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!

Why does PvP have to be Non-Consensual to be considered 'Good PvP'?

fyerwallfyerwall Posts: 3,155Member Uncommon

There has been a lot of discussion as of late on the EQ:Next boards about PvP. One of the issue that has been stated is that if PvP is in any way consensual its bad PvP.

I originally posted this question in a thread there, but only got one answer which really wasn't much of an answer, so I thought I would ask it here;

Why does PvP have to be Non-Consensual to be considered 'Good PvP'?

There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"


image

«1345

Comments

  • CruizerkeCruizerke Posts: 67Member Uncommon

    Even though the opposite will definately be argued. If the "Elite" PVPers can't force their will on anyone and everyone, it's not good.

     

  • RobokappRobokapp Dublin, OHPosts: 5,205Member Uncommon

    because consensual pvp is basically a battleground. the element of danger is nonexistent if you can prevent another player from killing you with you ... checkbox.

     

    edit: these topics always go the same way. here's what we'll see over the next 20 pages:

     

    Noobs don't want to be killed.

    Elites don't want to miss a kill.

    image

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,724Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by fyerwall

    There has been a lot of discussion as of late on the EQ:Next boards about PvP. One of the issue that has been stated is that if PvP is in any way consensual its bad PvP.

    I originally posted this question in a thread there, but only got one answer which really wasn't much of an answer, so I thought I would ask it here;

    Why does PvP have to be Non-Consensual to be considered 'Good PvP'?

    I think most players feel exactly the opposite.  Consensual competitive games like Soccer, LoL, TF2, and Chess are vastly more popular than the MMORPGs which have non-consensual PVP.  Consensual competitive games dominate.

    "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

  • fyerwallfyerwall Posts: 3,155Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Robokapp
    because consensual pvp is basically a battleground. the element of danger is nonexistent if you can prevent another player from killing you with you ... checkbox.

    Thank you Robo for giving a valid point of view.

    I guess my next question would be; Why does it matter if PvPers have the ability to flag themselves for PvP while others can stay PvE flagged? If Someone chooses not to participate, how does that impact your fun?

    There are 3 types of people in the world.
    1.) Those who make things happen
    2.) Those who watch things happen
    3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"


    image

  • NightgroperNightgroper Aunt Em''s, NEPosts: 76Member
    Originally posted by Robokapp
    because consensual pvp is basically a battleground. the element of danger is nonexistent if you can prevent another player from killing you with you ... checkbox.

    Are you saying love can bloom on the battlegrounds, but danger can not? I beg to differ sir! I dash in and out of skirmishes, all while cowering behind any available mea-"team-mate" I can find! The danger is there.

     

    I think it's more likely the thrill of the hunt at first, and then once they find prey, they play with their food for a bit. Also it's another way for them to show off how much time they have invested, and more they have accomplished in the game than you.

     

    Though in contrast I somewhat like eve's pvp system as it adds to the world, slightly, making you feel like you're streaking through space trying to avoid pirates, or the authorities.

    The more I'm around the forums on this site, the more bitter I become.

  • lugallugal Escondido, CAPosts: 636Member Uncommon
    Something tells me all these threads about consensual pvp is a very well done spam, however; non-consensual pvp is a myth. You consent when you join a pvp server or a game with open pvp.

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    The reviewer has a mishapen head
    Which means his opinion is skewed
    ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley

  • fyerwallfyerwall Posts: 3,155Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by fyerwall

    There has been a lot of discussion as of late on the EQ:Next boards about PvP. One of the issue that has been stated is that if PvP is in any way consensual its bad PvP.

    I originally posted this question in a thread there, but only got one answer which really wasn't much of an answer, so I thought I would ask it here;

    Why does PvP have to be Non-Consensual to be considered 'Good PvP'?

    I think most players feel exactly the opposite.  Consensual competitive games like Soccer, LoL, TF2, and Chess are vastly more popular than the MMORPGs which have non-consensual PVP.  Consensual competitive games dominate.

    Well that's what I am trying to figure out here. There are a lot of PvP centric games out there, but watching the threads about EQ:N, there are people saying for PvP to be good in an MMO it has to be FFA Non-consensual. Anything else would lead to bad PvP.

    There are 3 types of people in the world.
    1.) Those who make things happen
    2.) Those who watch things happen
    3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"


    image

  • RobokappRobokapp Dublin, OHPosts: 5,205Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by fyerwall
    Originally posted by Robokapp
    because consensual pvp is basically a battleground. the element of danger is nonexistent if you can prevent another player from killing you with you ... checkbox.

    Thank you Robo for giving a valid point of view.

    I guess my next question would be; Why does it matter if PvPers have the ability to flag themselves for PvP while others can stay PvE flagged? If Someone chooses not to participate, how does that impact your fun?

    question is too broad for a single answer, no matter how long. I'll give one simple example of specific reasons.

     

    what if someone stole something from you ? in a game like EVE you can use your influence and the political relationships you have to punish him. What if he flags off ? Now you can no longer do that. A very important game dimension has just vanished. The ability to attempt to punish wrongdoings.

     

    When you lose the ability to gank a noob you also lose the ability to gank a griefer or a thief and depending of mechanics, even a criminal.

     

    image

  • fyerwallfyerwall Posts: 3,155Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lugal
    Something tells me all these threads about consensual pvp is a very well done spam, however; non-consensual pvp is a myth. You consent when you join a pvp server or a game with open pvp.

    Eh, not really talking about a game that is already established with a set PvP system. The question pertains to if a game in development stated they were going to offer PvP, but not sure if they were going to be Consensual (have to flag PvP on/off) or non-consenual (FFA - everyone is attackable), why some people believe that if it isnt non-consensual, it isnt worth doing.

    There are 3 types of people in the world.
    1.) Those who make things happen
    2.) Those who watch things happen
    3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"


    image

  • ArakaziArakazi OxfordPosts: 889Member
    It creates tension and a sense of danger. Plus it's fun when you end up kicking the ass of the guy that tried to kill you. However, the problem is that most open world pvp is done by small gangs when they feel odds are in their favor and avoid more risky encounters, particularly when it's a full loot system. The other problem is griefing and ganking noobs. Personally I won't play these games unless invited by my clan and therefore have some measure of protection when I go into the game. However, most people who come into game such as mortal online or darkfall won't have that and will therefore experience the downside of the system with little or no protection and will quit soon after.
  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,211Member Uncommon

    If you logged into a FFA PvP game it's consensual by definition. There's no such thing unless you were somehow tricked into playing the game. It's another of those internet fallacies.

     

    Good PvP is any PvP you enjoy. In other words it's an opinion and not subject to proof by factual evidence.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • fyerwallfyerwall Posts: 3,155Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by zymurgeist

    If you logged into a FFA PvP game it's consensual by definition. There's no such thing unless you were somehow tricked into playing the game. It's another of those internet fallacies.

     

    Good PvP is any PvP you enjoy. In other words it's an opinion and not subject to proof by factual evidence.

    Again, not talking about already established games. If anyone logs into DarkFall and complains about its being FFA, its their own fault for not reading. What I am asking is, in general, why people think that if a game is going to have PvP, it has to be non-consensual (FFA) to be good.

    There are 3 types of people in the world.
    1.) Those who make things happen
    2.) Those who watch things happen
    3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"


    image

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,211Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by fyerwall
    Originally posted by zymurgeist

    If you logged into a FFA PvP game it's consensual by definition. There's no such thing unless you were somehow tricked into playing the game. It's another of those internet fallacies.

     

    Good PvP is any PvP you enjoy. In other words it's an opinion and not subject to proof by factual evidence.

    Again, not talking about already established games. If anyone logs into DarkFall and complains about its being FFA, its their own fault for not reading. What I am asking is, in general, why people think that if a game is going to have PvP, it has to be non-consensual (FFA) to be good.

    Read the second part. It's a personal preference nothing more. People will give you a dozen reasons why it has to be or can't be. All of them boil down to "I like it" or "I don't like it." For me FFA PvP being good or not depends on the rest of the game. If I play a game and don't want FFA PvP it's because the PvP itself sucks and I don't want to deal with it. Some games just have better PvE.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • Personally I feel like non-consensual PvP, with a criminal/law system is the best way. Towns should be safe areas. Outside of town the majority of the area is PvP enabled but not lawless FFA. Small portions of the world outside of towns would be full on PvP with no repercussions.

    The lawless full on PvP areas are typically where the epic quests take you. Higher risk/higher reward. Many of the group dungeon entrances could be located in the lawless areas.

    In the majority of the world, there would be a criminal/law system that would police PvP behavior. In these areas you could flag yourself for FFA PvP if that is the life that you prefer. Like minded individuals could still FFA PvP without repercussion. However if not flagged for FFA PvP you would be somewhat "protected" by the criminal system.

    The criminal system would tally a PK to a player that started the PvP fight in the law protected areas. The criminal system would also flag that person for FFA PvP as soon as they engage a player who was not flagged for FFA PvP. This enables other players to come to the aid of the player who was not seeking PvP without negative pepercussions.

    The amount of PKs a player has tallied in a given period of time would determine how long they would remain flagged for FFA PvP after the engagement. This enables the "victim" to get revenge or to get help from friends. This sort of system really promotes community, politics, friendships, etc.

    An added bonus would be to have a gear score system that would cause a PK'er/criminal to lose their best piece of gear if killed. This adds incentive for them to not lose if they choose to engage in non-consensual combat. It heightens the level of excitement for them as well as providing incentive for others to police the criminals.

    I would really love to see a modern game use this system. I would definitely make it my main, if not only, MMO.

    P.S. If this sounds familiar to anyone, what I described is exactly the system that is in Soul of the Ultimate Nation. That game is too dated in graphics and player movement for me to consider playing anymore. However 4-5 years ago I thoroughly enjoyed the PvP aspect of that game.

    P.S.S. I also really liked how instead of, or in addition to, a level requirement for equipping gear... There was a stat requirement.

  • ArakaziArakazi OxfordPosts: 889Member
    Originally posted by fyerwall
    Originally posted by zymurgeist

    If you logged into a FFA PvP game it's consensual by definition. There's no such thing unless you were somehow tricked into playing the game. It's another of those internet fallacies.

     

    Good PvP is any PvP you enjoy. In other words it's an opinion and not subject to proof by factual evidence.

    Again, not talking about already established games. If anyone logs into DarkFall and complains about its being FFA, its their own fault for not reading. What I am asking is, in general, why people think that if a game is going to have PvP, it has to be non-consensual (FFA) to be good.

    I'm not big on PvP, but "non consensual" PvP games requires more thought, in that you cannot go where you like and do as you please. In a way the game is less free than it otherwise would be as it punishes recklessness and stupidity. Take EVe for example, I cannot just jump into a Raven and go into null sec and start ratting, I will be podded the moment I stepped into low sec. If I wanted to go into null I would probably need a jump bridge or at least a properly fitted covert ops ship. Once I reached null I will have to be wary and keep an eye on local and alliance chat to see who is in the area. It could be said that PvP in non consensual games is all about preparation and good judgement rather than any twitch combat skills. Overall it can be a rewarding experience when things click together, but I find the constraints and drama that come with it tiresome at times.

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,724Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by fyerwall

    Well that's what I am trying to figure out here. There are a lot of PvP centric games out there, but watching the threads about EQ:N, there are people saying for PvP to be good in an MMO it has to be FFA Non-consensual. Anything else would lead to bad PvP.

    Well I mentioned what types of PVP are popular with most players, but that doesn't mean you can't intentionally make a game with PVP that isn't what most players want.

    For me personally I wouldn't consider it good MMO PVP until it eliminated non-skill factors.  So it would be a bit like if Planetside 1 had MMORPG combat instead of MMOFPS combat.  It'd be a giant world with three empires, battling over many continents with many cities per continent.  It would have a population limit per continent (perhaps 200v200v200 would be the max fight size, like PS1) and progression would only make you more flexible, not more powerful (a day-1 newbie character in PS1 could go toe-to-toe with a year-5 veteran; skill determined the winner.)

    But like I said, players like me are possibly a much smaller group than the two MMORPG playing groups I described earlier, and those other two groups aren't strongly interested in PVP in the first place.

    One thing's for sure though: if PVP is only FFA non-consensual in EQ:N I won't end up playing long because I'll be forced into bad PVP and there are too many fun games out there to waste my time being forced into bad PVP.

    "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

  • xpowderxxpowderx Radcliff, KYPosts: 2,131Member Uncommon

    While gankers like the idea of open pvp. The reality is it kills servers. See much happening on a EQ PVP server? There is one! Has the lowest population of any EQ server.

    This applies and is a inherent problem with most mmos. In Rift, which has its ups and downs with pvp servers. Most stay a couple months and move on to a pve server. PVP in Rift is quite fun. But the majority of it is done on battlefields, rifts or quests.

    Even Ultima experienced a huge population dropback in the day due to open pvp. In the day of Dark Age of Camelot(DAOC) there was a server named Mordred. It was a fully open pvp server. Within 2 months it was the lowest pop server out of them all.

    The funny thing is DAOC set the standard in a big way of what pvp is. Just Mordred brought the bad.

    IMO PVP should  always be consentual. As if it is not. It is nothing more than selfish ganking to make some dude feel like he has the powah. When in reality he only does it because he has other issues in his life. No teamwork, no sport in it. Which is why most legitimate pvpers pvp in the first place.

  • SilverKnight1966SilverKnight1966 Portland, ORPosts: 9Member
    Originally posted by fyerwall
    Originally posted by lugal
    Something tells me all these threads about consensual pvp is a very well done spam, however; non-consensual pvp is a myth. You consent when you join a pvp server or a game with open pvp.

    Eh, not really talking about a game that is already established with a set PvP system. The question pertains to if a game in development stated they were going to offer PvP, but not sure if they were going to be Consensual (have to flag PvP on/off) or non-consenual (FFA - everyone is attackable), why some people believe that if it isnt non-consensual, it isnt worth doing.

    My favorite game happens to be exclusively PvP.  The limits are based on level to protect newbs starting out from well established players, but if the lowbie hits the established player voids that protection for 48 hours... usually for very brutal result.

  • zastenzasten nowherePosts: 283Member
    Originally posted by fyerwall

    I guess my next question would be; Why does it matter if PvPers have the ability to flag themselves for PvP while others can stay PvE flagged? If Someone chooses not to participate, how does that impact your fun?

    They miss out on their fun, because they can not annoy the shit out of another player, end of story! This is the only reason for requesting non-consensual pvp, so you can piss off other players to such an extent that you make them rage quit the game. If it did not matter so much, it would make no difference where the pvp was held, everybody that wanted to do so, could do so!

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,659Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by fyerwall
    Originally posted by Robokapp
    because consensual pvp is basically a battleground. the element of danger is nonexistent if you can prevent another player from killing you with you ... checkbox.

    Thank you Robo for giving a valid point of view.

    I guess my next question would be; Why does it matter if PvPers have the ability to flag themselves for PvP while others can stay PvE flagged? If Someone chooses not to participate, how does that impact your fun?

    It depends on the game. The more player actions can impact the game, the more flagging tends to violate that design. 

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • fyerwallfyerwall Posts: 3,155Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by zasten
    Originally posted by fyerwall

    I guess my next question would be; Why does it matter if PvPers have the ability to flag themselves for PvP while others can stay PvE flagged? If Someone chooses not to participate, how does that impact your fun?

    They miss out on their fun, because they can not annoy the shit out of another player, end of story! This is the only reason for requesting non-consensual pvp, so you can piss off other players to such an extent that you make them rage quit the game. If it did not matter so much, it would make no difference where the pvp was held, everybody that wanted to do so, could do so!

    I agree with what you are saying as that is something a noticed from a lot of Pvpers over the last 20+ years of gaming. 

    But Robo brought up a good point. You will sometimes have a player that lives to annoy others and then hides behind the PvE flag. Kind of like a foreign diplomat who commits a crime and hides behind "Diplomatic Immunity", so I can understand the desire to just kill someone like that on the spot.

     

    There are 3 types of people in the world.
    1.) Those who make things happen
    2.) Those who watch things happen
    3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"


    image

  • willo248willo248 londonPosts: 346Member

    If not everyone is vulnerable it really ruins the experience for me. For example if I see a player doing some PVE I want nothing more than to creep up on him, stab him in the back and steal his stuff. However if he was to have a 'pve flag' it would prevent this, which has happened more than once to me in other games.

    This mechanic really removes from the game and makes it feel tame and dull to me.

  • fyerwallfyerwall Posts: 3,155Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by willo248

    If not everyone is vulnerable it really ruins the experience for me. For example if I see a player doing some PVE I want nothing more than to creep up on him, stab him in the back and steal his stuff. However if he was to have a 'pve flag' it would prevent this, which has happened more than once to me in other games.

    This mechanic really removes from the game and makes it feel tame and dull to me.

    But why should someone else who is playing a game to have fun have to endure being killed for no reason other than because it was fun for you?

    Wouldn't that mechanic make the game less fun for them?

    There are 3 types of people in the world.
    1.) Those who make things happen
    2.) Those who watch things happen
    3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"


    image

  • STYNKFYSTSTYNKFYST Sacramento, CAPosts: 290Member

    "Because pvpers want to gank noobs."

    ^This

    It is more than this...but this sums it up. Has nothing to do with anything but history. The morons that destroyed PvP in other games are scaring off anyone that is already apprehensive about PvP. No one wants to play with the l33t twitch gamers that decided they like MMOs too. Who's only goal is to take yer stuff in a lopsided fight.

  • TheocritusTheocritus Gary, INPosts: 3,741Member Uncommon
    You have to realize that the majority of PVPers do not want anywhere enar a fair fight...They will use every hack, cheat, and unfair advantage...To them, it is all about "winning".......
«1345
Sign In or Register to comment.