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!

Is world PVP dead?

135

Comments

  • maplestonemaplestone Ottawa, ONPosts: 3,099Member

    I would assert that world-PvP is an unstable design.

    It's no fun playing the victim.  So you lose the people who don't want to PvP at all to other zones/games.  This removes both easy kills and innocents to defend.   The game becomes more and more battleground-like and bleeds away players who don't want to play when they are the bottom.  So a game with open-world PvP will die off or gravitate to being a battlefield environment.

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,719Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    You have absolutely zero idea how I spend 99% of my game time in any game. I can assure you that 99% of it is not doing a menial, afk grind, so you can leave that tired old assumption at the door.

    I don't care what the majority want or do not want, I merely pointed out ganking and zerging can and does occur in 200 vs 200 vs 200 (and the like) maps.

    I'm glad you now seem to see that a zerg can be positive and that the term "gank" is essentially meaningless. People (like yourself) simply use them for the main part as (highly ineffective) terms to try and beat games you don't happen to like with.

     The issue, as I have already stated, is when a game which has zero meta level complexity, allows anyone to instantly join the winning side and is trying to provide purely instant action AND THEN allows a free for all, no limit blitz on a small map.

    Whether you like it, or whether the mmo hordes like it or not, unrestricted (in terms of numbers) open world pvp works in something like EVE (leaving aside trite comments about AFK). It doesn't in a game trying to simulate what are essentially larger instanced battlefields when there is next to fuck all else to do other than shoot at each other.

    Finally, skill is a lot more than instant combat. There is skill in making alliances, skill in knowing what territory to take and what to let go, skill in controlling a vast amount of players, skill in knowing when to switch to "economic pvp". Simply put "player skill" is not restricted to instant action combat. If all a game has in one dimension (teh shootem ups) then only the action "skill" counts, but then mmos can offer a few more dimensions than that.

    I still don't feel like zerging can be positive.  Personally I call negative zerging "zerging" and postitive zerging "teamwork" (I don't call it zerging at all.)   I only said that for your benefit, as someone who has a weird definition of things.

    Just like I don't consider it ganking unless it's catching someone in a weakened state doing a non-PVP activity.  Anything else is simply caching your opponent offguard (ambushing.)

    To say unrestricted PVP "works" in EVE sidesteps the fact that it's a niche preference while the majority wants skillful competition.  In a thread about why world PVP appears dead, that's sort of core to the discussion.  In fact "fewer people want it" is basically the summarized answer to the OP's question of why world PVP died, with "fewer people want it because they want skillful competition, which zerging and ganking aren't" being a slightly more descriptive answer.

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member


    Originally posted by wormed
    Based on the plethora of replies by players who have no clue what world PvP entails, yes, world PvP is dead. 
     
    Unfortunately, dumb people killed it.

    Yessireebob. Those idiots who think they are uber-skillz pking a player 5 or more levels below them (gank), getting their guild to help them exact revenge upon an opponent that beat the snot out them because they sucked (zerg), and those players generally being asswipes because they can be killed world PvP.

    Don't blame the games. Blame the players who hide behind anonymity to act like they would never act in the real world. Personally, I am not going to pay to play a game to feed some pre-pubescent child's ego when they cheat. Bring back honor to PvP and maybe the games will return with world PvP.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    I still don't feel like zerging can be positive.  Personally I call negative zerging "zerging" and postitive zerging "teamwork" (I don't call it zerging at all.)   I only said that for your benefit, as someone who has a weird definition of things.

    Quite how saying zerging is a mob rush, or that ganking is either number or mechanic (say level) disparity kills, is "weird" i'm not sure. Considering you think ganking is only about killing a non pvper I find your use of the term "weird" as rather ironic.

     

    Just like I don't consider it ganking unless it's catching someone in a weakened state doing a non-PVP activity.  Anything else is simply caching your opponent offguard (ambushing.)

    That's called "pking" actually, you seem to have it confused with ganking.

     

    To say unrestricted PVP "works" in EVE sidesteps the fact that it's a niche preference while the majority wants skillful competition.  In a thread about why world PVP appears dead, that's sort of core to the discussion.  In fact "fewer people want it" is basically the summarized answer to the OP's question of why world PVP died, with "fewer people want it because they want skillful competition, which zerging and ganking aren't" being a slightly more descriptive answer.

    You are misusing the term "skillful" when you really should be using the term "skillful combat action". You see there is a great deal of "skillful competition" in a game like EVE and a great deal of that is focused towards player vs player combat. That a great deal of it is outside of the remit of the two players actually pew pewing each other does not in any way, shape or from lessen that skill/skill sets. So please if you are going to keep harping on about "skill" be sure to define your meaning a bit better as it sounds as though you think the only skill in pvp that matters is the pew pew part in all games, which would be a frankly ludicrous thing to suggest.

     

    Do more people prefer instant pew pew action? Yep, but then whilst the thread may be about that, the comment I made about your post was merely to point out that contrary to what you seem to believe, you can indeed get zerging and ganks in larger map, fixed number pvp games. To then try and pass that off as being the players fault in one game and the games fault in another is not, to my mind, a solid case.

     

    Zerging and ganking can indeed occur on 200 v 200 maps or smaller, lack of pve alters that fact erm, well not at all. Nothing wrong with that, but to think otherwise is somewhat odd to say the least.

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

  • thefinnthefinn sydneyPosts: 46Member

    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

     




    Originally posted by wormed

    Based on the plethora of replies by players who have no clue what world PvP entails, yes, world PvP is dead. 

     

    Unfortunately, dumb people killed it.






    Yessireebob. Those idiots who think they are uber-skillz pking a player 5 or more levels below them (gank), getting their guild to help them exact revenge upon an opponent that beat the snot out them because they sucked (zerg), and those players generally being asswipes because they can be killed world PvP.

     

    Don't blame the games. Blame the players who hide behind anonymity to act like they would never act in the real world. Personally, I am not going to pay to play a game to feed some pre-pubescent child's ego when they cheat. Bring back honor to PvP and maybe the games will return with world PvP.

    This may indeed happen, however there are other times when someone fights 5 people of the same level and wins. (Outside of BRD to be precise ;)).

    Or just something funny happens.

    I remember the start of Burning Crusade when I was trying to quest/level and a level 70 mage kept running around after me griefing me. He kept turning me into a sheep and pointing and laughing at me.

    Then the ground shook. He sheeped me once more and as he stood and laughed the big giant machine thing on the plains there came up behind him and one shot him.

    (Can't think of that machines' name anymore, but  it was damned funny).

    Real PVPers love this stuff. These are the stories we get to tell later.

     

    Frankly vanilla WOW used to have world PVP, the real issue is when players have to be thrown into an arena to PVP. Battlegrounds and Arena really ruined this for WOW.

    Sandboxes are awful with the exception of EVE Online presently. I'd give that a shot if you're after random PVP.

     

  • BeanpuieBeanpuie Norfolk, VAPosts: 812Member Uncommon

    Cant say world pvp is dead, what is dead though is sportsmanship attitude.

    to specify, not talking about a fair fight where both sides respectfully say good game and go about their ways.

    more on the sense of understanding yuo win some battles and lose some battles, you suck it up and ignore the oppositions

    high pitch gloating. Over the course of a decade and some years, the overall attitude of pvpers have declined, on both the losing and winning end.

     

    Additionally, with the options of minigames and other playstles outside of world pvp that offer a so called even playing field, world pvp in this current generation is plagued and exposed to various cons ranging from  Class imbalances, lack of purpose, and general mmo knowledge.

    ill explain the last one:

    If a mmo is already seen to follow a cookie cutter approach in their gameplay, ala trinity/gear centric /tab target etc. ,  then in most cases if not all, the idea of having certain classes in a world pvp setting will paint you more of a free kill than a viable opponent.

    "if by yourself ,why bring a support class just to get steamrolled by a rogue thats cloaked and waiting for you to be occupied?"

    fthis common situation has been played out so many times in other cookie cutter mmos, that players that have experienced this situation, both recieving and giving end, would not bother stepping foot into a world mmo area unless they are a class that can stealth, OP, or with a group.

    AND then with a group, people begin to complain that groups cause zergs to happen.  no win situation for world pvp.

    Now, not all games have this kind of exact situation, but people have wisen up that you can only bring certain things to the world pvp scene if you plan on having fun there.

    Rogue v. Rogue Cloak battles are awesome image (ignore the last part)

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,719Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    Zerging and ganking can indeed occur on 200 v 200 maps or smaller, lack of pve alters that fact erm, well not at all. Nothing wrong with that, but to think otherwise is somewhat odd to say the least.

    If we pretend all your semantic arguments are right, it still doesn't change the underlying facts of what PVP games people want to play.  So for the sake of discussion, we'll pretend all your semantic arguments are right.  It still leaves world PVP "dead" (in reality just very rare) and players consistently seeking quality PVP from pure PVP games.  And "PKing" and the bad form of zerging are still abhored by players, and therefore avoided more and more by developers.

    Seems pretty good to me (:

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • InFaVillaInFaVilla StockholmPosts: 592Member

    Originally posted by maplestone

    I would assert that world-PvP is an unstable design.

    It's no fun playing the victim.  So you lose the people who don't want to PvP at all to other zones/games.  This removes both easy kills and innocents to defend.   The game becomes more and more battleground-like and bleeds away players who don't want to play when they are the bottom.  So a game with open-world PvP will die off or gravitate to being a battlefield environment.

    Whether or not it is fun playing the victim, completely depends on what kind of player one is and what kind of game it is.

     

    Some reasons for why playing the victim can be entertaining:

    * If it is factionbased, it can be fun calling your high level faction members to defend your faction areas from the intruders you spotted.

    * It is natural to get a feeling of satisfaction from overcoming your obstacles.

    *Outsmarting and planning ahead can be very satisfying.

  • InFaVillaInFaVilla StockholmPosts: 592Member

    Originally posted by Beanpuie

    Cant say world pvp is dead, what is dead though is sportsmanship attitude.

    to specify, not talking about a fair fight where both sides respectfully say good game and go about their ways.

    more on the sense of understanding yuo win some battles and lose some battles, you suck it up and ignore the oppositions

    high pitch gloating. Over the course of a decade and some years, the overall attitude of pvpers have declined, on both the losing and winning end.

     

    Additionally, with the options of minigames and other playstles outside of world pvp that offer a so called even playing field, world pvp in this current generation is plagued and exposed to various cons ranging from  Class imbalances, lack of purpose, and general mmo knowledge.

    ill explain the last one:

    If a mmo is already seen to follow a cookie cutter approach in their gameplay, ala trinity/gear centric /tab target etc. ,  then in most cases if not all, the idea of having certain classes in a world pvp setting will paint you more of a free kill than a viable opponent.

    "if by yourself ,why bring a support class just to get steamrolled by a rogue thats cloaked and waiting for you to be occupied?"

    fthis common situation has been played out so many times in other cookie cutter mmos, that players that have experienced this situation, both recieving and giving end, would not bother stepping foot into a world mmo area unless they are a class that can stealth, OP, or with a group.

    AND then with a group, people begin to complain that groups cause zergs to happen.  no win situation for world pvp.

    Now, not all games have this kind of exact situation, but people have wisen up that you can only bring certain things to the world pvp scene if you plan on having fun there.

    Rogue v. Rogue Cloak battles are awesome image (ignore the last part)

    The expression "good game" and specially its acronym "gg" reminds a lot of people of the teenage Starcraft 1 era which was filled with immatury. I agree with that showing your respect is often forgotten, but I disagree with that using the term "good game" would be a proper method to show it. Use another phrase that isn't as rigorously associated with teenagers and I'll be more than delighted.

    In the PvP MMORPGs I've played, I always considered the "silent assassin" to be the most enjoyable form of pvpers. They didn't gloat, they actually did not say a single word, they just fought and then they left. Even if it was a gank, it would be completely okay if it was a such "silent assassin", it brought a sense of serenity to the event. It was in one sense, the highest form of respect a pvper can show its target: to not say a word. 

     

     

  • gainesvilleggainesvilleg Gainesville, FLPosts: 1,053Member

    Originally posted by wormed

    Originally posted by Jakdstripper

    there are pretty much 2 words that eventually end up describing world pvp in general.

     

    There. You said it.

     

    2 words that end up describing world PvP. Is it fair to describe it that way? Of course not. You can't even find someone who can find the definition of what IS NOT a "gank" in a world PvP scenario. Are you supposed to stare at them, alert them of your presence, give them a /wave to let them know of your intent to kill and then fight? People who bitch, moan and whine about world PvP scenarios are simply people who should not be joining "PvP" servers. Everything you ask for, Battlegrounds, Arenas, etc, are always available on the PvE server-type as well. Why ruin the fun for others by joining the PvP servers and subsequently whining profusely about getting your ass tooled?

     

    Ganking is synonymous with every kill in the open world no matter what situation. It's pathetic and it's an annoying truth.

     

    I agree with you.  I think people that don't enjoy open world PVP and simply refer to it as "ganking" need to focus on the PVE servers and the more evenly matched battlegrounds and be happy.  No need to try to and dismiss open world PVP as something that can't work or that it is always unfair.

    I am an avid PVPer, and I can tell you that one of the things that makes open world PVP so fun is the inherent unfairness of it.  It introduces many new strategies, tactics, and out of the box thinking to turn the tables in your favor.  Half the fun is coming up with clever ways to survive or to create an advantage for yourself.  Or to dream up fun things to do and then try to do it.

    In my opinion nothing should ever be out of bounds completely, although certain objectives could be made exceedingly difficult if the developer just puts in a little bit of thought.  The problem is most MMO's put almost no thought into the PVP ruleset.  They simply develop a game for PVE, and then turn on some PVP "free for all" servers with maybe a few restricted zones for early levelers.  This superficial treatment of open world PVP is what is killing open world PVP.

    A well implemented rule set and meaningful objectives (not even formal objectives, just things to try to accomplish even) is all that is needed to save world PVP in my opinion.

    GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
    1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
    2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements

  • InFaVillaInFaVilla StockholmPosts: 592Member

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    Zerging and ganking can indeed occur on 200 v 200 maps or smaller, lack of pve alters that fact erm, well not at all. Nothing wrong with that, but to think otherwise is somewhat odd to say the least.

    If we pretend all your semantic arguments are right, it still doesn't change the underlying facts of what PVP games people want to play.  So for the sake of discussion, we'll pretend all your semantic arguments are right.  It still leaves world PVP "dead" (in reality just very rare) and players consistently seeking quality PVP from pure PVP games.  And "PKing" and the bad form of zerging are still abhored by players, and therefore avoided more and more by developers.

    Seems pretty good to me (:

    The majority of people want to play the PVP games they either enjoy or think they will enjoy. However, that does not automatically mean that features whose impact on their game they didn't enjoy are always bad in every game. It also doesn't mean that the impact of feature will be unenjoyable for the persons in every game.

    Zerging and ganking creates a strong sense of fear and thrill; those are very powerful forms of entertainment if they are implemented correctly. I do think that there needs to be incentives to specifically fight back against those zergers and gankers; in faction-based games I would hope that they either give important points for fighting back or that the victims have an important value to the faction as a whole, which would give the stronger factionmembers good reasons to help the victims in their faction. 

  • InFaVillaInFaVilla StockholmPosts: 592Member

    Originally posted by wormed

    Originally posted by Jakdstripper

    there are pretty much 2 words that eventually end up describing world pvp in general.

     

    There. You said it.

     

    2 words that end up describing world PvP. Is it fair to describe it that way? Of course not. You can't even find someone who can find the definition of what IS NOT a "gank" in a world PvP scenario. Are you supposed to stare at them, alert them of your presence, give them a /wave to let them know of your intent to kill and then fight? People who bitch, moan and whine about world PvP scenarios are simply people who should not be joining "PvP" servers. Everything you ask for, Battlegrounds, Arenas, etc, are always available on the PvE server-type as well. Why ruin the fun for others by joining the PvP servers and subsequently whining profusely about getting your ass tooled?

     

    Ganking is synonymous with every kill in the open world no matter what situation. It's pathetic and it's an annoying truth.

     

     

    No, it is not. For instance, if there is a world boss nearby or about to spawn, then it is impossible to be ganked, because everyone should know that the world boss is an attractive target which people will fight about; any fight near it would be consensual. 

     

    Also, if you see an opposing faction member running towards you from miles away, then it is not a gank. 

     

    Similarily, if you just ganked a some players by attacking them to their surprise while they were busy with mobs and you got attacked back by a group of defenders those players called, then they are not ganking you, you should have known the risk.

     

    Furthermore, if you are knowingly running into the enemy faction map and you get attacked by them: they are not ganking you.

     

    Finally, if you are grinding mobs in a very open place where you can see who is coming from any direction if you choose to pay attention, then any attack against you is not a gank.

     

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,719Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by InFaVilla

    Zerging and ganking creates a strong sense of fear and thrill; those are very powerful forms of entertainment if they are implemented correctly. I do think that there needs to be incentives to specifically fight back against those zergers and gankers; in faction-based games I would hope that they either give important points for fighting back or that the victims have an important value to the faction as a whole, which would give the stronger factionmembers good reasons to help the victims in their faction. 

    Only a very narrow subsection of PVPers seek those types of fear and thrills, in this particular form.

    For most of us it's better to have typical gameplay be fairly exciting, with particularly thrilling moments when our BF3 helo gets hit to 10% health and all manner of smoke and warning alarms are going off while we narrowly escape death over a hill to repair back up.

    For most of us "fear" isn't necessarily something we want to feel while playing a game for entertainment.

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member

    Originally posted by InFaVilla

    Originally posted by maplestone

    I would assert that world-PvP is an unstable design.

    It's no fun playing the victim.  So you lose the people who don't want to PvP at all to other zones/games.  This removes both easy kills and innocents to defend.   The game becomes more and more battleground-like and bleeds away players who don't want to play when they are the bottom.  So a game with open-world PvP will die off or gravitate to being a battlefield environment.

    Whether or not it is fun playing the victim, completely depends on what kind of player one is and what kind of game it is.

     

    Some reasons for why playing the victim can be entertaining:

    * If it is factionbased, it can be fun calling your high level faction members to defend your faction areas from the intruders you spotted.

    * It is natural to get a feeling of satisfaction from overcoming your obstacles.

    *Outsmarting and planning ahead can be very satisfying.

    LOL .. most would disagree. That is why world PvP is so unpopular and taken away in WOW.

    BTW, the points you are making have nothing to do with playing the victim. How can a victim overcoming obstacles? By definition, they are the ones who LOSE and got killed. And how would being a victim be outsmarting anything? The OTHER guy outsmart you, otherwise, you won't be the victim. You need a class in logical reasoning.

     

  • ClassicstarClassicstar rotjeknorPosts: 2,690Member

    Its like switch off pvp on/off majority i think 99% want controlled pvp at there choosing knowing what and how it will happen what objectives are and whos there opponent's.

    World pvp is unpredictable or you can be surrpirsed been ganked by a group majority hates that they wanne be left alone.

    So result is INSTANCE all instance no ganking no kill stealing or even worse pls no encounters with others players or maybe he wanne party or talk with me and OH NO THATS NOT WHAT I WANT communicating with other players i dont know maybe a can get some deseases who knows:P

    More and more MMO'S are dead, solo games where your 100% protected from any other player.

    Negative go play all those themeparks its realy realy bad state right now with games and behavior and social skills of gameplayer base in most of them.

    How this all will change i realy don't know anymore:(

    MB:MSI Z97XPOWER AC
    CPU:Intell Icore7 4790k
    GPU:MSI 2x AMD 290X
    MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
    PSU:Corsair AX1200i
    OS:Windows 8.1 64bit)not yet sure i upgrade to windows 10 need to know alot more with integrated cloud and other maybe spy stuff)

  • HolaHolaHolaHola AlbertslundPosts: 68Member

    World PvP is not dead. UO is for me a prime example of how well it can be done, but also a prime example of how little that is needed to destroy it again.

    There is an extreme fine line of balancing the tools you give players to make it work (often freedom vs control). The problem is that MMOs is extremly complex and changing something in PvE might have a great effect on PvP and vice versa. 

    Therefore creating game mechanics and looking at game design patterns that will work in practice for both PvE and PvP needs more focus. For me it seems that they are greatly separated in many cases. But i do not blame companys for this really, it is a though and time consuming task, and thereby an expensive one.

    But i still believe it can be done, else i wouldn't study games. We just really need big companys with the budget beliving in open world pvp as a big integrated part of the game.

     

    Playing: League of Legends!

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,719Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by forest-nl

    maybe he wanne party or talk with me and OH NO THATS NOT WHAT I WANT communicating with other players i dont know maybe a can get some deseases who knows:P

    What would make you say that?  Team-based PVP is considerably more popular than 1v1 PVP.  Players love grouping and teamwork, they just don't want to put up with the bullshit that comes along with non-instanced PVP.  Those games have more timesinks, more tedium, and on top of that worse PVP (one-sided slaughters where decisions are irrelevant.)

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • InFaVillaInFaVilla StockholmPosts: 592Member

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by InFaVilla


    Originally posted by maplestone

    I would assert that world-PvP is an unstable design.

    It's no fun playing the victim.  So you lose the people who don't want to PvP at all to other zones/games.  This removes both easy kills and innocents to defend.   The game becomes more and more battleground-like and bleeds away players who don't want to play when they are the bottom.  So a game with open-world PvP will die off or gravitate to being a battlefield environment.

    Whether or not it is fun playing the victim, completely depends on what kind of player one is and what kind of game it is.

     

    Some reasons for why playing the victim can be entertaining:

    * If it is factionbased, it can be fun calling your high level faction members to defend your faction areas from the intruders you spotted.

    * It is natural to get a feeling of satisfaction from overcoming your obstacles.

    *Outsmarting and planning ahead can be very satisfying.

    LOL .. most would disagree. That is why world PvP is so unpopular and taken away in WOW.

    BTW, the points you are making have nothing to do with playing the victim. How can a victim overcoming obstacles? By definition, they are the ones who LOSE and got killed. And how would being a victim be outsmarting anything? The OTHER guy outsmart you, otherwise, you won't be the victim. You need a class in logical reasoning.

     

     

    I thought "victim" was refered to in a more metaphoric manner: as in the "victim" of the choice to allow World PvP. In other words: those holding the lowest positions in the World PvP hierachy, those who are most likely to get ganked. 

    You can simultaneously leap the highest risk of getting ganked, often due to lack of power from levels and gear, and still have the possibility and the choice to attempt and succeed in outsmarting opponents. 

    Outsmarting, can be to survive a hunt, to avoid detection altogether or to simply make the aggressors pay more than you lost from dieing. 

  • maplestonemaplestone Ottawa, ONPosts: 3,099Member

    Originally posted by InFaVilla

    Some reasons for why playing the victim can be entertaining:

    * If it is factionbased, it can be fun calling your high level faction members to defend your faction areas from the intruders you spotted.

    * It is natural to get a feeling of satisfaction from overcoming your obstacles.

    *Outsmarting and planning ahead can be very satisfying.

    Couldn't everything you say here can be provided more easily by a staged battlefields than an open-world where other players may or may not decide to play the same game?

    Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of world integrity and avoiding instances/arenas where possible.  In the back of my mind, I'm thinking about Eve and why that game has grown rather than evaporated like all other open-PvP games I've seen.

  • InFaVillaInFaVilla StockholmPosts: 592Member

    Originally posted by maplestone

    Originally posted by InFaVilla

    Some reasons for why playing the victim can be entertaining:

    * If it is factionbased, it can be fun calling your high level faction members to defend your faction areas from the intruders you spotted.

    * It is natural to get a feeling of satisfaction from overcoming your obstacles.

    *Outsmarting and planning ahead can be very satisfying.

    Couldn't everything you say here can be provided more easily by a staged battlefields than an open-world where other players may or may not decide to play the same game?

    Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of world integrity and avoiding instances/arenas where possible.  In the back of my mind, I'm thinking about Eve and why that game has grown rather than evaporated like all other open-PvP games I've seen.

    I think the problem is solved to a certain extent by providing PvP and PvE servers, like many MMORPGs already do. I would though wish that differences in rulesets were a bit more extreme and thought-out. 

    The problem with arenas is that we already got too many games that focus on them, specially in genres outside of MMORPGs. I've always liked variation and too much arena can become boring after a while. Open world pvp, specially those based around three factions designed in such way that you really care about the well-being of your own faction, gives such a different entertaining feel and that's why it is in my interest that it stays alive as an option.

     

  • skyexileskyexile MelbournePosts: 692Member


    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
    There will be plenty of no skill ganking and zerging in maps suited for 200v200v200. Progression or no progression 
    The underlying reason for the term "zerg" is a jab at the obviously crappy design of "I have more friends online tonight so I win".  That only happens in the spillover continents in Planetside, and definitely doesn't happen in the 200v200 continents.
    If you're on a 200v200v200 continent and you find yourself outnumbered, it's your own damn fault.  Your teammates were out there and you chose to separate from them.
    Sometimes separation is wise, but the crucial difference is it becomes a tactical player choice rather than "Welp, the enemy has more players online tonight guess we're just always going to lose" which is the absolute worst part of Planetside (but is thankfully rare in Planetside, whereas in world PVP it's the norm.)
    But in 200v200 fights, population is factored out, leaving skill and teamwork as the reasons you win or lose -- and that's what the majority considers worthwhile PVP: games about skillful competition.
    Similarly, the underlying reason for the term "gank" is a jab at the obviously crappy design of "I can ambush you while you're doing a PVE activity which takes you to 50% health".  This never happens in Planetside; there are no PVE activities, everything is PVP-related.

    Thats the best fun in Planetside, been outnumbered, some of the most fun an intense fights iv had have been fights like:

    Me vs squad
    3 vs yellow alert
    10 vs Red alert re secure.


    You can fight with even numbers on evenly balanced teams in sooo many games, Planetside lets anything happen, and you never know whats going to be out there, watching and waiting.

    Planetsides 3 faction PvP also helps lessen the blow of empire population problems, you migth get hammered sometimes in a double team, but once you get pushed back far enough, another enemy will have no choice but to fight 2 factions on 2 fronts of a map.

    SKYeXile
    TRF - GM - GW2, PS2, WAR, AION, Rift, WoW, WOT....etc...
    Future Crew - High Council. Planetside 1 & 2.

  • LeegOfChldrnLeegOfChldrn Jcakson, MSPosts: 364Member

    If the developers designed the entire game to be a world PvP game, it wouldn't be plagued with the same problems as a game currently out with added world PvP.

    With that said, world PvP is dead until a developer creates a game with a design focused entirely on World PvP, making sure that the fatal flaws of world PvP are dealt with in the design.

    Otherwise... world PvP is as retarded as permadeath.

    Of course, permadeath is also entirely viable in thousands of ways, depending on if the game is designed around it, or if it is a feature dropped into a current MMO.

     

    World PvP dropped in WoW = end of the world. (of warcraft).

    Permadeath dropped in WoW = end of the world. (of warcraft).

     

    Game designed from Day 0 with the entire focus of World PvP / Permadeath / Other Idea, with design created to solve the problems that occur = successful game with inserted feature.

     

    It's all about the game design. If you don't believe me, then you need to expand your mind. A video game is without genre until a design happens. Take a video game and add World PvP + Permadeath + ????? and it results in every FPS game ever created. Do it again, and you produce RTS games. Arguably the definition of "world" changed during design, and *who* suffers permadeath may change, but that's the power of design. The point I am making is that no idea or concept of game type is entirely set up to fail. It just means the DESIGN needs to base itself around it, and many other factors.

    Since I see no one attempting World PvP, it is in the game graveyard, but certainly not dead.

  • warmaster670warmaster670 Simcoe, ONPosts: 1,384Member

    Originally posted by wormywyrm

    The only game I've ever played instanced pvp in is GW1...  All those others are pathetic.

    So, there pathetic, yet youve never played them, so really, your just talking out your ass.

    Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
    Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,719Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by skyexile

    Thats the best fun in Planetside, been outnumbered, some of the most fun an intense fights iv had have been fights like:

    Me vs squad

    3 vs yellow alert

    10 vs Red alert re secure.



    You can fight with even numbers on evenly balanced teams in sooo many games, Planetside lets anything happen, and you never know whats going to be out there, watching and waiting.

    Planetsides 3 faction PvP also helps lessen the blow of empire population problems, you migth get hammered sometimes in a double team, but once you get pushed back far enough, another enemy will have no choice but to fight 2 factions on 2 fronts of a map.

    Some of the most fun I had was outnumbered too.  20:1 k:d tower holdouts, and successful 5v20 base defenses.

    But what made it particularly fun is knowing that elsewhere on the continent my 195 teammates were pushing bases specifically because we 5 players were holding against 20 enemies (leaving the enemy on the other side of the map at a disadvantage.)

    It was always intentional strategy, rather than simply being outnumbered.  Losing the spillover continent because it's 50vs10 was just outright not fun.

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • skyexileskyexile MelbournePosts: 692Member


    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Originally posted by skyexile
    Thats the best fun in Planetside, been outnumbered, some of the most fun an intense fights iv had have been fights like:
    Me vs squad
    3 vs yellow alert
    10 vs Red alert re secure.

    You can fight with even numbers on evenly balanced teams in sooo many games, Planetside lets anything happen, and you never know whats going to be out there, watching and waiting.
    Planetsides 3 faction PvP also helps lessen the blow of empire population problems, you migth get hammered sometimes in a double team, but once you get pushed back far enough, another enemy will have no choice but to fight 2 factions on 2 fronts of a map.
    Some of the most fun I had was outnumbered too.  20:1 k:d tower holdouts, and successful 5v20 base defenses.
    But what made it particularly fun is knowing that elsewhere on the continent my 195 teammates were pushing bases specifically because we 5 players were holding against 20 enemies (leaving the enemy on the other side of the map at a disadvantage.)
    It was always intentional strategy, rather than simply being outnumbered.  Losing the spillover continent because it's 50vs10 was just outright not fun.

    Never much concerned myself with global strategy or trying to hold land or take it. Some people get off on taking land for a sense of victory, even bother send a hate tell after they finally push you out of a base where you farmed them for half an hour. I guess victory is in the eye of the player in Planetside, because from my view i never felt like i lost :) Maybe its why I like it so much, who knows.


    SKYeXile
    TRF - GM - GW2, PS2, WAR, AION, Rift, WoW, WOT....etc...
    Future Crew - High Council. Planetside 1 & 2.

Sign In or Register to comment.