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!

General: Down with Match-Made PvP

13

Comments

  • Garvon3Garvon3 Worcester, MAPosts: 2,898Member

    DAoC had the perfect PvP system. It also had the perfect balance between PvE and PvP. Copy that game down to the letter and watch the millions roll in. In this case, I'm tired of seeing people try to make their own watered down "PvP" sysyems, and fail, I want them to just copy the game that invented battlegrounds and RvR, and the only one who has done it right.

  • WSIMikeWSIMike Catskill, NYPosts: 5,564Member

    Originally posted by mmoguy43

    Why is 3 such a magic number for world PvP? Why not 5 or 8? Regarless of how many, you will have side imbalances as long as it is unrestricted.

    It's a sort of "balance of power" thing.

    With 2 factions, one side can become the clearly more powerful one, making it all but impossible for the other side to ever get a foothold.

    What makes it even worse is when everyone gets the "can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality, and decides to just switch to the winning side. Then it just snowballs.

    Having a 3rd faction adds a more "balancing" factor to it. Any one faction will always have potentially 2 opponents against them, rather than one. It becomes more difficult for just one side to clearly dominate, at least for very long.

    "If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road,
    and the cash shop selling asphalt..."
    - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops

    image

  • WSIMikeWSIMike Catskill, NYPosts: 5,564Member

    Originally posted by Kyleran

    Face it, we want DAOC 2, all our problems would be solved.  (including world hunger and peace in our time) image

    Like the OP, I have little use for "fair" combat, so today's BG's, arenas and the like are just not what I'm looking for.

    Why? Because I suck at PVP.  Its true, I lack the reflexes to twitch my way to glory, so I make sure I win by allying myself with superior forces and lacking that, striking when the time is right, otherwise fade into the background and bide my time.

    Which is why I enjoyed DAOC so much, or EVE, its true, I hide in the zerg when necessary,and don't care, its win or go home baby, there is no fair combat.  My skills don't match yours, fine, I'll bring 3 friends (with better skils than mine) and we'll beat you to death.

    But I also enjoy MMO's that have PVP objectives, like holding castles in Lineage 1/2 or gaining control of Darkness Falls in DAOC, or holding 0.0 space in EVE.  To me this is PVP with purpose, and I like to defend my territory against all comers, mindlessly battleing other players in a BG doesn't really interest me. (I never really liked DAOC's BG's either, even though they were open to all comers, they still seemed a bit to contrived for my tastes)

    lol... seems we're in the same boat, there, Kyleran.

    I'm horrible at PvP myself. In any given match - including those I should win, statistically - I'll probably lose.

    It's not the PvP encounters themselves that I love... it's the setting and what that brings to the game overall.

    Again, this is in a MMO where the rivalries aren't pre-determined, but are player driven, like in Eve Online or Lineage 2. Where rivalries, wars, truces and alliances are all allowed to happen dynamically, driven entirely by the players.

    Even DAoC's setup is more restrictive than it need be, IMO. But it works better, certainly, than a two faction setup. At least in DAoC, two sides could team up - even if unofficially - to chop down the 3rd faction a bit. And, one thing that you found in DAoC... Realm pride. Like... true realm pride, like that of a home team. People really tended to get into the spirit of who they chose to side with and it really made it very interesting in that regard, too.

    Again, in the newer, watered down 2-sided setups, all people really seem to care about is farming their honor points or whatever, to get their better gear. Another example of how community has been diminished in these games of late.

    "If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road,
    and the cash shop selling asphalt..."
    - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops

    image

  • WSIMikeWSIMike Catskill, NYPosts: 5,564Member

    Originally posted by karat76

     I would prefer a DAoC type of pvp as I have no desire to go to a ffa gankfest.   Had enough of that garbage back in UO and have no deisre to ever see that again.

    My understanding of UO isn't that it specifically encouraged FFA PVP, so much as it allowed it as part of its open world sandbox setting.

    There's a difference between a game that allows open world PVP, and one that's designed specificall with it mind as a core gameplay mechanic.

    In Lineage 2, there are systems in place that discourage pointless ganking. Beyond that, the community polices itself to various degrees.

    If you were to start off as a brand-new player in L2 right now, I could almost guarantee that - excepting for some oddball player who feels like being an ass - you will not be ganked as a new player. I started a new character not long ago. I've run into several other players, some much higher than me (A and S grade gear). They didn't bother me at all, or actually gave me a full round of buffs in a couple cases.

    The real PvP happens in the higher levels, or once you're in an actively war-dec'd clan.

    I'm not sure what it's like in that respect these days in L2, but when I was very actively playing it, even the most hardcore PvPers frowned on pointless lowbie ganking/griefing; some would actively go after the gankers/griefers themselves so newer players could get into the game and not be run off. They differentiate ganking/griefing from real PvP, discouraging the former and encouraging the latter.

    The communities in some other FFA PvP MMOs still haven't reached that point where they separate ganking/griefing lowbies from actual competitive PvP. It's "all PvP" to them. Those tend to be the ones where your'e most likely to be harassed as a new player. Darkfall is still very much in that status, based on the remarks I see from people checking it out.  I tend to think it's perhaps because there really is no meaningful 'bigger picture' in those games. Sure you can siege other players' towns... but it doesn't have that "grand prize" association that something like owning a castle in L2 does. Holding a castle in L2 gets the controlling clan some serious benefits... you can set taxes on towns in your territory making money from it, you get access to special buffs and teleports, you get access to a special dungeon, etc. Those are things that benefit the players, so it gives them something - besides each other - to focus on fighting over.

    So... in all, a MMO having FFA world PvP doesn't *have* to become a FFA gankfest. It really boils down to how it's set up, what kind of meaningful goals there are for players to fight for... and how the community polices itself.

    "If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road,
    and the cash shop selling asphalt..."
    - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops

    image

  • karat76karat76 Wellston, OHPosts: 1,000Member Uncommon

    To me DAoC was the perfect set up. There was plenty of pve if you chose not participate in the rvr but the frontiers were alwasy there for you to go out into and find some action or an old favorite of my camping my hunter in darkness falls until it swtiched over to hib side then loggin in and killing those damn hibbies until they finally got me. Course it was just as fun to roam with a couple friends and pick off random people especially if you could get some botters.

  • WSIMikeWSIMike Catskill, NYPosts: 5,564Member

    Originally posted by Justarius1

     

    I'm not sure what desire motivates people to want to see a feature NOT in a game except a "I'd rather everyone play MY way so more people can play with ME mentality" - YMMV.

    Perhaps they want to see a feature not in a game because... they enjoy said feature and would like to be able to partake in it?

     

     

    "If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road,
    and the cash shop selling asphalt..."
    - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops

    image

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLPosts: 4,508Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by WSIMike

    Even DAoC's setup is more restrictive than it need be, IMO. But it works better, certainly, than a two faction setup. At least in DAoC, two sides could team up - even if unofficially - to chop down the 3rd faction a bit. And, one thing that you found in DAoC... Realm pride. Like... true realm pride, like that of a home team. People really tended to get into the spirit of who they chose to side with and it really made it very interesting in that regard, too.

    Again, in the newer, watered down 2-sided setups, all people really seem to care about is farming their honor points or whatever, to get their better gear. Another example of how community has been diminished in these games of late.


     

     This is what has been missing.  We have gotten far away from the RP in the RPG.  I've never been one of those RP folks who has to talk in character on Vent or whatever, but I need to feel a part of the epic story.  When I played DAoC I really hated the enemy.  The Mids and Albs were simply evil.  My poor realm of Hibernia was totally outnumbered, all our classes were subpar (perhaps not in reality, but this was the mindset) and we were the total underdogs.  We didn't care though.  This was a WAR.  We needed to fight to control the keeps.  Getting the relic bonus would help put us on more even footing.  When Albs had control of Darkness Falls it was our damn DUTY to go push em out and reclaim it!

     

    We didn't fight for points.

    We didn't have gear scores or arenas

    We didn't play Murderball.. or capture the flag... or hold the fang

    There wasn't a scoreboard or a timer

    There was simply realmpride and the belief that we were fighting for the greater good of our realm against the evil aggressors.

     

    Now I HAVE felt this in other games.  In particular in Darkfall when it first started.   Clans felt each other out and formed alliances and nations.  There was an identification with that alliance and the others were the enemy.    Unfortunately... after maybe 6 months alliances just became fluid.  Clans would take a city.. join and alliance.. lose the city.. move to another continent.. join another alliance.  Rinse and repeat.. allies and foes were not hated, they were simply targets of opportunity for this week or month.

     

    So while my ultimate goal would be a FFA sandbox with playermade factions, I will happily take a DAoC 2... minus all the "improvements" that came with Atlantis and New Frontiers.

     

    There are currently plenty of games that provide E-Sport PvP via instanced battlegrounds or some other matchmaking service.  We don't really need more of them.  What we do need.. is an alternative to the (in my opinion) mindless and pointless grinding of battlegrounds.  We need a fully functional AAA title that supports.. no.. that ENCOURAGES openworld PvP through territory conquest or some other mechanism to add depth and purpose to the conflict.

     

    I'd love for a large site like MMORPG to start a official petition for a DAoC2 or a true spiritual successor created by another group.  I think the industry would be amazed at the number of signatures such a petition would gather.

     

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLPosts: 4,508Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Justarius1

    Scenarios proved to be one of the most popular facets of Warhammer, though.  People used them because they were fun.  I think you may actually be in the minority here; most folk I know who PvP prefer the team based PvP.

     I disagree.  People stuck to the scenarios at launch because they were by FAR the quickest way to level and gain RP.  This in turn created an empty overworld... which forced even more people into the scenario queues.. This eventually lead to the mass exodus on the initial playerbase and the deathspiral of WAR followed.

    Don't get me wrong, I was a warband leader for many a T2, T3, and T4 "keep take/keep defense" team in Warhammer and I had a blast leading my team of 20 some-odd people around and trying to herd cats... er, bark orders at a group of people to get the job done.

     At launch and for the first few months at least (when I played) it was more beneficial to allow your enemy to capture the keeps and then follow them around the map to take them back. This became PvB (player vs building) There was no incentive to actually defend the keeps.  This once again pushed people back into scenarios like "Murderball"..

    However, at the end of the day, what made me fall in love with Warhammer was the scenario system.  I loved it - I think it's much better implemented (and fun) than the battlegrounds in WoW or the "Warfronts" in Rift.  

     Fair enough. You love the scenarios.  Looking at the population on the game compared to it's projected population.  The game failed.  Miserably.  Personally I didn't see much difference between the battlegrounds the scenarioror the warfronts. 

    The system truly supports gamers like me - call me "casual" if you will, but I just don't always want to spend the time finding a massive group for RvR battle.  The scenarios are quick and easy.  Give me a CHOICE between scenarios and RvR lakes; just as WAR did.  

    Sure... have a choice. Just make sure that you do not incentivise battlegrounds to provide a faster way to level.. gain honor.. gain gear.  Or better yet, let the choice be in the very game design.  Instead of one game catch all.. let there be games that support instanced E-Sports... and games that support OpenWorld conquest like PvP such as DAoC.  When games try to accommodate both.. at least one side is going to get shafted, if not both. 

    I may have had more fun with WAR than any other PvP game I've played.  My wife and I could log on and within minutes we were in a scenario, bashing heads, leveling our characters from scenario play alone, mostly.  

    Again.. fair enough.  You loved scenarios.  Can't say you are wrong.  Different strokes for different folks.

    So far the massive "free for all" PvP idea of RvR lake only style combat doesn't seem to be catching on.  I, for one, am happy about that.  I think the average gamer prefers a scenario style system - quick, easy, team based, and no need to spend hours looking for a group.  I know it comes as a shock to a lot of people but most people who play these games don't HAVE hours to sit and let the blood clots form in their legs... ;)  We want a system that allows us to "jump into the fun" quickly and jump back out when life - the wife, the kids; whatever - calls.

     I would totally disagree about it not catching on.  DAoC was the last game to really get it "right" and that was 10 years ago!  You can login today.. a full decade later and play on a server with concurrent 3,000 players (or at least characters) still fighting and putting up with sloppy network code, lag, and no real game development in ages.  It might not be YOUR playstyle of choice, but there is a sizeable market out there for such a game.

    Just my two cents.  I play WoW now because I was disappointed with Rift's warfront and overall PvP system and I never played the game before Cataclysm was released.  I enjoy the battlegrounds immensely.  I also like the world PvP implemented at higher levels for those who enjoy that sort of thing.

     You are of course welcome to play WoW.  Millions of other folks feel the same way.  Half the community in fact.   Of course that means that half do NOT play... for a variety of reasons.  So that still leaves a big chunk of folks looking for a different experience.

    I'm not sure what desire motivates people to want to see a feature NOT in a game except a "I'd rather everyone play MY way so more people can play with ME mentality" - YMMV.

    Perhaps if I had ever seen a game that successfully combined instanced ESport PvP with successful openworld PvP I would agree.  To date however I have seen no evidence that the two can co-exist in a meaningful way without ruining one of the experiences (or even both).  

     Comments above

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • LordPsychodiLordPsychodi east northport, NYPosts: 101Member

    I won't lie. I give no care for social dyamics in most MMOs, battleground PvP only came about because most people these days don't want to "invest" themselves in MMOs. and that's fine. very few non-MMO games never rerquired it, and the whorld "world building immersion" flag of the genre needs to get burned down and treaded on. I used to play video games when I was much younger on a saturday for 10 hours, no problem. These days, with work and college, and a boyfriend I find myself with much less time than I used to back when I first found myself in EQ. I couldn't see having "meaningful" PvP when all I have time-wise is 2 hours on a weekday usually.

    Battlegrounds were an attempt to bring about that - Don't have the time to arrange meetups in game because from 00:00 to 02:00 is all the exact time you have for online communications? Congratz! you're no longer excluded from PvP nor have to be a mindless fodder soldier or fight for a shitty lorewar you don't care about! I honestly think massive vs massive is almost the death of PvP, I was in goonswarm in EVE online for during the height of the great war part 2 and 3 and that showed me just that the best of the worst of massiver large scale PvP. (pushing back to delve, diplomacy nonsense letting us butthurt their back doors and banks) do you know how much it sucks to get primaried? your screen flashes, and suddenly you might just be back in a station after being podded and screen lagged.

    Battlegrounds were and are an attempt to keep PvP somewhat more casual and remove certain investments from the system that just are not for everyone. These should exist in some games, but every game on the planet doesn't need to copy it, they just need to be content that what they bring to the table features-wise can capture the eye of the playerbase they want. Most people who play battlegrounds, WANT THEM. other PvP modes probably won't sway them and they are not just biding their time until the next full loot FFA PvP sandbox. They want theme park WoW and battlegrounds for PvP, these are distinct choices players make, they are not CRAZY for liking them, it's just their preferrence.

     

    Battlegrounds can exist without being called vile or backwards or anti-immersive, Like hell if I gave a copper for "immersion" or simulationism and I've played tabletop D&D games since I was 13. But refusing to recognize that some people like preplanned experiences in a roamable world like the majority of all RPGs ever from baldur's gate to pokemon to oblivion, is just being obtuse. everyone needs a game, and designers can't be afraid of ultra casual or hardcore players, they just need realize the game they make needs to be consistent and know the size limits of the group they want to cater to. for "normal" game players to casuals that probably make up the majority in WoW, plus similar games is a very large number of people. But if they are making an open world PvP sandbox, they CAN'T get most of those people. No sandbox ever can.

  • PalebanePalebane Tucson, AZPosts: 3,225Member

     






    Originally posted by WSIMike

    Pre-determined factions also preclude true dynamic player politics from taking place. Such as with castle sieges ... there was often a lot of negotiation that took place with those. I remember my clan leaders spending an hour, or more, easily, in a separate Ventrilo channel, negotiating with leaders of other clans about teaming up to take a castle away from a major powerhouse on the server. Or, about possibly forming a formal Alliance to combine forces in taking on a more powerful alliance giving each clan grief.



     

    On the other hand, seeing dark elves teamed up with high elves and Ogres fighting along-side halflings kind of kills the lore. Everquest was this way (except on Tallon Zek and Vallon Zek team PvP servers) despite the deep faction system in place in that game. It really didn't affect me, but still, when I'm thinking about PvP in a traditional fantasy game, I like the pre-determined factions.



    Also, I like the structure of faction-based warfare. As much as I like the ideas of spies and being able to turn on your race/faction if they do you wrong, I like knowing who my friends are. They may not even really be my friends, but it gives me a reason to care about them, whereas if it was a FFA, I likely wouldn't trust or talk to anyone. I generally feel more comfortable helping others who I know are helping me, even inadvertently.



    I very much enjoy the politics and negotiation from games like EvE that you speak of, and believe that you could have some factions that were inherently good, while others were inherently evil, and a myriad of other races/factions that were neutral, mercenaries, or mix-breeds.

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

  • shantidevashantideva bongholmPosts: 186Member

    go pokemon!....

    "Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day!"

  • DaredentDaredent Cleveland, OHPosts: 14Member

    Amen.   Scenario based pvp is a joke.   If you want a Scenario go play a FPS.   MMORPG's should be persisant real-time worlds.  Not a battle ground of 8v8.  End of story.

  • Justarius1Justarius1 Phoenix, AZPosts: 381Member

    Originally posted by Redemp

    Originally posted by Justarius1



    Arenas, Battlegrounds, Scenarios, Warfronts… they’re all just “games” and team sports when what I want is a virtual war.

     

    Scenarios proved to be one of the most popular facets of Warhammer, though.  People used them because they were fun.  I think you may actually be in the minority here; most folk I know who PvP prefer the team based PvP.

     

    Don't get me wrong, I was a warband leader for many a T2, T3, and T4 "keep take/keep defense" team in Warhammer and I had a blast leading my team of 20 some-odd people around and trying to herd cats... er, bark orders at a group of people to get the job done.

     

    However, at the end of the day, what made me fall in love with Warhammer was the scenario system.  I loved it - I think it's much better implemented (and fun) than the battlegrounds in WoW or the "Warfronts" in Rift.  

     




     

     I think the issue with your post is your experience with open world pvp seems to be pulled from Warhammer ... which failed completely at inticing players to DO the rvr lakes. People did the arenas in Warhammer ( including myself ) because they were non-stop, drop of a dime, I want to pvp now avenues .... which is what the lakes SHOULD have been, and were in Daoc.

     

     I am assuming you never played Daoc, that you also were "raised" as it were in Warhammer... thus I think you are born of the match-made pvp systems. That doesn't make you wrong ... but not experiencing the true side of Daocs BG's or open rvr zones, or any other title for that matter weighs heavily on your bias.

     

    Oh, I played DAOC quite a bit - Hibernia for the win.  ;)

     

    My "bias" is that even with DAOC's BG's and open RvR zones, it was still easier tto quickly hop on and enjoy PvP in a 30 minute session in Warhammer than it was in DAOC.

     

    I think Warhammer would have been a lot better had they added a 3rd faction in, personally - that was where I thought DAOC really shined compared to WAR.

     

    But, I played both games.  My "bias" comes from personal preference, not being "raised on" any one style of game.  I was "raised on" SSI gold box games like "Pools of Radiance"  that I played when half of the forum-base here at MMORPG.COM weren't even a glimmer in their parents eyes. ;)

     

    The "lakes" in DAOC were the best lake-based RvR I have seen so far in a game, yes, but I don't think DAOC would have lost anything - at all - by offering scenarios/warfronts/battlegrounds what-have-you.  Some people just like quick team based PvP.

    image

  • Justarius1Justarius1 Phoenix, AZPosts: 381Member

    Originally posted by WSIMike

    Originally posted by Justarius1



     

    I'm not sure what desire motivates people to want to see a feature NOT in a game except a "I'd rather everyone play MY way so more people can play with ME mentality" - YMMV.

    Perhaps they want to see a feature not in a game because... they enjoy said feature and would like to be able to partake in it?

     

     

     

    Did you even read that, or your response?  I asked why people would want to see something left out of a game; I.E., why somebody would go "down with X, Y, or Z" just because *they* don't like it.  Of course one assumes that people want features IN a game because they enjoy them, but arguing AGAINST putting something in a game - that you can just not participate in if you dislike it - seems immature and counter-intuitive.

    image

  • JamkullJamkull somewhere, ILPosts: 214Member

    Well Shadowbane almost did this perfectly... it's more for the pure pvp crowd.  But I just think if one of these big companies that can code really well and make it so there is less lag etc.  Trion seems to have gotten massive content in a single zone thing down pat.  Rift is mainly PVE, now if they could make a PVP centric game that does the loot thing like in WAR, when you kill a player they spawn random loot.  Now of course it might be a bit hard to keep people from exploiting that to some degree.  But it would be nice if they could figure a way to make it to where you only gain exp from beating players.  or maybe just have PVE content to a certain level but then the rest is gained pvp wise.  But go all out on the whole land control/ Total War aspects to an MMO environment would be awesome.   But i really like the scenarios from WAR though quite a lot.

  • Marcus-Marcus- Posts: 970Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by finnmacool1

    Originally posted by PhelimReagh

    Why don't people play the scores of games that already have these features, those games that no one plays because they're not fun for most of the people who have tried them, instead of advocating wrecking games that people like and DO play?

     

    {mod edit}

    This

     

    Which scores?

     

    and who said anything about wrecking current games?

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 19,998Member Uncommon

    I totally prefer battlegrounds and world PVP where you never know how many opponents you might end up facing.  (a la  DAOC)

    But since I don't wear rose colored glasses I can recall the nights of frustration where my faction (Albs for the win) were totally overrun and every time we went out into the frontiers we got rolled within minutes and sent back to sit it out and make our way back in.

    While I am a patient person, many of my realm mates weren't or couldn't stand to lose the fight so they would rage quit constantly. (Helped that as a Minstrel with stealth and hyper speed I could survive a lot more fights than average player) 

    Sure, as long as the fights stayed balanced everyone was mostly OK, but if it got too lopsided players wouldn't stick around just to take a beating. 

    In fact, I eventually left the "normal" servers and went over to Mordred (the FFA PVP server) because the fights were no longer faction based, but rather were guild vs guild and therefore smaller in nature.

    They still were unpredictable, you never knew who might join in the battle, but there was far less occasions where you would get endless rolled, was much easier to just find a new corner of the land (and you could fight everywhere) and avoid superior forces if you chose to.

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLPosts: 4,508Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Justarius1

     

     

    Did you even read that, or your response?  I asked why people would want to see something left out of a game; I.E., why somebody would go "down with X, Y, or Z" just because *they* don't like it.  Of course one assumes that people want features IN a game because they enjoy them, but arguing AGAINST putting something in a game - that you can just not participate in if you dislike it - seems immature and counter-intuitive.


     

     I answered this question a few posts back.  Perhaps you missed it.   Let me try to explain a bit better.

     

    I like Peanutbutter.  Lot's of people like peanutbutter.  Peanutbutter is great!

    I like steak. Lot's of people like steak. Steak is great!

     

    I do not want a dish that combines the two as I think that steak and peanutbutter don't mix.

     

    THAT is why I don't want to see battlegrounds added to every MMORPG that comes out.  I have yet to see any game that has successfully combined Instanced E-Sport battlegrounds and persistent objective based openworld PvP.  If you have an example of a game that successfully combined these two just let me know!.  Your example of WAR will not work since despite your personal feelings about the game, it was an epic failure based on the population expecattions and the mass exodus 30-60 days after release.  It's a 2.5 year old game and has been in a steady deathspiral for 2 years of that.. even contracting the few servers left just a month ago.

     

    There is nothing "immature" about that position at all.  As a matter of fact it is "immature" to expect and demand that every game support every playtype.  THAT is what leads to false expectations and failed games.

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,453Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Spyted

    I'm with you on this, in a persistent world pvp should be persistent and impromtu that level of threat and danger won't wait for carefully coordinated and balanced teams to be cosseted & matched it has to reward those that are prepared and adaptable - brings a whole new level to the conviction and integrity of the gameworld and makes playing a more genuine and engaging experience.

    The contentious missions in DCUO are awesome except they arrive at the wrong time in your life - they are wasted on people whose only real ambition is levelling - by contrast give the same contentious mission to a fully powered up character and the whole thing exploits every last element out of the ip, ramps up the variety of each encounter and maximises the challenge. The problem with pvp servers is that they are occupied by too diverse a range of leveled characters but if you leave the open gameworld as a prize for your endgame ensuring that everyone in it has the ability to defend themselves then it takes pvp to the next level. tbh even if you exclude pvp and base the same process on contested pve content the reward is still so much more satisfying and meaningful.

    So you want unbalanced combat?Man wouldn't that be fun?I keep hearing this FUN word thrown around,i guess people really just want EASY mode.

    When i play FPS's i actually look for a challenging game,i am not looking to use a 30 ping versus a bunch of 200+ ping players,i don't need to feed my ego with easy kills.The FUN is in the challenge,and the ONLY way you have a challenging game is if BOTH parties are near equal,then it comes down to who is the better thinker or more skilled.

    In real life you are free to kill anyone you want,but HUGE penalties persist,this is the ONLY way open pvp works.I played a game that sort of handled in a decent fashion albeit could have been better.When you killed  a player they were allowed to put a bounty on you,this meant higher level players could kill you with no penalties and no level restrictions.Otherwise,if one wants to just ruin or bother someone elses's game.they deserve fairly large penalties of some kind.

    People do NOT want to be bothered in real life,what makes anyonme think they want to be bothered in a game they are trying to have some FUN?Mutual consent,works because both have the same goal for fun,without consent is imo just ridiculous.


    Samoan Diamond

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLPosts: 4,508Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Wizardry

    So you want unbalanced combat?Man wouldn't that be fun?I keep hearing this FUN word thrown around,i guess people really just want EASY mode.

    When i play FPS's i actually look for a challenging game,i am not looking to use a 30 ping versus a bunch of 200+ ping players,i don't need to feed my ego with easy kills.The FUN is in the challenge,and the ONLY way you have a challenging game is if BOTH parties are near equal,then it comes down to who is the better thinker or more skilled.

    In real life you are free to kill anyone you want,but HUGE penalties persist,this is the ONLY way open pvp works.I played a game that sort of handled in a decent fashion albeit could have been better.When you killed  a player they were allowed to put a bounty on you,this meant higher level players could kill you with no penalties and no level restrictions.Otherwise,if one wants to just ruin or bother someone elses's game.they deserve fairly large penalties of some kind.

    People do NOT want to be bothered in real life,what makes anyonme think they want to be bothered in a game they are trying to have some FUN?Mutual consent,works because both have the same goal for fun,without consent is imo just ridiculous.


     

     You are confusing OpenWorld PvP with FFA PvP.  While the two may co-exist they are not the same thing.  Also, you procede from another false sumption.  OpenWorld PvP does not equate to combat without "mutual consent".

     

    Take DAoC for example.  People can play all they want in their home areas without fear of getting ganked.  They can level to 50 and not have a single fight against another player.  I would find that utterly boring, but it is certainly possible.  Once a player enters the Frontier.. they have consented to enter a war area.   This is an area where the three realms are in conflict:  Attacking keeps and towers, contesting an RvR dungeon.. etc etc.

     

    Now the game incentivizes players to head into these areas to get exp and gold bonuses so that the reward is commensurate with the danger.

     

    DAoC also invented the Battlegrounds if I am not mistaken.  The difference is that in DAoC these battlegrounds are persistent.  They are not timed ESports with scoreboards.  It all feeds into the struggle of your realm against the other 2.  Capturing and controlling the level 20-24 Battleground keep (for example) will help grant bonuses throughout the realm.

     

    So there is nothing inherently wrong with Esport battlegrounds like those found in WoW, WAR, RIFT...  if that is your personal thing, knock yourself out.   There is a significant portion of the community that would prefer Open Persistent World Objective Based PvP.  These folks do not want a scoreboard, a timer, points, a flag to capture, a fang to hold... or anything resembling CounterStrike death Match.  When I want such a game.. I will play such a game.  I simply want an MMORPG.

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • MMartianMMartian Austin, TXPosts: 46Member

    I understand what is desired by the columist.

    I feel that shat he is struggling with is that what he wants has been tried and evenually falls to the wayside for many reasons.



    1. One side gains an advantage and continues to build upon it. The loosing side gets frustrated and moves to a different Game/Server


    2. If it is made to critical to day to day game play, those that have no interest in this type of play move to a different Game.


    3. If it is relatively unimportant there is a frustration that develops because there is no reward for all the hard week. Players move to another game in frustration.


    While the Esport battlegrounds may be less enticing to people like the columnist they are easier to control to deal with those three problems and keep a game viable for the greatest number of customers.

  • timeraidertimeraider BredaPosts: 568Member Uncommon

    this might come unexpected BUT at LotRo (!) ...add the isengard expansion this autumn + some changes to who can be creep and who not.....and its totally what everyone wants for pvp as far as i could read from this blog!

    Main games: Heroes of the Storm, Starcraft 2, Brawlhalla
    Waiting for: Overwatch

  • dunkelhaardunkelhaar GrazPosts: 1Member

    I need to say that there was already a game out there which was perfect in every sense of PvP: Neocron.

    for those who dont know the game:

    Neocron is a or rather was a futuristic end time FPS-MMOPRG with fantastic crafting system, an area dominance system which helped crafters, and a free for all PvP system that is yet to match with other games.

    Neocrons base was a faction system and an indicator named "soullight". Every faction was allied, neutral or at war with the others. Specific zones were ruled by spezific factions. Each faction had some speciality in trade which motivated trade with other players. You could do missions to improve your standings towards any faction. some missions also decreased the standings of other factions. You also gained faction points when killing players and npcs of factions you were at war.

    Soullight was your karma. For every mission you got soullight. For killing the "bad" guys you got soullight (killing the enemy or killing players with minus soullight). For killing neutrals, or friendlies you got minus soullight. Yes you could kill friendlies, even teammates. Friendly fire was always activated! So what happened when you had bad soullight? Two things:

    First: When you died you lost your quickbelt. your quickbelt was the "action bar" where you put your weapons, "pots" and other things (like spells). normally loosing your quickbelt meant, lossing some pots. But the lower your soullight was, the mor expesniv a death could get. So corpse runs were pretty normal.

    Second: Quickbelts could get hacked by ppl with the right skill. The lower oyur soullight was, the easier it was to get hacked. So ppl with minus soullight did not only corpse run to get their precious rare weapon back but also had the chance to get hacked and get that weapon stolen from some guy.

    So even with the possibility to kill everyone at any place, killing "the good guys" had consequences.

  • ElikalElikal ValhallaPosts: 7,906Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Athcear

    This kind of thing would never last in the "everyone is a winner" mentality that games have now.  You get points for winning, you get points for losing.  Everyone is a winner!  Any situation where one side could actually win and hold on to territory for a long time...  Those balance issues pop up immediately.  Nobody is willing to lose anymore.  Think about wintergrasp.  The winners last time were defending the next time.  Didn't the attackers usually win?  They set it up specifically so that it would constantly switch hands.  We have abandoned the idea that one can log in and not be grinding points.  Contribute to a larger goal?  No way.  I just want my marks.

    Well, while I can see the logic in this and how devastating the short term mentality is for the MMO longevity and quality, as a gamer I often asked myself: what did I get out of this 2 hours play session?

    And woefully too often the answer in the old days (Eq2) was: nothing. It was painful. Yeah, WOW made this "get something small quick" a new fashion. And I think thats a good development per se. I just agree that this short term mentality essentially made games neglect the long term needs. You see when I had little time to play in EQ2 days of the past, it just was essentially IMPOSSIBLE to ever get to that larger goal. Those large goals were entirely out of reach for a casual gamer, and many endgame and high end stuff things still are unless you play with a daily schedule.

    That is were match made PVP comes in. Some people just don't want to wait for hours for enough people to make meaningful PVP. I vividly recally how often the warzones in SWG just either were deserted or totally dominated by one faction. That wasn't "working for a larger goal" it was "standing around being bored". But I do agree MMOs lost the larger/longer term appeal these days.

    People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert

  • VesaviusVesavius BristolPosts: 7,645Member Uncommon

    I have tried a lot of PvP MMOs, from starting out on Vallon in EQ to Darkfall, and I have come to the conclusion over a lot of years that PvP in these games will always suck. It seems great on paper, but it's always crap, and the attitude and culture it breeds in them is worse. Much better for me to play PvE MMOs and get my PvP in FPS games actually designed for them. The two, to me, do not mix at all well and are only included in modern MMOs due to the myth that they are what made WoW huge.

Sign In or Register to comment.