Invulnerability to others player-controled characters is just very unrealistic and "dumb" to my humble taste, it also take away from the mmo many emergent components that i think is essential to a "world simulator" (politics, diplomacy, meaningful fights, social challenges and so on).
But i think is very unnecessary to wrangle about it, since there are mmos and servers to every taste available nowadays. Is true that some mmos are specially designed needing pvp (like darkfall and archeage) and others not, but the options nowadays are still huge and will increase.
Invulnerability to others player-controled characters is just very unrealistic and "dumb" to my humble taste, it also take away from the mmo many emergent components that i think is essential to a "world simulator" (politics, diplomacy, meaningful fights, social challenges and so on).
But i think is very unnecessary to wrangle about it, since there are mmos and servers to every taste available nowadays. Is true that some mmos are specially designed needing pvp (like darkfall and archeage) and others not, but the options nowadays are still huge and will increase.
Some people say that mmos like Darkfall or Archeage have interesting features, but you are forced to pvp if you want to play them. Well, they don't see that these "interesting features" (mainly sandbox tools) and open pvp (without invulnerabilities to others player-controled characters) are both just consequences of a same will: to make a world with realistic mechanics that simulates a realistic society where real humans can freely interact and orginate realistic situations and challenges.
Because pvp is player versus player. It implies a competition of sorts.
Not player vs hacker, player vs team, player vs lag, player vs zerg, and player vs untouchable. Remove those from pvp and it'd be fine. But since we all know that doing so and making it a fair contest would remove the 'fun' of pvp, keep it out of my games and quit pretending that the is the only thing in consideration is 'skill'. Its probably the least-important aspect of pvp.
Invulnerability to others player-controled characters is just very unrealistic and "dumb" to my humble taste, it also take away from the mmo many emergent components that i think is essential to a "world simulator" (politics, diplomacy, meaningful fights, social challenges and so on).
But i think is very unnecessary to wrangle about it, since there are mmos and servers to every taste available nowadays. Is true that some mmos are specially designed needing pvp (like darkfall and archeage) and others not, but the options nowadays are still huge and will increase.
I always played pvp. From old school fighting arcade games through shooters to MMORPG pvp.
But I rarely keep playing FFA PVP or gearbased PVP in general. EVE Online was one of the few MMO's with FFA PVP that I played for a while (quit because I got bored with the skill training system and lack of gameplay variety)
I prefer an even playfield and skillbased pvp. This is also why I don't like F1 irl. The cars are awesome, but the huge differences between the team's budgets and how it affects the car performance, makes the competition boring for me.
Because pvp is player versus player. It implies a competition of sorts.
Not player vs hacker, player vs team, player vs lag, player vs zerg, and player vs untouchable. Remove those from pvp and it'd be fine. But since we all know that doing so and making it a fair contest would remove the 'fun' of pvp, keep it out of my games and quit pretending that the is the only thing in consideration is 'skill'. Its probably the least-important aspect of pvp.
If you look into the real life and mankind history, you will see that "fair" fights and conflicts are a very very rare thing. The people struggles are more about political, diplomacy, technology, tactics and opportunism than skill in single fights.
Because pvp is player versus player. It implies a competition of sorts.
Not player vs hacker, player vs team, player vs lag, player vs zerg, and player vs untouchable. Remove those from pvp and it'd be fine. But since we all know that doing so and making it a fair contest would remove the 'fun' of pvp, keep it out of my games and quit pretending that the is the only thing in consideration is 'skill'. Its probably the least-important aspect of pvp.
If you look into the real life and mankind history, you will see that "fair" fights and conflicts are a very very rare thing. The people struggles are more about political, diplomacy, technology, tactics and opportunism that skill in single fights.
Funny that you mention about anything except sports. The reason why sports have so many rules is exactly like Lissyl mentioned, to turn it into a fair competition. No one likes cheaters in sports (except sometimes the fans from the hometeam , but thats not even in all countries or sports the case).
So I guess the difference is that some approach pvp as a competition and for that reason think it requires an even playfield and others approach it like some random scrap. This is not a problem of course, it is all about preference, but sometimes the contradiction occurs when the people who prefer the random scrap, suddenly start boasting about their 'skill' when they happen to win.
i dont hate bg's or things where i have a chance to fight back. I ll admit i suck at pvp> I die alot and probably am not much help to my friends in pvp.
That said i hate is open world pvp. its why i pick pve servers. I don't like questing in themepark games on a 20 and hav ea max level gank me then camp me so i have to quit and go play a diffrent character or not play at all
In wow id go to taren mill and id get ganked on a pvp server id ask for help and people just said deal with it. Now even in skill based games one player who has played longer then another has an advantage still.
The fact is i dont like being ganked by a guy i can't even hit and then camped so i can't rez or go on playing. It sucks balls. It's just as bad on pve servers when a guy goes around killing all the quest givers over and over so i can't play but thats a diffrent story.
Throwing fireballs, riding dragons, running through lava pits, wandering frozen tundras for hours/days while wearing a simple leather tunic and not freezing to death... these you can suspend disbelief for...
Not being able to kill a player due to a magic/mystical protection... you cannot ignore because it can't be done in real life?
/migraine
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?!"
I like PVP. I just don't like PVP in MMORPG's. It is generally an unbalanced mess due to the fact that there is so much to balance in an MMO. I prefer to get my PVP in games like LoL and SC2. I can just hop in and start PVP'ing in a MOBA or RTS whereas I most likely will have to spend months farming best in slot gear in an MMORPG to stand a chance at enjoying competitive PVP.
Most people on this site I've seen hating PvP don't appear to have ever played a PvP game.
They play the crappy tacked on PvP systems in PvE games and think all PvP is exactly the same. When they picture FFA PVP all they picture is themselves playing their linear PvE game, going into instances, except now they picture themselves getting one shotted by other players while doing these things. They don't understand that FFA PVP games usually have vastly different game systems and designs than WoW clones.
It's the same kind of thing that makes people fear a world without instances, when the only MMOs they've ever played have had instances, and they can't see how it works.
Most people on this site I've seen hating PvP don't appear to have ever played a PvP game.
They play the crappy tacked on PvP systems in PvE games and think all PvP is exactly the same. When they picture FFA PVP all they picture is themselves playing their linear PvE game, going into instances, except now they picture themselves getting one shotted by other players while doing these things. They don't understand that FFA PVP games usually have vastly different game systems and designs than WoW clones.
It's the same kind of thing that makes people fear a world without instances, when the only MMOs they've ever played have had instances, and they can't see how it works.
Balderdash. I love PvP and have played the most hardcore PvP games out there. If it's FFA PvP nothing can protect you. It might cost me a little time but if I want you dead I'll make it so. If I want it bad enough I'll do it twice, or fifty times.
That comment doesn't seem to, in any way, relate to my post that you quoted.
Personally i dont like PvP, because in pretty much all cases and games it causes a-holes. you often, doesnt matter the game, on a pvp server get the max lvl players camping low level areas purely just to grief. The other thing that annoys me about is the fact that they are the most vocal in getting game mechanics that work in pve just fine, changed because they got owned. This is the true reason why most nerfing takes place. Johnny 12 year old gets owned, "but i am a death dealing rogue, i shouldnt be killed by xxxxx class." which follows with the complaint to all and sundry that class xxxxx is OP and must be nerfed. The nerf wars then follow as the devs strive for "balance" to keep the pvp crowd happy. From this you usual get FOTM players. All the while most PvE players couldnt care less until the devs trying to strive for pvp balance break classes.
and thats why i dont like pvp. it draws the worst out in people.
First of all, your screen name says a lot. BcBully?
Second, PvPers are not the ones who "work hard" at getting better. Crafters, questers, explorers, and PvEers are the ones who normally discover new content by spending hours working at those pursuits. The crafter who spends most of his time trying to create something isn't exactly thrilled about the prospect of some douche coming along and killing him with their "Leet" skills and depriving him of all his hard work. Questers and Explorers want to seek out new content without the threat of some jughead jumping in and ruining their fun in the middle of a particularly challenging PVE experience.
Third, no one likes being griefed.
Fourth, someone in this thread said people were too lazy to figure out the mechanics of "min maxing". RPers aren't really interested in the min max aspect as they want to create the character they want to be. Dredging up the requirement to min max adds a modern day element that some find takes away from their immersion.
Fifth, you enjoy PvP, good for you. Don't expect everyone to enjoy the same things you do. Do you like everything everyone else does? If so, you're easily amused.
(My son speaking to his Japanese Grandmother) " Sorry Obaba, I don't speak Japanese, I only speak human."
Personally i dont like PvP, because in pretty much all cases and games it causes a-holes. you often, doesnt matter the game, on a pvp server get the max lvl players camping low level areas purely just to grief.
Thanks for proving my point. Most proper PvP games do not have a system where this is possible.
Personally i dont like PvP, because in pretty much all cases and games it causes a-holes. you often, doesnt matter the game, on a pvp server get the max lvl players camping low level areas purely just to grief.
Thanks for proving my point. Most proper PvP games do not have a system where this is possible.
Name a single proper PVP MMORPG. If there is PVP, there will be griefing. It goes with the territory.
i dont hate bg's or things where i have a chance to fight back. I ll admit i suck at pvp> I die alot and probably am not much help to my friends in pvp.
That said i hate is open world pvp. its why i pick pve servers. I don't like questing in themepark games on a 20 and hav ea max level gank me then camp me so i have to quit and go play a diffrent character or not play at all
In wow id go to taren mill and id get ganked on a pvp server id ask for help and people just said deal with it. Now even in skill based games one player who has played longer then another has an advantage still.
The fact is i dont like being ganked by a guy i can't even hit and then camped so i can't rez or go on playing. It sucks balls. It's just as bad on pve servers when a guy goes around killing all the quest givers over and over so i can't play but thats a diffrent story.
WoW is one os the worse mmos (if not the worst) in matter of ganking, since there aren't ANY penaltys to gank and there are ZERO motivations to people help lowbies. If you were playing Lineage 2 (as example), that high lv ganker would lose his gear in little time. You cant use WoW as parameter to judge mmos with open pvp.
First of all, your screen name says a lot. BcBully?
Second, PvPers are not the ones who "work hard" at getting better. Crafters, questers, explorers, and PvEers are the ones who normally discover new content by spending hours working at those pursuits. The crafter who spends most of his time trying to create something isn't exactly thrilled about the prospect of some douche coming along and killing him with their "Leet" skills and depriving him of all his hard work. Questers and Explorers want to seek out new content without the threat of some jughead jumping in and ruining their fun in the middle of a particularly challenging PVE experience.
The way you descibed it made me laugh and I think this really needs to be put in a comic
Third, no one likes being griefed.
Fourth, someone in this thread said people were too lazy to figure out the mechanics of "min maxing". RPers aren't really interested in the min max aspect as they want to create the character they want to be. Dredging up the requirement to min max adds a modern day element that some find takes away from their immersion.
I call that spreadsheet pvp. Min maxing is a total snorefest to me. Most of them just look up some guide , so I guess the 'skill' they are talking about is their reading skill.
Fifth, you enjoy PvP, good for you. Don't expect everyone to enjoy the same things you do. Do you like everything everyone else does? If so, you're easily amused.
Good luck making some of the 'true pvp'ers' understand what you are saying.
I don't hate PvP, although I'm adverse to being forced to do it, I have rolled PvP characters on every mmo I have ever played.
In every game it works the same. Yes there are some slight differences, but generally speaking this is mmo PvP.
You enter the area and buff up for battle (if you are in a pvp server you are already there, so can skip that step). You run out of the group staging area in your mass of people and run toward the objective, be it a flag, opposing city, helpless noob, whatever.
You pick out your target out of the mass of the other group, sometimes strategically if there is a healer, if it is some noob then target selection not a big deal. You bonsai or nuke your target, because everyone is a dps or a healer, what is the point of a tank.
The combat is intense button mashing for 4 seconds, 6-8 seconds if you have a healer paying attention, then either you of the other sap dies and goes to the bind point. If you live, you target someone else and repeat this step. If you die, you run right back and do the same thing again.
It is fun in short bursts, but this is why most pvp games get some pve content, AoC, or die, APB. Every game, every time, just like this. How long until it gets super boring? 10 times? 100? 500,000? It is still the same process, only the scenery changes.
Most people on this site I've seen hating PvP don't appear to have ever played a PvP game.
They play the crappy tacked on PvP systems in PvE games and think all PvP is exactly the same. When they picture FFA PVP all they picture is themselves playing their linear PvE game, going into instances, except now they picture themselves getting one shotted by other players while doing these things. They don't understand that FFA PVP games usually have vastly different game systems and designs than WoW clones.
It's the same kind of thing that makes people fear a world without instances, when the only MMOs they've ever played have had instances, and they can't see how it works.
Balderdash. I love PvP and have played the most hardcore PvP games out there. If it's FFA PvP nothing can protect you. It might cost me a little time but if I want you dead I'll make it so. If I want it bad enough I'll do it twice, or fifty times.
That comment doesn't seem to, in any way, relate to my post that you quoted.
The game systems aren't vastly different. Their imaginings are true. They will be doing whatever and they will get steamrolled.
Yes, in a FFA PVP game it is possible to die whenever. What's the point of stating this really?
It is also entirely possible to kill the other person. Depending on the game, the in game guards might even get them before you get them.
I don't hate PvP, although I'm adverse to being forced to do it, I have rolled PvP characters on every mmo I have ever played.
In every game it works the same. Yes there are some slight differences, but generally speaking this is mmo PvP.
You enter the area and buff up for battle (if you are in a pvp server you are already there, so can skip that step). You run out of the group staging area in your mass of people and run toward the objective, be it a flag, opposing city, helpless noob, whatever.
You pick out your target out of the mass of the other group, sometimes strategically if there is a healer, if it is some noob then target selection not a big deal. You bonsai or nuke your target, because everyone is a dps or a healer, what is the point of a tank.
The combat is intense button mashing for 4 seconds, 6-8 seconds if you have a healer paying attention, then either you of the other sap dies and goes to the bind point. If you live, you target someone else and repeat this step. If you die, you run right back and do the same thing again.
It is fun in short bursts, but this is why most pvp games get some pve content, AoC, or die, APB. Every game, every time, just like this. How long until it gets super boring? 10 times? 100? 500,000? It is still the same process, only the scenery changes.
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others... Currently Playing: GW2
This post is growing faster than I can keep up with, so if someone has already pointed this out then I apologize ahead of time but....
I've seen at least a couple of people say there is no such thing as "forced" pvp, that the player always has the choice. When people refer to "forced," they are referring to FFA PvP because the only "choice" there if one does not want to PvP is to not buy/play the game. Other than that, I do not consider walking along minding my own business or out harvesting resources and suddenly finding myself dead on the ground going "what the heck, how'd I die?" because someone one shot killed me before I even realized they were there being given a "choice" (I would have included PvEing in my list of things I was doing when another player killed me but then one could argue that I wouldn't know if it was the npc/animals that killed me or the player or what combination of the two....although it still would not be a "choice" because I was busy doing something else rather than knowingly engaging in PvP). As far as the "choice" of not buying the game, that's great, as long as I have a choice to buy an equally great game with only PvE or, preferably, a combination of PvE and in-world consensual PvP (as in I choose when I am open for PvP and when I am not...whether by talking to an npc and agreeing to join the war efforts like the system SWG had, clicking on something in options, or typing out some command.....although I prefer not to have a TEF system because it is too easy to be accidently pulled into PvP).
For the person who decided none of us that were against FFA PvP had ever played a game with FFA PvP, sorry but wrong. Although I knew I did not like FFA PvP, I have been trying for years to find something that had the sandbox goodness of SWG Pre-CU including players not have levels and not being limited to one skill set, so I tried a game that looked like it had some good features although it was FFA. The combat system was very awkward to me and I was having a difficult time just fighting the animals in the area. Since there were supposedly options in how one could play the game, I decided to stay in the "newbie" area (hoping it was a safe area) for a while, work on some crafting skills and try to improve my combat skills (my ability to deal with the controls system of the game as much as improving my character's skills). I'm attempting to attack a deer when I get the message that I've broken some law (don't remember exactly how the message went). I have no clue what to do so I keep attacking the deer. I die. I respawn and have to find my way back to my corpse, by now it is night time in the game and so dark I can't see anything. I've lost all the stuff I was attempting to gather. I have no clue whether I was attacked by someone or another player got too close to me and I accidently started the fight (like I said, awkward controls). People's suggestion in chat was to join a guild (which may make sense but isn't always easy to do when one first joins a game, especially if one doesn't want to just join the first random guild they find). As others have said, people play games to have fun and the game had already pushed my frustration level too much so I logged out and deleted the game.
My other negative experiences with PvP came out of SWG and the TEF system, but I quickly learned how to have the fun of killing npc stormtroopers and doing other rebel missions while lowering the risk of other players finding me.
Oh....and here's an anti-PvP scenerio that involves me being the winner (just in case there still hasn't been one): I agreed to PvP with a guildmate. I usually stink at PvP so I'm just spamming attacks as quickly as I can. At one time, the game had a system where the winner had to make a choice to kill the loser (I think it was a pop-up but don't really recall now) but the system had changed so if the winner attacked once more after the other person had fallen, the attack killed the other person. With my spamming attacks, by the time I registered that I had won, I had already attacked again causing the guildmate to die (difference being that rather than the person being able to stand up after the fight was over and be healed on the spot, the person had to respawn or have a costly rezz kit used on them and took damage to their equipment). We went a few more rounds and almost every time I won, I would accidently kill the guy. I apologized to him and felt bad about it. The negative in this scenerio is more of a flaw in the system that I didn't like because I don't have an issue with consensual 1 on 1 pvp (although I do have an issue with random pvp invites especially getting spammed with them). As far as the "observation" that scenerios are usually about the person losing, it would be common sense for the scenerios to be from that point of view because it is usually the loser that experiences the negative side of PvP, other than feeling guilty about winning or getting spammed or harrassed by the loser, there is very little negative to be experienced by the winner and the negative can easily be dealt with be either a) intentionally losing, b) compensating for the loser's losses, or c) muting/ignoring person to prevent IMs, As people have pointed out, there are "bad apples" in PvE and PvP, difference is, in PvE, dealing with "bad apples" is usually easier (although there are some exceptions).
Comments
Invulnerability to others player-controled characters is just very unrealistic and "dumb" to my humble taste, it also take away from the mmo many emergent components that i think is essential to a "world simulator" (politics, diplomacy, meaningful fights, social challenges and so on).
But i think is very unnecessary to wrangle about it, since there are mmos and servers to every taste available nowadays. Is true that some mmos are specially designed needing pvp (like darkfall and archeage) and others not, but the options nowadays are still huge and will increase.
And this is why you hate PvP so much?
Because pvp is player versus player. It implies a competition of sorts.
Not player vs hacker, player vs team, player vs lag, player vs zerg, and player vs untouchable. Remove those from pvp and it'd be fine. But since we all know that doing so and making it a fair contest would remove the 'fun' of pvp, keep it out of my games and quit pretending that the is the only thing in consideration is 'skill'. Its probably the least-important aspect of pvp.
?????
I like PVP. From where did you took the this?
I always played pvp. From old school fighting arcade games through shooters to MMORPG pvp.
But I rarely keep playing FFA PVP or gearbased PVP in general. EVE Online was one of the few MMO's with FFA PVP that I played for a while (quit because I got bored with the skill training system and lack of gameplay variety)
I prefer an even playfield and skillbased pvp. This is also why I don't like F1 irl. The cars are awesome, but the huge differences between the team's budgets and how it affects the car performance, makes the competition boring for me.
I looked at the title of the thread. Then I read your post in the thread.
If you look into the real life and mankind history, you will see that "fair" fights and conflicts are a very very rare thing. The people struggles are more about political, diplomacy, technology, tactics and opportunism than skill in single fights.
Funny that you mention about anything except sports. The reason why sports have so many rules is exactly like Lissyl mentioned, to turn it into a fair competition. No one likes cheaters in sports (except sometimes the fans from the hometeam , but thats not even in all countries or sports the case).
So I guess the difference is that some approach pvp as a competition and for that reason think it requires an even playfield and others approach it like some random scrap. This is not a problem of course, it is all about preference, but sometimes the contradiction occurs when the people who prefer the random scrap, suddenly start boasting about their 'skill' when they happen to win.
i dont hate bg's or things where i have a chance to fight back. I ll admit i suck at pvp> I die alot and probably am not much help to my friends in pvp.
That said i hate is open world pvp. its why i pick pve servers. I don't like questing in themepark games on a 20 and hav ea max level gank me then camp me so i have to quit and go play a diffrent character or not play at all
In wow id go to taren mill and id get ganked on a pvp server id ask for help and people just said deal with it. Now even in skill based games one player who has played longer then another has an advantage still.
The fact is i dont like being ganked by a guy i can't even hit and then camped so i can't rez or go on playing. It sucks balls. It's just as bad on pve servers when a guy goes around killing all the quest givers over and over so i can't play but thats a diffrent story.
See, I love the "In Real Life" arguments.
You are playing an MMO.
Throwing fireballs, riding dragons, running through lava pits, wandering frozen tundras for hours/days while wearing a simple leather tunic and not freezing to death... these you can suspend disbelief for...
Not being able to kill a player due to a magic/mystical protection... you cannot ignore because it can't be done in real life?
/migraine
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?!"
Most people on this site I've seen hating PvP don't appear to have ever played a PvP game.
They play the crappy tacked on PvP systems in PvE games and think all PvP is exactly the same. When they picture FFA PVP all they picture is themselves playing their linear PvE game, going into instances, except now they picture themselves getting one shotted by other players while doing these things. They don't understand that FFA PVP games usually have vastly different game systems and designs than WoW clones.
It's the same kind of thing that makes people fear a world without instances, when the only MMOs they've ever played have had instances, and they can't see how it works.
That comment doesn't seem to, in any way, relate to my post that you quoted.
Personally i dont like PvP, because in pretty much all cases and games it causes a-holes. you often, doesnt matter the game, on a pvp server get the max lvl players camping low level areas purely just to grief. The other thing that annoys me about is the fact that they are the most vocal in getting game mechanics that work in pve just fine, changed because they got owned. This is the true reason why most nerfing takes place. Johnny 12 year old gets owned, "but i am a death dealing rogue, i shouldnt be killed by xxxxx class." which follows with the complaint to all and sundry that class xxxxx is OP and must be nerfed. The nerf wars then follow as the devs strive for "balance" to keep the pvp crowd happy. From this you usual get FOTM players. All the while most PvE players couldnt care less until the devs trying to strive for pvp balance break classes.
and thats why i dont like pvp. it draws the worst out in people.
First of all, your screen name says a lot. BcBully?
Second, PvPers are not the ones who "work hard" at getting better. Crafters, questers, explorers, and PvEers are the ones who normally discover new content by spending hours working at those pursuits. The crafter who spends most of his time trying to create something isn't exactly thrilled about the prospect of some douche coming along and killing him with their "Leet" skills and depriving him of all his hard work. Questers and Explorers want to seek out new content without the threat of some jughead jumping in and ruining their fun in the middle of a particularly challenging PVE experience.
Third, no one likes being griefed.
Fourth, someone in this thread said people were too lazy to figure out the mechanics of "min maxing". RPers aren't really interested in the min max aspect as they want to create the character they want to be. Dredging up the requirement to min max adds a modern day element that some find takes away from their immersion.
Fifth, you enjoy PvP, good for you. Don't expect everyone to enjoy the same things you do. Do you like everything everyone else does? If so, you're easily amused.
(My son speaking to his Japanese Grandmother) " Sorry Obaba, I don't speak Japanese, I only speak human."
Thanks for proving my point. Most proper PvP games do not have a system where this is possible.
Name a single proper PVP MMORPG. If there is PVP, there will be griefing. It goes with the territory.
WoW is one os the worse mmos (if not the worst) in matter of ganking, since there aren't ANY penaltys to gank and there are ZERO motivations to people help lowbies. If you were playing Lineage 2 (as example), that high lv ganker would lose his gear in little time. You cant use WoW as parameter to judge mmos with open pvp.
I don't hate PvP, although I'm adverse to being forced to do it, I have rolled PvP characters on every mmo I have ever played.
In every game it works the same. Yes there are some slight differences, but generally speaking this is mmo PvP.
You enter the area and buff up for battle (if you are in a pvp server you are already there, so can skip that step). You run out of the group staging area in your mass of people and run toward the objective, be it a flag, opposing city, helpless noob, whatever.
You pick out your target out of the mass of the other group, sometimes strategically if there is a healer, if it is some noob then target selection not a big deal. You bonsai or nuke your target, because everyone is a dps or a healer, what is the point of a tank.
The combat is intense button mashing for 4 seconds, 6-8 seconds if you have a healer paying attention, then either you of the other sap dies and goes to the bind point. If you live, you target someone else and repeat this step. If you die, you run right back and do the same thing again.
It is fun in short bursts, but this is why most pvp games get some pve content, AoC, or die, APB. Every game, every time, just like this. How long until it gets super boring? 10 times? 100? 500,000? It is still the same process, only the scenery changes.
Yes, in a FFA PVP game it is possible to die whenever. What's the point of stating this really?
It is also entirely possible to kill the other person. Depending on the game, the in game guards might even get them before you get them.
PVE is exactly like this in a far worst degree.
Why do I hate OWPvP? This would be a start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDbDrHEQEv0
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
Currently Playing: GW2
Nytlok Sylas
80 Sylvari Ranger
This post is growing faster than I can keep up with, so if someone has already pointed this out then I apologize ahead of time but....
I've seen at least a couple of people say there is no such thing as "forced" pvp, that the player always has the choice. When people refer to "forced," they are referring to FFA PvP because the only "choice" there if one does not want to PvP is to not buy/play the game. Other than that, I do not consider walking along minding my own business or out harvesting resources and suddenly finding myself dead on the ground going "what the heck, how'd I die?" because someone one shot killed me before I even realized they were there being given a "choice" (I would have included PvEing in my list of things I was doing when another player killed me but then one could argue that I wouldn't know if it was the npc/animals that killed me or the player or what combination of the two....although it still would not be a "choice" because I was busy doing something else rather than knowingly engaging in PvP). As far as the "choice" of not buying the game, that's great, as long as I have a choice to buy an equally great game with only PvE or, preferably, a combination of PvE and in-world consensual PvP (as in I choose when I am open for PvP and when I am not...whether by talking to an npc and agreeing to join the war efforts like the system SWG had, clicking on something in options, or typing out some command.....although I prefer not to have a TEF system because it is too easy to be accidently pulled into PvP).
For the person who decided none of us that were against FFA PvP had ever played a game with FFA PvP, sorry but wrong. Although I knew I did not like FFA PvP, I have been trying for years to find something that had the sandbox goodness of SWG Pre-CU including players not have levels and not being limited to one skill set, so I tried a game that looked like it had some good features although it was FFA. The combat system was very awkward to me and I was having a difficult time just fighting the animals in the area. Since there were supposedly options in how one could play the game, I decided to stay in the "newbie" area (hoping it was a safe area) for a while, work on some crafting skills and try to improve my combat skills (my ability to deal with the controls system of the game as much as improving my character's skills). I'm attempting to attack a deer when I get the message that I've broken some law (don't remember exactly how the message went). I have no clue what to do so I keep attacking the deer. I die. I respawn and have to find my way back to my corpse, by now it is night time in the game and so dark I can't see anything. I've lost all the stuff I was attempting to gather. I have no clue whether I was attacked by someone or another player got too close to me and I accidently started the fight (like I said, awkward controls). People's suggestion in chat was to join a guild (which may make sense but isn't always easy to do when one first joins a game, especially if one doesn't want to just join the first random guild they find). As others have said, people play games to have fun and the game had already pushed my frustration level too much so I logged out and deleted the game.
My other negative experiences with PvP came out of SWG and the TEF system, but I quickly learned how to have the fun of killing npc stormtroopers and doing other rebel missions while lowering the risk of other players finding me.
Oh....and here's an anti-PvP scenerio that involves me being the winner (just in case there still hasn't been one): I agreed to PvP with a guildmate. I usually stink at PvP so I'm just spamming attacks as quickly as I can. At one time, the game had a system where the winner had to make a choice to kill the loser (I think it was a pop-up but don't really recall now) but the system had changed so if the winner attacked once more after the other person had fallen, the attack killed the other person. With my spamming attacks, by the time I registered that I had won, I had already attacked again causing the guildmate to die (difference being that rather than the person being able to stand up after the fight was over and be healed on the spot, the person had to respawn or have a costly rezz kit used on them and took damage to their equipment). We went a few more rounds and almost every time I won, I would accidently kill the guy. I apologized to him and felt bad about it. The negative in this scenerio is more of a flaw in the system that I didn't like because I don't have an issue with consensual 1 on 1 pvp (although I do have an issue with random pvp invites especially getting spammed with them). As far as the "observation" that scenerios are usually about the person losing, it would be common sense for the scenerios to be from that point of view because it is usually the loser that experiences the negative side of PvP, other than feeling guilty about winning or getting spammed or harrassed by the loser, there is very little negative to be experienced by the winner and the negative can easily be dealt with be either a) intentionally losing, b) compensating for the loser's losses, or c) muting/ignoring person to prevent IMs, As people have pointed out, there are "bad apples" in PvE and PvP, difference is, in PvE, dealing with "bad apples" is usually easier (although there are some exceptions).