General: The Daily Quest - Your Ideal PVP?

BillMurphy · February 2015

It's an argument we see on our forums a lot: some folks love open FFA PVP, others hate it, some love full-loot, others loathe the very idea. But there's a lot of wiggle room in between. So we ask you today: what's your ideal form of PVP?

For me, personally, I'm somewhere in between. I love the factional warfare of games like DAOC and GW2, but I don't always want to be watching over my shoulder either. I'm looking forward to games like Crowfall, where several different worlds offer different types of PVP, but I worry that there won't be a home for pure PVE fans (which may be the point).

I can say I'm not a fan of full-loot, but if that's what you're getting yourself into, you know what to expect. It works in games like DayZ and H1Z1, and it can and will work in Crowfall... because those players on those FFA servers with full loot will know exactly what risk they're taking.

But for me the perfect mix probably lies somewhere in the factional or guild-based PVP. Where I have allies and enemies alike on the same server. And I don't mind partial loot, as long as I can elect to "insure" pieces I want to keep or replace upon death for a fee.

And yes, I do like instanced PVP too. It's quick-spurt, quick-fix PVP that really can give the kind of action I want without much hassle trying to find a fight.

But what about you? What's your ideal form of PVP? This is your quest!

Tracho12 · February 2015

A 5v5 MOBA.

PvP doesn't belong in MMOs.

There's too many skills, the interface is too cluttered, and there's too much of a bias placed towards PvE to ever get balance.

bcbully · February 2015

All forms of PvP are ideal at times. This is a point lot of developers are missing. My last 4 years or so have been almost exclusively as a pvpr.

What I've found is sometimes I want instanced battle grounds for instant action. For example if I just made a new build or acquired a new skill, I wanted to test and learn. Battle grounds are ideal for this type of thing. Battle grounds do a horrible job at providing purpose however. At the end of the timer they just reset.

Sometimes I want world PvP for many different reasons. World PvP gives the developer opportunity to provide consequence to players actions. Age of Wushu's FFA system is an excellent example of developer taking full advantage of this form of pvp. If a player is escorting a guild cart for reward, he may be attacked by someone seeking that reward. If a player is calling you and your mother every name in the book, you are free to whack the guy. At the same time you may go to jail for whacking the guy. Risk/reward and consequences.

Arena does an excellent job at showing player proficiency and growth of player skill. In general, as a player gets better, they will win more matches. Arenas are a great measuring stick when you want to measure.

AvA or War, there's nothing like the rush of running into battle with an army on your side, cutting a path through the enemy army and watching them retreat. Plus war builds faction pride which ties into lore. It's a great boon for any game.

If any of these forms are absent the gestalt of a games pvp will eventually break down and the potential for ideal pvp will be missed.

orbitxo · February 2015

warhammer online.

EA has basically killed many of my favorite games= i have given up on this company.

elocke · February 2015

All forms, just let me decide the WHEN. That's all. If I'm not ready to be ganked, don't force me to be. Let me choose when I flag or don't. The type of PVP doesn't matter if one is aware of the dangers instead of popping into a game hoping for a relaxing session of just PVE and then getting ganked by nasty people who proceed to camp your corpse without being able to just say, no, I'm not attackable, go away.

Battlerock · February 2015

I don't group up often, so fps games and H1Z1, those are my ideal pvp types. No gear imbalances, tactical lethal strikes, no ability and counter memorization, just a natural instict for survival mixed with some aiming skills and a plan.

Jakdstripper · February 2015

Originally posted by elocke
All forms, just let me decide the WHEN. That's all. If I'm not ready to be ganked, don't force me to be. Let me choose when I flag or don't. The type of PVP doesn't matter if one is aware of the dangers instead of popping into a game hoping for a relaxing session of just PVE and then getting ganked by nasty people who proceed to camp your corpse without being able to just say, no, I'm not attackable, go away.

this.

the best balance i have found out of any game so far is still EVE. Their high sec/low/sec/null sec is absolutely brilliant. danger IS present everywhere but there is a large part of map where you can play in 90% safety, and the consequences for attacking players are severe. you decide when you are ready to try less and less safety, and more pvp.

i don't like game that force you to be all pvp all the time, or all pve all the time. there needs defined areas for both, and harsh consequences for pvpers that want to greef non-pvpers in pve zones.

Howbadisbad · February 2015

PVP with risk and purpose, if it doesn't have those I'll just play a competitive multiplayer game instead.

rodingo · February 2015

Originally posted by bcbully
All forms of PvP are ideal at times. This is a point lot of developers are missing. My last 4 years or so have been almost exclusively as a pvpr.

What I've found is sometimes I want instanced battle grounds for instant action. For example if I just made a new build or acquired a new skill, I wanted to test and learn. Battle grounds are ideal for this type of thing. Battle grounds do a horrible job at providing purpose however. At the end of the timer they just reset.

Sometimes I want world PvP for many different reasons. World PvP gives the developer opportunity to provide consequence to players actions. Age of Wushu's FFA system is an excellent example of developer taking full advantage of this form of pvp. If a player is escorting a guild cart for reward, he may be attacked by someone seeking that reward. If a player is calling you and your mother every name in the book, you are free to whack the guy. At the same time you may go to jail for whacking the guy. Risk/reward and consequences.

Arena does an excellent job at showing player proficiency and growth of player skill. In general, as a player gets better, they will win more matches. Arenas are a great measuring stick when you want to measure.

AvA or War, there's nothing like the rush of running into battle with an army on your side, cutting a path through the enemy army and watching them retreat. Plus war builds faction pride which ties into lore. It's a great boon for any game.

If any of these forms are absent the gestalt of a games pvp will eventually break down and the potential for ideal pvp will be missed.

I actually agree with most of this. However, I also need to add that I prefer games that allow skill to trump gear. I don't care for games that allow gear or pvp stats to be the deciding factor of who lives or dies. Someone shouldn't be able to just lick their keyboard and win because they put in time to get gear. They actually need to be good and know how to play their class and know how to counter others. Skill based games are very very few and far between which gives someone like me even less pvp games to choose from. I'm lucky I found one though.

Pepeq · February 2015

Simply put, any game with opposing factions should have open world PVP (i.e. no safe zones). Instead of capturing the flag, you capture one of their cities. You should be acquiring lands for your guild/faction, making it the dominant authority of the land. There should be thieves who are aligned with no one who steal and kill from everyone.

PVP in a level based system automatically adjusts your level/gear/abilities to equal that of your opponent... so have at the level 1 noob all you want, you have no more abilities or gear than they have. No one can outgear or outlevel anyone. It's purely about who has the most skill or the most friends. You will want to have friends.

Any structures you can build are protected whilst you are offline, but once you are online, it's open season. You will need to protect it or others will take it. This is where having friends comes in to play.

Game won't ever get made because no one wants to play a game in which they can be killed, cannot easily kill their opponent, or have to make friends.

Sovrath · February 2015

Originally posted by rodingo I'm lucky I found one though.

And which game are you playing?

Loktofeit · February 2015

Currently, my favorite PVP is in FPS and MOBAs. I'm a fan of territorial control and empire building, but I haven't really had a lot of fun with that since Shadowbane, save for a short run in Mortal Online. So barring a SB replacement, I'm pretty much sticking to the level playing field type stuff, as I have no interest in grinding my ass off on bears and boars to for nights on end just to grind for gear for nights on end in order to be able to maybe compete in most MMO PVP.

Geddon95405 · February 2015

WoW battlegrounds but without healers, with good balancing, and no bots/cheaters

And instant q times with no penalty for bailing

jdizzle2k13 · February 2015

I like open world type pvp with objectives. That's why I love Guild Wars 2.

However, for the time I played ArcheAge, I enjoyed the pvp in there too, as it could happen anytime an area wasn't at peace. There are no objectives you can hold, but it was fun for me to go around with a friend and push areas into war states before the sea of enemy threatened to wash upon us.

I think a combination of that, Guild Wars 2 type combat in an open world pvp game would be my ideal MMO. Also with the ability to hold and conquer neutral lands for your side.

Nilden · February 2015

Planetside 2 only instead of sci-fi have a fantasy or even Everquest themed total conversion. Still playing a FPS only now firing spells and arrows while riding horses and dragons and fighting over castles and resource outposts.

Sulaa · February 2015

Open world with loot.

For instanced PVP I choose multiplayer games, not MMOs. Much better gameplay + I can avoid all of persistance, associated grind/power creep and microtranactions. All which are deterimental to sporty fair instanced PVP.

Sovrath · February 2015

I prefer castle sieges. That was one of the reasons I started playing Lineage 2.

I enjoyed the large clan battles but for my taste, roving around in a group ganking single players is pointless and not fun.

Howbadisbad · February 2015

Originally posted by Geddon95405
no penalty for bailing

how about no

Loktofeit · February 2015

Originally posted by Sovrath
I prefer castle sieges. That was one of the reasons I started playing Lineage 2.

I enjoyed the large clan battles but for my taste, roving around in a group ganking single players is pointless and not fun.

Lineage 2's castle sieges were some of my favorite PVP experiences. Massive battles, an objective and a client that was able to beautifully handle what was being thrown at it. A great experience.