Maybe I am strange but I love pvp and in an open world don't think the devs need to provide a compelling reason for it. I will pvp with or without a reward because to me it feels like sport. I would rather no rewards for pvp so you don't get "standing agreements" but if people have to have them, than they should be cosmetic only. If you make a reward stat adjusting it could become necessary at some point and then will encourage "standing agreements".
Open world/unstructured pvp is much more fun in my opinion. The preparation and timing can sometimes be more fun than actual fighting. For this type of pvp, you need to pay attention to who is around you, what they are doing, where are they going, what they might they do, and then setup a situation where you have the highest chance of winning. A good open world pvper is not going to fight a "fair" fight but is going to look for a situation when you are most vulnerable and capitalize on it.
To illustrate, I friend players I pvp against, I take notes about them trying to remembering character type, equipment, friends they may have, where they like to login at, etc. It is critical to be in a pvp centric guild for team work, strategy and for people to duel and figure things out with. Pvp can allow actions that seem douche-bagish and there are bad people out there but to generalize all pvpers that way is incorrect. A significant number of pvpers are nice people and some will help if asked.
* I read most of what Jon Wood writes * He needs more bullet points though
DAOC hands down. Absolutely the best pvp in an MMORPG ever. The comment above about it being like having a full PVE game along side a full on PVP game is why it ended up failing. In the beginning anyone could get the best gear with almost no effort. Then they launched TOA and all the people that wanted to just PVP had to step inside the realm of PVE for a short time and they went bonkers. The worst part of all the negative attitudes concerning TOA was that it wasn't necessary to get everything. Most classes only needed a few things and some classes didn't need artifacts to be competitive unless they were into soloing. My tic had all his MLS in two weeks and two artifacts I wanted a week later. My scout made it to RR8 with nothing but player crafted gear and old world drops with maybe 15 evenings spent getting to ML10. The pvp in DAOC was hinged so much on tactics that gear better than player crafted was only an issue one v one.
I dislike PvP due to the jerks who either 1. play the OP class to win or 2. glitch/use super dirty tactics to win.
I'm not against using some dirty tactics to win but constantly abusing the ones that are borderline glitching (shooting through terrain or abusing the collision system) is just bullcrap.
Thats really the only reason why i dislike PvP but unfortunately that pretty much sums up PvP in just about every game. The only game where i did not experience that (as much) was Darkfall but because i could never catch up to the other players i often found myself getting killed.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds -Solid non level based game -Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
PvP has it's place. Most of my enjoyable PvP time came from playing on a open ended PvP servers in AoC, or in SWG as a full time special forces person. The need for constant awareness brings a new tension to the game. That's a very different play experience than the mini-game scenario.
Equipment can make a difference in 1v1 fights, or even 1v2. But in all out PvP I think it's situational awareness, skill and coordination that make for the win in team play.
An MMO has to make room for both PvP and PvE. The PvP mini-game does help to avoid widespread ganking, res-pad camping, or rogue groups of 80s sweeping through level 20 zones. The recent changes to reputation and outlaws put some damper on that in AOC. Good coordinated player responses to wipe the gankers are even more rewarding.
Bottom line for me; if you're going in for PvP be prepared to lose.
In EVE we say every ship you fly you must be prepared to lose every time you un-dock. And a loss in EVE has real setback consequences unlike most other games. The devs did a good job in EVE for making the PVP experience playable for even new players in cheep ships mixed in with the big girls and boys. There is a role for each player no matter their skill level.
Expet the worst, strive for the best by being prepared, and have fun (it is just a game)! And expect to lose a lot to become good.
Follow-on comment: Many mentions of duche-bag players above, and nobody enjoys beating or losing to irratating players. But I think it's a pleasure to lose to someone who shows a lot of skill and a good attitude. When you're eating dirt because the other player turned the tables and got the best of you, then salutes you for a good fight, it is still a rewarding experience. When they smack-talk you after jumping you with six fo their friends acting like they are uber warriors you just want to jam a pole-arm up their anterior region sideways. And that's all part of the PvP experience!
I didn't see anyone on that panel qualified to speak about PVP.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
The biggest misconception those devs had about PvP in MMOs is that they think that people who are coming to the genre for PvE should have any interest in PvP.
Am I Anti-PvP? Hardly. But my PvP is confined to games which are designed solely for PvP. I play (most) MMOs for the social, PvE experience. Why? Because they are designed for PvE primarily.
I don't demand PvE in my PvP games nor PvP in my PvE games. I wish the devs would stop trying to mix the two. If they want a PvP MMO, fine, but build it ONLY as a PvP MMO. Don't have the player spend 90% of their time PvE then say the remaining 10% is the awesome PvP. If that's the case your game is PvE, is going to suck at PvP, and has no business having PvP in it.
Win or lose, II dislike PVP immensely. Nothing will change that. I don't like the playstyle. It's the same as playing sports to me. Which I also dislike. There is absolutely nothing that will change my dislike for PVP.
That said, if others want to PVP, go for it. Just don't force it on the rest of us.
I would agree with that. People generally PvP for two reasons: 1) they're intensely competitive or 2) they enjoy fucking with others (sometimes it's both).
So far, MMORPGs have never provided a compelling in-game reason to engage in PvP. No territory is won or lost for good (siege timers, vulnerability, the ability to respawn/zerg and take back an objective you just lost), and no victory over another player means anything since they're right back in the fight after rezzing.
Counter-example: EVE, where you very much can win or lose territory, and victories definitely mean something.
So far, MMORPGs have never provided a compelling in-game reason to engage in PvP. No territory is won or lost for good (siege timers, vulnerability, the ability to respawn/zerg and take back an objective you just lost), and no victory over another player means anything since they're right back in the fight after rezzing.
At the end of the day, PvP is nothing more or less than a douche-bag enabler, regardless of how devs and journalists try to spin it. To all of these devs, I say design PvP with some real and lasting consequences or STFU (and keep pumping out the systems that cater to internet tough guys and those with "little man" syndrome).
It's beyond tiresome.
In Lineage 2 you pvp to control a hunting ground, to rob yoru enemy of a raid opportunity or to drive them from a hunting ground. You also pvp to control a castle which the controlling clan gets tax money from as well as other perks.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It was an interesting read. I still don't like pvp. I am not a big grouper. I like solo, duo play. I have never been interested in min/maxing.
I never understand when people say, if you don't use this build, your fail. Well then why is there an option to use a different build? I play mmo's to relax in a world that does not end.
So ganking, killing npc's to disrupt the enemy and such, holds no allure for me.
For those that like pvp, I am glad games add some for you. But it really bothers me when pve systems are changed to balance pvp. Make two sets of classes or something.
The problem I have with this article is that other than EVE, the games listed put only a token PVP experience in the games. Almost all the wow cookie cutters are like this. They do not sit down and actually design the PVP aspect of a game. They just designate an area and say "go PVP there and dont bother others". Which results in a crappy PVP experience. Compare that to EVE which is the exact opposite. It is 99% PVP and activities that support PVP. PVE is only there as a token experience, and its horrible.
One small example of how PVP is usually a token experience is making it so people PVP in an area with PVE mobs, like badgers or something, that are attacking you while you try to fight someone. In Conan I was killed by a goat while in a PVP fight. Lame.
You know the example in the beginning paragraph of this article kind of illustrates the some of the problem with PvP in MMO's. One has to question what the ranger did wrong to loose that encounter... what they could have done differently to achieve a different result....or what the Barbarian did that was particulary effective to win.
The Ranger picked what would intuitively seem to be an optimal target (one would think Barbarians are lightly armored), engaged at optimal range and prepared his own defences in advance. The Barbarian did nothing aside from run straight forward when attacked, didn't even avoid the trap just ran through it...and started attacking.
In most FPS/Strategy games we accept that OCCASIONALY quirky things will happen and even when we pursue an optimal strategy against an opponent who doesn't, sometimes fortune will dictate that we loose. That's ok when it's a rare quirk of fate....rather then the normal SOP. Yet in many MMO's it pretty much is the SOP.
Under those circumstances what's the point of the Ranger and the Barbarian engaging in PvP? Pretty much nothing either does (apparently) will change the outcome....aside from purposefully lying down and trying to get killed..... the game may as well simple instutite a button which they can press to compare character sheets and declare the winner... and save everyone the trouble of playing out the inevitable.
In an FPS however, the result would generaly be a dead Barbarian. Not because Rangers should be better then Barbarians, but because the Ranger engaged the Barbarian under optimal conditions for the Ranger and the worst conditions for the Barbarian, and the Barbarian didn't pursue anything which SHOULD have been a particulary effective counter-measure.
You know the example in the beginning paragraph of this article kind of illustrates the some of the problem with PvP in MMO's. One has to question what the ranger did wrong to loose that encounter... what they could have done differently to achieve a different result....or what the Barbarian did that was particulary effective to win.
...
In an FPS however, the result would generaly be a dead Barbarian. Not because Rangers should be better then Barbarians, but because the Ranger engaged the Barbarian under optimal conditions for the Ranger and the worst conditions for the Barbarian, and the Barbarian didn't pursue anything which SHOULD have been a particulary effective counter-measure.
Awesome summary in your earlier post btw. Those are the quintessential problems with PvP in MMO's I think that's a very smart list. Yet, I'd much prefer PvP in an MMO than either a FPS or RTS game. Why?
Your example above, there can be some occassions where this happens such as in open-world pvp and it's a real joy when you use all your wits to create those "optimal conditions" for yourself and least for your opponent and the positioning is all important. I'm not sure, FPS/RTS just become too intense for me, so MMO's seem to be more enjoyable for me, I think twitch-skills and clicks-per-second is the problem I find in those genres?
But agree with your example (good spot), the quality really varies especially with healers creating forcefields that makes your positioning and plannng redundant! I think in MMO pvp the balance between 1-shot kills ruining the fight for people and too much of imbalance and heal-bots and gear is where the devs really need to work on. But, I think there may be progress slowly in MMO's to improve PvP, GW2 sounds like it's going well in this direction.
i love pvp, but i can only really enjoy it when there is some reward or cause i'm fighting for. Nothing like being in an army of people going up against another army of people. Then winning to see your clan/guild/corp be mentioned online as owning a piece of land or castle.
Playing: EVE Online Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2 KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
In my opinion, what a game needs is a very basic rulesystem and dual servers.
Such as cannot be pvp'd till level X, PvE servers for those who hate PvP, 5sec immunity on respawn. Things that do not hamper good players but at the same time prevent you from seeing "you have died" repeatedly on your screen.
I like aika's system that gives you a goal to PvP for, you're after the enemy's buff relics instead of killing whoever you want like a mindless idiot, and at the same time its not a black and white story of good vs bad since there are many factions to choose from.
“There is a common misconception that each encounter starts on a level playing field and that the balance of power is determined by skillful play,” Pruett said. “This is an unrealistic scenario as the majority of current generation MMOs are not skill-based, in the sense of an FPS, and are extremely gear dependant. The classes may be well balanced, but the outcome is determined by the numbers, the numbers are granted by items and thus the player with the best items has an edge. This, of course, feeds into the player’s concern for balance, as a slight advantage is often misconstrued as a drastic imbalance. For example, take LotRO’s monster-play which was designed with a level of asymmetry because monster-players need to be balanced for combat against players of level 40-65. Instead of a dependency on level and items, monster-players increase their effectiveness by gaining PvP ranks. With increased rank, monster-players are able to acquire new skills, cosmetics, and traits, which compensate for their lack of items and enable them to craft their avatar to suit their play style.
Pruett. This is the quality of pvp system designer we have over at LoTRO.
As for numbers playing a roll: duh.
In LoTRO, leveling a player character for pvp action in order to make it viable - mix of good crafted gear + raid gear + grinding virtues which mitigate monster-player attacks takes abouot 6 - 10 weeks for anyone with RL responsibilities.
A monster player is auto-rolled at level 65 and can be pvp-ready in about 5 - 7 days ( rank 4-5 ). There has been a pvp bug whereby a particular class can lock down and take out almost any other class by spamming a two-skill combination with almost no cooldown.
Other classes on monster player side have a heal which can result in a FULL HEAL for multiple allies with a small cooldown.
Go over to http://forums.lotro.com and check out some of the threads going back some weeks and see for yourselves the quality of our devs / moderators, some of whom now hide behind " lotrosystems " name ( hi Jalessa! ). But, then again, we're only PvPers and, as another one of our tool moderators has said in the past:
Frelorn:
I will agree that a large number of people who play MMO's do enjoy PvP, I would still wager that the vast majority of MMO players are not PvP'ers. In my opinion those who do enjoy PvP tend to be much more vocal about what they like, and dislike. Take our own little community here for example.
I will agree that a large number of people who play MMO's do enjoy PvP, I would still wager that the vast majority of MMO players are not PvP'ers. In my opinion those who do enjoy PvP tend to be much more vocal about what they like, and dislike. Take our own little community here for example. While I won't give out the numbers, the number of people who strictly PvE outnumber the PvP'ers by an overwhelming majority. Yet when you look at the forums, there is always a large number of PvP related posts. Which can at time make the community seem larger than it is.
Message: we are reading but we know you count less than others so don't hold your breath thxfordrivingthru and enjoy pay-to-win.
DAOC had great pvp when it was released with no rewards save for a Realm Bonus for Artifacts, if you could get one. And it still has the best PVP with rewards ie realm abilities.
But good PVP is helped by a minimum of 3 factions and never an even number. As it's too easy for one side to just fold up or quit, ala Warhammer. However when there is 3, or 5 etc. You have that other side willing to fight. A great example of this was the Hibgard Allian on Guinevere back in the day. Albs had the most people to Hibbies and Mids joined up to fight us, but then that didn't last long as you know how alliances go ;p
Great Times............I ask why don't we have a DAOC 2 yet???
Vack FF XIV - the single worse game to cross my hard drive, ever.
Comments
Maybe I am strange but I love pvp and in an open world don't think the devs need to provide a compelling reason for it. I will pvp with or without a reward because to me it feels like sport. I would rather no rewards for pvp so you don't get "standing agreements" but if people have to have them, than they should be cosmetic only. If you make a reward stat adjusting it could become necessary at some point and then will encourage "standing agreements".
Open world/unstructured pvp is much more fun in my opinion. The preparation and timing can sometimes be more fun than actual fighting. For this type of pvp, you need to pay attention to who is around you, what they are doing, where are they going, what they might they do, and then setup a situation where you have the highest chance of winning. A good open world pvper is not going to fight a "fair" fight but is going to look for a situation when you are most vulnerable and capitalize on it.
To illustrate, I friend players I pvp against, I take notes about them trying to remembering character type, equipment, friends they may have, where they like to login at, etc. It is critical to be in a pvp centric guild for team work, strategy and for people to duel and figure things out with. Pvp can allow actions that seem douche-bagish and there are bad people out there but to generalize all pvpers that way is incorrect. A significant number of pvpers are nice people and some will help if asked.
* I read most of what Jon Wood writes
* He needs more bullet points though
DAOC hands down. Absolutely the best pvp in an MMORPG ever. The comment above about it being like having a full PVE game along side a full on PVP game is why it ended up failing. In the beginning anyone could get the best gear with almost no effort. Then they launched TOA and all the people that wanted to just PVP had to step inside the realm of PVE for a short time and they went bonkers. The worst part of all the negative attitudes concerning TOA was that it wasn't necessary to get everything. Most classes only needed a few things and some classes didn't need artifacts to be competitive unless they were into soloing. My tic had all his MLS in two weeks and two artifacts I wanted a week later. My scout made it to RR8 with nothing but player crafted gear and old world drops with maybe 15 evenings spent getting to ML10. The pvp in DAOC was hinged so much on tactics that gear better than player crafted was only an issue one v one.
I dislike PvP due to the jerks who either 1. play the OP class to win or 2. glitch/use super dirty tactics to win.
I'm not against using some dirty tactics to win but constantly abusing the ones that are borderline glitching (shooting through terrain or abusing the collision system) is just bullcrap.
Thats really the only reason why i dislike PvP but unfortunately that pretty much sums up PvP in just about every game. The only game where i did not experience that (as much) was Darkfall but because i could never catch up to the other players i often found myself getting killed.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
PvP has it's place. Most of my enjoyable PvP time came from playing on a open ended PvP servers in AoC, or in SWG as a full time special forces person. The need for constant awareness brings a new tension to the game. That's a very different play experience than the mini-game scenario.
Equipment can make a difference in 1v1 fights, or even 1v2. But in all out PvP I think it's situational awareness, skill and coordination that make for the win in team play.
An MMO has to make room for both PvP and PvE. The PvP mini-game does help to avoid widespread ganking, res-pad camping, or rogue groups of 80s sweeping through level 20 zones. The recent changes to reputation and outlaws put some damper on that in AOC. Good coordinated player responses to wipe the gankers are even more rewarding.
Bottom line for me; if you're going in for PvP be prepared to lose.
In EVE we say every ship you fly you must be prepared to lose every time you un-dock. And a loss in EVE has real setback consequences unlike most other games. The devs did a good job in EVE for making the PVP experience playable for even new players in cheep ships mixed in with the big girls and boys. There is a role for each player no matter their skill level.
Expet the worst, strive for the best by being prepared, and have fun (it is just a game)! And expect to lose a lot to become good.
Follow-on comment: Many mentions of duche-bag players above, and nobody enjoys beating or losing to irratating players. But I think it's a pleasure to lose to someone who shows a lot of skill and a good attitude. When you're eating dirt because the other player turned the tables and got the best of you, then salutes you for a good fight, it is still a rewarding experience. When they smack-talk you after jumping you with six fo their friends acting like they are uber warriors you just want to jam a pole-arm up their anterior region sideways. And that's all part of the PvP experience!
I didn't see anyone on that panel qualified to speak about PVP.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
The only PvP I even enjoyed was the RvR in DAOC.
The biggest misconception those devs had about PvP in MMOs is that they think that people who are coming to the genre for PvE should have any interest in PvP.
Am I Anti-PvP? Hardly. But my PvP is confined to games which are designed solely for PvP. I play (most) MMOs for the social, PvE experience. Why? Because they are designed for PvE primarily.
I don't demand PvE in my PvP games nor PvP in my PvE games. I wish the devs would stop trying to mix the two. If they want a PvP MMO, fine, but build it ONLY as a PvP MMO. Don't have the player spend 90% of their time PvE then say the remaining 10% is the awesome PvP. If that's the case your game is PvE, is going to suck at PvP, and has no business having PvP in it.
Not just another pretty color.
Counter-example: EVE, where you very much can win or lose territory, and victories definitely mean something.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
In Lineage 2 you pvp to control a hunting ground, to rob yoru enemy of a raid opportunity or to drive them from a hunting ground. You also pvp to control a castle which the controlling clan gets tax money from as well as other perks.
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
It was an interesting read. I still don't like pvp. I am not a big grouper. I like solo, duo play. I have never been interested in min/maxing.
I never understand when people say, if you don't use this build, your fail. Well then why is there an option to use a different build? I play mmo's to relax in a world that does not end.
So ganking, killing npc's to disrupt the enemy and such, holds no allure for me.
For those that like pvp, I am glad games add some for you. But it really bothers me when pve systems are changed to balance pvp. Make two sets of classes or something.
For the record, I played guild wars, pve only.
ruat caelum
The problem I have with this article is that other than EVE, the games listed put only a token PVP experience in the games. Almost all the wow cookie cutters are like this. They do not sit down and actually design the PVP aspect of a game. They just designate an area and say "go PVP there and dont bother others". Which results in a crappy PVP experience. Compare that to EVE which is the exact opposite. It is 99% PVP and activities that support PVP. PVE is only there as a token experience, and its horrible.
One small example of how PVP is usually a token experience is making it so people PVP in an area with PVE mobs, like badgers or something, that are attacking you while you try to fight someone. In Conan I was killed by a goat while in a PVP fight. Lame.
You know the example in the beginning paragraph of this article kind of illustrates the some of the problem with PvP in MMO's. One has to question what the ranger did wrong to loose that encounter... what they could have done differently to achieve a different result....or what the Barbarian did that was particulary effective to win.
The Ranger picked what would intuitively seem to be an optimal target (one would think Barbarians are lightly armored), engaged at optimal range and prepared his own defences in advance. The Barbarian did nothing aside from run straight forward when attacked, didn't even avoid the trap just ran through it...and started attacking.
In most FPS/Strategy games we accept that OCCASIONALY quirky things will happen and even when we pursue an optimal strategy against an opponent who doesn't, sometimes fortune will dictate that we loose. That's ok when it's a rare quirk of fate....rather then the normal SOP. Yet in many MMO's it pretty much is the SOP.
Under those circumstances what's the point of the Ranger and the Barbarian engaging in PvP? Pretty much nothing either does (apparently) will change the outcome....aside from purposefully lying down and trying to get killed..... the game may as well simple instutite a button which they can press to compare character sheets and declare the winner... and save everyone the trouble of playing out the inevitable.
In an FPS however, the result would generaly be a dead Barbarian. Not because Rangers should be better then Barbarians, but because the Ranger engaged the Barbarian under optimal conditions for the Ranger and the worst conditions for the Barbarian, and the Barbarian didn't pursue anything which SHOULD have been a particulary effective counter-measure.
Awesome summary in your earlier post btw. Those are the quintessential problems with PvP in MMO's I think that's a very smart list. Yet, I'd much prefer PvP in an MMO than either a FPS or RTS game. Why?
Your example above, there can be some occassions where this happens such as in open-world pvp and it's a real joy when you use all your wits to create those "optimal conditions" for yourself and least for your opponent and the positioning is all important. I'm not sure, FPS/RTS just become too intense for me, so MMO's seem to be more enjoyable for me, I think twitch-skills and clicks-per-second is the problem I find in those genres?
But agree with your example (good spot), the quality really varies especially with healers creating forcefields that makes your positioning and plannng redundant! I think in MMO pvp the balance between 1-shot kills ruining the fight for people and too much of imbalance and heal-bots and gear is where the devs really need to work on. But, I think there may be progress slowly in MMO's to improve PvP, GW2 sounds like it's going well in this direction.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
i love pvp, but i can only really enjoy it when there is some reward or cause i'm fighting for. Nothing like being in an army of people going up against another army of people. Then winning to see your clan/guild/corp be mentioned online as owning a piece of land or castle.
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
In my opinion, what a game needs is a very basic rulesystem and dual servers.
Such as cannot be pvp'd till level X, PvE servers for those who hate PvP, 5sec immunity on respawn. Things that do not hamper good players but at the same time prevent you from seeing "you have died" repeatedly on your screen.
I like aika's system that gives you a goal to PvP for, you're after the enemy's buff relics instead of killing whoever you want like a mindless idiot, and at the same time its not a black and white story of good vs bad since there are many factions to choose from.
from pruett's quote:
“There is a common misconception that each encounter starts on a level playing field and that the balance of power is determined by skillful play,” Pruett said. “This is an unrealistic scenario as the majority of current generation MMOs are not skill-based, in the sense of an FPS, and are extremely gear dependant. The classes may be well balanced, but the outcome is determined by the numbers, the numbers are granted by items and thus the player with the best items has an edge. This, of course, feeds into the player’s concern for balance, as a slight advantage is often misconstrued as a drastic imbalance. For example, take LotRO’s monster-play which was designed with a level of asymmetry because monster-players need to be balanced for combat against players of level 40-65. Instead of a dependency on level and items, monster-players increase their effectiveness by gaining PvP ranks. With increased rank, monster-players are able to acquire new skills, cosmetics, and traits, which compensate for their lack of items and enable them to craft their avatar to suit their play style.
Pruett. This is the quality of pvp system designer we have over at LoTRO.
As for numbers playing a roll: duh.
In LoTRO, leveling a player character for pvp action in order to make it viable - mix of good crafted gear + raid gear + grinding virtues which mitigate monster-player attacks takes abouot 6 - 10 weeks for anyone with RL responsibilities.
A monster player is auto-rolled at level 65 and can be pvp-ready in about 5 - 7 days ( rank 4-5 ). There has been a pvp bug whereby a particular class can lock down and take out almost any other class by spamming a two-skill combination with almost no cooldown.
Other classes on monster player side have a heal which can result in a FULL HEAL for multiple allies with a small cooldown.
Go over to http://forums.lotro.com and check out some of the threads going back some weeks and see for yourselves the quality of our devs / moderators, some of whom now hide behind " lotrosystems " name ( hi Jalessa! ). But, then again, we're only PvPers and, as another one of our tool moderators has said in the past:
Frelorn:
I will agree that a large number of people who play MMO's do enjoy PvP, I would still wager that the vast majority of MMO players are not PvP'ers. In my opinion those who do enjoy PvP tend to be much more vocal about what they like, and dislike. Take our own little community here for example.
I will agree that a large number of people who play MMO's do enjoy PvP, I would still wager that the vast majority of MMO players are not PvP'ers. In my opinion those who do enjoy PvP tend to be much more vocal about what they like, and dislike. Take our own little community here for example. While I won't give out the numbers, the number of people who strictly PvE outnumber the PvP'ers by an overwhelming majority. Yet when you look at the forums, there is always a large number of PvP related posts. Which can at time make the community seem larger than it is.
Message: we are reading but we know you count less than others so don't hold your breath thxfordrivingthru and enjoy pay-to-win.
Vack
FF XIV - the single worse game to cross my hard drive, ever.
DAOC had great pvp when it was released with no rewards save for a Realm Bonus for Artifacts, if you could get one. And it still has the best PVP with rewards ie realm abilities.
But good PVP is helped by a minimum of 3 factions and never an even number. As it's too easy for one side to just fold up or quit, ala Warhammer. However when there is 3, or 5 etc. You have that other side willing to fight. A great example of this was the Hibgard Allian on Guinevere back in the day. Albs had the most people to Hibbies and Mids joined up to fight us, but then that didn't last long as you know how alliances go ;p
Great Times............I ask why don't we have a DAOC 2 yet???
Vack
FF XIV - the single worse game to cross my hard drive, ever.