same thing as what we are talking about? I dont know because i am so far removed from that insanity on both sides I dont know if they can be compared or not
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
if you played GW2, you would know that under most situations their PvP and PvE have nothing in common. n fact PvE players would never have to even bother with PvP at all, on any level, it is put in for the people that like PvP. However, why they chose to make it so that a PvE player would need to do PvP to get their legendary weapon boggles the mind.
Do they need a legendary weapon in order to pve?
Or I should say, maybe the legendary weapons are more for pvp and pve playesr have decided they want one (?)
Unless those PvP players also have a massive love for inane amounts of PvE grinding, legendary weapons were not for them either.
What PVE players needed, was Map completion (Which also included 4 World vs World maps) and a Gift of Battle from World vs World. They were Not hard things to get, given the PvP maps were smaller then PvE zones, and a gift of battle could be obtained via capture points (Which is mainly PvE anyway), the only real problem, was it needed to be done in a large group, as WvW is a Zerg vs Zerg fest, and trying to solo or even small group all the points on the maps was not gonna happen.
GW2 later removed the WvW map completion the Requirement, but you still need the 500 badges for the gift of battle, but those are now easy enough to get in EotM, that even carebears mostly stopped complaining (there is always a few players that will whine no matter what)
Also, as I understood it, legendary Weapons in GW2 as far as PvP went, where this huge glowing things that screamed "I do too much PvE, Kill me First!"
Also, as I understood it, legendary Weapons in GW2 as far as PvP went, where this huge glowing things that screamed "I do too much PvE, Kill me First!"
legendary weapons in GW2 were big obnoxious flashy things that left foot trails as you ran, made you glow, and in some cases had unique sounds to them. also required participation in every game mode to at least some degree and a large disposable income of game currency (gold in this case).
and yes. having one in WvW TOTALLY screamed "kill me first!"
The last thing I will say on this subject is the following. I do not want all MMORPGs that currently exist or are ever made to all have non-consensual PvP (or the possibility of it). I don't not even want all servers on all games to have non-consensual PvP (or the possibility of it).
What I would like though, is for a realistic, dynamic, true role-playing game to be created at some point on some server on some game somewhere (without the aid of incredibly Artificial Intelligence and/or Virtual Reality). There is such thing as the possibility of non-consensual PvP in real life. If a game wants to be a true role-playing that attempts to replicate real life in the real world, then they're kinda stuck with the possibility of non-consensual PvP. But if they think they can use vertical level progression and unlimited/infinite gear progression as one of their core mechanics, they should not even think of having the possibility of non-consensual PvP. That is my opinion. You are free to agree, disagree, love me, hate me, celebrate, or throw a fit. It really doesn't bother me either way. I'm not a sociopath. But I'm also not a conformist. I'm not a griefer/ganker in MMORPGs, but I'm also not a Care Bear. I'm not even a Care Bear Cousin. Though I did own a stuffed animal of Braveheart Lion as a kid.
I was thinking about why I don't like pvp anymore. In my first two serious MMORPGs I actually didn't mind a little casual pvp here and there. It was a fun distraction from the pve grind. These days I avoid it like the plague. There is nothing fun about it anymore. What happened? did I change? No. It's the kinds of people who fight in pvp these days. The MMORPG pvp communities have gone very toxic.
Many of those I knew who played MMORPGs only for the pvp have moved on to
MOBAs. Not only do they not have the pve grind they hated,
MOBA type games are also set up to where it is impossible for the
max level players with the best gear to go back and murder the lowbies.
In most of them, pvp is at least somewhat evenly matched with equal
numbers on both sides.
For example: Can you take your maxed out tier 10 tank
in World of Tanks, join a tier 1 match and 1-hit kill every newbie
tank on the map without fear of taking any damage? No, of course not! If you could do
that the game would be considered broken and almost nobody would play
it.
However, there are those who like pvp but only when they can get
that kind of godlike advantage. They are the ones all these poorly
implemented MMORPG pvp systems attract. These players have very little
to no interest in role playing, socializing or pve content. They just
want to fight other players and (almost) never lose.
With this considered, full open world non consensual pvp would be sure to drive away almost every pve player. There has to be something done about the toxicity of the pvp communities first. Perhaps developers could implement and rigorously enforce extremely harsh punishments for anyone caught ganking or griefing. Maybe the pvp community itself could hunt down and repeatedly mass murder anyone who kills newbies and gives people a bad impression of their game. Whatever it is, the idea of open world pvp will fail unless something changes for the better in the current MMORPG pvp community.
Comments
I never quite understood why developers would do this, where they somehow feel the compulsive need to coheres or even force PvE players into doing PvP. What do they hope to accomplish?
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Why are strictly pve players playing games that have a pvp component?
It's ridiculous. I shudder to think how these people get through life.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
if you played GW2, you would know that under most situations their PvP and PvE have nothing in common. n fact PvE players would never have to even bother with PvP at all, on any level, it is put in for the people that like PvP. However, why they chose to make it so that a PvE player would need to do PvP to get their legendary weapon boggles the mind.
Do they need a legendary weapon in order to pve?
Or I should say, maybe the legendary weapons are more for pvp and pve playesr have decided they want one (?)
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Acquisition of ultra-powerful items has typically been the domain of PvE. After all "pure" PvP requires that the combatants have similar power levels and the outcome be decided by skill.
like sex maybe some just dont undestand the difference between consensual and non-consensual?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
well have fun with that, I am not going to get into a debate over why its fun gaming to force other people to do things they dont want to do and no amount of logical gymnastics is going to change that. Its sociopathic bullshit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Are we in 50 shades of grey territory? I have not read the book or watched the movie so I'm only going by my assumptions on what that means.
that's not really true. That's something that players want to be true. Myself included fyi. But in mmorpg's it's usually been about leveling a character and that character's stats, skill and gear play a part in it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
50 shades of grey is some sociopathic bullshit as well.
The real irony is that I would likely be the one getting a ban talking in a debate over sociopathic practices and how silly the conversation is.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
man gets banned from a web forum calling a the people in the forums soicopaths for wanting to engage in Pvp with people who didnt want to engage in PvP.
yup....that would be me likely
and although he can no longer contribute views to the conversation the conversation about why its awesome to enage people in pvp who dont want it is still continuing.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It could be open world, free for all, full loot, and as long as you have to flag to take part, it would not piss off anyone.
Except a lot of so-called PvPers do not want a flagging mechanism, they claim that it would not work, nobody would flag.
So, if as they claim, nobody would flag, really that mean's nobody want's PvP, and Dev's should stop adding it to MMOs.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
It's probably one of the biggest weaknesses of the current crowdfunded online games too. Their lack of money and/or inability to put together teams that can program simple AI-like behavior led them to embrace a simple PvP model to create content for their game. This should only be a stopgap measure unless your game is designed specifically for PvP from the ground up.
Trying to trick PvE players into playing your game to give the PvP'ers easy kills makes no sense. Why do this? Does this put money in the bank? Am I catering to some design aesthetic, or am I making money? The people who are playing the PvE portion of the game are only so willing to be bothered before they quit. Black Desert is a sort of bait-and-switch from their standpoint. That's not going to fly.
That's a good point about consensual vs non-consensual. What person in their right mind thinks they are going to make money by non-consensual games?
I think nothing could ever be as good as "The Secretary" so I never bothered with this 50 shades craze.
also pure bullshit.
Frankly people who enjoy that should think about getting head examed, however having said that is it really the same thing as what we are talking about? I dont know because i am so far removed from that insanity on both sides I dont know if they can be compared or not
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Unless those PvP players also have a massive love for inane amounts of PvE grinding, legendary weapons were not for them either.
What PVE players needed, was Map completion (Which also included 4 World vs World maps) and a Gift of Battle from World vs World. They were Not hard things to get, given the PvP maps were smaller then PvE zones, and a gift of battle could be obtained via capture points (Which is mainly PvE anyway), the only real problem, was it needed to be done in a large group, as WvW is a Zerg vs Zerg fest, and trying to solo or even small group all the points on the maps was not gonna happen.
GW2 later removed the WvW map completion the Requirement, but you still need the 500 badges for the gift of battle, but those are now easy enough to get in EotM, that even carebears mostly stopped complaining (there is always a few players that will whine no matter what)
Also, as I understood it, legendary Weapons in GW2 as far as PvP went, where this huge glowing things that screamed "I do too much PvE, Kill me First!"
This.
/thread
legendary weapons in GW2 were big obnoxious flashy things that left foot trails as you ran, made you glow, and in some cases had unique sounds to them. also required participation in every game mode to at least some degree and a large disposable income of game currency (gold in this case).
and yes. having one in WvW TOTALLY screamed "kill me first!"
What I would like though, is for a realistic, dynamic, true role-playing game to be created at some point on some server on some game somewhere (without the aid of incredibly Artificial Intelligence and/or Virtual Reality). There is such thing as the possibility of non-consensual PvP in real life. If a game wants to be a true role-playing that attempts to replicate real life in the real world, then they're kinda stuck with the possibility of non-consensual PvP. But if they think they can use vertical level progression and unlimited/infinite gear progression as one of their core mechanics, they should not even think of having the possibility of non-consensual PvP. That is my opinion. You are free to agree, disagree, love me, hate me, celebrate, or throw a fit. It really doesn't bother me either way. I'm not a sociopath. But I'm also not a conformist. I'm not a griefer/ganker in MMORPGs, but I'm also not a Care Bear. I'm not even a Care Bear Cousin. Though I did own a stuffed animal of Braveheart Lion as a kid.
Many of those I knew who played MMORPGs only for the pvp have moved on to
MOBAs. Not only do they not have the pve grind they hated,
MOBA type games are also set up to where it is impossible for the
max level players with the best gear to go back and murder the lowbies.
In most of them, pvp is at least somewhat evenly matched with equal
numbers on both sides.
For example: Can you take your maxed out tier 10 tank
in World of Tanks, join a tier 1 match and 1-hit kill every newbie
tank on the map without fear of taking any damage? No, of course not! If you could do
that the game would be considered broken and almost nobody would play
it.
However, there are those who like pvp but only when they can get
that kind of godlike advantage. They are the ones all these poorly
implemented MMORPG pvp systems attract. These players have very little
to no interest in role playing, socializing or pve content. They just
want to fight other players and (almost) never lose.
With this considered, full open world non consensual pvp would be sure to drive away almost every pve player. There has to be something done about the toxicity of the pvp communities first. Perhaps developers could implement and rigorously enforce extremely harsh punishments for anyone caught ganking or griefing. Maybe the pvp community itself could hunt down and repeatedly mass murder anyone who kills newbies and gives people a bad impression of their game. Whatever it is, the idea of open world pvp will fail unless something changes for the better in the current MMORPG pvp community.