It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
So, I would like to know what you all are thinkng about the PvP-thing. Should a good game have PvP or better RvR ? Or does PvP destroy the gameplay ?
Live by the sword - Die by the sword
To some extremes...
Now i your going Full blown PVP, (shadowbane or example) The games gonna SUCK!
but in DAoC, the rr was great.
I suggest a game with a little pVp
whereas you can choose a certain serVer that has pVp enables....EQ or example
u can choose i u want pVp
...now i your like me, you wont like pVp, thats when you can go on another serVer, but iF your bored oF the regular, just go on that serVer...
it all matters on you
Depends on how PvP is implemented. Personally, I find full blown PvP games to be dull as I prefer PvP to be an aspect not the whole game.
The question is how best to implement a PvP (not a RvR - most MMOG's on the market have RvR implemented to some degree - with the notable exceptions of Second Life and TSO) within a MMOG. I have never played UO or DAoC so cannot make comparions with how well PvP was implemented in those MMOG's. My personal feeling is that PvP needs to be implemented in the actual game design rather than tacked on as in EQ.
I would prefer a working hybrid rather than full blown PvP i.e. cities and surrounding areas are safe but the further you explore into the frontier, the more lawless the areas become. EVE Online is an interesting game but one that didn't grab me because I found it too impersonal and couldn't form an intimate connection although it initially had an excellent PvP system in design - in implementation it was borked because combat took place usually at a pre-determined point i.e. jump gate and whoever was coming out of warp usually lost because it wasn't unknown for players to be killed due to a problem with the client having to load and render every single object. Also, because you warped out of a pre-determined spot there was no real tactical play i.e. it would be better if you could select 200km, 100km 75km, 50km, 25km etc from coming out of warp rather than on top of player pirates and then die waiting for the objects to load.
Also, to prevent players from warping out of combat, EW [Electronic Warfare] worked within 20km - hence, most combat took place within 20km.
DAoC looks the most feasible PvP system that I have seen (playable) without a fully blown PvP fest.
I would prefer a mixture of PvE and PvP (player created morality) but it is extremely difficult to find a balance. Neither PvP nor PvE are fundamentally boring - it's a question of playing style and implementation.
"she's like this cleavagey, slut-bomb walking around going 'oh, check me out. i'm wicked cool. i'm five by five'."
"If you think I'm plucky and scrappy and all I need is love, you're in way over your head. I don't have a heart of gold or get nice. There are a lot nicer people coming up. We call them losers."
PvP is definitely a good aspect of the game, but only when it is implemented properly. I thought the original UO handled it miserably. I know there are legions of players out there who pine away for the "pre-carebear" days of UO when no one could leave the city without getting slaughtered by teenagers who spent every waking moment playing and building their characters, but they have a different reality than me (and most adults).
Here's a good example of PVP: Years ago I was playing NWN on AOL (this is the old gold box NWN, not the BioWare game) and I walked into a PvP area where two players were fighting golems. They warned me to leave because I was crashing their fight. They killed the golem and I leeched a bit. They warned me again to leave. I didn't. They attacked. I died. That was a fair fight. They outnumbered me and were more powerful characters, but they warned me and then confronted me head on.
Here's a bad example of PVP: The other day I was playing Neocron, standing outside the military base with a sniper rifle targeting a warbot. Looking through the scope, I could see nothing but the faraway mob. A guy who is 15 levels higher than me comes up from behind, pulls out a high level rare weapon, kills me, then stands over my dead body and gloats. In other words, he attacked a lower character who was occupied fighting a high level NPC opponent, gave no warning, and attacked from behind with a superior weapon. This is a big accomplishment in his book. It is pathetic and cowardly in mine.
I guess my point is that it depends not only on the game, but the player community as well. If you've got a bunch of children playing who love to build up and then grief lower levels, it stinks. If you've got mature players who truly want a challenge, then it is a nice enhancement.
NC > DAoC > EQ > UO > fecal matter > leper's oily rags > SW:G
The first example of you is the way it should be, but the second will happen sometimes. So there has to be a GM..wich you can tell that and he bans the player for 2 days or something. And I think UO has the best PvP by now..mixed up with DAoCs RvR it would be perfect. I hope there will be RvR in WoW and maybe there will even be pvp, but RvR is more realistic, because of the Horde vs ally thing.
Homer-"let the bears pay the bear tax, but i pay the Homer tax." Lisa-"Dad, that's the homeOWNERS tax!" Homer-"Whatever I'll be at Moes."
________________________________________________________________The only game I have really enjoyed is Earth and Beyond. A tale in the Desert was a close second (lack of players caused me to quit). Tried Rubies of Evertide, Linage, Dark age of Camelot, and Anarchy Online. Liked none of them.
For a game to be completely centered around PvP/RvR it would include different aspects of gameing than another game that had... just small aspects of RvR/PvP.RvR/PvP: Cities being able to be built and destroyed -- Communities of people needed to grow a city you could also desttroy such things -- Quests have less variety -- You get points for killing other men, equipment and such.Games not centered around RvR/PvP: Independent playability -- Quests have other variables (more things to do) -- Groups and Guilds are not strongly needed -- Exploration is safer -- People being seen all around the game -- Adversity, no one striving to be a part of this UBER CITY.It just depends man...RvR = Community Drivennon RvR = Independent playability...I like both games, if you could incorporate them smoothly into a game then I believe that would be one of the best games out there... but if it's centered around the game completely then I dont believe the game is of great diversity. EverQuest had it set up perfect, you could either choose to fight somebody by asking them, or you could go to a PvP realm and always be under PvP.CHOOSE WISELY MY FRIEND!
---------------------------------------You can't stop the bum rushwww.mmorpg.com - staff
KillerTwinkie - That one guy who used to mod mmorpg.com's forums.
I personally like almost full PvP. I think only bottom feeding should be prevented (high level characters attacking newbes.)
With open PvP, a system is created where you can police yourself. If someone takes your camp, you don't have to whine to a GM about it. If someone acts like a dolt, you can put them in there place. Reputation means something, if your a known harassing people your going to have a hard time getting around the game. People have never been more respectful as they are in open PvP games (that are implemented well)
Allot of good comes from being able to police yourself, that to many people are so willing to give up quickly.
While PvP/RvR is fun, it was best said: "Killing mobs gets old, but killing people does too". A game needs content on both levels, I love PvP but I get tried of it after awhile.. just the same as I do killing endless mobs. Varity is good.
PvP/RvR is a necessary for me to play a new MMORPG. I'll never play another one that does not support it.
"Achievers don't particularly like killers. They realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged), however they don't pesonally like being attacked unless it's obvious from the outset that they'll win. They also object to being interrupted in the middle of some grand scheme to accumulate points, and they don't like having to arm themselves against surprise attacks every time they start to play. Achievers will, occasionally, resort to killing tactics themselves, in order to cause trouble for a rival or to reap whatever rewards the game itself offers for success, however the risks are usually too high for them to pursue such options very often. " - Richard Bartle
-=-=-=-=-A game is only late untill it's released, but it's bad forever.A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50%
-=-=-=-=-Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.