I only occasionally PvP in games. And even more rarely in games that have specific gear that is PvP-oriented. Mostly because these games tend to reward the folks with more time than skill. I'm an adult with a full (and sometimes over-) time job and I'm lucky just to get a few hours in at a time to play any game. I miss the days of games that started every level/map off with everyone at an equal footing. Unlocks, special gear, special skills... Stuff that IMO has ruined PvP and the reason why I so rarely do it nowadays.
raystantzFinal Fantasy XI CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 1,237
I ALWAYS roll PVP. I miss Vanilla WoW pvp and huge PVP battles out in the wild. You can't get that from an instance or a battleground. I was hoping Darkfall was going to be the answer, but it was unfortunately not.
www.facebook.com/themarksmovierules
Currently playing:
FFXIV on Behemoth, FFXI on Eden, and Gloria Victis on NA.
No I do not PVP to me it is boring and just the SOS over and over...
That's a much better description of PVE than PVP.
Not really......So either you die quickly without being able to do anything about it, kill quickly without having to break a sweat or fight a challenging opponent whose actions are, if anything, even more predictable than an NPC's AI...
You and I play PvP quite...differently. Your experience is the opposite of mine, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
And you really, really lost me when you claimed that players' actions are more predictable than NPC AI.
*Competent* players' actions are more predictable than NPC AI in most MMOs. And incompetent players are irrelevant, so it doesn't really matter how unpredictable they are. Most MMO classes are set up so there is an optimal order in which to apply buffs, debuffs and crowd control. Once an MMO matures and the good players have learned what works and what doesn't, you can predict quite accurately what they'll do, when they'll apply CC, when they'll break CC or cleanse a DOT, etc.
This is based on my experiences in Dark Age of Camp-a-lot, Age of Conan, Rift and Neverwinter. I avoided PvP in all the other MMOs I played, since they generally had even more class and/or gear balance issues than the four I named.
You could actually say the same thing about chess or any PvP game.
A chess player generally has a lot more moves available at any given time than an MMO player (e.g., White at the beginning of a game has exactly 24 possible moves, of which a bit more than half are considered reasonably effective; conversely, the typical stealth-based MMO class really has two choices: stun and then backstab or backstab and then stun). And even so, opening theory is a major part of a chess master's repertoire. Some very popular openings have been studied through the first fifteen or twenty turns and the "game" doesn't really start until both players have hit a point that diverges from the "established" moves.
Besides, the typical 1v1 in an MMO is a lot more like Tic Tac Toe than Chess....
In any case, the biggest issue with PvP isn't the predictability of good players (although that's annoying enough). It's not even imbalance based on classes (because the interaction of asymmetrical movesets can often be interesting). The biggest issue with PvP is imbalance based on numbers, gear, alternate advancement, or other advantages acquired through time (or money) invested. Outside of arenas, most PvP is decided by either level discrepancy or numbers (i.e., "ganking"). Inside arenas, a lot of PvP is decided by gear discrepancy. PvP isn't very interesting if you have no chance of winning and rapidly loses its appeal (for decent human beings) if you have no chance of losing. And the way MMOs are designed actually increases the chance of one of those imbalances occurring.
If you want good PvP action, you really have to seek a format which minimizes any imbalance other than player skill. This is, of course, why FPS and RTS games are actually becoming sports: skill (or at least talent) is the primary determinant of success. The odds of finding that in an MMO are very, very low indeed.
The best pvp I found was in Shadowbane in which the world pvp was good, but the game gave a true reason to be in a guild and to implement teamwork. No other game has compared in risk vs reward. The modern games make pvp just a gear grind, but once you get all the gear it is pointless. On another note I do not like the mix of MMOs with FPS in pvp and that is the simple reason I do not like Darkfall plus it is a constant grind.
No I do not PVP to me it is boring and just the SOS over and over...
That's a much better description of PVE than PVP.
Not really......So either you die quickly without being able to do anything about it, kill quickly without having to break a sweat or fight a challenging opponent whose actions are, if anything, even more predictable than an NPC's AI...
You and I play PvP quite...differently. Your experience is the opposite of mine, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
And you really, really lost me when you claimed that players' actions are more predictable than NPC AI.
*Competent* players' actions are more predictable than NPC AI in most MMOs. And incompetent players are irrelevant, so it doesn't really matter how unpredictable they are. Most MMO classes are set up so there is an optimal order in which to apply buffs, debuffs and crowd control. Once an MMO matures and the good players have learned what works and what doesn't, you can predict quite accurately what they'll do, when they'll apply CC, when they'll break CC or cleanse a DOT, etc.
This is based on my experiences in Dark Age of Camp-a-lot, Age of Conan, Rift and Neverwinter. I avoided PvP in all the other MMOs I played, since they generally had even more class and/or gear balance issues than the four I named.
You could actually say the same thing about chess or any PvP game.
A chess player generally has a lot more moves available at any given time than an MMO player (e.g., White at the beginning of a game has exactly 24 possible moves, of which a bit more than half are considered reasonably effective; conversely, the typical stealth-based MMO class really has two choices: stun and then backstab or backstab and then stun). And even so, opening theory is a major part of a chess master's repertoire. Some very popular openings have been studied through the first fifteen or twenty turns and the "game" doesn't really start until both players have hit a point that diverges from the "established" moves.
Besides, the typical 1v1 in an MMO is a lot more like Tic Tac Toe than Chess....
In any case, the biggest issue with PvP isn't the predictability of good players (although that's annoying enough). It's not even imbalance based on classes (because the interaction of asymmetrical movesets can often be interesting). The biggest issue with PvP is imbalance based on numbers, gear, alternate advancement, or other advantages acquired through time (or money) invested. Outside of arenas, most PvP is decided by either level discrepancy or numbers (i.e., "ganking"). Inside arenas, a lot of PvP is decided by gear discrepancy. PvP isn't very interesting if you have no chance of winning and rapidly loses its appeal (for decent human beings) if you have no chance of losing. And the way MMOs are designed actually increases the chance of one of those imbalances occurring.
If you want good PvP action, you really have to seek a format which minimizes any imbalance other than player skill. This is, of course, why FPS and RTS games are actually becoming sports: skill (or at least talent) is the primary determinant of success. The odds of finding that in an MMO are very, very low indeed.
You should use some form of arena pvp to compare with chess (a game of one king vs one king in chess also has a limited amount of moves). There are quite a few variants on opening moves, mid game and such in many arena type mmo pvp games.
Other than that I agree with your analysis, but note that GW2 does provide for the skill based scenario you describe. Haven't seen it in any other mmo though unfortunately.
I don't PVP I am no good at it and don't appreciate being ridiculed for it, It's not fun so why would I stick my hand into a buzz saw to make someone else's day? Most PVP I had the misfortune to "Play" with just make me not want to even deal with the whole thing. And yes I have payed a number of PVP games from Shadowbane on, just not worth my time.
So why are you talking about co-op multiplayer in single player games halfway through your article about MMO PvP. I mean I get it, the Mass Effect 3 ending wasn't well done, Assassin's creed has been consistently taking a step backwards as of late. I'm sure it's frustrating, but you don't have to force your opinions into an unrelated article.
ME3's ending and AC's single player gameplay is not what he was referring to. He was talking about how those games have MP/PvP that feel tacked on as a feature rather than fully integrated into the game as a whole. Many MMO's do PvP the same way. They just say "hey you're all flagged to be able to kill each other. That's your pvp." vs actually putting some effort into integrating it as a fully fleshed out system.
The best pvp I found was in Shadowbane in which the world pvp was good, but the game gave a true reason to be in a guild and to implement teamwork. No other game has compared in risk vs reward. The modern games make pvp just a gear grind, but once you get all the gear it is pointless. On another note I do not like the mix of MMOs with FPS in pvp and that is the simple reason I do not like Darkfall plus it is a constant grind.
SO is that why you pvp in a role playing game,because it has risk reward? You see that is the problem i have with rpg's doing pvp,not only is it never done right to begin with,the REASON for pvp is not there.
IMO PVP is only in these games because it is EASY to add into a game,you simply flag players to pvp,nothing more needed.Well there is actually a LOT more needed but developers don't do anymore.I feel they THINK it is a nice cheap easy way to keep players interested when the game and it's content are either run out or boring.
I like pvp a lot but i know for like 99% fact that i will never see pvp done right in a mmorpg for at least 10+ more years,there is no sign of it anywhere in gaming.All they do is make a game then flag in pvp,spare me the lazy effort. NO...adding in some ctf idea or capture the base,or capture the castle or any kind of instance pvp is not going to change anything.Pvp needs to all make plausible sense as to WHY you are doing it.If you are going to attack some castle like in for example Lineage 2,then it needs to be a REAL castle,walls,insides the whole works.Then you actually capture it and take prisoners unless they fled,it needs to have a realistic scenario.Like in AOE's you should be able to use resources to fortify walls and repair them,build new structures,build weapons again all needing resources.
Basically if your going to do pvp,do it right or don't bother at all.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
No I do not PVP to me it is boring and just the SOS over and over...
That's a much better description of PVE than PVP.
Not really......So either you die quickly without being able to do anything about it, kill quickly without having to break a sweat or fight a challenging opponent whose actions are, if anything, even more predictable than an NPC's AI...
You and I play PvP quite...differently. Your experience is the opposite of mine, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
And you really, really lost me when you claimed that players' actions are more predictable than NPC AI.
*Competent* players' actions are more predictable than NPC AI in most MMOs. And incompetent players are irrelevant, so it doesn't really matter how unpredictable they are. Most MMO classes are set up so there is an optimal order in which to apply buffs, debuffs and crowd control. Once an MMO matures and the good players have learned what works and what doesn't, you can predict quite accurately what they'll do, when they'll apply CC, when they'll break CC or cleanse a DOT, etc.
This is based on my experiences in Dark Age of Camp-a-lot, Age of Conan, Rift and Neverwinter. I avoided PvP in all the other MMOs I played, since they generally had even more class and/or gear balance issues than the four I named.
You could actually say the same thing about chess or any PvP game.
A chess player generally has a lot more moves available at any given time than an MMO player (e.g., White at the beginning of a game has exactly 24 possible moves, of which a bit more than half are considered reasonably effective;
SNIP
You should use some form of arena pvp to compare with chess (a game of one king vs one king in chess also has a limited amount of moves). There are quite a few variants on opening moves, mid game and such in many arena type mmo pvp games.
Other than that I agree with your analysis, but note that GW2 does provide for the skill based scenario you describe. Haven't seen it in any other mmo though unfortunately.
Actually, the typical 1v1 in an MMO is about as complex as some of the typical endgames in chess. Depending on the MMO and the classes involved, maybe something like King and 3 pawns versus King and 2 pawns. At any given moment, either player may have access to 10 or so moves, but most of those moves are either guaranteed losses or merely maintain the status quo. Only two or three moves are actually viable because they can lead to victory (or stave off defeat). Incidentally, many (maybe even most) mid-level competitive chess players consider the endgame to be boring and try to avoid it by scoring a checkmate or massive piece advantage during the middle game. (I used to play chess semi-competitively ... 30 years ago? And ironically, I actually enjoyed endgames back then. Go figure.)
In any case, I'm merely explaining why I consider PvP boring. I realize that others are likely to have differing opinions. After all, there are people who enjoy fishing and golf. I don't understand those people either, but I respect their "entertainment" preferences.
A chess player generally has a lot more moves available at any given time than an MMO player (e.g., White at the beginning of a game has exactly 24 possible moves, of which a bit more than half are considered reasonably effective;
SNIP
You should use some form of arena pvp to compare with chess (a game of one king vs one king in chess also has a limited amount of moves). There are quite a few variants on opening moves, mid game and such in many arena type mmo pvp games.
Other than that I agree with your analysis, but note that GW2 does provide for the skill based scenario you describe. Haven't seen it in any other mmo though unfortunately.
Actually, the typical 1v1 in an MMO is about as complex as some of the typical endgames in chess. Depending on the MMO and the classes involved, maybe something like King and 3 pawns versus King and 2 pawns. At any given moment, either player may have access to 10 or so moves, but most of those moves are either guaranteed losses or merely maintain the status quo. Only two or three moves are actually viable because they can lead to victory (or stave off defeat). Incidentally, many (maybe even most) mid-level competitive chess players consider the endgame to be boring and try to avoid it by scoring a checkmate or massive piece advantage during the middle game. (I used to play chess semi-competitively ... 30 years ago? And ironically, I actually enjoyed endgames back then. Go figure.)
In any case, I'm merely explaining why I consider PvP boring. I realize that others are likely to have differing opinions. After all, there are people who enjoy fishing and golf. I don't understand those people either, but I respect their "entertainment" preferences.
Assuming no or little gear/level gaps, a game where two skilled players come together to fight is more like a game of tennis or a kickboxing match. If someone doesn't like tennis or kickboxing then sure they would find it boring, but just making up reasons to claim that tennis and kickboxing ARE boring (or implying that it involves little skill because they don't like it) is disingenuous.
In addition, there is vast range of pvp available ranging from 1vs1, ganking, arenas, mass battles, sieges, resource control, and even quite strategic forms of pvp that may last several days or more and involve various guilds and thousands of players.
PVE in mmos at least is unfortunately far more limited than that.
A chess player generally has a lot more moves available at any given time than an MMO player (e.g., White at the beginning of a game has exactly 24 possible moves, of which a bit more than half are considered reasonably effective;
SNIP
You should use some form of arena pvp to compare with chess (a game of one king vs one king in chess also has a limited amount of moves). There are quite a few variants on opening moves, mid game and such in many arena type mmo pvp games.
Other than that I agree with your analysis, but note that GW2 does provide for the skill based scenario you describe. Haven't seen it in any other mmo though unfortunately.
Actually, the typical 1v1 in an MMO is about as complex as some of the typical endgames in chess. Depending on the MMO and the classes involved, maybe something like King and 3 pawns versus King and 2 pawns. At any given moment, either player may have access to 10 or so moves, but most of those moves are either guaranteed losses or merely maintain the status quo. Only two or three moves are actually viable because they can lead to victory (or stave off defeat). Incidentally, many (maybe even most) mid-level competitive chess players consider the endgame to be boring and try to avoid it by scoring a checkmate or massive piece advantage during the middle game. (I used to play chess semi-competitively ... 30 years ago? And ironically, I actually enjoyed endgames back then. Go figure.)
In any case, I'm merely explaining why I consider PvP boring. I realize that others are likely to have differing opinions. After all, there are people who enjoy fishing and golf. I don't understand those people either, but I respect their "entertainment" preferences.
Assuming no or little gear/level gaps, a game where two skilled players come together to fight is more like a game of tennis or a kickboxing match. If someone doesn't like tennis or kickboxing then sure they would find it boring, but just making up reasons to claim that tennis and kickboxing ARE boring (or implying that it involves little skill because they don't like it) is disingenuous.
In addition, there is vast range of pvp available ranging from 1vs1, ganking, arenas, mass battles, sieges, resource control, and even quite strategic forms of pvp that may last several days or more and involve various guilds and thousands of players.
PVE in mmos at least is unfortunately far more limited than that.
1. There is almost always a gear or level gap. Most PvP systems actually increase the odds of that happening by rewarding success in PvP with gear that makes you better at PvP.
2. At no point did I imply that it involves little skill. Chess requires a lot of skill and is still boring (to me, at this point). Heck, my other examples, golf and fishing, also take skill. And they're still boring (to me). In PvP it takes skill to know which two of your dozen or so options are actually worthwhile. It takes skill (or talent) to use those optimal skills in the right order in a timely manner. So that implication you're seeing is entirely in your own mind.
3.A. 1v1 I've already discussed.
3.B. Ganking I've addressed indirectly by saying that losing without being able to do anything is boring (and also frustrating) while winning without any risk eventually also gets boring (at least to sane individuals).
3.C. Arenas can be interesting, until pre-made teams with optimal gear following optimal strategies take over, which often happens in mature MMOs. I'm sure when two such teams face off, the participants are challenged and entertained. But I personally would die of boredom long before I achieved that level of skill. I'd also die of boredom practicing basketball 8 hours a day or any number of other activities that require constant repetitive practice in order to master. Clearly other people enjoy these activities enough that they're willing to undergo the grind in order to get the payoff.
3.D. Mass battles, sieges and other RvR/WvW modes almost invariably devolve into zergfests. Whichever side brings more warm bodies generally wins. This is why I shake my head every time someone refers to Dark Age of Camp-a-lot with nostalgia: the PvE was horrible and the PvP wasn't as good as people seem to remember. The RvR in particular generally consisted of Hibs or Mids hanging out by the Alb gate and taunting the Albs until a big enough Alb zerg built up and spilled out into the zone. The zerg would splash around knocking over keeps and taking relics until enough people got bored. Then the smaller Hib and Mid counter-zergs would take everything back and the status quo was restored for another day or two. (At least that's how it worked on my server during the year or so I played the game right after launch; maybe it got better after I left, but I doubt it.) I regret every single minute of my life that I invested into that miserable excuse for entertainment....
4. This is the Internet. These are my opinions. Unlike most people, I actually back up my opinions with my reasons. If you don't agree with my reasons, or opinions, that's entirely up to you. But it's rather disrespectful to dismiss them as "making up reasons" or "implying that it involves little skill." But hey, it's the Internet, so take pride in the fact that you're not rising above the crowd in any way and that I'll have forgotten this interaction within minutes of pressing the Post Comment button.
A chess player generally has a lot more moves available at any given time than an MMO player (e.g., White at the beginning of a game has exactly 24 possible moves, of which a bit more than half are considered reasonably effective;
SNIP
You should use some form of arena pvp to compare with chess (a game of one king vs one king in chess also has a limited amount of moves). There are quite a few variants on opening moves, mid game and such in many arena type mmo pvp games.
Other than that I agree with your analysis, but note that GW2 does provide for the skill based scenario you describe. Haven't seen it in any other mmo though unfortunately.
Actually, the typical 1v1 in an MMO is about as complex as some of the typical endgames in chess. Depending on the MMO and the classes involved, maybe something like King and 3 pawns versus King and 2 pawns. At any given moment, either player may have access to 10 or so moves, but most of those moves are either guaranteed losses or merely maintain the status quo. Only two or three moves are actually viable because they can lead to victory (or stave off defeat). Incidentally, many (maybe even most) mid-level competitive chess players consider the endgame to be boring and try to avoid it by scoring a checkmate or massive piece advantage during the middle game. (I used to play chess semi-competitively ... 30 years ago? And ironically, I actually enjoyed endgames back then. Go figure.)
In any case, I'm merely explaining why I consider PvP boring. I realize that others are likely to have differing opinions. After all, there are people who enjoy fishing and golf. I don't understand those people either, but I respect their "entertainment" preferences.
Assuming no or little gear/level gaps, a game where two skilled players come together to fight is more like a game of tennis or a kickboxing match. If someone doesn't like tennis or kickboxing then sure they would find it boring, but just making up reasons to claim that tennis and kickboxing ARE boring (or implying that it involves little skill because they don't like it) is disingenuous.
In addition, there is vast range of pvp available ranging from 1vs1, ganking, arenas, mass battles, sieges, resource control, and even quite strategic forms of pvp that may last several days or more and involve various guilds and thousands of players.
PVE in mmos at least is unfortunately far more limited than that.
1. There is almost always a gear or level gap. Most PvP systems actually increase the odds of that happening by rewarding success in PvP with gear that makes you better at PvP.
2. At no point did I imply that it involves little skill. Chess requires a lot of skill and is still boring (to me, at this point). Heck, my other examples, golf and fishing, also take skill. And they're still boring (to me). In PvP it takes skill to know which two of your dozen or so options are actually worthwhile. It takes skill (or talent) to use those optimal skills in the right order in a timely manner. So that implication you're seeing is entirely in your own mind.
3.A. 1v1 I've already discussed.
3.B. Ganking I've addressed indirectly by saying that losing without being able to do anything is boring (and also frustrating) while winning without any risk eventually also gets boring (at least to sane individuals).
3.C. Arenas can be interesting, until pre-made teams with optimal gear following optimal strategies take over, which often happens in mature MMOs. I'm sure when two such teams face off, the participants are challenged and entertained. But I personally would die of boredom long before I achieved that level of skill. I'd also die of boredom practicing basketball 8 hours a day or any number of other activities that require constant repetitive practice in order to master. Clearly other people enjoy these activities enough that they're willing to undergo the grind in order to get the payoff.
3.D. Mass battles, sieges and other RvR/WvW modes almost invariably devolve into zergfests. Whichever side brings more warm bodies generally wins. This is why I shake my head every time someone refers to Dark Age of Camp-a-lot with nostalgia: the PvE was horrible and the PvP wasn't as good as people seem to remember. The RvR in particular generally consisted of Hibs or Mids hanging out by the Alb gate and taunting the Albs until a big enough Alb zerg built up and spilled out into the zone. The zerg would splash around knocking over keeps and taking relics until enough people got bored. Then the smaller Hib and Mid counter-zergs would take everything back and the status quo was restored for another day or two. (At least that's how it worked on my server during the year or so I played the game right after launch; maybe it got better after I left, but I doubt it.) I regret every single minute of my life that I invested into that miserable excuse for entertainment....
4. This is the Internet. These are my opinions. Unlike most people, I actually back up my opinions with my reasons. If you don't agree with my reasons, or opinions, that's entirely up to you. But it's rather disrespectful to dismiss them as "making up reasons" or "implying that it involves little skill." But hey, it's the Internet, so take pride in the fact that you're not rising above the crowd in any way and that I'll have forgotten this interaction within minutes of pressing the Post Comment button.
Have a nice day!
1) One of the biggest mmos at the moment has pvp with no gear/level gap. I wish there were more like that, but its not like GW2 is some obscure indie title so the odds of finding such an environment are not "very very low indeed" as you claim above.
2) Actually you have implied several times that it involves little skill. You compared a 1vs1 stealth class scenario to a game of chess and said it was more like tic-tac-toe, totally disregarding that fact that chess is essentially a team game.
3a) You didn't "discuss" 1vs1 you just made some fairly broad statements about stealthers, gankers, and disparate levels/gear. There is plenty to discuss about 1vs1 that goes beyond your tic-tack-toe theory.
3b) Really limited understanding of what ganking is and how it fits into many pvp games
3c) Try and play a game without gear/level gaps, and that attempts to match you against players of similar skill? Join a team? Its an mmo after all, why play solo?
3d) There is an element of zerging, but also many other facets to large scale pvp. To just write it all off as a zergfest and dismiss the strategic and tactical depth of such games is crazy. A small organized force can take on much larger unorganized armies, and also outplay them on a more strategic level.
4) Out of the two of us, I am the only one that hasn't engaged in passive/aggressive insult throwing in this discussion.
A chess player generally has a lot more moves available at any given time than an MMO player (e.g., White at the beginning of a game has exactly 24 possible moves, of which a bit more than half are considered reasonably effective;
SNIP
You should use some form of arena pvp to compare with chess (a game of one king vs one king in chess also has a limited amount of moves). There are quite a few variants on opening moves, mid game and such in many arena type mmo pvp games.
Other than that I agree with your analysis, but note that GW2 does provide for the skill based scenario you describe. Haven't seen it in any other mmo though unfortunately.
Actually, the typical 1v1 in an MMO is about as complex as some of the typical endgames in chess. Depending on the MMO and the classes involved, maybe something like King and 3 pawns versus King and 2 pawns. At any given moment, either player may have access to 10 or so moves, but most of those moves are either guaranteed losses or merely maintain the status quo. Only two or three moves are actually viable because they can lead to victory (or stave off defeat). Incidentally, many (maybe even most) mid-level competitive chess players consider the endgame to be boring and try to avoid it by scoring a checkmate or massive piece advantage during the middle game. (I used to play chess semi-competitively ... 30 years ago? And ironically, I actually enjoyed endgames back then. Go figure.)
In any case, I'm merely explaining why I consider PvP boring. I realize that others are likely to have differing opinions. After all, there are people who enjoy fishing and golf. I don't understand those people either, but I respect their "entertainment" preferences.
Assuming no or little gear/level gaps, a game where two skilled players come together to fight is more like a game of tennis or a kickboxing match. If someone doesn't like tennis or kickboxing then sure they would find it boring, but just making up reasons to claim that tennis and kickboxing ARE boring (or implying that it involves little skill because they don't like it) is disingenuous.
In addition, there is vast range of pvp available ranging from 1vs1, ganking, arenas, mass battles, sieges, resource control, and even quite strategic forms of pvp that may last several days or more and involve various guilds and thousands of players.
PVE in mmos at least is unfortunately far more limited than that.
1. There is almost always a gear or level gap. Most PvP systems actually increase the odds of that happening by rewarding success in PvP with gear that makes you better at PvP.
2. At no point did I imply that it involves little skill. Chess requires a lot of skill and is still boring (to me, at this point). Heck, my other examples, golf and fishing, also take skill. And they're still boring (to me). In PvP it takes skill to know which two of your dozen or so options are actually worthwhile. It takes skill (or talent) to use those optimal skills in the right order in a timely manner. So that implication you're seeing is entirely in your own mind.
3.A. 1v1 I've already discussed.
3.B. Ganking I've addressed indirectly by saying that losing without being able to do anything is boring (and also frustrating) while winning without any risk eventually also gets boring (at least to sane individuals).
3.C. Arenas can be interesting, until pre-made teams with optimal gear following optimal strategies take over, which often happens in mature MMOs. I'm sure when two such teams face off, the participants are challenged and entertained. But I personally would die of boredom long before I achieved that level of skill. I'd also die of boredom practicing basketball 8 hours a day or any number of other activities that require constant repetitive practice in order to master. Clearly other people enjoy these activities enough that they're willing to undergo the grind in order to get the payoff.
3.D. Mass battles, sieges and other RvR/WvW modes almost invariably devolve into zergfests. Whichever side brings more warm bodies generally wins. This is why I shake my head every time someone refers to Dark Age of Camp-a-lot with nostalgia: the PvE was horrible and the PvP wasn't as good as people seem to remember. The RvR in particular generally consisted of Hibs or Mids hanging out by the Alb gate and taunting the Albs until a big enough Alb zerg built up and spilled out into the zone. The zerg would splash around knocking over keeps and taking relics until enough people got bored. Then the smaller Hib and Mid counter-zergs would take everything back and the status quo was restored for another day or two. (At least that's how it worked on my server during the year or so I played the game right after launch; maybe it got better after I left, but I doubt it.) I regret every single minute of my life that I invested into that miserable excuse for entertainment....
4. This is the Internet. These are my opinions. Unlike most people, I actually back up my opinions with my reasons. If you don't agree with my reasons, or opinions, that's entirely up to you. But it's rather disrespectful to dismiss them as "making up reasons" or "implying that it involves little skill." But hey, it's the Internet, so take pride in the fact that you're not rising above the crowd in any way and that I'll have forgotten this interaction within minutes of pressing the Post Comment button.
Have a nice day!
1) One of the biggest mmos at the moment has pvp with no gear/level gap. I wish there were more like that, but its not like GW2 is some obscure indie title so the odds of finding such an environment are not "very very low indeed" as you claim above.
2) Actually you have implied several times that it involves little skill. You compared a 1vs1 stealth class scenario to a game of chess and said it was more like tic-tac-toe, totally disregarding that fact that chess is essentially a team game.
3a) You didn't "discuss" 1vs1 you just made some fairly broad statements about stealthers, gankers, and disparate levels/gear. There is plenty to discuss about 1vs1 that goes beyond your tic-tack-toe theory.
3b) Really limited understanding of what ganking is and how it fits into many pvp games
3c) Try and play a game without gear/level gaps, and that attempts to match you against players of similar skill? Join a team? Its an mmo after all, why play solo?
3d) There is an element of zerging, but also many other facets to large scale pvp. To just write it all off as a zergfest and dismiss the strategic and tactical depth of such games is crazy. A small organized force can take on much larger unorganized armies, and also outplay them on a more strategic level.
4) Out of the two of us, I am the only one that hasn't engaged in passive/aggressive insult throwing in this discussion.
"Made up reasons" seems pretty passive aggressive to me. "Really limited understanding" could also be interpreted that way. We're done here.
Comments
www.facebook.com/themarksmovierules
Currently playing:
FFXIV on Behemoth, FFXI on Eden, and Gloria Victis on NA.
Juegos de Lucha-Free online games
RPG Titles
Juego De Guerra
Rift Universe
Other than that I agree with your analysis, but note that GW2 does provide for the skill based scenario you describe. Haven't seen it in any other mmo though unfortunately.
Steam: Neph
You see that is the problem i have with rpg's doing pvp,not only is it never done right to begin with,the REASON for pvp is not there.
IMO PVP is only in these games because it is EASY to add into a game,you simply flag players to pvp,nothing more needed.Well there is actually a LOT more needed but developers don't do anymore.I feel they THINK it is a nice cheap easy way to keep players interested when the game and it's content are either run out or boring.
I like pvp a lot but i know for like 99% fact that i will never see pvp done right in a mmorpg for at least 10+ more years,there is no sign of it anywhere in gaming.All they do is make a game then flag in pvp,spare me the lazy effort.
NO...adding in some ctf idea or capture the base,or capture the castle or any kind of instance pvp is not going to change anything.Pvp needs to all make plausible sense as to WHY you are doing it.If you are going to attack some castle like in for example Lineage 2,then it needs to be a REAL castle,walls,insides the whole works.Then you actually capture it and take prisoners unless they fled,it needs to have a realistic scenario.Like in AOE's you should be able to use resources to fortify walls and repair them,build new structures,build weapons again all needing resources.
Basically if your going to do pvp,do it right or don't bother at all.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Assuming no or little gear/level gaps, a game where two skilled players come together to fight is more like a game of tennis or a kickboxing match. If someone doesn't like tennis or kickboxing then sure they would find it boring, but just making up reasons to claim that tennis and kickboxing ARE boring (or implying that it involves little skill because they don't like it) is disingenuous.
In addition, there is vast range of pvp available ranging from 1vs1, ganking, arenas, mass battles, sieges, resource control, and even quite strategic forms of pvp that may last several days or more and involve various guilds and thousands of players.
PVE in mmos at least is unfortunately far more limited than that.
2. At no point did I imply that it involves little skill. Chess requires a lot of skill and is still boring (to me, at this point). Heck, my other examples, golf and fishing, also take skill. And they're still boring (to me). In PvP it takes skill to know which two of your dozen or so options are actually worthwhile. It takes skill (or talent) to use those optimal skills in the right order in a timely manner. So that implication you're seeing is entirely in your own mind.
3.A. 1v1 I've already discussed.
3.B. Ganking I've addressed indirectly by saying that losing without being able to do anything is boring (and also frustrating) while winning without any risk eventually also gets boring (at least to sane individuals).
3.C. Arenas can be interesting, until pre-made teams with optimal gear following optimal strategies take over, which often happens in mature MMOs. I'm sure when two such teams face off, the participants are challenged and entertained. But I personally would die of boredom long before I achieved that level of skill. I'd also die of boredom practicing basketball 8 hours a day or any number of other activities that require constant repetitive practice in order to master. Clearly other people enjoy these activities enough that they're willing to undergo the grind in order to get the payoff.
3.D. Mass battles, sieges and other RvR/WvW modes almost invariably devolve into zergfests. Whichever side brings more warm bodies generally wins. This is why I shake my head every time someone refers to Dark Age of Camp-a-lot with nostalgia: the PvE was horrible and the PvP wasn't as good as people seem to remember. The RvR in particular generally consisted of Hibs or Mids hanging out by the Alb gate and taunting the Albs until a big enough Alb zerg built up and spilled out into the zone. The zerg would splash around knocking over keeps and taking relics until enough people got bored. Then the smaller Hib and Mid counter-zergs would take everything back and the status quo was restored for another day or two. (At least that's how it worked on my server during the year or so I played the game right after launch; maybe it got better after I left, but I doubt it.) I regret every single minute of my life that I invested into that miserable excuse for entertainment....
4. This is the Internet. These are my opinions. Unlike most people, I actually back up my opinions with my reasons. If you don't agree with my reasons, or opinions, that's entirely up to you. But it's rather disrespectful to dismiss them as "making up reasons" or "implying that it involves little skill." But hey, it's the Internet, so take pride in the fact that you're not rising above the crowd in any way and that I'll have forgotten this interaction within minutes of pressing the Post Comment button.
Have a nice day!
2) Actually you have implied several times that it involves little skill. You compared a 1vs1 stealth class scenario to a game of chess and said it was more like tic-tac-toe, totally disregarding that fact that chess is essentially a team game.
3a) You didn't "discuss" 1vs1 you just made some fairly broad statements about stealthers, gankers, and disparate levels/gear. There is plenty to discuss about 1vs1 that goes beyond your tic-tack-toe theory.
3b) Really limited understanding of what ganking is and how it fits into many pvp games
3c) Try and play a game without gear/level gaps, and that attempts to match you against players of similar skill? Join a team? Its an mmo after all, why play solo?
3d) There is an element of zerging, but also many other facets to large scale pvp. To just write it all off as a zergfest and dismiss the strategic and tactical depth of such games is crazy. A small organized force can take on much larger unorganized armies, and also outplay them on a more strategic level.
4) Out of the two of us, I am the only one that hasn't engaged in passive/aggressive insult throwing in this discussion.