I played shadowbane for 4 years (open world no safe pvp, thieves can steal items off you etc) and all we did was grief. Why the hell would you fight someone that would win? 99% of full PVP is someone strong beating on someone much weaker, its just human nature. Clear out noob leveling areas, gank groups in high level areas during raids/group pulls. Siege peoples cities at odd hours so they can't fight back. This is exactly how eve and darkfall are too.
Absolutely nothing tough about playing more than someone and using it to waste their time/game experience. It used to make me feel good when I was younger, but now I'd much rather fight on even ground so I stick with mobas and MvC if I want to PvP.
The highlighted sentence says it all, actually. Anyone who played FFA PvP games and is unbiased and honest knows that.
You can add "exploiting game mechanics to win" to your list too I think.
Always nice to read from another honest PvP player who acknowledges the reality instead of living in a fiction where all PvPers play "nice".
Tbh i don't like FFA PVP games, that isnt to say i dont enjoy PVP, at the moment im playing Planetside 2, Eve and ... FF XIV:ARR, none of which are FFA PVP. Planetside 2 is my preferred platform for PVP tbh, the whole fantasy game PVP just bores me, i think their more suited to cooperative or PVE gameplay, Eve is a game thats more about corporate goals, and while PVP happens, its not FFA, and usually is either to control territory, intimidate/ransom another corp/alliance or just a random gankfest. Even then its very much a niche game. FFA PVP games are 'ultra niche' which is why the games associated with it, usually have very small populations. Most factors that FFA PVP enthusiasts seem to want is the ability to engage PVE players without restriction, which seems a bit weak overall, PVP should just be about engaging other PVP'ers, perhaps thats why the only 'real' PVP game i currently play is Planetside2, its not as good as the original planetside yet, but its definitely getting there.
Market and crafting competition (PvP) is great in many respects. I have no issue with that. It's combat PvP that I often dislike. I have no issue really with resource hoarding, playing the market, doing high level instances to farm reagents to make profitable items, having an open market economy with deep and complex crafting requirements.
EvE wins in this regard. One EvE character of mine hasn't left station since 2011 and may never do again. She is the most fun to play for me. I have 4 accounts (before you troll I have plenty of cash to spare, an active social life in the real world and multi account play is actively ENCOURAGED by the devs of EvE who are still sending my email address ~"Power Of 2" emails from time to time"
EvE also wins because it is impossible to get every skill on every character, you just cannot even get close. Co-operation is vital. In WoW everyone has a stable full of alts who can do everything in the gamer. Every resource farmed, every profession maxxed out, the only reason most players would use the WoW economy/AH is out of laziness
"I can't be bothered to log in with my Skinner/Miner alt, so I'll just buy the things I need"
This will never happen in EvE, even if you started playing on release day and optimized your skill learning to the max you would stand no chance of even getting close to being able to do everything to max efficiency, and that means co-operation and open market economics work, becasue they have to.
Doesn't need combat to make competition between players.
I played shadowbane for 4 years (open world no safe pvp, thieves can steal items off you etc) and all we did was grief. Why the hell would you fight someone that would win? 99% of full PVP is someone strong beating on someone much weaker, its just human nature. Clear out noob leveling areas, gank groups in high level areas during raids/group pulls. Siege peoples cities at odd hours so they can't fight back. This is exactly how eve and darkfall are too.
Absolutely nothing tough about playing more than someone and using it to waste their time/game experience. It used to make me feel good when I was younger, but now I'd much rather fight on even ground so I stick with mobas and MvC if I want to PvP.
The highlighted sentence says it all, actually. Anyone who played FFA PvP games and is unbiased and honest knows that.
You can add "exploiting game mechanics to win" to your list too I think.
Always nice to read from another honest PvP player who acknowledges the reality instead of living in a fiction where all PvPers play "nice".
Tbh i don't like FFA PVP games, that isnt to say i dont enjoy PVP, at the moment im playing Planetside 2, Eve and ... FF XIV:ARR, none of which are FFA PVP. Planetside 2 is my preferred platform for PVP tbh, the whole fantasy game PVP just bores me, i think their more suited to cooperative or PVE gameplay, Eve is a game thats more about corporate goals, and while PVP happens, its not FFA, and usually is either to control territory, intimidate/ransom another corp/alliance or just a random gankfest. Even then its very much a niche game. FFA PVP games are 'ultra niche' which is why the games associated with it, usually have very small populations. Most factors that FFA PVP enthusiasts seem to want is the ability to engage PVE players without restriction, which seems a bit weak overall, PVP should just be about engaging other PVP'ers, perhaps thats why the only 'real' PVP game i currently play is Planetside2, its not as good as the original planetside yet, but its definitely getting there.
Actually EvE is a FFA PvP game.. and i did thought that friendly fire(beeing FFA and faction) in Battlefield(it is nowadays BF3+ deactivated) was more of a advantage, although you got a few jerks as with any game.
And i do agree that level difference is one of the big problems from any PvP MMO.. i said it always, that vertical progression don't work well with PvP, especially a deep one.
Ok.. you can argue that even without vertical progression you will have bigger groups killing smaller groups and it will happen, and a lot of people will try exploit it. On the other side there are also those pvp player, which want to kill with smaller numbers larger groups, or look for the challenge. And you can build in some counter measures, like the option to retreat from a superior enemy(maybe not a 100% chance, but a good chance with enough awareness), or to avoid that much of a vertical progression.
I personally play a lot of pvp games of all different kind of genres, from RTS to FPS to MOBA to MMO to turn based strategy games.. basicly more or less everything with pvp. And in my experience.. winning is fun, but to actually have a challenging fight is a lot more fun, even if that means that you lose 6-7 times out of 10.. and even more if you do that within a team and with good team play.
But to lose 8-10 times out of 10 is not fun.. because you have to commit that you are not good enough, and it will be frustrating.. a lot of other games have the advantage of matchmaking to avoid such problems..
But pvp within a persistent world, with different long term targets is a whole different game as most "lobby games" can ever be, because of the sheer possibilities(spectrum of pvp, from combat, to market play, to overlay logistic, strategy). But i have to agree that there is not one really good pvp mmorpg out there. Not a single one.
But i do play MMORPGs(and for that matter all games) a very long time, and i got a lot of good pvp moments in a few MMORPGs, but there was always some not so good parts in every single one of them.. but i do see the potential, i do see what would be possible. And with that said.. we did not even scratched the top of the iceberg what mmorpg or lets say massive persistent pvp could be. So i still await for the big PvP MMO, because up to now very few even tried to toy with it.. and in most MMOs it is just a merely afterhought not even worth to mention.
But a lot of players, especially PvE players(but a lot of so called PvP players too) have to come to the realization that a pvp mmo is a completely different game, maybe even a different genre.. and that those games don't have to cater to PvE players. Even more in most parts they can't cater to pve player to be really good pvp games. (And for that part crafting, gathering, economic play, building, is part of the strategic pvp play, and not PVE)
I am curious how Camelot Unchained turns out, which will entirely focus on PvP.. and as i personally think for a very good reason.
Planetside 2 is a lot to much BF within a greater scale, without really working with the possibilities from a persistent world, and for that matter i even think Planetside 1 was the better game out of those 2. EvE Online really sucks, when it comes down to combat(too slow paced), and i do think that the economic influence from players should be even more noticeable, and that it is a little bit to much focused on skill/ship grinding.(to get the better skills, to get to the better ships, with ships maybe are somewhat to expensive)
We will see what the future will bring.. but the end, the last word about full pvp is not yet spoken.
I played shadowbane for 4 years (open world no safe pvp, thieves can steal items off you etc) and all we did was grief. Why the hell would you fight someone that would win? 99% of full PVP is someone strong beating on someone much weaker, its just human nature. Clear out noob leveling areas, gank groups in high level areas during raids/group pulls. Siege peoples cities at odd hours so they can't fight back. This is exactly how eve and darkfall are too.
Absolutely nothing tough about playing more than someone and using it to waste their time/game experience. It used to make me feel good when I was younger, but now I'd much rather fight on even ground so I stick with mobas and MvC if I want to PvP.
The highlighted sentence says it all, actually. Anyone who played FFA PvP games and is unbiased and honest knows that.
You can add "exploiting game mechanics to win" to your list too I think.
Always nice to read from another honest PvP player who acknowledges the reality instead of living in a fiction where all PvPers play "nice".
Tbh i don't like FFA PVP games, that isnt to say i dont enjoy PVP, at the moment im playing Planetside 2, Eve and ... FF XIV:ARR, none of which are FFA PVP. Planetside 2 is my preferred platform for PVP tbh, the whole fantasy game PVP just bores me, i think their more suited to cooperative or PVE gameplay, Eve is a game thats more about corporate goals, and while PVP happens, its not FFA, and usually is either to control territory, intimidate/ransom another corp/alliance or just a random gankfest. Even then its very much a niche game. FFA PVP games are 'ultra niche' which is why the games associated with it, usually have very small populations. Most factors that FFA PVP enthusiasts seem to want is the ability to engage PVE players without restriction, which seems a bit weak overall, PVP should just be about engaging other PVP'ers, perhaps thats why the only 'real' PVP game i currently play is Planetside2, its not as good as the original planetside yet, but its definitely getting there.
Actually EvE is a FFA PvP game.. and i did thought that friendly fire(beeing FFA and faction) in Battlefield(it is nowadays BF3+ deactivated) was more of a advantage, although you got a few jerks as with any game.
And i do agree that level difference is one of the big problems from any PvP MMO.. i said it always, that vertical progression don't work well with PvP, especially a deep one.
Ok.. you can argue that even without vertical progression you will have bigger groups killing smaller groups and it will happen, and a lot of people will try exploit it. On the other side there are also those pvp player, which want to kill with smaller numbers larger groups, or look for the challenge. And you can build in some counter measures, like the option to retreat from a superior enemy(maybe not a 100% chance, but a good chance with enough awareness), or to avoid that much of a vertical progression.
I personally play a lot of pvp games of all different kind of genres, from RTS to FPS to MOBA to MMO to turn based strategy games.. basicly more or less everything with pvp. And in my experience.. winning is fun, but to actually have a challenging fight is a lot more fun, even if that means that you lose 6-7 times out of 10.. and even more if you do that within a team and with good team play.
But to lose 8-10 times out of 10 is not fun.. because you have to commit that you are not good enough, and it will be frustrating.. a lot of other games have the advantage of matchmaking to avoid such problems..
But pvp within a persistent world, with different long term targets is a whole different game as most "lobby games" can ever be, because of the sheer possibilities(spectrum of pvp, from combat, to market play, to overlay logistic, strategy). But i have to agree that there is not one really good pvp mmorpg out there. Not a single one.
But i do play MMORPGs(and for that matter all games) a very long time, and i got a lot of good pvp moments in a few MMORPGs, but there was always some not so good parts in every single one of them.. but i do see the potential, i do see what would be possible. And with that said.. we did not even scratched the top of the iceberg what mmorpg or lets say massive persistent pvp could be. So i still await for the big PvP MMO, because up to now very few even tried to toy with it.. and in most MMOs it is just a merely afterhought not even worth to mention.
But a lot of players, especially PvE players(but a lot of so called PvP players too) have to come to the realization that a pvp mmo is a completely different game, maybe even a different genre.. and that those games don't have to cater to PvE players. Even more in most parts they can't cater to pve player to be really good pvp games. (And for that part crafting, gathering, economic play, building, is part of the strategic pvp play, and not PVE)
I am curious how Camelot Unchained turns out, which will entirely focus on PvP.. and as i personally think for a very good reason.
Planetside 2 is a lot to much BF within a greater scale, without really working with the possibilities from a persistent world, and for that matter i even think Planetside 1 was the better game out of those 2. EvE Online really sucks, when it comes down to combat(too slow paced), and i do think that the economic influence from players should be even more noticeable, and that it is a little bit to much focused on skill/ship grinding.(to get the better skills, to get to the better ships, with ships maybe are somewhat to expensive)
We will see what the future will bring.. but the end, the last word about full pvp is not yet spoken.
Sure the word has been spoken. If you want tons of players and MAKE MONEY, you won't make a game with full PvP. AAA companies have received that message loud and clear.
Sure the word has been spoken. If you want tons of players and MAKE MONEY, you won't make a game with full PvP. AAA companies have received that message loud and clear.
Yeah.. as it was said with shooter, with strategic games and all that.. pvp only don't work.
Battlefield, Counter Strike, DoTA, and a lot of other pvp only games have proofed the counterpart. It may take some time, but it will be proven on the larger scale for MMOs, too. It is just a matter of time.
Sure the word has been spoken. If you want tons of players and MAKE MONEY, you won't make a game with full PvP. AAA companies have received that message loud and clear.
Yeah.. as it was said with shooter, with strategic games and all that.. pvp only don't work.
Battlefield, Counter Strike, DoTA, and a lot of other pvp only games have proofed the counterpart. It may take some time, but it will be proven on the larger scale for MMOs, too. It is just a matter of time.
No it won't. And there are many reasons, logically, why it won't.
1. People don't want to lose gear they worked so hard to get.
2. It brings on the 'zerg' mentality - I mean the original meaning of the term - meaning a bunch of lowbies beating up on a high level player to strip the player of his gear. That is the original definition of zerg.
3. It makes everyone an enemy and no one 'team players.
4. Makes the game more unsocial - now I know that games CANNOT force people to be social - BUT the attitude 'EVERYMAN FOR HIMSELF' really and truly destroys the little semblance that games have.
5. Full PvP games attract the more immature players - ganking mentality - bully mentality if you want.
I will stop here but you get the idea - full PvP games will always be a niche game for the above and many more reasons.
Sure the word has been spoken. If you want tons of players and MAKE MONEY, you won't make a game with full PvP. AAA companies have received that message loud and clear.
Yeah.. as it was said with shooter, with strategic games and all that.. pvp only don't work.
Battlefield, Counter Strike, DoTA, and a lot of other pvp only games have proofed the counterpart. It may take some time, but it will be proven on the larger scale for MMOs, too. It is just a matter of time.
No it won't. And there are many reasons, logically, why it won't.
1. People don't want to lose gear they worked so hard to get.
Why should anyone work hard for gear in a pvp game? This is a pve mindset.
2. It brings on the 'zerg' mentality - I mean the original meaning of the term - meaning a bunch of lowbies beating up on a high level player to strip the player of his gear. That is the original definition of zerg.
You can come up with different ways to make zerging less effective, like retreat, like CC, like a million different things... and again.. what's with that gear? PvP game is not WoW.. gear does not have to have such a high value.
3. It makes everyone an enemy and no one 'team players.
You can have factions, you can have teams, you can have guilds/clans, you can have alliances pre set and player defined.. and all of that make FFA as example not negligible
4. Makes the game more unsocial - now I know that games CANNOT force people to be social - BUT the attitude 'EVERYMAN FOR HIMSELF' really and truly destroys the little semblance that games have.
Hmm.. Do you have even played a pvp game? Because community, unsocial is really the least problem of most pvp games.
5. Full PvP games attract the more immature players - ganking mentality - bully mentality if you want.
Really? There is no single proof for that. Just because you give players more freedom to do what they want, you will get more player, which are actually do what they want.. and that can mean griefing and ganking.
But you do have as many in any other game.. ninja looting is not a pvp problem.. But in a lot of PvE games you just strictly forbid, or make everything impossible, so they just can abuse the chat.. which they do regulary in any mmo out there.
I will stop here but you get the idea - full PvP games will always be a niche game for the above and many more reasons.
And i will stop there, too. Because, i don't have to proof anything, or i don't have to convince you. Hell.. i don't even care about it. Those games will come, and they will find there market, and it will not be a niche market. I will most probably play them, and you will most probably not play them. And everthing we say, or think will not change a tiny bit about that. And the game and the market will not care about it. Not everyone have to play pvp games.. a lot of pvp games like LoL, like DotA, like Starcraft, like Battlefield, like Planetside can clearly live very well without you.
Fully open world PvP and it fell flat on it's face.
Why you ask?
Because every server reached a point where someone formed a super-guild and then chain camped everyone else off the server. If you were not flying the super-guild banner you got camped until you gave up and played something else.
It started off a cool idea but eventually devolved into something lame and pathetic.
When a player can actually prevent another player from playing the game there is too much freedom in the PvP system.
Fully open PvP can kiss my ass.
Shadowbane is proof of why it doesn't work and will forever be a shining example of why it doesn't work.
Sure the word has been spoken. If you want tons of players and MAKE MONEY, you won't make a game with full PvP. AAA companies have received that message loud and clear.
Yeah.. as it was said with shooter, with strategic games and all that.. pvp only don't work.
Battlefield, Counter Strike, DoTA, and a lot of other pvp only games have proofed the counterpart. It may take some time, but it will be proven on the larger scale for MMOs, too. It is just a matter of time.
No it won't. And there are many reasons, logically, why it won't.
1. People don't want to lose gear they worked so hard to get.
Why should anyone work hard for gear in a pvp game? This is a pve mindset.
No - it is an achievement mindset. People want to feel unique and a sense of accomplishment in games hence the gear treadmill (I don't believe in it but it is there). Yours is a total PvP mindset -not thinking about anyone else but yourself.
2. It brings on the 'zerg' mentality - I mean the original meaning of the term - meaning a bunch of lowbies beating up on a high level player to strip the player of his gear. That is the original definition of zerg.
You can come up with different ways to make zerging less effective, like retreat, like CC, like a million different things... and again.. what's with that gear? PvP game is not WoW.. gear does not have to have such a high value.
That was done in many games and you what? It never works - people don't care about consequences in games.
3. It makes everyone an enemy and no one 'team players.
You can have factions, you can have teams, you can have guilds/clans, you can have alliances pre set and player defined.. and all of that make FFA as example not negligible
Sorry - now you are backpedaling - that is not full on PvP . GW2, Rift, etc has this w/o the looting.
4. Makes the game more unsocial - now I know that games CANNOT force people to be social - BUT the attitude 'EVERYMAN FOR HIMSELF' really and truly destroys the little semblance that games have.
Hmm.. Do you have even played a pvp game? Because community, unsocial is really the least problem of most pvp games.
Yes I have - that is why I said exactly this - Knight Online and Shadowbane.
5. Full PvP games attract the more immature players - ganking mentality - bully mentality if you want.
Really? There is no single proof for that. Just because you give players more freedom to do what they want, you will get more player, which are actually do what they want.. and that can mean griefing and ganking.
But you do have as many in any other game.. ninja looting is not a pvp problem.. But in a lot of PvE games you just strictly forbid, or make everything impossible, so they just can abuse the chat.. which they do regulary in any mmo out there.
Shadowbane and Knight Online were classics in ganking and immaturity. It is not a PvP attitude but it exacerbates the issue.
I will stop here but you get the idea - full PvP games will always be a niche game for the above and many more reasons.
And i will stop there, too. Because, i don't have to proof anything, or i don't have to convince you. Hell.. i don't even care about it. Those games will come, and they will find there market, and it will not be a niche market. I will most probably play them, and you will most probably not play them. And everthing we say, or think will not change a tiny bit about that. And the game and the market will not care about it. Not everyone have to play pvp games.. a lot of pvp games like LoL, like DotA, like Starcraft, like Battlefield, like Planetside can clearly live very well without you.
I gave you reasons and you did not counter it with anything other than - Well that is not a PvP attitude. sorry you did not win.
In MMO's, full on PvP has been tried and keeps being tried but all the games are NICHE games BECAUSE THEY ARE FULL ON PvP - nothing else makes them that way.
Originally posted by generals3 Originally posted by lizardbones
? I didn't say have the AI do exactly what other players do. I said implement mechanics that take the place of the PvP mechanics. NPCs can take the place of players, without acting like players. Why would a developer do this? Because there are more people who would rather fight an AI than fight other players. Besides, you already see MMORPGs like this. Most MMORPGs are already like this. Full of NPCs for players to fight instead of other players. Most players are fighting the AI, not other players. You never did say what PvP added to a game other than PvP. What game element does adding PvP allow, that isn't possible with a purely PvE mechanic or solution? Sure you did. You claimed that every type of content added by PVP could just be replaced with NPC's. That would mean that you'd need to have a buttload of NPC's doing all kinds of things. NPC's engaging in interdictions to disrupt certain mining processes which results in market price fluctuations (meaning that the NPC's buying on the market would also need to adapt their prices to NPC caused events such as this). In order to keep the 3D difficulty in EVE you'd also need to create NPC's which can pop-up and harass missioners/miners in low/null/WH's and these must be random off course (otherwise they become predictable and the risks can be easily countered).
And yes most MMO's are filled with NPC's. But these NPC's are simplistic and the content loses a lot of depth and inpredictability. I don't think there are many MMO's where NPC's are involved into political games like Nullsec alliances in EVE. There are also not many MMO's with NPC's which suddenly decide to go full berserk on people harvesting a certain resource in order to reduce the supply and make lots of profits. You also won't have many MMO's where you can "hire" NPC's to get rid of PVE'ers using resources you want to have. That's why FFA PVP opens a lot of doors. These things are never used in MMORPG's through NPC's because:
A) It would cost an insane amount of money/dev time
The impact of these things would be the same for those on the receiving end (being suicide ganked by an NPC has the same effect as being suicide ganked by a player) and consequently you'd just be removing the ability of players to be the ones on the dealing end and spending a buttload of time/money for the sake of restricting PVP?
You're trying to make this about something it's not.
The statement is simple. Any mechanic that can be accomplished using PvP can be accomplished using some form of PvE. It would not be the same experience because PvP and PvE are different experiences. I've explained how the PvP in Eve could be replaced with PvE, resulting in the same effects on the economy. The only difference would be whether or not the players preferred a PvP experience or a PvE experience.
You still haven't explained what doors having PvP opens that couldn't be opened with PvE. I'm saying the only thing PvP opens the door to are PvP experiences. Prove me wrong.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by botrytisSure the word has been spoken. If you want tons of players and MAKE MONEY, you won't make a game with full PvP. AAA companies have received that message loud and clear.
Yeah.. as it was said with shooter, with strategic games and all that.. pvp only don't work.
Battlefield, Counter Strike, DoTA, and a lot of other pvp only games have proofed the counterpart. It may take some time, but it will be proven on the larger scale for MMOs, too. It is just a matter of time.
When is it going to be proven? It's been fifteen years since UO released. There's never been a PvP option that's more popular than a PvE option. In Eve half or more of the players are in High Sec space. In DAoC, a game based around RvR PvP, the PvE servers were half or more of the population.
PvP by itself has always been pretty popular. It's the mixing of OW or "Full" PvP with PvE in MMORPGs that's always been the less popular option.
**
Actually, PvP by itself is the most popular option by far in online games. LoL by itself has more concurrent players than most MMORPGs have subscribers.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
To consider the inherent logical fallacy, first we must consider;
What is PVE?
PVE can be defined as contesting against a static AI script that repeats the same things at the same intervals. Essentially, once you figure out the optimal pattern you can begin to learn it, once you learn it you perfect it and when you perfect it you can farm.
What is dynamic PVE?
A dynamic AI script that creates a sense of challenge but retains the safety net of contesting against something which is inherently inferior to human intellect due to lack of free will. The logical fallacy herein is that the AI script is designed to simulate human behavior in order to provide the challenge, but retaining the relative predictability and therefore the inferiority of the AI.
In layman's terms, once you figure out the width of the dynamic script you can figure out the optimal pattern, perfect it and farm.
What does that have to do with PVP?
The AI script is always, without exception, designed to offer challenge but remain beatable. It serves as a proverbial punching bag to be punched ad infinitum, offering mock-resistance but no real challenge. The only thing that can compete with a human mind is another human mind, AI cannot.
The AI is there to let you win and feel good about it. It requires very little time investment to master the process of beating it, which is why it's so popular among the casual crowds. It doesn't take player's loot, it doesn't send nasty PM's, it doesn't crouch above your corpse's head in mock-teabag gesture.
To conclude;
With no real chance or consequence of loss, victory is destined to become meaningless. One of the main culprits of themeparks imploding after a month can be identified here.
As the OP correctly identified, PVP only functions as an integrated part of a wider collection of systems. To date only EVE has been able to correctly design that network of systems, whereas any of the many indy sandboxes (Mortal, Darkfall, Perpetuum, etc) imploded shortly after release because there was absolutely nothing to do besides kill people. There was no network of systems to cater to a multitude of playstyles, while maintaining the adrenaline rush inherently present in PVP enviroment.
Originally posted by azzamasin I am not going to go into some long diatribe about why you are wrong because you're probably not interested in reading my rebuttal anyway so all I am going to say is I disagree with every point in your post because I have 14+ years of experience that prove otherwise. So quit trying to pass your preferred and biased playstyle off on someone like me who doesn't want it.
I pretty much agree with what you are saying here and the sentiment.
@OP your opinions aren't fact, and no one is going to buy it. Most of us have played (or play pvp games) and we have seen what they become. You don't care if non-pvp'ers play the game or not? interesting...it begs the question then; why make this post?
Are you trying to convince people to agree with your crazy idea that pvp servers are fair and balanced? They aren't and never will be. Trying to convince people that you and your ilk won't spawn camp, harass, grief and other wise annoy anybody you can is ludicrous, again, we have played these types of games, and know how that plays out.
Without some sort of level/ability segregation you will always have griefers, and when there is a light penalty for it, that will become the mainstay of the game.
My opinions, which I formed over a decade of playing on line games will not be changed until I see the proof in the form of a game that does work as you imagine. Until then, enjoy your world.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
You're trying to make this about something it's not.
No i'm not. You just seem to continuously overlook the relevance.
The statement is simple. Any mechanic that can be accomplished using PvP can be accomplished using some form of PvE. It would not be the same experience because PvP and PvE are different experiences. I've explained how the PvP in Eve could be replaced with PvE, resulting in the same effects on the economy. The only difference would be whether or not the players preferred a PvP experience or a PvE experience.
Again, you overlooked what i stated. While technically it could it would be a stupid decision no one would ever make. You can't have the 3D difficulty of EVE unless you add NPC's with behavior similar to players. And than comes the question: why? Why would you not allow players to do that just to waste time making npc's doing it? The same goes for using PVP to interact with PVE. Why would you replace hiring mercs to secure resources with NPC's? While you could decide to make a game which uses certain doors and not others for which this would make sense if you want to open all or many of the doors it becomes a stupid choice.
You still haven't explained what doors having PvP opens that couldn't be opened with PvE. I'm saying the only thing PvP opens the door to are PvP experiences. Prove me wrong.
Look at MMO's. Try to look at reality instead of fantasy and tell me i'm wrong. Tell me how many PVE centric games have functioning dynamic economies where you can use "force" to manipulate the market, secure resources or where "balls" (not level/gear/skills but "balls") is also a factor which will impact your PVE revenue due to impredictable risk attached to certain PVE content?
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Yes that is the issue of modern PvP in a nutshell. When all there is to do is kill other players - that's all you'll do.
As someone approaching their 50th birthday competing with games that have any element of "twitch" about them against players one third my age is neither enjoyable (I find twitch gameplay a real bore now - loved it for almost 3 decades Jetpack to Far Cry 2 now just find it dull)
Also I do not have the reactions to compete.
Old?
Yes - but the average age of gamers is a lot higher than some might think. On the PC it is now close to 37. That's the AVERAGE not the top limit. Meaning that at 48 there are many gamers a lot older than me out there.
Competing in EvE's markets is fantastic fun and really mentally rewarding. Likewise even the administrattion and running of my own facilities in the game is a real buzz. I compete in fleet actions from time to time, often in a support role and among my 4 accounts I can effectively harvest most minerals down to a relatively low sec (though rarely - if ever - null sec).
My four accounts - It's a rare month when I pay for 2 as create the credits to buy 2 sometimes 3 Plex and often end up several tens of Billions more in credit at the end of the month than I started with.
I've hoarded stock to bump prices. Done espionage missions with Alts (FUN!), almost bankrupt other organizations (never managed to completely ruin them, but done pretty well) and generally been "Bletchley Park" to my collegues "Bomber Command". And I love it.
Originally posted by cirsyndic What is PVE? PVE can be defined as contesting against a static AI script that repeats the same things at the same intervals.
I find it most interesting you choose such a (very wrong!) definition. Looks like it was chosen to "support" a certain line of thought...
How about you consider this definition instead: "PvE means pitting a player vs. AI." Period. Nothing more, nothing less. That the AI is governed/represented by a "static script" is YOUR view only. Perhaps you have played too much WoW or EQ and generalize from that experience. But really, who said that a script needs to be "static"? Who says that "scripting" equals PvE in the first place? Can't you imagine, in this era of technological wonders, that AI is actually that: Artificial Intelligence, complete with it's own set of goals and the SAME means at their disposal that players have?
For an example, look at the old X-Games. While of course not perfect in any way (it was a good start and development from X1 to X3 imo), the AI reacted to the player's actions. Was that static? Or not PvE? Either way, it for sure didn't "repeat the same things at the same intervals" if the player somehow interfered.
Originally posted by cirsyndic The AI script is always, without exception, designed to offer challenge but remain beatable.
Um... Does the "Kobayashi Maru" scenario ring a bell? Do you really think it needs to be limited to SciFi? (or the Freeport Arena test in EQ when it was introduced) I'm more than certain that - if the demand for something like an unbeatable opponent is there - such a thing can be implemented.
Originally posted by cirsyndic The only thing that can compete with a human mind is another human mind, AI cannot.
Some AI programmers might agree, but some would probably say the opposite; it's really just a matter of investment vs. gain if an AI can/will be programmed to provide "real" challenges. i mean, back in the 80s no one thought it possible that a computer could beat a human chess champ either, or that cars can drive autonomically... You're really giving technology not enough credit here!
Just to give you something to think about: What if "PvP" could not be done directly? What if, instead, players would by their effort "instantiate" NPCs of different sorts that have to be fought, the side that works harder gathering resources and such beating the other team's NPCs entirely and only THEN you own that team's station or terrain or whatever. Is that PvE? or PvP? or a mish-mash? Rhetorical question,m because according to you it's not possible in the first place...
I am not going to go into some long diatribe about why you are wrong because you're probably not interested in reading my rebuttal anyway so all I am going to say is I disagree with every point in your post because I have 14+ years of experience that prove otherwise. So quit trying to pass your preferred and biased playstyle off on someone like me who doesn't want it.
I have just as much experience, and my experience doesn't "prove" the OP is right, even though I agree with 99% of the post. In fact, nothing has really been "proved" in this area, because we haven't seen a AAA title with integrated PvP. And I'm talking about PvP that's integrated into a broader game, not the niche games we've seen where PvP is developed to the detriment of everything else. (Hence the need for a AAA title, as the OP argues.)
If anyone is having a playstyle "forced" on them, it is those of us who would like to see PvP integrated into a great game from day one. It hasn't happened. And the moment someone tries to suggest how it might be done, no matter how well thought out or communicated their message, someone from the PvE-only community immediately shows up to shout "NO!"
The thing that gets me is, if you are actually into the whole "RPG" element of this genre, you shouldn't want to be arbitrarily prevented from attacking targets that by all accounts you should be able to attack. "Oh look, it's a hated member of the opposing faction, out in the middle of nowhere. Of course, I can't attack him because we're not in a battleground...." In terms of RPG "rules", PvP that makes sense within the game lore should be the startingpoint, not the afterthought.
Of course, what makes sense within the world doesn't always make for good gameplay. That's obvious. So by all means, bend the "rules" of the world. Create areas that are effectively safe, due to guards, or travel restrictions, or what have you. (This is where I differ from the OP, I think safe areas are a good idea.) But don't simply blanket the entire world with a "can't attack other players" mechanic. It's lazy and doesn't make RPG "sense".
Take a moment, if you would, and forget about the games you've played to this point. You're playing a new fantasy MMORPG, and you're a Dwarf:
Your starting city lies at the southern tip of a mountain range. And south of the city is a wall that runs for some length, dividing the region in two. Through your opening quests (and reading about the game) you know that the area east of the city is controlled by Goblins, which are NPC monsters, while the area to the west of the city is controlled by Dark Elves, a playable race. Multiple quest lines give you the option of fighting the Goblin threat to the east, or taking on the Dark Elves to the west. The city and the wall running south are all heavily guarded, so that no Dark Elf can plausibly get into the city or into the eastern region to grief anybody.
Now I ask you: what is wrong with this picture? What is so bad about some of your options for conflict involving other player-controlled factions? You wouldn't be forced into those areas or those quest lines. But the people that want the challenge of fighting other players have the option, and their actions aren't sequestered away from the game world, completely devoid of meaning.
That's just a snaposhot of what type of systems could be employed. There's a lot more to it. If you're worried, for example, that the Dark Elves will over-run the Dwarf city if not enough Dwarves choose to PvP, that problem is easily solved with game mechanics. All it takes is a little imagination. It's not hard to envision a game with a great PvP and PvE experience. But the conversation rarely even gets started, because too many players and developers are paranoid about griefing.
Let me state it clearly: it's entirely possible to design an MMO with integrated PvP that doesn't allow griefing.
If you think of PvP and all you can think of is griefing, I would refer you to my earlier point about RPG "rules" and what the starting point should be.
When *I* think about PvP I think about, yes, a challenge in combat that no NPC can give me. But I mostly think about the possibility of dynamic, historical, factional conflict within a persistent online fantasy world. Is it so hard to believe there a lot of us who want that?
Some of us would like the option of challenging, unpredictable combat in addition to punching bags that offer no real challenge or risk. Just because we don't want that sequestered away from the wider game world doesn't mean we all want to grief. And it doesn't mean PvP is all we want to do. People don't neatly divide into one camp or the other. And maybe, just maybe, if PvP were done well for a change, more people would come to enjoy it.
Originally posted by generals3 Originally posted by lizardbonesYou're trying to make this about something it's not. No i'm not. You just seem to continuously overlook the relevance. The statement is simple. Any mechanic that can be accomplished using PvP can be accomplished using some form of PvE. It would not be the same experience because PvP and PvE are different experiences. I've explained how the PvP in Eve could be replaced with PvE, resulting in the same effects on the economy. The only difference would be whether or not the players preferred a PvP experience or a PvE experience.
Again, you overlooked what i stated. While technically it could it would be a stupid decision no one would ever make. You can't have the 3D difficulty of EVE unless you add NPC's with behavior similar to players. And than comes the question: why? Why would you not allow players to do that just to waste time making npc's doing it? The same goes for using PVP to interact with PVE. Why would you replace hiring mercs to secure resources with NPC's? While you could decide to make a game which uses certain doors and not others for which this would make sense if you want to open all or many of the doors it becomes a stupid choice. You still haven't explained what doors having PvP opens that couldn't be opened with PvE. I'm saying the only thing PvP opens the door to are PvP experiences. Prove me wrong. Look at MMO's. Try to look at reality instead of fantasy and tell me i'm wrong. Tell me how many PVE centric games have functioning dynamic economies where you can use "force" to manipulate the market, secure resources or where "balls" (not level/gear/skills but "balls") is also a factor which will impact your PVE revenue due to impredictable risk attached to certain PVE content?
You can add NPCs that are as hard or harder to defeat than human players. Developers have already discussed this type of thing and they don't implement those systems because it's not always fun for their players(Gamasutra). It wouldn't be any more expensive than existing AI. They need systems like this for testing anyway(Gamasutra), they just don't unleash that AI on players because again, their players would not enjoy it. Cost is not a deterrent to more challenging PvE content. The deterrent to one type of content over another is player preference, not technical challenge.
Certainly, the style will be different between PvP and PvE systems, but the ability to control an economy, take a castle or control land are all not exclusive to PvP mechanics. It sounds more and more that what you're saying is that you like those mechanics better, rather than they actually open any special doors.
You still haven't explained what content PvP unlocks that can't be unlocked in a similar manner by PvE content.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by cirsyndic To consider the inherent logical fallacy, first we must consider; What is PVE? PVE can be defined as contesting against a static AI script that repeats the same things at the same intervals. Essentially, once you figure out the optimal pattern you can begin to learn it, once you learn it you perfect it and when you perfect it you can farm. What is dynamic PVE? A dynamic AI script that creates a sense of challenge but retains the safety net of contesting against something which is inherently inferior to human intellect due to lack of free will. The logical fallacy herein is that the AI script is designed to simulate human behavior in order to provide the challenge, but retaining the relative predictability and therefore the inferiority of the AI. In layman's terms, once you figure out the width of the dynamic script you can figure out the optimal pattern, perfect it and farm. What does that have to do with PVP? The AI script is always, without exception, designed to offer challenge but remain beatable. It serves as a proverbial punching bag to be punched ad infinitum, offering mock-resistance but no real challenge. The only thing that can compete with a human mind is another human mind, AI cannot. The AI is there to let you win and feel good about it. It requires very little time investment to master the process of beating it, which is why it's so popular among the casual crowds. It doesn't take player's loot, it doesn't send nasty PM's, it doesn't crouch above your corpse's head in mock-teabag gesture. To conclude; With no real chance or consequence of loss, victory is destined to become meaningless. One of the main culprits of themeparks imploding after a month can be identified here.As the OP correctly identified, PVP only functions as an integrated part of a wider collection of systems. To date only EVE has been able to correctly design that network of systems, whereas any of the many indy sandboxes (Mortal, Darkfall, Perpetuum, etc) imploded shortly after release because there was absolutely nothing to do besides kill people. There was no network of systems to cater to a multitude of playstyles, while maintaining the adrenaline rush inherently present in PVP enviroment. TL;DR version:Monkey learns to press lever, monkey gets banana.Monkey fights monkey for banana.
Except challenging PvE content exists with the express purpose of forcing the player to improve without the AI cheating. Even older RTS games have AI that ranges from really easy to really hard or nearly impossible to beat without resorting to cheating. Unreal's AI can field bots with player level skills and behaviors. They had to program in the ability for the AI to make mistakes because the AI was more or less unbeatable by any human player. It wasn't a challenge, it was a slaughter.
Even in MMORPGs, the easy mode of gaming, WoW's end game raids are unbeatable without a great deal of time, effort and additional mods to the base game. There is certainly a lot of content that is easy, but the choice is available for the players to choose content that requires the time investment to get something out of it.
So your post would be accurate if it didn't ignore reality.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You can add NPCs that are as hard or harder to defeat than human players. Developers have already discussed this type of thing and they don't implement those systems because it's not always fun for their players(Gamasutra). It wouldn't be any more expensive than existing AI. They need systems like this for testing anyway(Gamasutra), they just don't unleash that AI on players because again, their players would not enjoy it. Cost is not a deterrent to more challenging PvE content. The deterrent to one type of content over another is player preference, not technical challenge.
Certainly, the style will be different between PvP and PvE systems, but the ability to control an economy, take a castle or control land are all not exclusive to PvP mechanics. It sounds more and more that what you're saying is that you like those mechanics better, rather than they actually open any special doors.
You still haven't explained what content PvP unlocks that can't be unlocked in a similar manner by PvE content.
Difficulty isn't the only consideration. Another would be predictability. "Okay, so we'll make the AI unpredictable." But again, it's still not going to behave like a living, thinking being. The experience of competing with another mind is unique.
Just to take the above poster's example, WoW's raids are difficult and fun for a lot of people. But re-running a boss to learn mechanics and execute perfectly is a totally different challenge from trying to guess what your opponent is thinking, what he's going to do next, or what he thinks you're going to do next, etc. PvP is about psychology, and machines don't have psyches.
Just to take the above poster's example, WoW's raids are difficult and fun for a lot of people. But re-running a boss to learn mechanics and execute perfectly is a totally different challenge from trying to guess what your opponent is thinking, what he's going to do next, or what he thinks you're going to do next, etc. PvP is about psychology, and machines don't have psyches.
However, MMORPG PvP rarely goes that deep. Most of the time it is one-level thinking and stategizing goes out the window.
I been looking and not seen this mentioned at all. Elder Scrolls Online has said it core game is based around PVP factions and will be subscription based. So if you are basing this whole argument that EQN should bow down to FFA PVP and we should go find another game, why must EQNext switch gears when there is already a game being made for you.
For a true play to win (not pay to win), the result is either the long term members have it easy and new players best hope is to survive the slaughterhouse to get the gear to actually have fun. So if you are not in the first wave or get in when top tier are MIA then you normally have to slow grind your way up. ESO has announce their way of addressing this is that lvl 10 will be able to compete against lvl 50 toons in PVP (As a PVEer this mean there is no gain for time spent, so why put in effort)
For the game to be profitable, the traditional economy in games now is worthless. Why have all these skins and appearance items, most people use them to be individualized (PVE fear, if I stand out, I am a bigger target, if there is no uniform, who are my allies). So PVP profit would have to be from either subscription pay (many people fear it dieing) or by purchasing gear (a pay to win mentality). Most MMO benefit from steady flow of money over time, so if it pay to win then they either A) keep throwing in new tier of stuff quickly that makes current tiers worthless or make gear break down/time limit. EQN money is currently planned for player studio, with player designed items (appearance not power is assumed). I admit skins matter most for social aspects of the game, and that all about server density.
Lastly, a mindset of the story is needed. True FFA does not benefit much with a deep lore, since most people never get past the PKing. So why have the depth of content that EQN is promising if it only going to be lvl 1-10 goes here, 11-20 there, etc. ESO has set it up that there are three factions at war with each other, and they fight over areas and resources. I would not I have HEARD, not experienced, that some faction PVP end up with servers having only one side dominate everything and it ends up with one side has numbers, resources, and accessibility, while the other side is taken by those who what the challenge and usually have the skill. If you want FFA PVP, then the easiest way to support that is via arenas, but that does not give you the open world you wish for, and remove the element of surprise (As a PVE player, the issue I have is if you are able to one shot mobs or players, the difficult part is who hits first and the game become ADHD, but by making battles last longer so it not so much a shooter and the element of surprise is reduces to a minor role which can be done in the arena.
So in short, PVP creates tiers of people and could result in being fun for top dog but a pain to new toons, would require a sub or PAY to win to support economically, and does not need the lore found with EQ 14 years of experience. ESO address theses issues from the start as requested before, and stated that there is no need for a PVE and PVP spec, they are both using the same combat mechanics.
And to state a list of PVE games that have failed, there is also some PVP games that have fallen short or never got pass production due to limited market. Look at SoE, out of the same group that has benefited of the success of everquest, they made Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic, Vanguard, and various other games that never took off. I mean, they announced the next EQ Live expansion, yes I talking about the first one, and that because of the environment and fanbase that it created.
Originally posted by Gnostik Take a moment, if you would, and forget about the games you've played to this point. You're playing a new fantasy MMORPG, and you're a Dwarf: [...] Now I ask you: what is wrong with this picture?
What is wrong with this picture is that it's not a complete one. It only covers the starting city with the player's choice of going left to PvP or right to PvE, which so far is ok (basically consentual PvP which no one argues against but not "full PvP" this thread is about).
What you omit though is that once PAST the goblins, in other areas, the Dark Elf and the Dwarf are bound to meet, even though the Dwarf went the goblin way. What you're doing is depriving the Dwarf PvE player the entire left side of the game, while the Dark Elf has both - unless of course, the Dwarf that went the PvE way "dares" venture out into PvP areas after all. Why would a PvE player pay the same fee for only half the game?
Originally posted by Gnostik Let me state it clearly: it's entirely possible to design an MMO with integrated PvP that doesn't allow griefing.
Indeed, you are right: it is entirely possible to integrate PvP without griefing. But in that scenario, we're not talking "full PvP" then, are we? That would be consentual PvP in some form (both have to agree to /duel, or both enter PvP areas something like that. As soon as you allow PvP to be imposed onto one side, you are open to griefing. (Ofc, PvE by itself doesn't mean that you can't grief another player too, e.g. by pulling the zone and FD'ing when the mobs are in agro range of the to-be-griefed but that is neither here nor there in the context of this thread)
Originally posted by Gnostik Is it so hard to believe there a lot of us who want that?
No it isn't, i probably want that too. I just think that such a goal cannot be achieved with "full PvP", simply because of the many way full PvP can be - and is, in current games - exploited in a griefing way. The problem isn't, as some tried to put it, that ALL PvP'ers grief. Not all do, we all know that!
The problem is the fraction of the population that actively seeks to exploit PvP mechanisms (any mechanism really, whether PvP or PvE) simply in order to grief others, and that these people have it much, much easier in a "full PvP" envirnoment to spoil the fun for most of the rest. As was said above, the negative impact of just ONE such player can be not only detrimental but outright destructive on the rest of the population. THAT is why anyone who's experienced it (and those who don't want to experience it in the first place), is so strongly against "full PvP".
Remember, this thread isn't about "PvP is bad" in general, it's about "full/open PvP is bad".
Originally posted by Gnostik Originally posted by lizardbones You can add NPCs that are as hard or harder to defeat than human players. Developers have already discussed this type of thing and they don't implement those systems because it's not always fun for their players(Gamasutra). It wouldn't be any more expensive than existing AI. They need systems like this for testing anyway(Gamasutra), they just don't unleash that AI on players because again, their players would not enjoy it. Cost is not a deterrent to more challenging PvE content. The deterrent to one type of content over another is player preference, not technical challenge. Certainly, the style will be different between PvP and PvE systems, but the ability to control an economy, take a castle or control land are all not exclusive to PvP mechanics. It sounds more and more that what you're saying is that you like those mechanics better, rather than they actually open any special doors. You still haven't explained what content PvP unlocks that can't be unlocked in a similar manner by PvE content.
Difficulty isn't the only consideration. Another would be predictability. "Okay, so we'll make the AI unpredictable." But again, it's still not going to behave like a living, thinking being. The experience of competing with another mind is unique.
Just to take the above poster's example, WoW's raids are difficult and fun for a lot of people. But re-running a boss to learn mechanics and execute perfectly is a totally different challenge from trying to guess what your opponent is thinking, what he's going to do next, or what he thinks you're going to do next, etc. PvP is about psychology, and machines don't have psyches.
PvP in and of itself has never been a problem. It's the specific implementations of PvP that people like or dislike.
In OW PvP, there is very little of that 'psychology' happening. The person or group with the better build, higher level or more numbers attacks first and wins*.
What you're talking about sounds a lot more like match based PvP with relatively balanced groups. The psyche of the other players actually has a chance to be a factor. In other words, consensual PvP. Unless I miss my guess, the OP is on about OW or FFA PvP, not PvP in general and certainly not consensual PvP.
PvP exists in MMORPGs because people like the idea of PvP. OW and FFA PvP are the least implemented style because people like those implementations the least. Why? Doesn't matter.
Balanced teams where the outcome depends on skill rather than numbers or levels is what most people want in PvP, which is why most PvP in MMORPGs is consensual in the world, or isolated to battlegrounds and PvP zones.
Even if anything the OP says is true, it doesn't matter. People can argue against preferences, or try and poke logical holes in preferences, but it's not going to change those preferences. Most of them aren't based on a chain of logic. They're just based on the idea of "what I like", and any logic is an after thought, used to justify "what I like".
* There are exceptions to this. Once the scale of the conflict gets large enough, it will take long enough to resolve that strategy and tactics matter. Eve is a good example. The scale of many conflicts in Eve reach the point that it's much more like RvR in DAoC than skirmishes in Mortal Online. Then again, Eve is an exception in many ways.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
Tbh i don't like FFA PVP games, that isnt to say i dont enjoy PVP, at the moment im playing Planetside 2, Eve and ... FF XIV:ARR, none of which are FFA PVP. Planetside 2 is my preferred platform for PVP tbh, the whole fantasy game PVP just bores me, i think their more suited to cooperative or PVE gameplay, Eve is a game thats more about corporate goals, and while PVP happens, its not FFA, and usually is either to control territory, intimidate/ransom another corp/alliance or just a random gankfest. Even then its very much a niche game. FFA PVP games are 'ultra niche' which is why the games associated with it, usually have very small populations. Most factors that FFA PVP enthusiasts seem to want is the ability to engage PVE players without restriction, which seems a bit weak overall, PVP should just be about engaging other PVP'ers, perhaps thats why the only 'real' PVP game i currently play is Planetside2, its not as good as the original planetside yet, but its definitely getting there.
Market and crafting competition (PvP) is great in many respects. I have no issue with that. It's combat PvP that I often dislike. I have no issue really with resource hoarding, playing the market, doing high level instances to farm reagents to make profitable items, having an open market economy with deep and complex crafting requirements.
EvE wins in this regard. One EvE character of mine hasn't left station since 2011 and may never do again. She is the most fun to play for me. I have 4 accounts (before you troll I have plenty of cash to spare, an active social life in the real world and multi account play is actively ENCOURAGED by the devs of EvE who are still sending my email address ~"Power Of 2" emails from time to time"
EvE also wins because it is impossible to get every skill on every character, you just cannot even get close. Co-operation is vital. In WoW everyone has a stable full of alts who can do everything in the gamer. Every resource farmed, every profession maxxed out, the only reason most players would use the WoW economy/AH is out of laziness
"I can't be bothered to log in with my Skinner/Miner alt, so I'll just buy the things I need"
This will never happen in EvE, even if you started playing on release day and optimized your skill learning to the max you would stand no chance of even getting close to being able to do everything to max efficiency, and that means co-operation and open market economics work, becasue they have to.
Doesn't need combat to make competition between players.
Actually EvE is a FFA PvP game.. and i did thought that friendly fire(beeing FFA and faction) in Battlefield(it is nowadays BF3+ deactivated) was more of a advantage, although you got a few jerks as with any game.
And i do agree that level difference is one of the big problems from any PvP MMO.. i said it always, that vertical progression don't work well with PvP, especially a deep one.
Ok.. you can argue that even without vertical progression you will have bigger groups killing smaller groups and it will happen, and a lot of people will try exploit it. On the other side there are also those pvp player, which want to kill with smaller numbers larger groups, or look for the challenge. And you can build in some counter measures, like the option to retreat from a superior enemy(maybe not a 100% chance, but a good chance with enough awareness), or to avoid that much of a vertical progression.
I personally play a lot of pvp games of all different kind of genres, from RTS to FPS to MOBA to MMO to turn based strategy games.. basicly more or less everything with pvp. And in my experience.. winning is fun, but to actually have a challenging fight is a lot more fun, even if that means that you lose 6-7 times out of 10.. and even more if you do that within a team and with good team play.
But to lose 8-10 times out of 10 is not fun.. because you have to commit that you are not good enough, and it will be frustrating.. a lot of other games have the advantage of matchmaking to avoid such problems..
But pvp within a persistent world, with different long term targets is a whole different game as most "lobby games" can ever be, because of the sheer possibilities(spectrum of pvp, from combat, to market play, to overlay logistic, strategy). But i have to agree that there is not one really good pvp mmorpg out there. Not a single one.
But i do play MMORPGs(and for that matter all games) a very long time, and i got a lot of good pvp moments in a few MMORPGs, but there was always some not so good parts in every single one of them.. but i do see the potential, i do see what would be possible. And with that said.. we did not even scratched the top of the iceberg what mmorpg or lets say massive persistent pvp could be. So i still await for the big PvP MMO, because up to now very few even tried to toy with it.. and in most MMOs it is just a merely afterhought not even worth to mention.
But a lot of players, especially PvE players(but a lot of so called PvP players too) have to come to the realization that a pvp mmo is a completely different game, maybe even a different genre.. and that those games don't have to cater to PvE players. Even more in most parts they can't cater to pve player to be really good pvp games. (And for that part crafting, gathering, economic play, building, is part of the strategic pvp play, and not PVE)
I am curious how Camelot Unchained turns out, which will entirely focus on PvP.. and as i personally think for a very good reason.
Planetside 2 is a lot to much BF within a greater scale, without really working with the possibilities from a persistent world, and for that matter i even think Planetside 1 was the better game out of those 2. EvE Online really sucks, when it comes down to combat(too slow paced), and i do think that the economic influence from players should be even more noticeable, and that it is a little bit to much focused on skill/ship grinding.(to get the better skills, to get to the better ships, with ships maybe are somewhat to expensive)
We will see what the future will bring.. but the end, the last word about full pvp is not yet spoken.
Sure the word has been spoken. If you want tons of players and MAKE MONEY, you won't make a game with full PvP. AAA companies have received that message loud and clear.
Yeah.. as it was said with shooter, with strategic games and all that.. pvp only don't work.
Battlefield, Counter Strike, DoTA, and a lot of other pvp only games have proofed the counterpart. It may take some time, but it will be proven on the larger scale for MMOs, too. It is just a matter of time.
No it won't. And there are many reasons, logically, why it won't.
1. People don't want to lose gear they worked so hard to get.
2. It brings on the 'zerg' mentality - I mean the original meaning of the term - meaning a bunch of lowbies beating up on a high level player to strip the player of his gear. That is the original definition of zerg.
3. It makes everyone an enemy and no one 'team players.
4. Makes the game more unsocial - now I know that games CANNOT force people to be social - BUT the attitude 'EVERYMAN FOR HIMSELF' really and truly destroys the little semblance that games have.
5. Full PvP games attract the more immature players - ganking mentality - bully mentality if you want.
I will stop here but you get the idea - full PvP games will always be a niche game for the above and many more reasons.
Shadowbane.
Anyone here actually remember Shadowbane?
Fully open world PvP and it fell flat on it's face.
Why you ask?
Because every server reached a point where someone formed a super-guild and then chain camped everyone else off the server. If you were not flying the super-guild banner you got camped until you gave up and played something else.
It started off a cool idea but eventually devolved into something lame and pathetic.
When a player can actually prevent another player from playing the game there is too much freedom in the PvP system.
Fully open PvP can kiss my ass.
Shadowbane is proof of why it doesn't work and will forever be a shining example of why it doesn't work.
Sure you did. You claimed that every type of content added by PVP could just be replaced with NPC's. That would mean that you'd need to have a buttload of NPC's doing all kinds of things. NPC's engaging in interdictions to disrupt certain mining processes which results in market price fluctuations (meaning that the NPC's buying on the market would also need to adapt their prices to NPC caused events such as this). In order to keep the 3D difficulty in EVE you'd also need to create NPC's which can pop-up and harass missioners/miners in low/null/WH's and these must be random off course (otherwise they become predictable and the risks can be easily countered).
And yes most MMO's are filled with NPC's. But these NPC's are simplistic and the content loses a lot of depth and inpredictability. I don't think there are many MMO's where NPC's are involved into political games like Nullsec alliances in EVE. There are also not many MMO's with NPC's which suddenly decide to go full berserk on people harvesting a certain resource in order to reduce the supply and make lots of profits. You also won't have many MMO's where you can "hire" NPC's to get rid of PVE'ers using resources you want to have. That's why FFA PVP opens a lot of doors. These things are never used in MMORPG's through NPC's because:
A) It would cost an insane amount of money/dev time
You're trying to make this about something it's not.
The statement is simple. Any mechanic that can be accomplished using PvP can be accomplished using some form of PvE. It would not be the same experience because PvP and PvE are different experiences. I've explained how the PvP in Eve could be replaced with PvE, resulting in the same effects on the economy. The only difference would be whether or not the players preferred a PvP experience or a PvE experience.
You still haven't explained what doors having PvP opens that couldn't be opened with PvE. I'm saying the only thing PvP opens the door to are PvP experiences. Prove me wrong.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
When is it going to be proven? It's been fifteen years since UO released. There's never been a PvP option that's more popular than a PvE option. In Eve half or more of the players are in High Sec space. In DAoC, a game based around RvR PvP, the PvE servers were half or more of the population.
PvP by itself has always been pretty popular. It's the mixing of OW or "Full" PvP with PvE in MMORPGs that's always been the less popular option.
**
Actually, PvP by itself is the most popular option by far in online games. LoL by itself has more concurrent players than most MMORPGs have subscribers.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
To consider the inherent logical fallacy, first we must consider;
What is PVE?
PVE can be defined as contesting against a static AI script that repeats the same things at the same intervals. Essentially, once you figure out the optimal pattern you can begin to learn it, once you learn it you perfect it and when you perfect it you can farm.
What is dynamic PVE?
A dynamic AI script that creates a sense of challenge but retains the safety net of contesting against something which is inherently inferior to human intellect due to lack of free will. The logical fallacy herein is that the AI script is designed to simulate human behavior in order to provide the challenge, but retaining the relative predictability and therefore the inferiority of the AI.
In layman's terms, once you figure out the width of the dynamic script you can figure out the optimal pattern, perfect it and farm.
What does that have to do with PVP?
The AI script is always, without exception, designed to offer challenge but remain beatable. It serves as a proverbial punching bag to be punched ad infinitum, offering mock-resistance but no real challenge. The only thing that can compete with a human mind is another human mind, AI cannot.
The AI is there to let you win and feel good about it. It requires very little time investment to master the process of beating it, which is why it's so popular among the casual crowds. It doesn't take player's loot, it doesn't send nasty PM's, it doesn't crouch above your corpse's head in mock-teabag gesture.
To conclude;
With no real chance or consequence of loss, victory is destined to become meaningless. One of the main culprits of themeparks imploding after a month can be identified here.
As the OP correctly identified, PVP only functions as an integrated part of a wider collection of systems. To date only EVE has been able to correctly design that network of systems, whereas any of the many indy sandboxes (Mortal, Darkfall, Perpetuum, etc) imploded shortly after release because there was absolutely nothing to do besides kill people. There was no network of systems to cater to a multitude of playstyles, while maintaining the adrenaline rush inherently present in PVP enviroment.
TL;DR version:
Monkey learns to press lever, monkey gets banana.
Monkey fights monkey for banana.
I pretty much agree with what you are saying here and the sentiment.
@OP your opinions aren't fact, and no one is going to buy it. Most of us have played (or play pvp games) and we have seen what they become. You don't care if non-pvp'ers play the game or not? interesting...it begs the question then; why make this post?
Are you trying to convince people to agree with your crazy idea that pvp servers are fair and balanced? They aren't and never will be. Trying to convince people that you and your ilk won't spawn camp, harass, grief and other wise annoy anybody you can is ludicrous, again, we have played these types of games, and know how that plays out.
Without some sort of level/ability segregation you will always have griefers, and when there is a light penalty for it, that will become the mainstay of the game.
My opinions, which I formed over a decade of playing on line games will not be changed until I see the proof in the form of a game that does work as you imagine. Until then, enjoy your world.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Yes that is the issue of modern PvP in a nutshell.
When all there is to do is kill other players - that's all you'll do.
As someone approaching their 50th birthday competing with games that have any element of "twitch" about them against players one third my age is neither enjoyable (I find twitch gameplay a real bore now - loved it for almost 3 decades Jetpack to Far Cry 2 now just find it dull)
Also I do not have the reactions to compete.
Old?
Yes - but the average age of gamers is a lot higher than some might think. On the PC it is now close to 37. That's the AVERAGE not the top limit. Meaning that at 48 there are many gamers a lot older than me out there.
Competing in EvE's markets is fantastic fun and really mentally rewarding. Likewise even the administrattion and running of my own facilities in the game is a real buzz. I compete in fleet actions from time to time, often in a support role and among my 4 accounts I can effectively harvest most minerals down to a relatively low sec (though rarely - if ever - null sec).
My four accounts - It's a rare month when I pay for 2 as create the credits to buy 2 sometimes 3 Plex and often end up several tens of Billions more in credit at the end of the month than I started with.
I've hoarded stock to bump prices. Done espionage missions with Alts (FUN!), almost bankrupt other organizations (never managed to completely ruin them, but done pretty well) and generally been "Bletchley Park" to my collegues "Bomber Command". And I love it.
Scritty
Looks like it was chosen to "support" a certain line of thought...
How about you consider this definition instead:
"PvE means pitting a player vs. AI."
Period. Nothing more, nothing less.
That the AI is governed/represented by a "static script" is YOUR view only.
Perhaps you have played too much WoW or EQ and generalize from that experience.
But really, who said that a script needs to be "static"?
Who says that "scripting" equals PvE in the first place?
Can't you imagine, in this era of technological wonders, that AI is actually that:
Artificial Intelligence, complete with it's own set of goals and the SAME means at their disposal that players have?
For an example, look at the old X-Games.
While of course not perfect in any way (it was a good start and development from X1 to X3 imo), the AI reacted to the player's actions.
Was that static?
Or not PvE?
Either way, it for sure didn't "repeat the same things at the same intervals" if the player somehow interfered.
Um...Does the "Kobayashi Maru" scenario ring a bell?
Do you really think it needs to be limited to SciFi?
(or the Freeport Arena test in EQ when it was introduced)
I'm more than certain that - if the demand for something like an unbeatable opponent is there - such a thing can be implemented.
Some AI programmers might agree, but some would probably say the opposite; it's really just a matter of investment vs. gain if an AI can/will be programmed to provide "real" challenges. i mean, back in the 80s no one thought it possible that a computer could beat a human chess champ either, or that cars can drive autonomically...You're really giving technology not enough credit here!
Just to give you something to think about:
What if "PvP" could not be done directly?
What if, instead, players would by their effort "instantiate" NPCs of different sorts that have to be fought, the side that works harder gathering resources and such beating the other team's NPCs entirely and only THEN you own that team's station or terrain or whatever.
Is that PvE? or PvP? or a mish-mash?
Rhetorical question,m because according to you it's not possible in the first place...
I have just as much experience, and my experience doesn't "prove" the OP is right, even though I agree with 99% of the post. In fact, nothing has really been "proved" in this area, because we haven't seen a AAA title with integrated PvP. And I'm talking about PvP that's integrated into a broader game, not the niche games we've seen where PvP is developed to the detriment of everything else. (Hence the need for a AAA title, as the OP argues.)
If anyone is having a playstyle "forced" on them, it is those of us who would like to see PvP integrated into a great game from day one. It hasn't happened. And the moment someone tries to suggest how it might be done, no matter how well thought out or communicated their message, someone from the PvE-only community immediately shows up to shout "NO!"
The thing that gets me is, if you are actually into the whole "RPG" element of this genre, you shouldn't want to be arbitrarily prevented from attacking targets that by all accounts you should be able to attack.
"Oh look, it's a hated member of the opposing faction, out in the middle of nowhere. Of course, I can't attack him because we're not in a battleground...." In terms of RPG "rules", PvP that makes sense within the game lore should be the starting point, not the afterthought.
Of course, what makes sense within the world doesn't always make for good gameplay. That's obvious. So by all means, bend the "rules" of the world. Create areas that are effectively safe, due to guards, or travel restrictions, or what have you. (This is where I differ from the OP, I think safe areas are a good idea.) But don't simply blanket the entire world with a "can't attack other players" mechanic. It's lazy and doesn't make RPG "sense".
Take a moment, if you would, and forget about the games you've played to this point. You're playing a new fantasy MMORPG, and you're a Dwarf:
Your starting city lies at the southern tip of a mountain range. And south of the city is a wall that runs for some length, dividing the region in two. Through your opening quests (and reading about the game) you know that the area east of the city is controlled by Goblins, which are NPC monsters, while the area to the west of the city is controlled by Dark Elves, a playable race. Multiple quest lines give you the option of fighting the Goblin threat to the east, or taking on the Dark Elves to the west. The city and the wall running south are all heavily guarded, so that no Dark Elf can plausibly get into the city or into the eastern region to grief anybody.
Now I ask you: what is wrong with this picture? What is so bad about some of your options for conflict involving other player-controlled factions? You wouldn't be forced into those areas or those quest lines. But the people that want the challenge of fighting other players have the option, and their actions aren't sequestered away from the game world, completely devoid of meaning.
That's just a snaposhot of what type of systems could be employed. There's a lot more to it. If you're worried, for example, that the Dark Elves will over-run the Dwarf city if not enough Dwarves choose to PvP, that problem is easily solved with game mechanics. All it takes is a little imagination. It's not hard to envision a game with a great PvP and PvE experience. But the conversation rarely even gets started, because too many players and developers are paranoid about griefing.
Let me state it clearly: it's entirely possible to design an MMO with integrated PvP that doesn't allow griefing.
If you think of PvP and all you can think of is griefing, I would refer you to my earlier point about RPG "rules" and what the starting point should be.
When *I* think about PvP I think about, yes, a challenge in combat that no NPC can give me. But I mostly think about the possibility of dynamic, historical, factional conflict within a persistent online fantasy world. Is it so hard to believe there a lot of us who want that?
Some of us would like the option of challenging, unpredictable combat in addition to punching bags that offer no real challenge or risk. Just because we don't want that sequestered away from the wider game world doesn't mean we all want to grief. And it doesn't mean PvP is all we want to do. People don't neatly divide into one camp or the other. And maybe, just maybe, if PvP were done well for a change, more people would come to enjoy it.
You still haven't explained what doors having PvP opens that couldn't be opened with PvE. I'm saying the only thing PvP opens the door to are PvP experiences. Prove me wrong. Look at MMO's. Try to look at reality instead of fantasy and tell me i'm wrong. Tell me how many PVE centric games have functioning dynamic economies where you can use "force" to manipulate the market, secure resources or where "balls" (not level/gear/skills but "balls") is also a factor which will impact your PVE revenue due to impredictable risk attached to certain PVE content?
You can add NPCs that are as hard or harder to defeat than human players. Developers have already discussed this type of thing and they don't implement those systems because it's not always fun for their players(Gamasutra). It wouldn't be any more expensive than existing AI. They need systems like this for testing anyway(Gamasutra), they just don't unleash that AI on players because again, their players would not enjoy it. Cost is not a deterrent to more challenging PvE content. The deterrent to one type of content over another is player preference, not technical challenge.
Certainly, the style will be different between PvP and PvE systems, but the ability to control an economy, take a castle or control land are all not exclusive to PvP mechanics. It sounds more and more that what you're saying is that you like those mechanics better, rather than they actually open any special doors.
You still haven't explained what content PvP unlocks that can't be unlocked in a similar manner by PvE content.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Except challenging PvE content exists with the express purpose of forcing the player to improve without the AI cheating. Even older RTS games have AI that ranges from really easy to really hard or nearly impossible to beat without resorting to cheating. Unreal's AI can field bots with player level skills and behaviors. They had to program in the ability for the AI to make mistakes because the AI was more or less unbeatable by any human player. It wasn't a challenge, it was a slaughter.
Even in MMORPGs, the easy mode of gaming, WoW's end game raids are unbeatable without a great deal of time, effort and additional mods to the base game. There is certainly a lot of content that is easy, but the choice is available for the players to choose content that requires the time investment to get something out of it.
So your post would be accurate if it didn't ignore reality.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Difficulty isn't the only consideration. Another would be predictability. "Okay, so we'll make the AI unpredictable." But again, it's still not going to behave like a living, thinking being. The experience of competing with another mind is unique.
Just to take the above poster's example, WoW's raids are difficult and fun for a lot of people. But re-running a boss to learn mechanics and execute perfectly is a totally different challenge from trying to guess what your opponent is thinking, what he's going to do next, or what he thinks you're going to do next, etc. PvP is about psychology, and machines don't have psyches.
However, MMORPG PvP rarely goes that deep. Most of the time it is one-level thinking and stategizing goes out the window.
I been looking and not seen this mentioned at all. Elder Scrolls Online has said it core game is based around PVP factions and will be subscription based. So if you are basing this whole argument that EQN should bow down to FFA PVP and we should go find another game, why must EQNext switch gears when there is already a game being made for you.
For a true play to win (not pay to win), the result is either the long term members have it easy and new players best hope is to survive the slaughterhouse to get the gear to actually have fun. So if you are not in the first wave or get in when top tier are MIA then you normally have to slow grind your way up. ESO has announce their way of addressing this is that lvl 10 will be able to compete against lvl 50 toons in PVP (As a PVEer this mean there is no gain for time spent, so why put in effort)
For the game to be profitable, the traditional economy in games now is worthless. Why have all these skins and appearance items, most people use them to be individualized (PVE fear, if I stand out, I am a bigger target, if there is no uniform, who are my allies). So PVP profit would have to be from either subscription pay (many people fear it dieing) or by purchasing gear (a pay to win mentality). Most MMO benefit from steady flow of money over time, so if it pay to win then they either A) keep throwing in new tier of stuff quickly that makes current tiers worthless or
make gear break down/time limit. EQN money is currently planned for player studio, with player designed items (appearance not power is assumed). I admit skins matter most for social aspects of the game, and that all about server density.
Lastly, a mindset of the story is needed. True FFA does not benefit much with a deep lore, since most people never get past the PKing. So why have the depth of content that EQN is promising if it only going to be lvl 1-10 goes here, 11-20 there, etc. ESO has set it up that there are three factions at war with each other, and they fight over areas and resources. I would not I have HEARD, not experienced, that some faction PVP end up with servers having only one side dominate everything and it ends up with one side has numbers, resources, and accessibility, while the other side is taken by those who what the challenge and usually have the skill. If you want FFA PVP, then the easiest way to support that is via arenas, but that does not give you the open world you wish for, and remove the element of surprise (As a PVE player, the issue I have is if you are able to one shot mobs or players, the difficult part is who hits first and the game become ADHD, but by making battles last longer so it not so much a shooter and the element of surprise is reduces to a minor role which can be done in the arena.
So in short, PVP creates tiers of people and could result in being fun for top dog but a pain to new toons, would require a sub or PAY to win to support economically, and does not need the lore found with EQ 14 years of experience. ESO address theses issues from the start as requested before, and stated that there is no need for a PVE and PVP spec, they are both using the same combat mechanics.
And to state a list of PVE games that have failed, there is also some PVP games that have fallen short or never got pass production due to limited market. Look at SoE, out of the same group that has benefited of the success of everquest, they made Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic, Vanguard, and various other games that never took off. I mean, they announced the next EQ Live expansion, yes I talking about the first one, and that because of the environment and fanbase that it created.
PvP is Battlefield 3...
Anyone who wants a MMORPG to be a fast-paced moba, has lost sight of the roleplaying and dice wielding aspect of mmorpgs.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
It only covers the starting city with the player's choice of going left to PvP or right to PvE, which so far is ok (basically consentual PvP which no one argues against but not "full PvP" this thread is about).
What you omit though is that once PAST the goblins, in other areas, the Dark Elf and the Dwarf are bound to meet, even though the Dwarf went the goblin way.
What you're doing is depriving the Dwarf PvE player the entire left side of the game, while the Dark Elf has both - unless of course, the Dwarf that went the PvE way "dares" venture out into PvP areas after all.
Why would a PvE player pay the same fee for only half the game?
Indeed, you are right: it is entirely possible to integrate PvP without griefing.But in that scenario, we're not talking "full PvP" then, are we?
That would be consentual PvP in some form (both have to agree to /duel, or both enter PvP areas something like that.
As soon as you allow PvP to be imposed onto one side, you are open to griefing.
(Ofc, PvE by itself doesn't mean that you can't grief another player too, e.g. by pulling the zone and FD'ing when the mobs are in agro range of the to-be-griefed but that is neither here nor there in the context of this thread)
No it isn't, i probably want that too.I just think that such a goal cannot be achieved with "full PvP", simply because of the many way full PvP can be - and is, in current games - exploited in a griefing way.
The problem isn't, as some tried to put it, that ALL PvP'ers grief. Not all do, we all know that!
The problem is the fraction of the population that actively seeks to exploit PvP mechanisms (any mechanism really, whether PvP or PvE) simply in order to grief others, and that these people have it much, much easier in a "full PvP" envirnoment to spoil the fun for most of the rest.
As was said above, the negative impact of just ONE such player can be not only detrimental but outright destructive on the rest of the population.
THAT is why anyone who's experienced it (and those who don't want to experience it in the first place), is so strongly against "full PvP".
Remember, this thread isn't about "PvP is bad" in general, it's about "full/open PvP is bad".
Difficulty isn't the only consideration. Another would be predictability. "Okay, so we'll make the AI unpredictable." But again, it's still not going to behave like a living, thinking being. The experience of competing with another mind is unique.
Just to take the above poster's example, WoW's raids are difficult and fun for a lot of people. But re-running a boss to learn mechanics and execute perfectly is a totally different challenge from trying to guess what your opponent is thinking, what he's going to do next, or what he thinks you're going to do next, etc. PvP is about psychology, and machines don't have psyches.
PvP in and of itself has never been a problem. It's the specific implementations of PvP that people like or dislike.
In OW PvP, there is very little of that 'psychology' happening. The person or group with the better build, higher level or more numbers attacks first and wins*.
What you're talking about sounds a lot more like match based PvP with relatively balanced groups. The psyche of the other players actually has a chance to be a factor. In other words, consensual PvP. Unless I miss my guess, the OP is on about OW or FFA PvP, not PvP in general and certainly not consensual PvP.
PvP exists in MMORPGs because people like the idea of PvP. OW and FFA PvP are the least implemented style because people like those implementations the least. Why? Doesn't matter.
Balanced teams where the outcome depends on skill rather than numbers or levels is what most people want in PvP, which is why most PvP in MMORPGs is consensual in the world, or isolated to battlegrounds and PvP zones.
Even if anything the OP says is true, it doesn't matter. People can argue against preferences, or try and poke logical holes in preferences, but it's not going to change those preferences. Most of them aren't based on a chain of logic. They're just based on the idea of "what I like", and any logic is an after thought, used to justify "what I like".
* There are exceptions to this. Once the scale of the conflict gets large enough, it will take long enough to resolve that strategy and tactics matter. Eve is a good example. The scale of many conflicts in Eve reach the point that it's much more like RvR in DAoC than skirmishes in Mortal Online. Then again, Eve is an exception in many ways.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.