Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
General: Editorial: PvP Combat
Dana
Member Posts: 2,415
Keith "Mayson" Sarasin talks about PvP in this new editorial, exclusive to MMORPG.com. Find out what he thinks, then give us your own thoughts in the comment thread below.
| Player Verses Player; with one simple phrase many MMO players either smile or frown. It amazes me that still to this day people argue over this addition to a game. The cornerstone of its player base lives by it, while others frown on its addition. Player verses player or PvPas it is commonly referred to, takes place when MMO players come together to battle against each other. There are many debates on the way PvP is implemented in a game if at all. Some people love the idea and other people cannot stand it. |
You can read more here.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Comments
Once again, the reply to this article leads to the home page, not to the forum.
Keith Sarasin said:
"Another controlling factor for people to misinterpret this cornerstone of the market is the fact that in game PvPers can also be misconstrued as “grievers.”
I believe those PvPers are actually called griefers by those who hate PvP. Griever=someone sad about a loss. Griefer, as used in PvP=someone who causes another player grief, meaning ruins his gameplay. And why "misconstrued"? I think the term "griefer" is quite descriptive of a player who plays unfairly.
Obviously, I'm one who hates PvP. I think if it's done right and is the aim of the game, it obviously fits a need for some players. But, I also think PvPers are a minority, not a majority, except in games made specifically for player vs player. If PvP is included in a game that also has PvE, the game has to be balanced for the PvP, and I have yet to see that done well. I also think PvP would be a lot of fun if better ways could be found to curtail the problem of immature idiots who play only to take unfair advantage of lower level players. They are cowards, pure and simple.
Two terms are actually misspelled here, as well as misused: 1) Griefer, as the poster above stated, is a person who actively tries to ruin the enjoyment of another player, and is not exclusive to PvP. A griefer can do this in a multitude of ways, depending on the game mechanics and how they can be exploited to interfere with another person's gaming experience. 2) Nerf is the correct spelling of a game modification that makes a player weaker due to altering something with the game mechanics, whether or not it directly affects the character, or indirectly affects them due to something outside their control being made stronger.
As to the merits of PvP, I have yet to see any. The drive of PvP is simple: to be the best in comparison to your opposition (other players), which from the outset puts you at odds with everyone around you. Teams may cooperate to beat other teams, but individually, people are always still aiming to defeat anyone around them, and will use any method available to them to do so. Unfortunately this involves less noble means than simply perfecting strategies, skill choices, and playstyle. Any exploit that is found will be used, unless the penalties are sufficiently harsh for doing so, and even then, many will still take those risks just to have a short-lived advantage over others. PvP has never, in my experience, encouraged anything remotely desirable in terms of human character, and I doubt it ever will.
I for one wouldn't mind PvP so much if it was implemented better and also if it wasn't a necessity. Let's take WoW for instance. On a PvP server, the enemy and allied zones are so close together that the lower zones are constantly under attack by enemy forces, making it difficult if not impossible for people to complete quests and level. This wouldn't be such a big deal if there was a way to stop it, but there isn't. When a person dies, all they have to do is run back from a graveyard, revive, rest up, then repeat the lowbie slaughter. The same thing goes for their much applauded Battlegrounds. You fight, you die, you revive and go at it again.
I forget which game it was, but there was a FPS where you would join a game, select a team, then go into a map to complete objectives. There were no respawns. If you got killed completing your objective, you died, and had to hope that the other players could complete it. To me, that's fun, even if I die because there's a sense of accomplishment. But then, that is also a skill game as opposed to a RPG, so it is of course much easier to implement such a system.
Until they do fix all the glaring issues with PvP, I won't play it. And if a game is ever stupid enough to enforce PvP on players that would rather just do quests and RP, then I won't be purchasing it.
This topic has been beaten to death, but unfortunately it
must be a creature from beyond the grave since this ‘undead’ discussion keeps
coming back; and I guess rightly so.
See I come at this topic from the side of anti-PvP, and thus
most of the pro-PvPer’s will just ignore my comments or pick it apart… non-the-less
I wanted to voice and opinion.
What most people tend to overlook on this issue is there are
three kinds of MMORPG players. The people who PvP, the people who don’t PvP, and
the people who don’t care either way. I see this as a false view, since it’s
clearly a ‘for’ or ‘against’ topic and there really is no room to sit on the
fence.
I won’t go into how in PvP games there are grievers or exploit
abusers and how this effects the other non-PvP (as well as PvP) players, but
think of it this way… If I don’t want to PvP then why should I be forced to be
killed on the whim of another player? Its bad enough that in the few games that
don’t support PvP (and they seem to be getting fewer by the year) you have to
deal with people cheating, kill stealing or just being an annoyance… but in a
PvP game this is ten times worst since the end game is to be better than
everyone else.
A few of the other posts have touched on the fact that PvP
games aren’t geared towards everyone’s enjoyment especially in the MMORPG genre.
More often then not many developer forget the fundamentals of fun when trying
to be different, or as is happening often lately try to catch all groups of
players (PvP and non) just to get a bigger market share.
So for me it’s easy, I play betas when I get the chance.
Helping with bugs and whatever other tasks they ask of me, in return I get to
sample the up and coming products (even if geared toward the PvPers). I have no
subscription to any games at the moment though because none of them are what I’m
looking for unfortunately.
K
"Common sense is NOT common!"
Link and spelling fixed. My apologies. As to the editorial being one sided, that was kind of the point. It's his opinion
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
There seems to be a belief among the non-PvP'ers that PvP is about making other people feel bad.
This is a part of how it is, yeah - and there are some who believe that's the whole purpose of PvP - those that usually tend towards 'griefing'.
But most competitive players actually just want to test their skills out versus other players. I think the griefing part comes from games which encourage gaining more kills in PvP (Anarchy - whose PvP system is pretty good - has a ranking system based on No. of kills).
Also, don't forget that players who are a higher level than you have earned their place there (at least as much as is possible in a genre where time often has more value than skill) and that the griefed now can become (if they choose the dark side) the griefer later - or they can become that middle-breed, the anti-PvP'er.
It might be worth wondering why directly competitive team games like CS don't have as many active griefers, the players who hinder their own team are far less prominent and usually get bored of the games.
Perhaps we need to make PvP more fun to these people than frustrating the other players. How many of the PvP games allow small groups of players to make a real difference - I guess we'll have to see how Archlord plays out.
Let's not take the cheating and exploiting into consideration here - it taints the PvM just as much as the PvP, PvM is competitive too, just more indirectly.
Oh and as for the balance issues - we can do nought but hope.
PS: Devs need to start listening to something other than the vocal minority - too many nerfs are a kneejerk reaction to players feeling put upon, and threatening to leave the game.
Take some surveys people! The less vocal people will usually give their opinions when asked - they're just not shouting it from the rooftops.
Well I know what annoys the crap out of me...
People that start playing a PvP centric game with a harsh death penlity then whine like little 4 year olds about having PvP and wanting it changed to suit their views/needs. Safer (not safe but safer) areas exist but the higher end content is not in the safe areas, some equipment does not allowed (or is a instant death sentance to use). But the the ones that don't want to PvP may want to access that equipment without going for the risk.
Its not hard to see what game I am refering to...but Notice I am not mentioning it so canwe pls keep the fames and claims of fanboyism out of it?
Incase anybody has missed my point if you don't like to PvP and don't want the chance of PvP don't play a game that features as a main desigin point and then complain about it actually happening. Its like complaining in CS that some git ruined your map exploreation by shooting you...
That's not just a coincidence. Frankly, anyone who thinks that a progressive roleplaying game can be a competitive sport does not understand either concept. The goals of the two types of games are completely contradictory. The goal of a role-playing game is to feel special and progressively more powerful. The goal of a competitive game is to make every player equal so they can compete on something like a fair basis. The problem is that fairness is the LAST thing any roleplayer wants -- including, or maybe even especially PK'ers.
There is no reason to suspect that PvP in such an environment can ever be anything remotely like war, or any sort of strategic challenge. The closest analogue is that it's something like "roleplaying" prison gangs: you keep a low profile and suckup to get on the good side of somebody more powerful, and you take yours in the beginning not because you like doing it at the time, but only in the hopes that someday you'll get to do the same thing to somebody else.
Unfortunately, even when PK'ing is segregated it still interferes with design of a roleplaying game. Anyone who's heard a game designer speak has heard him use the term "balance" at least once or twice - in nearly every sentence he utters.
How much better could a PvE game become if you completely eliminated this elephant-in-the-living-room sized design constraint? Well, I don't know because I don't think any MMORPG has tried it yet.
If I want to PvP, I play a game designed for that purpose. There are some truly great ones out there. But when I roleplay, the last thing in the world I care about is whether my character is "balanced" with every other one in the game. All I care about is whether my character is FUN! Whether he is "better" or "worse" than the one standing next to him could not possibly mean less to me.
But how many dozens - or hundreds - of features of the average MMORPG have been warped beyond recognition in the endless quest for the Holy Grail of Balance? And how many potentially kick-ass character class PvE abilities have been homogenized into yet another Jell-O mold to keep him from having an "unfair" advantage. Well, unfair to whom? I'll give you one guess and one clue: it's sure as heck not any of those poor, unfortunate computer-generated MOB's out there.
The bottom line is that MMORPG designers are diluting the experience of the majority of roleplayers to appease some hyperactive PK'ers. The squeaky wheel gets the grease - and they don't make 'em any squeakier than the kind of kid who wants to spend hundreds of hours building up a character so he can "gank" somebody who just wants to play a game.
Well, I agree with many of the people who replied, that this subject has been beaten to death.
In learning to design games of my own, especially in MMO's, the idea of balance is an illusion. What I mean by this, is that some one, no matter how hard you try, will find a way to beat the system.
Obviously you have to try to keep a sense of balance, in the way you design the classes and paths your players can take. One class can has one good ability, but yet another has the ability to counteract it and so on. As a dev you hope this works out in your code. It doesn't always, but it is correctable.
What I dislike is the swinging of the "nerf bat". The problem with developers and game companies in general is that they have to listen to their respective communities, and yet stay true to the orginal design of the game they have developed. Many do not do this at all. It's a delicate line that companies walk between community and design, and one that often gets blurred.
While I like both PvP'ing and RP'ing, with out a storyline to follow, neither of them are of much use. That is the thing that many MMO's lack today. Obviously players can make up their own stories, but without a general pronounced storyline, it just doesn't make much sense to do either.
Assuming you're talking about the topic of this thread: PvP and roleplaying, that statement is completely wrong. Of course there is no need whatsoever to balance those two issues.
There are tremendously popular PvP online games which contain no roleplaying PvE whatsoever.
And there is every reason to believe that a game designed to optimize the roleplaying PvE experience would be an even bigger success.
If some PvE roleplaying characters can kill MOB's a bit faster or more efficiently than the others, that is no big deal. Some min/maxers may gravitate toward the "ideal" classes, but a great many will prefer different styles and tactics with different characters. When you're fighting MOB's it's SUPPOSED to be unfair.
But have you ever heard a PvP'er say: "Oh, heck, so what if we kill them a little slower than they kill us; what difference does it really make anyway?" Of course not. If one PvP class has even the tiniest advantage, then EVERYONE who PvP's will play that class and/or scream to high Heaven that it must be "fixed."
The graphic skins are just an illusion, remember? We are actually talking about using the same characters to accommodate two intrinsically adverse playstyles. And just "hoping it works out in the code" only lasts up until final alpha stage. By the time the game is released, hefty compromises are ALWAYS made to "even out" the classes.
"Nerf bat fever" isn't just a random affliction game God smites game designers with at a whim. There is a REASON it always ends up happening. And there is a simple way to avoid it.
This is a topic that people will always disagree about. I've done a little PvP just for a change of pace, but I generally avoid it. I've played a few games where anyone could kill you, but I prefer the realm vs realm style like in WoW where you can feel safe when in the vicinity of your peers. I'm in the ArchLord beta and don't like the rampant PK there, with people just waiting for you to step out of town.
When you feel like 'living dangerously', PvP can give you a rush, but when you are trying to complete a quest, gaher crafting materials, etc. it tends to just be annoying and frustrating. That's why I wouldn't buy a game that has open PvP. My preference is a game that restricts it to designated areas like an arena and wastelands.
There is such a variety of ways that it can be implemented that its hard to make blanket statements about it (except people that only enjoy spoiling others fun are bad for any game). Some of the maon issues as I see it are:
- where is PK allowed?
- who can you attack?
- what rewards are there for killing someone?
- what are the penalties for getting killed?
- is there a penalty for killing a much lower level?
- is there a reputation system?
I think that most would agree that with a carefully designed set of rules to properly focus PvP and well balanced class skills, more players will be turned off by having PvP in a game than will be attracted by it.
For one thing I prefer fighting against other humans a bit moreso than against an AI. Simply because AI is for the most part weak and uninspired in just about every mmo I have ever played. Sure devs can throw millions of hitpoints on a boss mob and up the resistances, even making their special attacks and resistances be somewhat random but the simple fact of the matter is its still just algorithims programmed by a small number of people and can not react and adjust the way a human adversary can.
I also prefer pvp against similarly equipped and leveled characters because going after someone lower level with inferior equipment provides no challenge. If I want no challenge ill go back to the pve side thankyou. I would much rather go after a Goliath with my David for all intents and purposes than the opposite, though 2 Goliaths are far more fun.
What kills pvp for me is the way mmo's are designed. Its not so much about player skill as it is about gear in todays mmos. Gear and a skewed game of roshambo. I think that Age of Conan might break the mold on this one but we will have to wait and see. See if the developers sell out to the wow crowd with epics and raiding, or provide for a gamespace where the best skilled players will win regardless of how either of the combatants are geared.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/7300033012
But please, whatever you do, do not attempt to speak for all roleplayers because not everyone is exactly like you, just as no one is exactly like me. There may be more people that are able to adapt and rp successfully with more robust personal story lines thanks to a pvp system than you may envision.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/7300033012
But i am also a roleplayer, but to be honest i play pen&paper for roleplayeing, because the simple reason i have up to today never seen a real roleplay experience over a long time.
But this is all about definition, roleplaying has for me to do with playing a role, acting this role, and not as much with the stats bandwagoon the most online rpg or computer rpg player talk about. Stats form my side of view are just to define a frame within the charakter exist. Within this, it is not important how the exactly stats are, it is more important to know the different weakness and strenghten of the charakter, to play this out. As example a weak in strenght charakter, with great charisma, will act definitively in a complete other way as the extrem strong charakter with a really bad charisma, but it is almost irrelevant how exactly this stats are. Just to clarify my view of roleplaying.
Why come a lot of pvp players to mmorpgs?
Well, it is really simple, because it is a huge persistent world, where there doings actually have an effect in the world, or should have a effect in the world. Yes, they are here to compete against each other, and have a history in this world, they make a name of hisself his fighting style his behaviors. This is almost impossible in all other pvp games, like bf, rts games, or any other simple pvp multiplayer game. And they roleplay, even non roleplayers roleplay actually in a persistent pvp world, not really in the way we would normally talk about roleplaying.
But they have all different behavior, they play a role, and they also want to be special.
But from my viewpoint the most pvp mmorpgs today fail to really make a good pvp game, they are not really persistent, and you can not affect the world. The most games today mix pve and pvp together, and pvp is then implemented more like the normal multiplayer pvp games. You play a game, it is over, no effect in the world is left.. just look at DAoC, the frontiers are just one big multiplayer level, and even worst WoW with his battlegrounds.. if i want just such a reduced pvp experience, without any effect in the world i could also play BF or any RTS game.
So yes, i almost the same opinion as the most poster above, pve and pvp should be to different mmorpgs, and withit, you can make both better, because you could build up the game exactly for this requirements.
Good, it is maybe also a demand for mixed games, in which both experiences are reduced for new players, or players which want both to some extent. But i think the mmorpg market is nowadays big enough that not every mmorpg should offer all playstyles to catch as many players as possible, because in the long run, they will lose both with this tactic, the pure pve and pvp player, and this games have always a little bad taste withit.
Both UO and WOW have shown us that there are a good number of people out there that like to have a choice - not just in the same game but on the same server. In both UO and WOW, you can go about your day in either a PvE or PvP environment if you so choose.
Yes, the PvP side of each UO server is no where near as dense as the PvE side. I do not contest that at all. However, the fact that the PvP side is populated AT ALL in a 9-year old 2D MMOG indicates that there are still people out there that prefer a choice. The same with battlegrounds on a PvE WOW server... it's not as polarized as some might lead you to believe.
The blatant and unswaying hatred for PvP often results from people feeling they are forced into a playstyle that 1) they do not like and 2) negatively affects them.
Ashenvale, Stanglethorn Vale, Tarren Mill in WOW... they are PvP-centric areas in PvE environments. I'm not going to get into a rant about whether we should blame the players or the designers for the situations there, but those certainly are places where someone who is primarily a PvE player often learns that PvP isn't really anything they want to participate in... ever.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Well, as has been stated, this topic has been beaten to death, and will continue to be. There will always be those who hate and those who love PvP. but there really IS a 3rd side - those of us who really, honestly don't care one way or the other. If I want to PvP or not, I will chose my game/server appropriately and not whine about the consequences if I get killed. That was my choice. If I'm playing an alliance character in WoW and casually walk into the Undercity, I should know what to expect and have no right to complain about the result.
What I truly DON'T like is being "forced" to PvP. It seems quite simple to just allow players to toggle it on or off and have their toons flagged appropriately. I know, I know, it's not as simple as that - the potential exploits are obvious, but something along those lines would be the ideal from my perspective. As a previous poster stated, there are people out there who want a choice.
____________________________________
"Vir, intelligence has nothing to do with politics" - Londo Mollari, Babylon 5
About this editorial :
Like Raccoon, I think it's a really biased. The author is free to have his opinion of course ^^ but the article is based on the fact that PvP in a MMO always includes Open-PvP, and it's not true.
About the posts above :
. You need to open your eyes, many (most) PvP players aren't like that.
(and no, 33.9% isn't a minority btw, since only 29% don't want PVP according to the same poll 
) Does an MMORPG NEED PvP to be fun?
I've read above that there are people who think PvP automatically involves griefing, PK or even cheating ! I'm sad to read such things
Just because you got PKed 2-3 times while questing doesn't make all the PvPers bad people
And you must respect the wishes of the people who want PvP in MMOs.
At least 33.9% according to an mmorpg.com poll
---
Waiting for: GW2
*thumbs up*: GW, Eve(, WoW)
*thumbs down*: MO, GA, FE
I wrote this to be biased. In life we all have a framework in which we view everything, work, schooling, people, situations. However in this article I wanted to illicit a response that would invoke anger, frustration and discomfort. The reason for this is so that this could be discussed. Commuinicating on a subject like this can have its benefits!
PvP in my opinion will ALWAYS be the most enjoyable aspect to any game. I believe that challenge that it brings is is something that many people frown upon. Its' one thing to lose to an AI its' another to lose to a person. PvP gets a bad rap when players exploit, cheat and otherwise use out of game mechanics to further their progress. These are things that are frowned upon by many. If this article made you upset, good. Its' ment to strike a nerve and raise discussion. Certainly I have the keen understanding that all MMO's do not possess open pvp and in fact open PvP is by FAR the exception and not the norm, however the true implementation of open PvP combat is what a large demographic of MMO players are now salivating over.
Notice: The reviews expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the reviews of MMORPG.com or its management.
Mayson
Wow. I must not get out much, because I never really realized
how big of an issue this really was. Well since everyone else seems to be
getting in on the action, I think I will too.
First, I’d like to say that when I first started playing MMO’s I couldn’t have
cared less about PvP. But over time I got bored with the constant grind of PvP.
Now maybe I just have an undiagnosed case of ADD but I soon got tired of
fighting the same mob/s for hours/days just to reach the next level or find
some rare suit of armor. That’s when I learned to love PvP. The fact that I was
fighting someone that could think, that could plan, that could just plain react
in a realistic manner was so much more rewarding than killing some raid boss
for the umpteenth time.
Now for the topic of “griefers”. I hate them. I hate getting
“ganked” by them and I hate be associated with them. In my humble opinion the
majority of people who resort to killing players many levels below them do it
for the sole reason that they can not handle “real” PvP and need to feel better
about themselves. But what do I know.
Finally the topic of Role-Playing. I enjoy RPing in MMOs. I
do not have a long background in table top gaming like some. Growing up in a small
country town will do that to you. Now if you ask me, a lack of PvP in an MMO in
fact makes it more difficult to Role-Play, at least to do so “realistically”. Take
for example WoW. My roommate and I were playing on an RP server when we noticed
something disturbing. A horde quest sent players to a near by human farm to
kill the farmers. What struck us are weird was the fact that even as Alliance we could do
nothing to stop, or even hinder, the murder of our fellow humans. Now maybe I’m
wrong, but if Role-Playing is taking up the role of your avatar, than wouldn’t
you think that a Knight of the Alliance
would step in to stop the senseless murder?
In the end, I think that the solution that will make
everyone the happiest is simply to specialize games. Games such as WAR and
Darkfall look like they will, at least attempt, to provide all the PvP us “ruffians”
would want, while hopefully other games will provided enjoyment for those who
prefer the dungeon crawl.
There are no stupid questions, just inquisitive idiots.
I have LOVED pvp since Joust first debuted in my local arcade (oh how I miss the arcades). Back then, the AI was on a level equal to Space Invaders, and pwning a thinking opponent was a refreshing change.These days I still love PvP. MMOs that have an open world PvP often give you a choice of server styles if you'd rather avoid it. (Eve online is the only game I've see that does not). And in most games, you still have the option of entering in Arena pvp for when you are just in the mood for it.
One thing that does bug me is games that just tack on pvp as an afterthought. Nothing highlights the glaring class inballances more. If you're gonna have pvp in your game, you have to have that aspect in mind from the very beginning of your game's development. You know people are going to want it, so you have to decide on it before it's first release: its eaither going to have pvp, or a flat out don't count on it.
Griefing is a design issue. If we play on an open pvp server, we can expect to get ganked-- we can also expect we will gank. I see a lot of people on such servers operate under an honerable code of fair play, but get upset when others do not follow the same code (like their psychic and can tell whatever crazy thing it is that you think is honerable in combat). The problem is, that the only rules of engagement that can be expected to be followed are those hard coded by the developers into the game. Be honerable-- it's tieing your own hand behind your back. If it's possible, its legal. It's not exploiting, but it can be griefing. Game designers need to be aware of this and program safeguards against it. Why would you ever allow someone who is level 60 to kill someone who is level 1-- no matter where in the world you are? Such matchups and similar scenerios should be coded out.Until then. it's fair game.
http://erickveil.com/
PvP can easily make or break a game. The simple fact is that if you force PvP at some people, they will dislike it and leave your game. On the other hand, having no PvP will also cause people to get "bored" and leave your game.
Most people I think fall into the medium PvP-Lite category. They don't mind some PvP from time to time as long as when they don't want to it won't affect them. DAoC you can quest and level in the main realms and not be bothered with PvP unless you willing enter the frontiers or a battleground. Same thing with WoW Normal servers, you can quest without worrying about ganking unless you flag or queue up for a battleground.
I have also noticed that asian games (as in from asia) tend to be more hardcore PvP. American gamers for the most part are not that zealous about free for all PvP.
Now I do not think that PvP is an invaluable part of a game, it all depends on the game itself. Everquest (1) really wasn't a PvP friendly game. They made a total of 3 servers and those were the first to be condensed when the subscription numbers came down. Even DAoC with its RvR combat the restricted PvP servers have the higher population than the all-PvP server. In fact, Mythic orginally came out with 2 PvP servers and condensed them down to 1 due to lack of players. WoW of course is very good game for PvP and it fits well with the game and the theme, even still there are numerous "normal" servers where the PvP is restricted showing that even then the masses are not all 100% Pro-PvP. Finally, City of Heroes/Villains the PvP zones are usually rather empty as more people enjoy the PvE aspect than the PvP. Not saying there isn't any PvP at all, far from it. Just if PvP was so "invaluable" there should be more of it one would think.
As to griefers, sad to say where there is PvP they will always be there. Some people just really enjoy making other peoples' virtual life miserable. Doesn't matter how restrictive or how many penalities you add to a game some people simply don't care because griefing is what they like doing. Too many times I hear the lame excuse that "well it's open PvP in this zone so the lvl 10 was at fault for getting creamed by the level 60". That, to me, is an attempt to justify an immature griefing player. What I get from PvP is a sense of accomplishment, I scored a victory over a living opponent. What challenge was it for them to kill me if I can do absolutely nothing to them? Same thing in reverse, why would I attack someone 1/10th my level where there is virtually no chance I can lose? Playing a game in God Mode is rather quite boring you know.
PvP is always the crux where class balancing comes to play. If a game were 100% PvE there would be far less nerfs and class "balancing" than there is now. It's when Player A pwns Player B that the debate comes in.
I'm not too comfortable with where the Editor is trying to go with this, doubly so with his follow-up response. My first response is to cry out 'BULL-*SNEEZE*!!' He came very close to falling into the PK/PvP trap and managed to infer that he supports PK (intentional or not, the implication is there, Mr. Editor).
PK is not PvP.
PK is not PvP.
PK is not PvP.
Is that clear yet?
PK-ers are not team players.
PK is not PvP.
I PvP. You gonna call me a Carebear? I thought that was a PvE label.
PK is not PvP.
Socialism is not Communism.
PK is not PvP.
Griefing whilst hiding behind the anonymity of the internet is not hardcore.
Griefing when your home address is broadcast to all the players in the game is hardcore.
Griefing is not necessarily PK-ing. PK-ing necessarily is griefing.
PK-ers are spineless gits. PK-ers will be the first ones bitching when their characters perma-die.
PK is not PvP.
Maybe this will get the point across better:
The Army/Air Force/Navy/Marines, Police Forces, etc. are all PvP-ers. They shoot and shoot to kill.
The Fire Brigades and Medical Corps of the world aren't really all that keen on shooting things or getting into altercations. They are more concerned with dealing with the environment. I suppose that makes them Carebears.
Terrorists like to shoot things, blow things up, and generally randomly kill. HOWEVER, if they shoot a Carebear Fire Brigader, they will be shot down by any of the first-mentioned PvP folk. Don't EVER try to equate Military and Police forces with Terrorists.
PK is Terrorism.
PK is NOT PvP.
That's just your oppinion, roleplay has nothing to do with feeling special and progressing it's about playing a role and as we are playing multiplayer rpg it's about interacting with other people thru that role. This interaction can be cooperative or competitive or both but nither kind exludes roleplay in any way.
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."