I also agree with what some others said here that more uniqueness in factions (racial skills) isn't necessarily a bad thing. Again, MMO and RPG PvP is naturally going to be imbalanced, so throwing in a couple of uniqueness between races and factions isn't necessarily going to tip the scales too heavily from one side to another.
Except that most notable imbalances come from race/faction unique skills. Other times you can just use the same overpowered skill as your enemy (the still remains somewhat imbalanced), but not when they are barred you because of your race/faction.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
"There are no cons for equal rewards".... Except there are. The fact is people will take the fastest/easiest option. Quite why you think it is a good thing for those driven by the fastest route to plow through scenarios instead of take part in open world pvp when a game may well be centred around that is beyond me. If people can see they can simply keep on rolling for scenarios for easy xp as opposed to take part in taking a keep in the open world which takes longer, they will do just that. But what the hell hey.
Tell you what I cba to raid, or pvp, I also cba to craft anything. All I want to do is run from one side of the game world to the other, over and over again. That's my playsytle choice, now give me everything that people who complete raids/do pvp get. I mean my running backwards and forwards is just as important to me as pve is to a raider.
Regardless, I find it slightly lame that people would think that having a slightly lower xp gain or slightly worse rewards is forcing people from not taking part in scenarios.
You are upset that the "grinders" choose instances before open world PvP? Grinders in instanced PvP atleast offer some variety because they work for the same goal as the rest of the players. Grinders in world-PvP could easily be bullying lowbies, camping respawns/chokepoints, griefing etc. because anything goes if only the ends matter. It is a slippery slope.
Your strawman is not worth a reply.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
i think that, for pvp to be successful, losing in pvp must have enough of a penalty that people can't just go about it thoughtlessly.
this way, the fights that break out are meaningful, if probably a lil rarer.
the above, with plenty of systems in place to eliminate griefing
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
I believe in pvp rewards contrary to death penalties. Though, thinking pvp rewards in a larger faction/RvR based system (like holding land or equivalent gives access to faction/RvR bonuses, PvE dungeons, resources or other ingame benefits.
I've played games with substantial death penalties, like loose all equipment, constitution loss which eventually leads to permadeath. Although this gives an incredible thrill to the game, where your heart pounds as you battle, it usually has a certain effect that is not necessarily good. People try to avoid the punishments (camping in safe zones which leads to less PvP) or reduce the effects of it (wearing low end gear in pvp areas where dying and loosing it doesnt really matter much since it is easily replacable).
Penalties and rewards can both lead to successful PvP, though I believe the most successful ones are those that combine both rewards with penalties in some way that affects how people choose to play the game.
1. Player SKILL is the (primary) deciding factor in the outcome of fights, not gear, class or level. Give us back dodgable projectiles, non autohoming spells, skill based progression etc.
2. A meaningful death penalty.
3. FFA PVP or tri faction PVP.
4. Meaningful world PVP, NO instances.
But to be honest, in this day an age of terrible, dumbed down MMO's i'd just be happy with a MMO where the PVP didn't consist of mindlessly grinding away in instances to get precious 'pvp points'.
Bit of an odd question. There is nothing wrong with 'equal rewards' if the tasks undertaken to get them are the same. Or that one task is not inhibited by this (frankly unnecessary) drive for 'equality'. I think the more pertinent question is: What is the dire need for equal rewards from every single task?
People who pvp in arenas for the competitive aspect/fun of it shouldn't really be getting their knickers in a twist over the thought of open world pvpers being able to potentially get slightly better rewards, or slightly more xp. Those players though who are all about teh shinies will indeed shy away from open world pvp and take part in arenas if the rewards are equal for the simple reason they are a hell of alot faster to do.
Personally I couldn't care less about who gets what/faster, but I can't see why having slightly differing rewards for different game aspects it's such a game killer. Tbh maybe people should have to try their hands at a few different things in a game if they want the best of everything, as opposed to just being given the very best/fastest stuff/route without trying to diversify at all.
I don't particularly enjoy pve, but I don't mind if I had to take part in some mind numbing raid in order to get an item I couldn't get through pvp. And I certainly couldn't care less if someone managed to level up slightly faster by using a different play style.
With equal rewards, people can do whatever they like and don't need to worry them. If you don't care either way, then equal rewards is the way to go. There are no cons for equal rewards.
"There are no cons for equal rewards".... Except there are. The fact is people will take the fastest/easiest option. Quite why you think it is a good thing for those driven by the fastest route to plow through scenarios instead of take part in open world pvp when a game may well be centred around that is beyond me. If people can see they can simply keep on rolling for scenarios for easy xp as opposed to take part in taking a keep in the open world which takes longer, they will do just that. But what the hell hey.
Tell you what I cba to raid, or pvp, I also cba to craft anything. All I want to do is run from one side of the game world to the other, over and over again. That's my playsytle choice, now give me everything that people who complete raids/do pvp get. I mean my running backwards and forwards is just as important to me as pve is to a raider.
Regardless, I find it slightly lame that people would think that having a slightly lower xp gain or slightly worse rewards is forcing people from not taking part in scenarios.
I get what you are saying and partly agree with you. But, what is wrong with many players taking the path of least resistance? How does that affect you directly at all? I understand that for some people it's fun to put a gap between them and the general population, whether it be with stats or game knowledge, whatever. But I also believe most people will play what is interesting and fun to them.
Do you think people raid because they like to? Some might, but I would argue a good-sized fraction are there just for the progression. They would likely go anywhere they had to keep on getting "better". That is the part of the games that are fun to them. The issue is partly that there hasn't been extraordinarily well done open world pvp since DAoC and Eve. Most developers, I would assume, can't get past the "how do we get 500 detailed characters on screen without a crash?" problem.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
"There are no cons for equal rewards".... Except there are. The fact is people will take the fastest/easiest option. Quite why you think it is a good thing for those driven by the fastest route to plow through scenarios instead of take part in open world pvp when a game may well be centred around that is beyond me. If people can see they can simply keep on rolling for scenarios for easy xp as opposed to take part in taking a keep in the open world which takes longer, they will do just that. But what the hell hey.
Tell you what I cba to raid, or pvp, I also cba to craft anything. All I want to do is run from one side of the game world to the other, over and over again. That's my playsytle choice, now give me everything that people who complete raids/do pvp get. I mean my running backwards and forwards is just as important to me as pve is to a raider.
Regardless, I find it slightly lame that people would think that having a slightly lower xp gain or slightly worse rewards is forcing people from not taking part in scenarios.
I get what you are saying and partly agree with you. But, what is wrong with many players taking the path of least resistance? How does that affect you directly at all? I understand that for some people it's fun to put a gap between them and the general population, whether it be with stats or game knowledge, whatever. But I also believe most people will play what is interesting and fun to them.
Do you think people raid because they like to? Some might, but I would argue a good-sized fraction are there just for the progression. They would likely go anywhere they had to keep on getting "better". That is the part of the games that are fun to them. The issue is partly that there hasn't been extraordinarily well done open world pvp since DAoC and Eve. Most developers, I would assume, can't get past the "how do we get 500 detailed characters on screen without a crash?" problem.
There is nothing at all wrong with people taking the path or least resistance so long as said path does not have a detrimental impact upon another (I'll qualify this with a 'major' here) game mechanic. It seems to me that there can be a case put forward that having instanced arenas/scenarios with equal (better if you take into account the time factor) rewards as you would get from open world rvr, in an open world rvr centric game, is going to damage the latter element.
Remember I am not saying one playstyle is more important or valid than the other, but it is clear that scenarios are far more easily accessible and take far less organising (non infact for a pug) than is the case for mass scale open world pvp. What exactly is wrong with incentivising 'shiney chasers' to try and take part in open world pvp (in open world pvp/rvr specific games)? Given that arenas are so easy to get into I can't see how trying to encourage more people into open world pvp is going to mean that suddenly there is no one left rolling for arenas.
For some people no doubt getting to cap the fastest, or getting the best shinies is their primary source of fun, but then how exactly would having a slightly faster gain from open world as opposed to from scenarios impact upon them again? Remember they are doing it for the gain, they couldn't care less about the task, so I can't see the issue from that perspective.
For those who just enjoy arenas, well is it really forcing them from their prefered playstyle simply because they might gain xp somewhat slower (which is againd debatable given the frequency of arenas in comparison to open world battles) than open world pvpers? Hardly likely.
I'm sure some people do raid because they enjoy it, I find all pve a pita but take part in it from time to time to get items that I feel are useful for pvp. What I don't though do is have a good cry that the developer is forcing me out of pvp in order to get said items. Why the hell should I get that nice bit of armour after completeing a handful of throwaway arenas when that raider has organised and dragged a group of players through a potentially difficult and arduous dungeon? Why the hell should I gain pvp ranking/renown from joining a randomly picked pug (not that I would I hestitate to add lol!) as quickly as the people who spend hours organsing warbands of differing guilds in order to take over a keep in orvr? But I digress, if there is no impact from having equal rewards/gains across the spectrum of playstyles, then arguments about 'should' and entitlement matter little, as I say I couldn't care less. But if having equal gains across all spectrums and not being able to proffer insentives for the 'shiney grabbers' in order to promote certain aspects, does in fact have a negative impact upon a specfic game mechanic then there are indeed issues with such perceived equalities.
I really do not see how having slightly differeing rewards/reward rates for differing in game tasks/elements is 'forcing' people to stop doing what they enjoy. That they 'can't keep up with the Joneses' whilst sticking to only one gamestyle, well tough quite frankly.
TL:DR.
There is nothing wrong with taking the least path of resistance or equal rewards for every task, as long as having such a system does not negatively impact upon a games mechanics due to this. In the case of open world pvp and scenarios in the same game, the argument is there for such a set up having such a negative impact, simply because one is far easier to do.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Tbh this thread reminds me of the Gordian Knot in Ancient Greece...
Types of PvP Modes:
(1) Arena/scenario (casual or tournie)
(2) Faction (eg 3 Factions in a large battle-ground)
(3) PvPvE: Open World either including the above and/or guild pvp.
(4) FFA or a combination with (3)
So you have different implementations steadily adding PvP -> PvE merge.
If you have themepark PvE: The content must be very tight but eventually it runs out. PvP can supplement or step-in here plus caters to some players also and surpasses what AI can do. In Sandbox MMOs the content is no where near the above usually, and in line with open-sandbox -> open pvp option. It does not have the problem of Themepark PvP ie PvE Level Progression <> PvP player skill but it does usually run the problem of FFA pvp = Lord of The Flies. In summary the implementation of PvP in MMOs all to easily ends up being a schizophrenic tightrope act.
Major problems with PvP in MMOs is a really good summary, by GrumpyMel2:
Success with PvP in most MMORPG's I've played seems to revolve around the following factors...
1) Pure technical issues.... Connection Speed, Lag and most importantly ability of your machine to render the action at a reasonable pace. Although these factors do exist to some degree in FPS games.... for the most part they are minimized. At the very worst you may need to switch away from a server that has high latency. In general, if your computer has the reccomended spec's for a FPS game..... you want suffer any technical handicaps to PvP while playing it. This seems almost to never be true with MMORPG's. For some reason they just can't seem to overcome the technical hurdles that FPS games do. The players skill becomes completely irrelevet if the computer can only register one command input every 15 seconds and is rendering the action on the client 20 seconds behind what the server records.
2) Game-Play exploits.... Again this is an issue that MMORPG's seem not to be upto par on dealing with compared to FPS games. Spawn camping is one example. Basicaly...if your killed before your computer is able to even finnish loading/rendering your spawn area....play becomes pointless. FPS have some issues with spawn camping as well, but they usualy have at least some mechanisms for dealing with it....such as a choice of spawn points or safe spawn areas. Many MMO's cant even seem to impliment the simpliest of mechanisms to allow the player to choose an alternate spawn point if the one he is at is being camped.
3) Play Balance issues.... This is another area where MMO's seem to stack up very poorly against other types of PvP games (FPS and Turn Based Strategy). This is not to say that with the other types of games, the sides/units/scenerio's are perfectly balanced/matched.... they aren't....and sometimes they aren't on purpose.....and that's perfectly fine. However one thing that the other type of games do well is foils. Almost every unit/kit/strategy has a counter or foil that can be employed to be defeat it. Victory in those games is generaly based on recognizing the best strategy to pursue for the given situation and then recognizing what strategy your opposition is using and adapting your own play to couter it. So for example, if your opponent has alot of heavy armor in the particular scenerio you are playing... you get into thick cover/difficult terrain and start emphasizing AT weapons. Alot of MMORPG designers don't seem to spend much time thinking about this and it shows in thier designers. Many MMO's you have the "assured victory" scenerio....where a player discovers a particular formula to pursue and it pretty much assures them victory every single time... regardless of the situation and regardless of the strategy pursued.
4) Button Mashing Fest - Combat in many MMO's simply devolves into the number of buttons a player can mash in a specific time period. It's one thing if a game is based on reaction time alot.... I don't actualy mind that, even though I'm not as fast as I used to be.... but that's an entirely different mechanism then simply how many buttons you can physicaly push in a given time period.... simply put there is not alot of skill depth to that... it's boring and mindless... If I wanted to play a game based on that alone...my kids leapster has plenty of those I could play.
5) Time/Money spent in game - Alot of MMO combat simply devolves into how much time/money the player has devoted into that particular character....not in terms of learning to play with thier strength/weakness but simply the number of levels and items they have. It's one thing for Items/Levels to play some factor in an MMORPG PvP...but they are far too determinate in most (IMO)...... Simply put, what is the point of actualy playing out the combat under such a situation... we may as well simply ask the server to run a report on number of hours played/cash spent on a particular toon...and who-ever has the higher total is declared the winner.
6) Zerg fest - Most FPS/Strategy games make some attempt to balance thier scenerio's to account for or control the raw numbers on each side of the battle. Numbers should matter....but in many MMO's it simply comes down to a measure of how many bodies you have on your side versus those on the other team. It's ok to have unbalanced sides in some situations...can even be fun in some scenerio's....but pretty much most FPS/Strategy Games are setup with ways to deal with unbalanced sides and still make it fun for the side that is shorted. For instance, the side which has a numbers advantage may be forced to attack a fortified position across open terrain.... even though the raw numbers are unbalanced...the play situation is balanced to account for that. MMO's just don't seem to handle that very well.
Equal rewards from pve / pvp, server vs server weekened battles aswell faction vs faction , ( good vs bad )
make it some meaning not all rewards needed to be new sword or new armor, cosmetics aswell ( Hero cape for killing 500 enemy players ) yeah some an say again grind. but meh.
weekends are the time most players may have some time to play during working , family etc so battles on pvp should be taken on that time.
There is nothing at all wrong with people taking the path or least resistance so long as said path does not have a detrimental impact upon another (I'll qualify this with a 'major' here) game mechanic. It seems to me that there can be a case put forward that having instanced arenas/scenarios with equal (better if you take into account the time factor) rewards as you would get from open world rvr, in an open world rvr centric game, is going to damage the latter element.
Remember I am not saying one playstyle is more important or valid than the other, but it is clear that scenarios are far more easily accessible and take far less organising (non infact for a pug) than is the case for mass scale open world pvp. What exactly is wrong with incentivising 'shiney chasers' to try and take part in open world pvp (in open world pvp/rvr specific games)? Given that arenas are so easy to get into I can't see how trying to encourage more people into open world pvp is going to mean that suddenly there is no one left rolling for arenas.
For some people no doubt getting to cap the fastest, or getting the best shinies is their primary source of fun, but then how exactly would having a slightly faster gain from open world as opposed to from scenarios impact upon them again? Remember they are doing it for the gain, they couldn't care less about the task, so I can't see the issue from that perspective.
For those who just enjoy arenas, well is it really forcing them from their prefered playstyle simply because they might gain xp somewhat slower (which is againd debatable given the frequency of arenas in comparison to open world battles) than open world pvpers? Hardly likely.
I'm sure some people do raid because they enjoy it, I find all pve a pita but take part in it from time to time to get items that I feel are useful for pvp. What I don't though do is have a good cry that the developer is forcing me out of pvp in order to get said items. Why the hell should I get that nice bit of armour after completeing a handful of throwaway arenas when that raider has organised and dragged a group of players through a potentially difficult and arduous dungeon? Why the hell should I gain pvp ranking/renown from joining a randomly picked pug (not that I would I hestitate to add lol!) as quickly as the people who spend hours organsing warbands of differing guilds in order to take over a keep in orvr? But I digress, if there is no impact from having equal rewards/gains across the spectrum of playstyles, then arguments about 'should' and entitlement matter little, as I say I couldn't care less. But if having equal gains across all spectrums and not being able to proffer insentives for the 'shiney grabbers' in order to promote certain aspects, does in fact have a negative impact upon a specfic game mechanic then there are indeed issues with such perceived equalities.
I really do not see how having slightly differeing rewards/reward rates for differing in game tasks/elements is 'forcing' people to stop doing what they enjoy. That they 'can't keep up with the Joneses' whilst sticking to only one gamestyle, well tough quite frankly.
TL:DR.
There is nothing wrong with taking the least path of resistance or equal rewards for every task, as long as having such a system does not negatively impact upon a games mechanics due to this. In the case of open world pvp and scenarios in the same game, the argument is there for such a set up having such a negative impact, simply because one is far easier to do.
Again, I agree with most of your post. I wish there were more people participating or wanting to participate in Open World PvP as well, becuase it is my preferred playstyle. But I think engaging open world mechanics would be a better incentive than better loot because players should be able to progress by playing what they want to play. Unfortunately with current open world mechanics, there are plenty of reasons why many players do not enjoy it.
There needs to be some overriding reasons that people will like Open World PvP besides better loot upgrades, in my opinion. If you have players participating in open world PvP simply for the loot, it will degrade the quality of the experience for those that truly enjoy the activity, in my opinion. Look at the AFK problem WoW has in the battlegrounds. That would likely be multiplied if taken to open world PvP.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
There are a lot of things that I think you need in PvP.
Character types that promote teamwork.
Balanced character types that are equally usefull to the team.
A variety of objectives(game types) and maps that are designed with that game type in mind
Map design that doesn't favour one team over another and is designed with character abilities in mind to offer a wide array of tactics to accomplish goals.
Clear start and victory conditions to promote orginization.
A way to make sure players are playing against others of similar skill and power.
A way to balance team numbers to make sure the battle remains competitive and doesn't become one sided
Stats to track your and others performance
Some sort of method of tying battles into an overall war so that battle are not just a one off deal but have a persistant effect.
Built in spectrator mode and E-sport support like rankings for those that want it.
Ability to view replays of previous battles
And so on,
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
Comments
Except that most notable imbalances come from race/faction unique skills. Other times you can just use the same overpowered skill as your enemy (the still remains somewhat imbalanced), but not when they are barred you because of your race/faction.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
You are upset that the "grinders" choose instances before open world PvP? Grinders in instanced PvP atleast offer some variety because they work for the same goal as the rest of the players. Grinders in world-PvP could easily be bullying lowbies, camping respawns/chokepoints, griefing etc. because anything goes if only the ends matter. It is a slippery slope.
Your strawman is not worth a reply.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
i think that, for pvp to be successful, losing in pvp must have enough of a penalty that people can't just go about it thoughtlessly.
this way, the fights that break out are meaningful, if probably a lil rarer.
the above, with plenty of systems in place to eliminate griefing
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
I believe in pvp rewards contrary to death penalties. Though, thinking pvp rewards in a larger faction/RvR based system (like holding land or equivalent gives access to faction/RvR bonuses, PvE dungeons, resources or other ingame benefits.
I've played games with substantial death penalties, like loose all equipment, constitution loss which eventually leads to permadeath. Although this gives an incredible thrill to the game, where your heart pounds as you battle, it usually has a certain effect that is not necessarily good. People try to avoid the punishments (camping in safe zones which leads to less PvP) or reduce the effects of it (wearing low end gear in pvp areas where dying and loosing it doesnt really matter much since it is easily replacable).
Penalties and rewards can both lead to successful PvP, though I believe the most successful ones are those that combine both rewards with penalties in some way that affects how people choose to play the game.
1. Player SKILL is the (primary) deciding factor in the outcome of fights, not gear, class or level. Give us back dodgable projectiles, non autohoming spells, skill based progression etc.
2. A meaningful death penalty.
3. FFA PVP or tri faction PVP.
4. Meaningful world PVP, NO instances.
But to be honest, in this day an age of terrible, dumbed down MMO's i'd just be happy with a MMO where the PVP didn't consist of mindlessly grinding away in instances to get precious 'pvp points'.
1-Non instanced
2-Gear/buff cap
3-multiple objectives
I get what you are saying and partly agree with you. But, what is wrong with many players taking the path of least resistance? How does that affect you directly at all? I understand that for some people it's fun to put a gap between them and the general population, whether it be with stats or game knowledge, whatever. But I also believe most people will play what is interesting and fun to them.
Do you think people raid because they like to? Some might, but I would argue a good-sized fraction are there just for the progression. They would likely go anywhere they had to keep on getting "better". That is the part of the games that are fun to them. The issue is partly that there hasn't been extraordinarily well done open world pvp since DAoC and Eve. Most developers, I would assume, can't get past the "how do we get 500 detailed characters on screen without a crash?" problem.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
There is nothing at all wrong with people taking the path or least resistance so long as said path does not have a detrimental impact upon another (I'll qualify this with a 'major' here) game mechanic. It seems to me that there can be a case put forward that having instanced arenas/scenarios with equal (better if you take into account the time factor) rewards as you would get from open world rvr, in an open world rvr centric game, is going to damage the latter element.
Remember I am not saying one playstyle is more important or valid than the other, but it is clear that scenarios are far more easily accessible and take far less organising (non infact for a pug) than is the case for mass scale open world pvp. What exactly is wrong with incentivising 'shiney chasers' to try and take part in open world pvp (in open world pvp/rvr specific games)? Given that arenas are so easy to get into I can't see how trying to encourage more people into open world pvp is going to mean that suddenly there is no one left rolling for arenas.
For some people no doubt getting to cap the fastest, or getting the best shinies is their primary source of fun, but then how exactly would having a slightly faster gain from open world as opposed to from scenarios impact upon them again? Remember they are doing it for the gain, they couldn't care less about the task, so I can't see the issue from that perspective.
For those who just enjoy arenas, well is it really forcing them from their prefered playstyle simply because they might gain xp somewhat slower (which is againd debatable given the frequency of arenas in comparison to open world battles) than open world pvpers? Hardly likely.
I'm sure some people do raid because they enjoy it, I find all pve a pita but take part in it from time to time to get items that I feel are useful for pvp. What I don't though do is have a good cry that the developer is forcing me out of pvp in order to get said items. Why the hell should I get that nice bit of armour after completeing a handful of throwaway arenas when that raider has organised and dragged a group of players through a potentially difficult and arduous dungeon? Why the hell should I gain pvp ranking/renown from joining a randomly picked pug (not that I would I hestitate to add lol!) as quickly as the people who spend hours organsing warbands of differing guilds in order to take over a keep in orvr? But I digress, if there is no impact from having equal rewards/gains across the spectrum of playstyles, then arguments about 'should' and entitlement matter little, as I say I couldn't care less. But if having equal gains across all spectrums and not being able to proffer insentives for the 'shiney grabbers' in order to promote certain aspects, does in fact have a negative impact upon a specfic game mechanic then there are indeed issues with such perceived equalities.
I really do not see how having slightly differeing rewards/reward rates for differing in game tasks/elements is 'forcing' people to stop doing what they enjoy. That they 'can't keep up with the Joneses' whilst sticking to only one gamestyle, well tough quite frankly.
TL:DR.
There is nothing wrong with taking the least path of resistance or equal rewards for every task, as long as having such a system does not negatively impact upon a games mechanics due to this. In the case of open world pvp and scenarios in the same game, the argument is there for such a set up having such a negative impact, simply because one is far easier to do.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Tbh this thread reminds me of the Gordian Knot in Ancient Greece...
Types of PvP Modes:
(1) Arena/scenario (casual or tournie)
(2) Faction (eg 3 Factions in a large battle-ground)
(3) PvPvE: Open World either including the above and/or guild pvp.
(4) FFA or a combination with (3)
So you have different implementations steadily adding PvP -> PvE merge.
If you have themepark PvE: The content must be very tight but eventually it runs out. PvP can supplement or step-in here plus caters to some players also and surpasses what AI can do. In Sandbox MMOs the content is no where near the above usually, and in line with open-sandbox -> open pvp option. It does not have the problem of Themepark PvP ie PvE Level Progression <> PvP player skill but it does usually run the problem of FFA pvp = Lord of The Flies. In summary the implementation of PvP in MMOs all to easily ends up being a schizophrenic tightrope act.
Major problems with PvP in MMOs is a really good summary, by GrumpyMel2:
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Exactly, the penalties for losing should be sufficient to make it non-trivial. Why bother winning, otherwise?
regarding pvp i just need:
- huge safe zones to fully avoid pvp
- territorial pvp in huge persistent zones with full loot and player-build, -owned and -destroyable structures.
- some ressources in these pvp zones, worth to kill somebody
thats all i need. EVE is pretty near to that. put this model into a fantasy-world and it works for me.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
Equal rewards from pve / pvp, server vs server weekened battles aswell faction vs faction , ( good vs bad )
make it some meaning not all rewards needed to be new sword or new armor, cosmetics aswell ( Hero cape for killing 500 enemy players ) yeah some an say again grind. but meh.
weekends are the time most players may have some time to play during working , family etc so battles on pvp should be taken on that time.
cheers
I think for MMOs this vision is full of potential. Eg works in EvE and a fantasy spin would be cool to see too.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Again, I agree with most of your post. I wish there were more people participating or wanting to participate in Open World PvP as well, becuase it is my preferred playstyle. But I think engaging open world mechanics would be a better incentive than better loot because players should be able to progress by playing what they want to play. Unfortunately with current open world mechanics, there are plenty of reasons why many players do not enjoy it.
There needs to be some overriding reasons that people will like Open World PvP besides better loot upgrades, in my opinion. If you have players participating in open world PvP simply for the loot, it will degrade the quality of the experience for those that truly enjoy the activity, in my opinion. Look at the AFK problem WoW has in the battlegrounds. That would likely be multiplied if taken to open world PvP.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
There are a lot of things that I think you need in PvP.
Character types that promote teamwork.
Balanced character types that are equally usefull to the team.
A variety of objectives(game types) and maps that are designed with that game type in mind
Map design that doesn't favour one team over another and is designed with character abilities in mind to offer a wide array of tactics to accomplish goals.
Clear start and victory conditions to promote orginization.
A way to make sure players are playing against others of similar skill and power.
A way to balance team numbers to make sure the battle remains competitive and doesn't become one sided
Stats to track your and others performance
Some sort of method of tying battles into an overall war so that battle are not just a one off deal but have a persistant effect.
Built in spectrator mode and E-sport support like rankings for those that want it.
Ability to view replays of previous battles
And so on,
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified