Most players seem to prefer e-sport PVP though. It's by far the most popular form of PVP. The main shortcomings of "war" PVP being:
Too casual. The victor is decided before the fight happens, through activities which tend to require little or no skill, like spending a longer time progressing your character, or recruiting a bigger zerg than your opponents. While this preparation is reflective of actual war, I haven't seen a game which actually makes those preparations particularly deep or skillful. Nobody ever said, "Wow, I bet it took a lot of skill to throw together than 50-man zerg!" (Well I guess someone probably did, but they were being sarcastic.)
Dull battles. When fights are predetermined, they're one-sided, which means there's rarely (if ever) a feeling that one side could skillfully turn things around.
Not actually about the war. It's a little ironic that a "war" MMORPG will have you spending most of your time preparing for war, rather than fighting one. Again: realistic but not quite as fun to players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Once upon a time there used to be these things called pvp servers, and if you were to make a character on one you were consenting to pvp. I miss those things
Many games still have those, but most are almost empty. If you log into a game with PvE servers and PvP servers, the PvP ones are always far less crowded.
Why? Because most people don't like it. So PvPers have to try to force it onto others.
People don't like it because PVP is always neglected in the PVE games with PVP tacked on.
1. PvP have to have consequences to be considered good pvp in a MMORPG world.
2. To have consequence you need something to fight over. Like territory, like resources and so on
3. If you now request consense from every player aka pvp flag you build in a exploit flag into your game, because some player can get to any territory or get any resource without any consequence..
4. with it pvp lose all of it consequence
5. pvp will no longer be considered good pvp
But thats all about mmorpg, open world pvp. All battleground pvp and the like is more or less like sport, and is done multiply times better in any multiplayer game and not so good in mmorpgs. So.. basicly either you talk about open world pvp in MMOs or you should just not think at all about pvp.. because simplier multiplayer games which focus only at that part do it a lot better, and is a lot easier to take part in. (no level or gear prerequests.
It is that simple.. really.
In the case of EQNext...
They really have to decide what they want. Do they want dynamic change in the world? Like Houses&cities get build and destroyed? Or like territory will change over time.. and so on and so forth. They have to build in some sort of pvp(with consequence, with crime points and all the stuff). Or they just let pvp out of the consideration and make it pve only.
And now they have to think how they can create a dynamic environment with pve tools. Will mobs conquer a city, destroy it? Or are they ok with a static world. The world will build up until every available spot is full and static from that on. In a themepark game, where everything is static it isnt really hard to avoid any pvp. In a sandbox game, where change is one important part of a game you have to think how you will realize this change.
Minecraft(PvE) just restarts the server at one point. But that isnt the best way in a persistent mmo world.
because fat kids want gank and kill noobs to make themselves feel better. There's nothing good about nonconsensual pvp. It's all about feeding the hardcore bullies.
Given the choice, I pretty much always play on a PvP server. Meaning I generally consent to the danger and PvP. That being said, I usually prefer there to be factional PvP (Rift, EQ2, WoW, Aion etc) rather than FFA PvP.
My real issue with FFA PvP is that it is stupid. Its one big gankfest where you cant trust anyone, and its completely unrealistic. There are zero consequences for being a homicidal maniac in most games. Age of Wushu has handled this pretty well, and I actually like the concept of the game, if not the execution (mind the pun).
I would love it if EQNext had faction based PvP, and territory control, and PvP with meaning. But FFA PvP without strict penalties for ganking / griefing would just put me off the game, despite me loving both its predecessors. Also knowing the Everquest playerbase, most would be very put off if they were forced to PvP when they didn't want to.
So the best option for SoE would be to make it regional based open world PvP, something like EVE but with significantly larger safe areas. Or to have two different ruleset servers.
Originally posted by stragen001 Because pvpers want to gank noobs. If PvP is consensual then the noobs won't consent so the pvpers can't gank them. There are those out there that enjoy a good fight, but most just want to crush someone many levels below them to enhance their epeen, and run away from someone that might challenge them. This is why pvpers all want ffa PvP.......
Load of crap ive played Asheron's call-darktide and Darkfall 1 for years and sure som gank but there also players who hunt down gankers.
Its forums where the hate for free for all pvp is spread like its a plague you should avoid.
Ive met plenty who where not ganked but just killed in fair fights and scream all kinds of trash and then whine on forums they been ganked.
Why you even attemp buying a game when you know its free for all full loot?
If you can't handle dying you should play WoW or other games where you know upfront whats gonne happen and LOSE NOTHING.
Oh and some other spreading lies about free for all pvp NOT ALL are GANKERS/PK.
You guys just hate ffa pvp and take any change to discredit this gamestyle and you take the opportunity to do so.
And to ALL its not all gankfest that proofs non of you have ever played ffa pvp mmo's you just made it up becouse you hate it.
I hate PvP and I am in the PvE crowd. The reason is the obsessive whining about which class is more powerful. That always always always always always always leads to some class I am playing being nerfed down till I can't hit a jack rabbit. IE -the ranger.
World PvP is the worse and brings out the greatest amount of whining. Not to mention I might just want to get my quest quota done before I have to shit shower and shave for work and I don't want to be slowed down by anyone.
FAIR FITE just isn't in World PvP.
But if I was going to endure a game with World PvP there would have to be temporary restrictions placed on those flagged for pvp. I think while you are flagged you should have no advantages - no ability to drink potions or gear stat benefits. You should go out like naked little babies as long as your flag is up. That way if you form a party of gankers the one lone individual trying to get his quest complete you are ganking has half a chance. Also, if you are going to World PvP you should not be restricted from the beginner's zones, cities, or any place on the map. Just so long as you are as weak as a level 1 char you can try to jump-hump anyone anywhere.
And the second some dumb ass dev listens to you whiners and nerfs my archer I am leaving yet another game ruined by PvP mechanics.
Well the short and blunt answer would be that EQ players know little about what is good and what is bad. Only thing they do know is that previous EQ titles had servers with non-consentual PvP, and because those games had non-consentual PvP then the next one must have it too.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Unrestricted PvP better simulates the world and real warfare. It also gives the game more of a "thrill".
However, I've gotten similar thrills and simulation experiences from RvR games. Pre New Frontiers DAoC, and Planetside 2.
MMOs are strongest when simulating worlds. Massive scale conflict is great for MMOs. Territory control and warfare.
Instanced battlegrounds and arenas... are much weaker. There are a TON of great arena games out there already, like LoL and such, that do it far FAR better than an MMO EVER will.
An MMO that tries to out LoL LoL will just seem bad by comparison. But LoL cannot do 500 man sieges the way DAoC can.
That is why small instanced rinky dink PvP is usually considered "bad". There are no consequences to it, no weight, and the mechanics themselves are poor.
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?
And why does it matter if PVP has it's own specific servers?
Because otherwise you'll have constant people backstabbing and team ganking.
Johnny PvP Hero decides he wants the rangers bow, so he waits until the Rangers not looking and WHAM! Backstab and first strike. While the other players trying to recover he's stringing his attacks together and wins.
Now Johnny has a new bow with very little risk.
He gets together with a couple of his lame crew and decide to go out and ROFLstomp some poor cleric 5 to 1. To them its fun.
How do you think the cleric feels.
Game makers won't condone these types of actions. The few will drive away the many costing them way to much money.
Consensual PvP is just a boring ePeen competition for minmaxers.
That said, even non-consensual PvP is bad in most games. You go out, fight like an idiot, die, respawn and (with maybe a little bit of walking) just continue where you left.
Non consensual PvP anywhere at any time with the risk of actually losing everything you have on your character - aka full loot - does not only change the PvP aspect of a game but the whole social dynamic of a game.
EvE works very successful on this model. It's not only a complex game in itself but also has a quite complex and interesting meta-game. Something few games can boast over nowadays. Grinding battglegrounds is boring. Arenas can be more fun, but have no (better: should not have) effect on the rest of the gameplay and are more like eSports on top of a game.
Open world "PvP" in themepark games with a shallow econonomy, levels and grindable gear without danger of losing it is the complete antithesis of fun PvP and probably the reason why most people think that PvP is equivalent to ganking noobs. In fact it is a bad joke and shows a lot about the incompetence of the designers who thought up this nonsense.
There cannot be PvP with gear and level caused instakills, since then it is not Player versus Player but gear /level against gear/ level or time spent grinding versus time spent grinding. This is though how it works in the well known themepark grind mills. It is just not possible to have good and sensible PvP in games which are basically designed around repeatable PvE content with gear as incentive. I don't think it would work to make these games full loot or introduce item decay. Not as long as the businessmodel requires that people grind certain instances for weeks or months to get the latest set of ridiculously OP gear.
Well I can't say I care for lowbie ganking and the attitude that comes with many non consenting pvp systems. However I really like tactical resource acquisition.
I like blockade running and blockade setting in Eve.
I liked the original concept of Alterac Valley where rare items and materials could be earned by winning the siege game.
I really like the concept of high risk high reward areas.
Sadly most rewards in MMOs are gated by timesinks rather than skill or risk taking.
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 nothing wrong with FFA PvP and if you play a game or on a server with that rule set then I agree with others youh ave consented.
There's nothing wrong with basing a game around such PvP and they can be hella fun with the right people.
However I think where the contention is on this subject is that a vocal group thinks it's the only way to make a good game and insult people who do not feel that way.They also want every game to cater to them and want to deny other people choice.
Of course there are extremist PvErs who feel the same way and are just as bad.
Most of the players I know that truly want a challenge against another player will play games that are not XP/level based like CoD and TF and the like. You can absolutely dominate in those games, but your domination is based on hard-won, actual skill, and not just based on the fact that you are 30 levels higher than the other person and packing vastly superior gear. I know not all MOG PvPers are like this, but a lot of the ones I know prefer to only PvP when they absolutely KNOW they are going to dominate. I personally find no satisfaction or enjoyment when defeating the other player takes no more effort than swatting a fly because my weapon does more damage in a single hit than they have health. It seems there is a sizable portion of the MOG PvP crowd that seemingly want to stride across the landscape like a juggernaut, devastating all in their path. While I certainly see the appeal in that (Who doesn't want to be Zod?), it doesn't make for a very fun game, especially for all the hopeless victims in your path whose only offense is that they have not spent as much time in the game acquiring XP and gear as you have.
It's an unwise business model in an age where an A-list game can cost a hundred million dollars to develop and market. FFA PvP creates a game where only the top elite will stay in the game, everyone else will be driven away. You can't survive as a game developer if you make a game that pisses off most of your customers. (Which leads more and more developers to try to make games that give everyone everything they want whenever they want it....but that's a different problem and a topic for another thread, I think.)
History shows it pretty clearly: FFA PvP MOGs do NOT become blockbuster titles; they are niche titles. The most successful FFA PvP title in the western market is EVE, and while it is an amazing game, it's absolutely a niche game. The guys over at CCP do awesome work, and have made an awesome game, but they did it by not TRYING to be a "blockbuster" game. They knew what they wanted to be and marketed it realistically. They have done this so well that I, and many others, proudly wear the horrific losses we have suffered (often from a single error or miscalculation) as a badge of honor. EQN, is not EVE. EQN most definitely wants to be a blockbuster title. To do that means consensual PvP, or at best highly restricted, location-specific open PvP.
Now I respect the PvPers. (Not the gankers, they are a real waste of bandwith. In my opinion, someone who only derives enjoyment from ruining things for others needs therapy, not XP.) The PvPers know exactly what they want in a game experience and they aren't afraid to express it. Hell, the PvPers are more clear about what they want than the PvEers are. The PvEers say "Story? Lore? Balanced class roles, intricate instances, puzzles, challenges," etc., etc., etc. The PvPers go "let me kill my roommate with a greataxe." The problem comes in when a game tries to satisfy both playstyles. I've never really seen it done well, to be honest. You inevitably get an "arena/battleground/skirmish" system that satisfies no one. I say let the PvP games be PvP and the PvE games be PvE! Stop trying to be all things to all people and decide what it is you want your game to be.
But since the money is in PvE games, and the vocal minority is with the PvP games, I forsee more games that try, sadly, to be both.
I have a fix for this whole situation. The reason PvE'ers dont like PvP'ers is ganking. Ganking is bad.
Anyone can do whatever they like, but anyone who ganks someone else gets their character turned into this and has the music playing on a continuous loop for 6 hours(of logged in time)
Cluck Cluck, Gibber Gibber, My Old Mans A Mushroom
Because consensual means one can't gank. People argue this and that in support of "open" pvp, but it boils down to they like to butcher players who are much lower level and/or under-geared.
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.
So what if it is an battleground? E-sports are not good games anymore?
The point of pvp does not have to be danger all the time .. it can be ... e-sport .. skill vs skill.
Originally posted by odiasuda Because consensual means one can't gank. People argue this and that in support of "open" pvp, but it boils down to they like to butcher players who are much lower level and/or under-geared.
Bingo.
For those that disagree, I summit my argument for this issue... I am in a dark mood today....
Humans are born homicidal maniac killing machines. We were Breed that way. Warriors were preferred, if not a Warrior, then someone that could provide Combat Support to Warriors. All other children were killed off, sacraficed, you name it. History has it all recorded, we just don't like to think about it. It is the result of thousands of years of our species existence and our attempts to dominate everything around us.... all the Tribal wars, the bloodshed, the Murders, the backstabbing, the intrigues, We even slaughtered to extinction our closest genetic cousins and we probably cheered about it !! (some People still are!)
Any species that gets in our way, either our physical way or our financial way, we exterminate with out so much as a second thought. Any force of Nature that interferes with our "plans" we find ways to control and/or eliminate. We have learned to love bloodshed, we have learned to love to administer pain and suffering. Seriously, even the "Gods" say we are evil, fallen, "sinful".
Why is it then any surprise that PvPers prefer non-consensual PvP ?
When MMOs first started we had the "nice" maniacs that played MMOs, people were actually friendly, MMOs were fun, ....then when Blizzard made it big our MMO genre attracted all the "masses" of Humanity and NOW we see Humanity in all it's glory. Swell.
(I find these facts about People detestable, YET TRUE, and this is why I won't PvP in any MMO. I won't feed the hunger.)
It is personal preference. Personally I prefer faction or flag based open word PvP. It gives purpose while maintaining the fun of constant danger.
I dislike FFA and I dislike PvE only servers. That's why I was so disappointed with AoC...it's either mindless FFA on one server or carebear on another.
Comments
Most players seem to prefer e-sport PVP though. It's by far the most popular form of PVP. The main shortcomings of "war" PVP being:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
People don't like it because PVP is always neglected in the PVE games with PVP tacked on.
1. PvP have to have consequences to be considered good pvp in a MMORPG world.
2. To have consequence you need something to fight over. Like territory, like resources and so on
3. If you now request consense from every player aka pvp flag you build in a exploit flag into your game, because some player can get to any territory or get any resource without any consequence..
4. with it pvp lose all of it consequence
5. pvp will no longer be considered good pvp
But thats all about mmorpg, open world pvp. All battleground pvp and the like is more or less like sport, and is done multiply times better in any multiplayer game and not so good in mmorpgs. So.. basicly either you talk about open world pvp in MMOs or you should just not think at all about pvp.. because simplier multiplayer games which focus only at that part do it a lot better, and is a lot easier to take part in. (no level or gear prerequests.
It is that simple.. really.
In the case of EQNext...
They really have to decide what they want. Do they want dynamic change in the world? Like Houses&cities get build and destroyed? Or like territory will change over time.. and so on and so forth. They have to build in some sort of pvp(with consequence, with crime points and all the stuff). Or they just let pvp out of the consideration and make it pve only.
And now they have to think how they can create a dynamic environment with pve tools. Will mobs conquer a city, destroy it? Or are they ok with a static world. The world will build up until every available spot is full and static from that on. In a themepark game, where everything is static it isnt really hard to avoid any pvp. In a sandbox game, where change is one important part of a game you have to think how you will realize this change.
Minecraft(PvE) just restarts the server at one point. But that isnt the best way in a persistent mmo world.
Given the choice, I pretty much always play on a PvP server. Meaning I generally consent to the danger and PvP. That being said, I usually prefer there to be factional PvP (Rift, EQ2, WoW, Aion etc) rather than FFA PvP.
My real issue with FFA PvP is that it is stupid. Its one big gankfest where you cant trust anyone, and its completely unrealistic. There are zero consequences for being a homicidal maniac in most games. Age of Wushu has handled this pretty well, and I actually like the concept of the game, if not the execution (mind the pun).
I would love it if EQNext had faction based PvP, and territory control, and PvP with meaning. But FFA PvP without strict penalties for ganking / griefing would just put me off the game, despite me loving both its predecessors. Also knowing the Everquest playerbase, most would be very put off if they were forced to PvP when they didn't want to.
So the best option for SoE would be to make it regional based open world PvP, something like EVE but with significantly larger safe areas. Or to have two different ruleset servers.
Load of crap ive played Asheron's call-darktide and Darkfall 1 for years and sure som gank but there also players who hunt down gankers.
Its forums where the hate for free for all pvp is spread like its a plague you should avoid.
Ive met plenty who where not ganked but just killed in fair fights and scream all kinds of trash and then whine on forums they been ganked.
Why you even attemp buying a game when you know its free for all full loot?
If you can't handle dying you should play WoW or other games where you know upfront whats gonne happen and LOSE NOTHING.
Oh and some other spreading lies about free for all pvp NOT ALL are GANKERS/PK.
You guys just hate ffa pvp and take any change to discredit this gamestyle and you take the opportunity to do so.
And to ALL its not all gankfest that proofs non of you have ever played ffa pvp mmo's you just made it up becouse you hate it.
Because hard core players get their tiny chubbies picking on new players who don't know the ropes yet.
Some make a career of it. Especially when there's no action that can be taken against them.
That's why PvP types of MMO's always fail in the end. 3/4 of the player base get chased away by the 1/4 who think their elite.
this is correct.
I hate PvP and I am in the PvE crowd. The reason is the obsessive whining about which class is more powerful. That always always always always always always leads to some class I am playing being nerfed down till I can't hit a jack rabbit. IE -the ranger.
World PvP is the worse and brings out the greatest amount of whining. Not to mention I might just want to get my quest quota done before I have to shit shower and shave for work and I don't want to be slowed down by anyone.
FAIR FITE just isn't in World PvP.
But if I was going to endure a game with World PvP there would have to be temporary restrictions placed on those flagged for pvp. I think while you are flagged you should have no advantages - no ability to drink potions or gear stat benefits. You should go out like naked little babies as long as your flag is up. That way if you form a party of gankers the one lone individual trying to get his quest complete you are ganking has half a chance. Also, if you are going to World PvP you should not be restricted from the beginner's zones, cities, or any place on the map. Just so long as you are as weak as a level 1 char you can try to jump-hump anyone anywhere.
And the second some dumb ass dev listens to you whiners and nerfs my archer I am leaving yet another game ruined by PvP mechanics.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Unrestricted PvP better simulates the world and real warfare. It also gives the game more of a "thrill".
However, I've gotten similar thrills and simulation experiences from RvR games. Pre New Frontiers DAoC, and Planetside 2.
MMOs are strongest when simulating worlds. Massive scale conflict is great for MMOs. Territory control and warfare.
Instanced battlegrounds and arenas... are much weaker. There are a TON of great arena games out there already, like LoL and such, that do it far FAR better than an MMO EVER will.
An MMO that tries to out LoL LoL will just seem bad by comparison. But LoL cannot do 500 man sieges the way DAoC can.
That is why small instanced rinky dink PvP is usually considered "bad". There are no consequences to it, no weight, and the mechanics themselves are poor.
And why does it matter if PVP has it's own specific servers?
Because otherwise you'll have constant people backstabbing and team ganking.
Johnny PvP Hero decides he wants the rangers bow, so he waits until the Rangers not looking and WHAM! Backstab and first strike. While the other players trying to recover he's stringing his attacks together and wins.
Now Johnny has a new bow with very little risk.
He gets together with a couple of his lame crew and decide to go out and ROFLstomp some poor cleric 5 to 1. To them its fun.
How do you think the cleric feels.
Game makers won't condone these types of actions. The few will drive away the many costing them way to much money.
Consensual PvP is just a boring ePeen competition for minmaxers.
That said, even non-consensual PvP is bad in most games. You go out, fight like an idiot, die, respawn and (with maybe a little bit of walking) just continue where you left.
Non consensual PvP anywhere at any time with the risk of actually losing everything you have on your character - aka full loot - does not only change the PvP aspect of a game but the whole social dynamic of a game.
EvE works very successful on this model. It's not only a complex game in itself but also has a quite complex and interesting meta-game. Something few games can boast over nowadays. Grinding battglegrounds is boring. Arenas can be more fun, but have no (better: should not have) effect on the rest of the gameplay and are more like eSports on top of a game.
Open world "PvP" in themepark games with a shallow econonomy, levels and grindable gear without danger of losing it is the complete antithesis of fun PvP and probably the reason why most people think that PvP is equivalent to ganking noobs. In fact it is a bad joke and shows a lot about the incompetence of the designers who thought up this nonsense.
There cannot be PvP with gear and level caused instakills, since then it is not Player versus Player but gear /level against gear/ level or time spent grinding versus time spent grinding. This is though how it works in the well known themepark grind mills. It is just not possible to have good and sensible PvP in games which are basically designed around repeatable PvE content with gear as incentive. I don't think it would work to make these games full loot or introduce item decay. Not as long as the businessmodel requires that people grind certain instances for weeks or months to get the latest set of ridiculously OP gear.
Well I can't say I care for lowbie ganking and the attitude that comes with many non consenting pvp systems. However I really like tactical resource acquisition.
I like blockade running and blockade setting in Eve.
I liked the original concept of Alterac Valley where rare items and materials could be earned by winning the siege game.
I really like the concept of high risk high reward areas.
Sadly most rewards in MMOs are gated by timesinks rather than skill or risk taking.
Because you touch yourself at night.
There nothing wrong with FFA PvP and if you play a game or on a server with that rule set then I agree with others youh ave consented.
There's nothing wrong with basing a game around such PvP and they can be hella fun with the right people.
However I think where the contention is on this subject is that a vocal group thinks it's the only way to make a good game and insult people who do not feel that way.They also want every game to cater to them and want to deny other people choice.
Of course there are extremist PvErs who feel the same way and are just as bad.
Most of the players I know that truly want a challenge against another player will play games that are not XP/level based like CoD and TF and the like. You can absolutely dominate in those games, but your domination is based on hard-won, actual skill, and not just based on the fact that you are 30 levels higher than the other person and packing vastly superior gear. I know not all MOG PvPers are like this, but a lot of the ones I know prefer to only PvP when they absolutely KNOW they are going to dominate. I personally find no satisfaction or enjoyment when defeating the other player takes no more effort than swatting a fly because my weapon does more damage in a single hit than they have health. It seems there is a sizable portion of the MOG PvP crowd that seemingly want to stride across the landscape like a juggernaut, devastating all in their path. While I certainly see the appeal in that (Who doesn't want to be Zod?), it doesn't make for a very fun game, especially for all the hopeless victims in your path whose only offense is that they have not spent as much time in the game acquiring XP and gear as you have.
It's an unwise business model in an age where an A-list game can cost a hundred million dollars to develop and market. FFA PvP creates a game where only the top elite will stay in the game, everyone else will be driven away. You can't survive as a game developer if you make a game that pisses off most of your customers. (Which leads more and more developers to try to make games that give everyone everything they want whenever they want it....but that's a different problem and a topic for another thread, I think.)
History shows it pretty clearly: FFA PvP MOGs do NOT become blockbuster titles; they are niche titles. The most successful FFA PvP title in the western market is EVE, and while it is an amazing game, it's absolutely a niche game. The guys over at CCP do awesome work, and have made an awesome game, but they did it by not TRYING to be a "blockbuster" game. They knew what they wanted to be and marketed it realistically. They have done this so well that I, and many others, proudly wear the horrific losses we have suffered (often from a single error or miscalculation) as a badge of honor. EQN, is not EVE. EQN most definitely wants to be a blockbuster title. To do that means consensual PvP, or at best highly restricted, location-specific open PvP.
Now I respect the PvPers. (Not the gankers, they are a real waste of bandwith. In my opinion, someone who only derives enjoyment from ruining things for others needs therapy, not XP.) The PvPers know exactly what they want in a game experience and they aren't afraid to express it. Hell, the PvPers are more clear about what they want than the PvEers are. The PvEers say "Story? Lore? Balanced class roles, intricate instances, puzzles, challenges," etc., etc., etc. The PvPers go "let me kill my roommate with a greataxe." The problem comes in when a game tries to satisfy both playstyles. I've never really seen it done well, to be honest. You inevitably get an "arena/battleground/skirmish" system that satisfies no one. I say let the PvP games be PvP and the PvE games be PvE! Stop trying to be all things to all people and decide what it is you want your game to be.
But since the money is in PvE games, and the vocal minority is with the PvP games, I forsee more games that try, sadly, to be both.
I have a fix for this whole situation. The reason PvE'ers dont like PvP'ers is ganking. Ganking is bad.
Anyone can do whatever they like, but anyone who ganks someone else gets their character turned into this and has the music playing on a continuous loop for 6 hours(of logged in time)
Cluck Cluck, Gibber Gibber, My Old Mans A Mushroom
So what if it is an battleground? E-sports are not good games anymore?
The point of pvp does not have to be danger all the time .. it can be ... e-sport .. skill vs skill.
Bingo.
For those that disagree, I summit my argument for this issue... I am in a dark mood today....
Humans are born homicidal maniac killing machines. We were Breed that way. Warriors were preferred, if not a Warrior, then someone that could provide Combat Support to Warriors. All other children were killed off, sacraficed, you name it. History has it all recorded, we just don't like to think about it. It is the result of thousands of years of our species existence and our attempts to dominate everything around us.... all the Tribal wars, the bloodshed, the Murders, the backstabbing, the intrigues, We even slaughtered to extinction our closest genetic cousins and we probably cheered about it !! (some People still are!)
Any species that gets in our way, either our physical way or our financial way, we exterminate with out so much as a second thought. Any force of Nature that interferes with our "plans" we find ways to control and/or eliminate. We have learned to love bloodshed, we have learned to love to administer pain and suffering. Seriously, even the "Gods" say we are evil, fallen, "sinful".
Why is it then any surprise that PvPers prefer non-consensual PvP ?
When MMOs first started we had the "nice" maniacs that played MMOs, people were actually friendly, MMOs were fun, ....then when Blizzard made it big our MMO genre attracted all the "masses" of Humanity and NOW we see Humanity in all it's glory. Swell.
(I find these facts about People detestable, YET TRUE, and this is why I won't PvP in any MMO. I won't feed the hunger.)
I dislike FFA and I dislike PvE only servers. That's why I was so disappointed with AoC...it's either mindless FFA on one server or carebear on another.