Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Attributes of successful PvP in a MMO

SBE1SBE1 New York, NYPosts: 335Member

Not to many topics spark the interest of MMO players moreso than PvP.  Furthermore, most MMO games that have focused on PvP (and released in the last 5 years) have not performed well (in terms of retaining a solid player base for an extended period of time).  As a PvP player, some of the failures of PvP MMOs has been frustrating because it makes it less likely the next developer will try to build upon PvP and instead focus on PvE.  So, with that brief introduction, i wanted to list the key attributes that could make a PvP-focued MMO successful.  Please add your own attributes.


PvP must be consensual (as I believe free-for-all PvP is more of a niche market) and PvE can be done in "safe zones." Allow PvE to have higher rewards when done in a PvP zone. Make PvP a preferred alternative to traditional PvE leveling with faster leveling, gear and gold. PvP is fought between people of similar "levels".


  • This is to change the perception that "the game begins at level x" mentality. The journey should be the same as the end-game.  There should be a minimal difference between "end-game" and leveling.


Go with at least 3 factions in PvP to prevent one side from dominating. Make each faction have exactly the same skills and spells, but change the artwork/graphics.  Place severe restrictions on playing on more than one faction to prevent "spying."


  • My major problem with most PvP MMO games is the 2-sided fight, which results in one-side winning via population "zerg", and the losing side becoming frustrated and logging off and/or quitting the game, which of course makes it even worse.  While DAOC did this, the factions were unbalanced in skills/spell combinations. Guild Wars 2 is proposing a 3-way server battle in open-world PvP is an example of solving the problem.


Modest faction-wide benefits associated with PvP goals and significant temporary benefits for major PvP goals. Benefits could include higher experience gains, better crafting probabilities, increased damage mitigation, extra gold in PvP and PvE, etc.


  • This is the idea to generate faction-pride. People should care about whether or not they have the PvP objectives. Major PvP objectives should be temporary because it could allow one-side to dominate in PvP. 


PvP progression rewards are modest but enough to motivate players. All players are publicly ranked in PvP via a website or in-game titles.


  • Many players are motivated to improving their characters over time and like to be recognized for it. 


Player-made equipment is customizable and can be the best in the game with luck in crafting (significantly enhanced by holding PvP objectives) and special ingredients (dropped in PvP and PvE fights).


  • This allows PvP players to generate the best gear rather than forcing them into PvE.  This doesn't mean PvE rewards are bad, just that PvE raids are not required to have the best gear in PvP.  People who only PvE can also craft this gear as the same ingredients drop in PvE as in PvP, but perhaps at a lower drop-rate percentage.


Scenarios provide less benefits than open-world PvP when server populations reach "medium" or higher but full benefits when the server has low-population.  Scenarios try to fit pre-made groups against other pre-made groups. 


  • Scenarios should be a viable alternative to people playing in "non-peak" times to get PvP action quickly. However, the game encourages (but doesn't force) open-world PvP. Putting PUGs against pre-made groups is just a receipe for frustration and should be avoided if possible.


Automatic chat and voice channels for PvP coordination (provided within the game, another anti-spying method). 


  • Tries to reduce the benefits of pre-made groups by giving voice chat in-game, and prevents spying because that voice chat only works for that faction.  Having automatic chat channels in PvP should also improve faction pride and coordination, especially for those without microphones. 


Allowing players to significantly change their character's skills/spells/attributes (maybe even changing class??) because the game mechanics change post-launch. Players who feel the "nerf bat" hit them extra-hard should be allowed to change thier character to adjust to the new mechanics.


  • Everyone knows the nerf-bat will come around, and around, and around in a PvP MMO game.  It just is a fact of MMO games. Given the investments in time and energy by players into their charactes, game companies should allow players to change their characters in the face of game-changing mechanics.  How easy it should be is up for debate.  


A pre-launch plan and game-code to integrate/merge servers should it become necessary. This might require character unique names across all servers. 


  • Eventually every game faces a decline in population and PvP games require decent population to work. The game should have a plan in place to make server merging or cross-server integration seemless to the players rather than causing some type of drama. 


Well, that's my list of attributes for a successful PvP focused MMO game. I left out obvious things like "server and client stability".   Right now, Guild Wars 2 looks to be the "next" game that has more of these attributes. 


 


What attributes do you think a successful PvP-focused MMO game should have?  Let's get a good list together so game developers can really see what people want. 

«1

Comments

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common

    Originally posted by SBE1




    Scenarios provide less benefits than open-world PvP when server populations reach "medium" or higher but full benefits when the server has low-population.  Scenarios try to fit pre-made groups against other pre-made groups. 


    • Scenarios should be a viable alternative to people playing in "non-peak" times to get PvP action quickly. However, the game encourages (but doesn't force) open-world PvP. Putting PUGs against pre-made groups is just a receipe for frustration and should be avoided if possible.

    Why, why, why do you need to force people out of scenarios?! Don't you want people to do what they want? Shouldn't they play the game just the way they like it? I am absolutely against such a reward system.

    "Yeah, you can do scenarios but you get less EXP and and loot." How do you think people will react? -They will be forced to open world PvP. Every "should" becomes a "must" especially when you talk about power gamers.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member

    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Originally posted by SBE1





    Scenarios provide less benefits than open-world PvP when server populations reach "medium" or higher but full benefits when the server has low-population.  Scenarios try to fit pre-made groups against other pre-made groups. 


    • Scenarios should be a viable alternative to people playing in "non-peak" times to get PvP action quickly. However, the game encourages (but doesn't force) open-world PvP. Putting PUGs against pre-made groups is just a receipe for frustration and should be avoided if possible.

    Why, why, why do you need to force people out of scenarios?! Don't you want people to do what they want? Shouldn't they play the game just the way they like it? I am absolutely against such a reward system.

    "Yeah, you can do scenarios but you get less EXP and and loot." How do you think people will react? -They will be forced to open world PvP. Every "should" becomes a "must" especially when you talk about power gamers.

    How is incentivising people to take part in open world pvp 'forcing' people out of scenarios again? Frankly I would imagine those people who like taking part in scenarios for the enjoyment/fun or competitive aspect of it wouldn't give two shits about getting slightly less xp from them.

     

    Player: "Oh man I pvp in teh arenas because it's like esportz yo, real pvp.

    Dev: 5% slower experience gain from scenarios.

    Player: "FFS now you have killed all reason for me to pwn in arenaz!!!!!!!!."

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • TanemundTanemund Orange, CTPosts: 102Member Uncommon

    Another DAoC 2 post?  Thinly disguised but immediately recognizable with the addition of "at least three factions". 

     

    Really?

     

    Nothing to see here.  Move along.

    Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.

  • Greymantle4Greymantle4 Posts: 802Member Uncommon

    The most important thing for me is to not have the pvp based on gear. It gets old having to keep grinding gear to enjoy some pvp from time to time. A heads up though pvp to me is just a side game nothing more so take what I say as a grain of salt. :P

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common

    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    Originally posted by Quirhid


    Originally posted by SBE1





    Scenarios provide less benefits than open-world PvP when server populations reach "medium" or higher but full benefits when the server has low-population.  Scenarios try to fit pre-made groups against other pre-made groups. 


    • Scenarios should be a viable alternative to people playing in "non-peak" times to get PvP action quickly. However, the game encourages (but doesn't force) open-world PvP. Putting PUGs against pre-made groups is just a receipe for frustration and should be avoided if possible.

    Why, why, why do you need to force people out of scenarios?! Don't you want people to do what they want? Shouldn't they play the game just the way they like it? I am absolutely against such a reward system.

    "Yeah, you can do scenarios but you get less EXP and and loot." How do you think people will react? -They will be forced to open world PvP. Every "should" becomes a "must" especially when you talk about power gamers.

    How is incentivising people to take part in open world pvp 'forcing' people out of scenarios again? Frankly I would imagine those people who like taking part in scenarios for the enjoyment/fun or competitive aspect of it wouldn't give two shits about getting slightly less xp from them.

     

    Player: "Oh man I pvp in teh arenas because it's like esportz yo, real pvp.

    Dev: 5% slower experience gain from scenarios.

    Player: "FFS now you have killed all reason for me to pwn in arenaz!!!!!!!!."

    Whats wrong with equal rewards then?

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • Vunak23Vunak23 In your house eatin'' your cookies, FLPosts: 635Member

    Get rid of Battlegrounds, Warfronts and scenerios ... they kill pvp. Give meaningful world pvp and you got a hit. World PvP is the only PvP. Battlegounds and all that are just gear grinds. Get rid of PvP gear. Make crafted gear the best. Make raids not drop gear but items to create the best of the crafted gear. You stimulate the economy that way and introduce real ingame trade. Sieges. Sieges. Sieges. Player housing. Destructable player housing.

    Win.

     

    Edit:

     

    Arena's would be fine, so long as they are done correctly, meaning you can't que for them wherever the hell you want. You have to go into the city and speak to the arena master to participate. Have an actual area, where other players can go sit in the stands and spectate for real.

    "In the immediate future, we have this one, and then we’ve got another one that is actually going to be – so we’re going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what we’re targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you can’t hold me to it. But what we’re targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member

    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Originally posted by bunnyhopper


    Originally posted by Quirhid


    Originally posted by SBE1





    Scenarios provide less benefits than open-world PvP when server populations reach "medium" or higher but full benefits when the server has low-population.  Scenarios try to fit pre-made groups against other pre-made groups. 


    • Scenarios should be a viable alternative to people playing in "non-peak" times to get PvP action quickly. However, the game encourages (but doesn't force) open-world PvP. Putting PUGs against pre-made groups is just a receipe for frustration and should be avoided if possible.

    Why, why, why do you need to force people out of scenarios?! Don't you want people to do what they want? Shouldn't they play the game just the way they like it? I am absolutely against such a reward system.

    "Yeah, you can do scenarios but you get less EXP and and loot." How do you think people will react? -They will be forced to open world PvP. Every "should" becomes a "must" especially when you talk about power gamers.

    How is incentivising people to take part in open world pvp 'forcing' people out of scenarios again? Frankly I would imagine those people who like taking part in scenarios for the enjoyment/fun or competitive aspect of it wouldn't give two shits about getting slightly less xp from them.

     

    Player: "Oh man I pvp in teh arenas because it's like esportz yo, real pvp.

    Dev: 5% slower experience gain from scenarios.

    Player: "FFS now you have killed all reason for me to pwn in arenaz!!!!!!!!."

    Whats wrong with equal rewards then?

    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.

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • SBE1SBE1 New York, NYPosts: 335Member

    First, this isn't a DAOC 2 thread.  I will grant you that there were lots of things DAOC did correctly in PvP (3 or more factions), but a lot of things they did poorly.  A short list would be unbalanced classes/factions, overpowered PvE gear, inability to level in PvP (no gear drops), no scenarios, etc.  As I said in my post, Guild Wars 2 is potentially the best match so far, as it too has 3 factions (1 sever against 2 other servers, which also allows for identical classes/skills) and offers scenario fights.  Mythic created Warhammer (based upon a lot of things done in DAOC, so call it DAOC 1.5) and it was an epic fail as demonstrated how many server merges they have done.

    As for battlegrounds/scenarios, I just feel that it is a "quick fix" PvP rush, and hence it is great when server populations are low and finding open-world PvP becomes more difficult.  Furthermore, scenarios really don't have much of a "sand box game" quality to it since it takes place in an instanced area, and thus decreases the faction-based community building that I think a successful game should have.  You saw this happen in Warhammer when people just began ignoring open world PvP and always were in que for a scenario pop. The community began pleading with those in scenarios to help in open-world PvP, and those in scenarios began to harrass (in chat) those in open world PvP.  It really killed the community.   Since I think communities are harder to build the more instanced it becomes, that's why I believe a modest benefit for doing open-world Pvp should be given once population levels on the server are adequate.

    I was hoping people would post their own attributes rather than freaking out about scenarios versus open-world PvP, but that's they way it goes. 

  • DibdabsDibdabs FelvershamPosts: 2,604Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by SBE1




    Go with at least 3 factions in PvP to prevent one side from dominating. Make each faction have exactly the same skills and spells, but change the artwork/graphics. 

    No, no, no - I hate it when they simply make every race have the same spells and abilities and simply change graphics for the characters. SO BORING!  I want different abilities and spells for each race otherwise why even bother with races.

    For me, the main reason PvP is so boring is that there's no real risk or reward.  What's the point of me killing you when i can't loot anything off you and you pop back, good as new and with no damage to any of your possessions, 10 seconds later?  I don't want the "reward" of some stupid, abstract points system where I spend points at some vendor, either.  I want to loot the people I kill, simple as that.

    I know people bang on about pvp in Eve, but they do so for a very good reason.  No game gives you the feeling of satisfaction you get when you destroy someone's ship causing them to lose millions of ISK, then loot anything from the cargo and ship's modules that survived the blast which might cause them to lose millions more.  Of course, THEY might do that to ME instead - that's the excitement factor.  Fantasy MMO pvp just seems... bland.

  • tazarconantazarconan athensPosts: 1,013Member

    Originally posted by Vunak23

     

    Arena's would be fine, so long as they are done correctly, meaning you can't que for them wherever the hell you want. You have to go into the city and speak to the arena master to participate. Have an actual area, where other players can go sit in the stands and spectate for real.

    Can't agree more dude. It also adds to mthe gameworld's atmosphere,with spectators on the seats aka rome's colisseum's arenas figths.

    Tournaments in weekends at specific times where players can travel to the city that holds them and declare participation.

  • mm0wigginsmm0wiggins Boredom, CAPosts: 270Member

    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Originally posted by SBE1





    Scenarios provide less benefits than open-world PvP when server populations reach "medium" or higher but full benefits when the server has low-population.  Scenarios try to fit pre-made groups against other pre-made groups. 


    • Scenarios should be a viable alternative to people playing in "non-peak" times to get PvP action quickly. However, the game encourages (but doesn't force) open-world PvP. Putting PUGs against pre-made groups is just a receipe for frustration and should be avoided if possible.

    Why, why, why do you need to force people out of scenarios?! Don't you want people to do what they want? Shouldn't they play the game just the way they like it? I am absolutely against such a reward system.

    "Yeah, you can do scenarios but you get less EXP and and loot." How do you think people will react? -They will be forced to open world PvP. Every "should" becomes a "must" especially when you talk about power gamers.

    @ Quirhid

    well, why why why do you need to force people into scenarios?   Don't you want people around in the game world or is an MMO just supposed to be a lobby?    When people log in to an MMORPG, it should NOT be an empty lobby designed to look like a forest for them to wait for a queue to pop them in a scenario.       Scenarios were never supposed to be the bulk of gameplay, that's why MMOs were made so large with so much enviornment.      You want to sit in scenarios and minigames?  Why not just play Diablo or Starcraft or Unreal Tournament?    I don't understand this necessity for people to stop playing in the WORLD.  It's ludicrous.

    This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common

    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    Originally posted by Quirhid


    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

     

    Whats wrong with equal rewards then?

    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.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • mm0wigginsmm0wiggins Boredom, CAPosts: 270Member


    Originally posted by Vunak23



     

    Arena's would be fine, so long as they are done correctly, meaning you can't que for them wherever the hell you want. You have to go into the city and speak to the arena master to participate. Have an actual area, where other players can go sit in the stands and spectate for real.

    Dude this is a great idea.    The one thing that would make Arenas and their widespread use in MMOs exceptible in terms of not killing population, and free-form PvP, would be to add spectators and perhaps other content for the players outside the battle to get involved in.    

    Not to mention how much better it is to have a location inside a city or in the world where players are REQUIRED to go to queue up, making use of the land, travel, and conflict.    Queuing up from anywhere in the game is "fast", sure, but tbh I think that's ruining the community.   Everything is not supposed to be fast.   MMO content is longwinded, and takes time to explore, achieve, and progress.   This whole "hurry up and win, hurry up and level, hurry up and queue, hurry up and gear up" mentality is just utterly disgusting.   

    This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.

  • mm0wigginsmm0wiggins Boredom, CAPosts: 270Member

    Originally posted by Quirhid

     

    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.

    I agree in a personal regard, but once the reward tables become equal, it will then be a question of "speed" since people in MMOs these days are only concerned with how fast they get stuff.   

    If it's faster to queue up to an arena to get shinies than it is to go out and dominate an opposing faction's continent for shinies, guess where most of the pvpers will lean towards?   Arenas as usual....

    I still think that reward systems for pvp in general are kind of messed up.    Most pvpers are in it for the gear and no longer in it for the pure pvp fun.      I personally think it'd be better to reward PVP (instanced or not) with a seperate rewards table besides gear.    Aesthetics, more or less:  character customization, light effects, animations, emotes, sounds, buffs, mount abilities, mount customizations, social benefits, public announcements, etc...  

    leave the gear race to the people who don't mind grinding dungeons and raids over and over and over...

    This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common

    Originally posted by mm0wiggins

    Originally posted by Quirhid

     

    @ Quirhid

    well, why why why do you need to force people into scenarios?   Don't you want people around in the game world or is an MMO just supposed to be a lobby?    When people log in to an MMORPG, it should NOT be an empty lobby designed to look like a forest for them to wait for a queue to pop them in a scenario.       Scenarios were never supposed to be the bulk of gameplay, that's why MMOs were made so large with so much enviornment.      You want to sit in scenarios and minigames?  Why not just play Diablo or Starcraft or Unreal Tournament?    I don't understand this necessity for people to stop playing in the WORLD.  It's ludicrous.

    I don't want to force people into scenarios. I don't see the need to force people out of them either. Why can't players play the game just the way they like it?

    I don't care what MMORPGs are about. I don't care what they're supposed to be. Great majority of gamers are not purists like you and many others in these forums. They just want to play a good game and have fun. If scenarios offers them more fun than open PvP, why should you discourage them from doing what they like? Who are you to tell them how they should enjoy their game?

    Let the players choose. I'm against all artificial incentives for alternative playstyles. Players should be equally rewarded from instanced PvP and from open-world PvP if the game has both. Just like groups should not get any artificial EXP buffs over soloing. It just seems very wrong to me to implement multiple playstyles but only favor one. Relic features in an old game I can understand, but in a new game this is unacceptable.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • mm0wigginsmm0wiggins Boredom, CAPosts: 270Member

    Originally posted by Quirhid

    I don't care what MMORPGs are about. I don't care what they're supposed to be. Great majority of gamers are not purists like you and many others in these forums. They just want to play a good game and have fun. If scenarios offers them more fun than open PvP, why should you discourage them from doing what they like? Who are you to tell them how they should enjoy their game?

    Let the players choose. I'm against all artificial incentives for alternative playstyles. Players should be equally rewarded from instanced PvP and from open-world PvP if the game has both. Just like groups should get any artificial EXP buffs over solloing. It just seems very wrong to me to implement multiple playstyles but only favor one. Relic features in an old game I can understand, but in a new game this is unacceptable.

     

    If a person wants a lobby game where they only see other people in controlled, instanced scenarios, I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to play that.    I'm just saying that it's pretty unacceptable that they want MMORPGs to keep CHANGING their design, trying to compensate for these players.  

    Why is it so hard to just play a different genre of game?    I don't go buy fighting games and then demand from the developers that they change them into RPGs that will break character balance and add auction houses and loot and other things that simply don't belong in Fighting games. ... If i want that stuff, I'd play RPGs.      I feel the same for the lobbyists...  Why do MMORPGs have to change for the people that just want instant gratification when THE ENTIRE WORLD OF GAMING outside of MMORPGs already offers this?!??!?!?!!?

    This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common

    Originally posted by mm0wiggins

    Originally posted by Quirhid



     

     

    If a person wants a lobby game where they only see other people in controlled, instanced scenarios, I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to play that.    I'm just saying that it's pretty unacceptable that they want MMORPGs to keep CHANGING their design, trying to compensate for these players.  

    Why is it so hard to just play a different genre of game?    I don't go buy fighting games and then demand from the developers that they change them into RPGs that will break character balance and add auction houses and loot and other things that simply don't belong in Fighting games. ... If i want that stuff, I'd play RPGs.      I feel the same for the lobbyists...  Why do MMORPGs have to change for the people that just want instant gratification when THE ENTIRE WORLD OF GAMING outside of MMORPGs already offers this?!??!?!?!!?

    All games should change for the people. You are just unlucky that you are in a minority.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • defamedefame Pflugerville, TXPosts: 3Member

    You have some good points. I am a gamer who loves PvP AND PvE. I can choose one or the other but every now and then I NEED PvP so I can feel more accomplished with the character/avatar I designed and outfitted.

    I like what Blizzard has done with WoW and the PvP/PvE servers so you can choose which type of gaming you prefer.

  • mm0wigginsmm0wiggins Boredom, CAPosts: 270Member

    Originally posted by Quirhid

    All games should change for the people. You are just unlucky that you are in a minority.

    Just because I don't want what you want doesn't make me a part of some minority.  I've heard this before, and I've seen it before said to others, and usually from the same opposition.     

    After talking to many gamers over the last few years; MMO gamers especially, I no longer buy into this "people who don't like where MMOs are headed are the minority" nonsense.      Of all the forums i've been through, and still am a part of, and of all the MMOs i've played, and still subscribe to, the one thing I've noticed is the vocal MAJORITY are people like me, that simply don't have a choice but to play what's out there.       Again, incase the wires got crossed, I'll say it.  The vocal Majority.

    The vocal minority are people who voice an absolute love for the current state of mmos.

    The actual majority players in this genre don't say much if anything at all on any forum, so we end up assuming what they think based on our own bias.     

     

    I'm glad you enjoy lobby gaming, those of you who disagree with the OP.  I just wish you would try lobby designed games once you get your 2-3 month fix of MMOs (since that's all that's needed to achieve everything in them now.) and perhaps give the developers a few years break from trying to push out these ultra action minigames so they can concentrate on making virtual worlds again, for a change.    

    This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.

  • AstoranAstoran Athens, TNPosts: 27Member

    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Originally posted by mm0wiggins


    Originally posted by Quirhid

     

    @ Quirhid

    well, why why why do you need to force people into scenarios?   Don't you want people around in the game world or is an MMO just supposed to be a lobby?    When people log in to an MMORPG, it should NOT be an empty lobby designed to look like a forest for them to wait for a queue to pop them in a scenario.       Scenarios were never supposed to be the bulk of gameplay, that's why MMOs were made so large with so much enviornment.      You want to sit in scenarios and minigames?  Why not just play Diablo or Starcraft or Unreal Tournament?    I don't understand this necessity for people to stop playing in the WORLD.  It's ludicrous.

    I don't want to force people into scenarios. I don't see the need to force people out of them either. Why can't players play the game just the way they like it?

    I don't care what MMORPGs are about. I don't care what they're supposed to be. Great majority of gamers are not purists like you and many others in these forums. They just want to play a good game and have fun. If scenarios offers them more fun than open PvP, why should you discourage them from doing what they like? Who are you to tell them how they should enjoy their game?

    Let the players choose. I'm against all artificial incentives for alternative playstyles. Players should be equally rewarded from instanced PvP and from open-world PvP if the game has both. Just like groups should not get any artificial EXP buffs over soloing. It just seems very wrong to me to implement multiple playstyles but only favor one. Relic features in an old game I can understand, but in a new game this is unacceptable.

    The reason xp rewards should be less in scenarios/BG's than in open rvr is because of how quickly you can do them.  You can simply get xp way faster because you don't actually have to find anyone to kill. Take away the queue from anywhere function and then it would be more fair.

  • PalebanePalebane Tucson, AZPosts: 3,225Member

    I fully support everything in the original post, which is rare for me. To further elaborate on the last point, perhaps a dedicated-server styled interface for matchmaking (think online shooters) in instanced (and world?) PvP would be condicive. It would help eliminate the waiting line queues and could give players more options for hosting or playing within thier desired preferences, which for me seem to change monthly. For example, some days I like small 6v6 battles with respawn timers. Other days I want a 64-player frenzy with instant respawn. Some days I like CTF, other days I like Control Points. And I usually like to finish it off with a good deathmatch or an open world siege.

    Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.

  • MylonMylon Tampa, FLPosts: 975Member

    A bunch of great ideas. Good work, SBE1.

    image

  • SiveriaSiveria Saint John, New BrunswickPosts: 1,200Member Uncommon

    Depends but for me I have a few rules which sadly almost every mmorpg fails at.

    1: Balanced pvp class wise, and when someone who is a few levels higher that is even in the exact same gear as you can't just insta own you. Example of a MMO that fail this: Aion, In Aion if u use the same gear as someone and are 3-4 levels higher, you'll win everytime unless your an idiot due to the massive bonuses to damage and defense you'll get vs the lower level. In pve this is fine in PVP it shouldn't exist.

    2: Pvp with a point, most mmo's with pvp lack any real point or incentive to bother with it. I been dying for a game with pvp like DAoC with keep taking and such and huge open zones specifically for pvping. Example of a game with totally pointless pvp: Dungeon fighter online.. it has an arena and other than your awakening quest at lv 48 needing some pvp points (which is a really stupid move on the devs part imo) there is really 0 point to bother with it at all.

    3: Exp and or alternate advancement via pvp, again DAoC takes the cake for this and to this day no other mmo has really matched it, Realm skills gotten via pvp only are very useful even in pvp.

    4: No exp loss, or item loss on death. Pvp is supposed to be fun, its not fun being ganked by someone who you have no chance against and losing all your stuff, this just frustrates the player and its quite simply not fun.

    5: Here's the big one: Need a anti-ganking system in most pvp based mmo's, for example someone at max lv shouldn't be able to mass kill people half his level without a penality. Its behavior like this from the playerbase why pvp based mmorpgs never hit high sub numbers, nor do they get new players often due to them hearing about all the greifing and ganking.

    Bascally said only mmorpg that ever has hit the perfect spot has been DAoC.

     

    These are just my opinions.

    Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:

    A. Proven right (if something bad happens)

    or

    B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)

    Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member

    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Originally posted by bunnyhopper


    Originally posted by Quirhid


    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

     

    Whats wrong with equal rewards then?

    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.

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • AIMonsterAIMonster Apopka, FLPosts: 2,059Member

    To be honest, by the title I almost automatically assumed this would be from a hardcore FFA full loot PvP enthusiast.  Suprised it's not.  I'm generally not someone who enjoys non-consensual PvP in MMOs, especially when the MMO is reliant on PvE gear and FotM builds.

    I find most of the stuff to be reasonable here.  I think scenarios are good for players who enjoy some semblance of balance in PvP (MMOs and RPGs in general are always going to be imbalanced and favor players with more time to farm gear) so throwing them out the window as some suggested is a bad idea, though I don't see the need for incentives to do one type of PvP over the other (as the OP said with server populations).  I think a good PvP system would give equal incentives to both, though obviously world PvP should have more effect on the world and faction in general.  Community is important too, please no cross-server PvP!

    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.

    image

    Raptr link because it's the cool new trend:
    image

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.