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'?

1235»

Comments

  • RylahRylah Tribal VillagePosts: 193Member Uncommon
    I've played Eve for 2 years, nearly all of that in nullsec, flown with some of the best FCs in the game, I have always look for a conflict and content and I have had less than a dozen "good fights" in that game.

    Sov warfare is dull grind, rest of it is ganking to a varying degree. Eve is the quintessential game for gank warfare. For example, goons do not engage if they do not have at least 2:1 odds. They don't do even fights and they have the numbers to pull it off. They don't need to be good, they just need to bring more people.

    Its not fun for goons and its not fun for their opponents either. Then I hear this drivel "this simulates real war" ... no it doesn't. Its a game! Wars, in games, are started by people who are bored. It can never simulate real war, and falling short of real war, what it devolves into is not fun for great many people.

    Your post seems to be an expression of a very common misconception, or better: a very common but IMO too restricted way of looking at PvP.

    The actual fighting is  only a very small part of PvP. It is merely the culmination of all the other aspects. Just like the actual shot is only a very small part of hunting and comes only after all the preparations, the tracking, the luring, the choice of time and spot, the exploit of the surroundings, landscape, weather, the training and use of dogs etc.

    And still most people reduce PvP to the actual fight and complain about it being "unfair". Well if you want fair fights there is no way around an Arena like GW2 sPvP.

    But for me that isn't enough. It is a boring and dull grind.

    And now EvE. The art of PvP shows not in the actual fights alone, but in the preparation. All the fun is in the metagame which gives you nearly limitless possibilities. There are quite some ways to avoid the gank scenario and also it can be exploited for more fun when you get some friends and bumrush them.

    Chess players don't complain about the rules and try to impose their own idea of how a game should be played on the pieces, but if chess was an MMO players would probably complain about white having an unfair advantage and whine on the game forums that the movement of the Knights is totally OP and the Queen should be taken out (only for the opponent of course) and some would probably also complain that their King got ganked by some no life basement dweller.

    But FFA games and chess have one thing in common: Preparation is much more important than a single match or fight which is only an expression of your understanding of the game at a certain point in time.

    Btw. regarding the argument that FFA games are not financially feasible because of being elitist... Not true. EvE and even UO tell otherwise. PvP games do not tank because of the FFA PvP but because thery are just bad games. FFA PVP alone without a sandbox, deep economy etc.  doesn't cut it. You need the whole package to have a good game, otherwise there is no emergent gameplay and the self fufilling prophecy of gank and destroy happens.

    In less deep games or themeparks non consensual PvP is at least a bit of flavour. I am quite happy when it is restricted to PvP servers in such games since then there is less complaining, but even then there is usually a vocal minority starting to hardcore whine instead of just choosing a PvE server. Tera was a disgusting example of that.

  • ShadanwolfShadanwolf Posts: 2,114Member Uncommon

    Dark Age of Camelot.

     

    The best faction vs faction game ever made

    has pve areas and area's of faction vs faction fighting

    all fighting is consensual..you go into certain clearly identified areas where fighting can occur.Best faction vs faction game ever made.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Robokapp
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    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.

     

    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.

    that's great. but not specifically what I'm looking for in an MMO. Those games are great, but when I go for steak I don't want chicken. I love chicken though. Just not during steak meals.

    well .. if other players don't want non-consensual pvp in a MMO, then you are out of luck. You can force others to play with you in ways they are not having fun.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Rylah
     

    Your post seems to be an expression of a very common misconception, or better: a very common but IMO too restricted way of looking at PvP.

    The actual fighting is  only a very small part of PvP. It is merely the culmination of all the other aspects. Just like the actual shot is only a very small part of hunting and comes only after all the preparations, the tracking, the luring, the choice of time and spot, the exploit of the surroundings, landscape, weather, the training and use of dogs etc.

    And still most people reduce PvP to the actual fight and complain about it being "unfair". Well if you want fair fights there is no way around an Arena like GW2 sPvP.

    But for me that isn't enough. It is a boring and dull grind.

    And now EvE. The art of PvP shows not in the actual fights alone, but in the preparation. All the fun is in the metagame which gives you nearly limitless possibilities. There are quite some ways to avoid the gank scenario and also it can be exploited for more fun when you get some friends and bumrush them.

    Chess players don't complain about the rules and try to impose their own idea of how a game should be played on the pieces, but if chess was an MMO players would probably complain about white having an unfair advantage and whine on the game forums that the movement of the Knights is totally OP and the Queen should be taken out (only for the opponent of course) and some would probably also complain that their King got ganked by some no life basement dweller.

    But FFA games and chess have one thing in common: Preparation is much more important than a single match or fight which is only an expression of your understanding of the game at a certain point in time.

    Btw. regarding the argument that FFA games are not financially feasible because of being elitist... Not true. EvE and even UO tell otherwise. PvP games do not tank because of the FFA PvP but because thery are just bad games. FFA PVP alone without a sandbox, deep economy etc.  doesn't cut it. You need the whole package to have a good game, otherwise there is no emergent gameplay and the self fufilling prophecy of gank and destroy happens.

    In less deep games or themeparks non consensual PvP is at least a bit of flavour. I am quite happy when it is restricted to PvP servers in such games since then there is less complaining, but even then there is usually a vocal minority starting to hardcore whine instead of just choosing a PvE server. Tera was a disgusting example of that.

    Oh, please... I know as much about the metagame as you. And it doesn't have enough mechanics outside combat to make it interesting. I know my way around Eve so you can spare me the usual gibberish. Its a game just like any other and suffers from, among its own, much of the same shortcomings many other games do.

    My view is not restriced. I am looking at the game as a whole and finding it unsatisfactory. You're the one saying there's no preparation or grander metagame behind consensual PvP or competitive PvP. The fact that you made such a pejorative comment about those games shows that you're quite ignorant about the matter.

    [mod edit]

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

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by itchmon
    Originally posted by fyerwall
     

    to me, the pvp being "meaningful" is FAR more important than it being "consensual".

    meaningful, again to me, meaning that something is at stake over the outcome rather than just one person won and one person lost.  (i know, that alone is a motivator for some people but not me)

     

    EX: in eve where a pvp battle might determine ownership of a system (a zone in eve)

     

    this is the essence of pvp in an mmo to me; this is even though in eve the pvp is in a grey area between non consensual and consensual (there are areas in eve where you get punished for PK to the point where it rarely happens).

     

    thanks for reading.

    The meaningfulness of an engagement is entirely subjective and a separate matter. You can decide the fate of a fortress, a town, a mine, a province, a star system or a space station through either non-consensual or consensual way.

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

  • chopstix906chopstix906 Wolverine Lake, MIPosts: 60Member

    To me, consensual and non-consensual (open-world PvP) must come hand in hand. One without the other can cause imbalances.

    On one hand, with only consensual PvP, there is no thrill of leveling in the world and always being on your guard for any threat from another player. It adds another level to the game that is necessary for any MMO imo.

    On the other hand, with only open world PvP, it turns into a big gank/zerg fest that's only enjoyable for the winning side until the other decides to /ragequit. Then there is nothing.

    Balance is the best bet imo. One without the other is bad news.

    ±MeDiC±

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
     

    The meaningfulness of an engagement is entirely subjective and a separate matter. You can decide the fate of a fortress, a town, a mine, a province, a star system or a space station through either non-consensual or consensual way.

    yeah. And "meaningful" is subjective. For example, a story mission in STO is meaningful to trekkies, but may appearing as just "kill x quests" to others.

     

     

  • TorikTorik London, ONPosts: 2,343Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by itchmon
    Originally posted by fyerwall
    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.

    to me, the pvp being "meaningful" is FAR more important than it being "consensual".

    meaningful, again to me, meaning that something is at stake over the outcome rather than just one person won and one person lost.  (i know, that alone is a motivator for some people but not me)

     

    EX: in eve where a pvp battle might determine ownership of a system (a zone in eve)

     

    this is the essence of pvp in an mmo to me; this is even though in eve the pvp is in a grey area between non consensual and consensual (there are areas in eve where you get punished for PK to the point where it rarely happens).

     

    thanks for reading.

    Ownership of a system in EVE always seemed to me like a trite reason for PvP.  It just never seemed like a very meaningful accomplishment to me,  Blowing up other people's stuff just seemed like such a wasteful way to accomplish anything. 

  • BiskopBiskop AvalonPosts: 709Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Games are entertainment - they are supposed to be fun. They can be war-themed, many are, but at the end of the day, they are games. War is not fun. It is everything but. And they are not started because someone got bored (vast majority at least weren't).

    Non-consentual PvP is not war. It is not even close. The same people who claim that are the ones who think grinding signatures and anomalies in Eve is "exploration". Or spawn camping "baddies" in Fall of Mankind is "keeping the peace". Don't be that guy.

    The idea that the metagame in Eve is war or simulates war is a joke. At the end of the day it is just a game, and that makes all the difference.

    Real war is not fun, true.

    Playing a game or indulging in other fiction that - in some ways - simulates some aspects of war, however, can be incredibly fun to many, many people. Otherwise, why would we play strategy games and table tops, and shooters like CoD and BF? Why is the market full of countless books, TV series and movies about WW2 and other historical wars?

    War is fascinating and a lot of people like their entertainment to put them in the role of a mighty general or a brave soldier. Of course this does not mean that they would like to be a real general or a real soldier, or that the fiction has to simulate a truly warlike experience to be influenced by the popular image of war (after all, most of us has not experienced real life warfare).

    People simply compare MMO FFA PvP with warfare because it's more akin to that type of conflict than to sports, which is what a lot of people actually want when they talk about "real" PvP.

  • TorikTorik London, ONPosts: 2,343Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Rylah
    I've played Eve for 2 years, nearly all of that in nullsec, flown with some of the best FCs in the game, I have always look for a conflict and content and I have had less than a dozen "good fights" in that game.

    Sov warfare is dull grind, rest of it is ganking to a varying degree. Eve is the quintessential game for gank warfare. For example, goons do not engage if they do not have at least 2:1 odds. They don't do even fights and they have the numbers to pull it off. They don't need to be good, they just need to bring more people.

    Its not fun for goons and its not fun for their opponents either. Then I hear this drivel "this simulates real war" ... no it doesn't. Its a game! Wars, in games, are started by people who are bored. It can never simulate real war, and falling short of real war, what it devolves into is not fun for great many people.

    Your post seems to be an expression of a very common misconception, or better: a very common but IMO too restricted way of looking at PvP.

    The actual fighting is  only a very small part of PvP. It is merely the culmination of all the other aspects. Just like the actual shot is only a very small part of hunting and comes only after all the preparations, the tracking, the luring, the choice of time and spot, the exploit of the surroundings, landscape, weather, the training and use of dogs etc.

    And still most people reduce PvP to the actual fight and complain about it being "unfair". Well if you want fair fights there is no way around an Arena like GW2 sPvP.

    But for me that isn't enough. It is a boring and dull grind.

    And now EvE. The art of PvP shows not in the actual fights alone, but in the preparation. All the fun is in the metagame which gives you nearly limitless possibilities. There are quite some ways to avoid the gank scenario and also it can be exploited for more fun when you get some friends and bumrush them.

    Chess players don't complain about the rules and try to impose their own idea of how a game should be played on the pieces, but if chess was an MMO players would probably complain about white having an unfair advantage and whine on the game forums that the movement of the Knights is totally OP and the Queen should be taken out (only for the opponent of course) and some would probably also complain that their King got ganked by some no life basement dweller.

    But FFA games and chess have one thing in common: Preparation is much more important than a single match or fight which is only an expression of your understanding of the game at a certain point in time.

    Btw. regarding the argument that FFA games are not financially feasible because of being elitist... Not true. EvE and even UO tell otherwise. PvP games do not tank because of the FFA PvP but because thery are just bad games. FFA PVP alone without a sandbox, deep economy etc.  doesn't cut it. You need the whole package to have a good game, otherwise there is no emergent gameplay and the self fufilling prophecy of gank and destroy happens.

    In less deep games or themeparks non consensual PvP is at least a bit of flavour. I am quite happy when it is restricted to PvP servers in such games since then there is less complaining, but even then there is usually a vocal minority starting to hardcore whine instead of just choosing a PvE server. Tera was a disgusting example of that.

    That was also  the lesson I took from EVE though my preferences are different so I came to a different conclusion.  PvP in EVE is part of the Big Picture and if you do not like or want to be part of it, you are better off not playing the game.  I find the metagame of EVE to be pointless and boring so all the effort I would put into the PvP side would not give me a meaningful result.  Frankly, I find the preparation part to be way more fun then the PvP itself and there is only so many times you can go through the process if there is no payoff in the end.

  • jtcgsjtcgs New Port Richey, ILPosts: 1,777Member

    No amount of rewards, no amount of shinies...no amount of strings with something attached to it is going to bring meaning to PvP to me. PvP is either about challenge or it may as well be PvE. I could care less about capturing a castle to give my faction a "bonus"...I want players that freaking know how to play.

    Non-Consensual PvP does NOT bring that, in fact in brings the opposite. It causes people to stay in packs and creates high level ganking...the two types of PvPing that makes a players skills weaken.

    And sorry to break it to you, but I am from early UO back when it was ALL ABOUT PVP yet I can still say full open world PvP doesn't match up to games like Asherons Call where it was all consensual.

    “I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson

  • RobokappRobokapp Dublin, OHPosts: 5,205Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Robokapp
    Originally posted by Quirhid

     Then I hear this drivel "this simulates real war" ... no it doesn't. Its a game.

    that's your counter-argument to "this simulate real war" ? you answer by "it doesn't, it's a game" ?

     

    aloso...

    you misunerstood, the game is a tool for the metagame and the metagame simulates real war.

     

    other than the 300 spartans, i  can't think of many times when a group did not want to go to war with full benefits to maximize victory.

    Games are entertainment - they are supposed to be fun. They can be war-themed, many are, but at the end of the day, they are games. War is not fun. It is everything but. And they are not started because someone got bored (vast majority at least weren't).

    Non-consentual PvP is not war. It is not even close. The same people who claim that are the ones who think grinding signatures and anomalies in Eve is "exploration". Or spawn camping "baddies" in Fall of Mankind is "keeping the peace". Don't be that guy.

    The idea that the metagame in Eve is war or simulates war is a joke. At the end of the day it is just a game, and that makes all the difference.

    i'm not following.

     

    can you give example of war then in a video game theme ?

    image

  • ApraxisApraxis RegensburgPosts: 1,515Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by itchmon
    Originally posted by fyerwall
     

    to me, the pvp being "meaningful" is FAR more important than it being "consensual".

    meaningful, again to me, meaning that something is at stake over the outcome rather than just one person won and one person lost.  (i know, that alone is a motivator for some people but not me)

     

    EX: in eve where a pvp battle might determine ownership of a system (a zone in eve)

     

    this is the essence of pvp in an mmo to me; this is even though in eve the pvp is in a grey area between non consensual and consensual (there are areas in eve where you get punished for PK to the point where it rarely happens).

     

    thanks for reading.

    The meaningfulness of an engagement is entirely subjective and a separate matter. You can decide the fate of a fortress, a town, a mine, a province, a star system or a space station through either non-consensual or consensual way.

    And how do you do that? Just out of curiosity. If you need consense from the player ownign the mine, city.. he will always say no if someone want to attack him,, overtake it.

    Or another example. If you need consense every miner will turn off his pvp flag to mine ore from that certain mine and you can do shit against it. So it becomes rather usesless to "own" a mine. The economic affect turns to zero.

    The only way is that you restrict pvp to certain areas, like in EvE, where pvp areas, or areas with more risk have better or more resources to farm, where it would be more valuable to have a city or own a mine. PvP flag is in that scenario just a way to exploit the game and make it entirely useless.

    Point is, and a lot of player don't understand that. That a lot of player want to have PvP absent of the figthing. A game where trading, crafting and resource gathering is part of the pvp game. And you can't have that with a pvp flag.

  • ApraxisApraxis RegensburgPosts: 1,515Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
     

    The meaningfulness of an engagement is entirely subjective and a separate matter. You can decide the fate of a fortress, a town, a mine, a province, a star system or a space station through either non-consensual or consensual way.

    yeah. And "meaningful" is subjective. For example, a story mission in STO is meaningful to trekkies, but may appearing as just "kill x quests" to others.

     

     

    No.. It is not. Meaningful means it will have effect in the game world. A story mission is a story mission, and as long as nothing changes in the world there is absolut no effect to the game world.. and with that it is not meaningful.

  • VorthanionVorthanion Laguna Vista, TXPosts: 2,119Member Uncommon
    Frankly, I think it's their desire for 'carebear' fodder.  Their argument for inclusive PvP within PvE parameters would seem to prove this.

    image
  • JesterDSJesterDS Weatherford, TXPosts: 2Member
    One aspect I hate about consensual pvp is gathering and the economy. If you have a gathering person who can go in to end game zones and farm the high end mats with the only obstacle being spawned mobs, the rarity of those items and value decreases. If the person can get ganked the risk/reward may not be worth those items making them hold their value better and be more rare. I am an auction house player and gatherer. When I get to a node to gather and someone has beat me to it, I want to fight them for the material.
  • olepiolepi Austin, TXPosts: 1,150Member Uncommon

    I see three types of PvP:

    - none -- there needs to be zones where players are safe, to craft, AFK, chat, whatever

    - consensual -- the players agree to PvP

    - non-consensual -- the players can "jump" each other

    For me, the best model is non-consensual in a zone. In other words, go into this zone and you might get jumped. In DAOC, I used to go PvE in the PvP zones, knowing all the while that I could get jumped. Put valuable stuff in that zone: mats, keeps, etc.

    Any game that forces PvP on people who don't want it, is doomed to be a niche game with few players. There is only one popular game with that kind of PvP, all the rest are not.

    ------------
    RIP City of Heroes. One of my favorite MMO's.

  • apanz3rapanz3r BucurestiPosts: 259Member

    I think best is non-consensual but with chance to run-away/disengage.

    Eve mechanisms like stargate, web, point , bubles make games a huge stall- nobody dares to explore as next 2 gates you will die.

     

    EDIT:

    now put 20 gates in a system, remove bubles, make points chance based, webs causing damage on both sides , make belts in random position, scanable only and not in overview and yea pvp is fair

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,444Member Uncommon

    pvp is ONLY good if there is variety in weapon choice,the map is laid out to support good pvp and both players are READY.

    If there is no variety in choice,then it favors the player that suits best to that choice.

    if the map is not laid out for pvp,then to be straight forward,it is a joke and nothing else matters anymore.

    If both players are not thinking pvp and ready for it,the one who is ready will have a huge advantage.Being that all pvp is a race to get opponents hp down first,getting off two strikes before your opponent decides to fight back is pretty much a guarantee win.

    i know there are man y who would cheat or prefer an advantage,i don't consider that good pvp,i like to have it on a even keel,both fighters completely prepared and ready for it.


    Samoan Diamond

1235»
Sign In or Register to comment.