This is my point, See in a game of Chess, there is a point to the conflict, to win the game.
In the MMO's you play, there is no point to the PvP, you are simply attacking people to attack them, in an endless cycle of pointless, purposeless violence for the sake of violence.
It's the exact same point "to win the game."
The game being the combat between two opponents.
However, an mmorpg is a bit different than a game of chess. The sole purpose of chess is to beat your opponent. You aren't getting loot, you aren't getting territory control or control of resources.
Which is, I bet, a part of the conflict in an mmorpg. However, if the game has battlegrounds or some such things then "yes" the purpose is to "win the game."
Kudos, a thought out response.
Lets use Chess. Two players sit down to a game of Chess, at some point, one of them will win, one of them will lose, or they will be so evenly matched, they will stalemate.
A stalemate is where neither player can win the game, at which point, they re-start the game and see if they can win this time.. but the goal here, is to Win.
Now in a lot of MMO's, you start the game with a Stalemate. You can't win the game and you can't lose either, at best you can just trade pieces on the board, which will get instantly replaced.
Imagine how boring a game like that would become for the players. imagine sitting at a chess board, stuck in an endless cycle of trading pieces. Sure, I took your pawn, you took my knight, then I took your castle and you took my pawn.. look at us fighting.. at first it might even be fun.. the thrill of the fight.. but that does not change the fact that is is nothing more than a game of conflict for the sake of conflict, since no one can win and no one can lose, it will go on forever, and ever, and ever... until at least one of the players get bored and leaves.
When that happens the remaining player will just cry they have no one to play with.
Without that Win Mechanic, the PvP is just people killing each other for the sake of killing each other. Conflict for the sake of Conflict.. purposeless pointless violence purely for the sake of violence in and of itself.
There aren't many pvp mmo's that don't have that win state. Whether it's Lineage/Lineage 2/Dark Age of Camleot, Elder Scrolls Online (etc) that allow a win for a castle/keep or a Battleground that allows for a "win" just like in Chess.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
This is my point, See in a game of Chess, there is a point to the conflict, to win the game.
In the MMO's you play, there is no point to the PvP, you are simply attacking people to attack them, in an endless cycle of pointless, purposeless violence for the sake of violence.
It's the exact same point "to win the game."
The game being the combat between two opponents.
However, an mmorpg is a bit different than a game of chess. The sole purpose of chess is to beat your opponent. You aren't getting loot, you aren't getting territory control or control of resources.
Which is, I bet, a part of the conflict in an mmorpg. However, if the game has battlegrounds or some such things then "yes" the purpose is to "win the game."
Kudos, a thought out response.
Lets use Chess. Two players sit down to a game of Chess, at some point, one of them will win, one of them will lose, or they will be so evenly matched, they will stalemate.
A stalemate is where neither player can win the game, at which point, they re-start the game and see if they can win this time.. but the goal here, is to Win.
Now in a lot of MMO's, you start the game with a Stalemate. You can't win the game and you can't lose either, at best you can just trade pieces on the board, which will get instantly replaced.
Imagine how boring a game like that would become for the players. imagine sitting at a chess board, stuck in an endless cycle of trading pieces. Sure, I took your pawn, you took my knight, then I took your castle and you took my pawn.. look at us fighting.. at first it might even be fun.. the thrill of the fight.. but that does not change the fact that is is nothing more than a game of conflict for the sake of conflict, since no one can win and no one can lose, it will go on forever, and ever, and ever... until at least one of the players get bored and leaves.
When that happens the remaining player will just cry they have no one to play with.
Without that Win Mechanic, the PvP is just people killing each other for the sake of killing each other. Conflict for the sake of Conflict.. purposeless pointless violence purely for the sake of violence in and of itself.
There aren't many pvp mmo's that don't have that win state. Whether it's Lineage/Lineage 2/Dark Age of Camleot, Elder Scrolls Online (etc) that allow a win for a castle/keep or a Battleground that allows for a "win" just like in Chess.
Killing the other person is considered that same win by many, so the entire analogy doesn’t support what he thinks it does anyway. You win the fight, the match, the royale, the siege, the cook-off. It doesn’t matter. That’s all subjective.
This is my point, See in a game of Chess, there is a point to the conflict, to win the game.
In the MMO's you play, there is no point to the PvP, you are simply attacking people to attack them, in an endless cycle of pointless, purposeless violence for the sake of violence.
It's the exact same point "to win the game."
The game being the combat between two opponents.
However, an mmorpg is a bit different than a game of chess. The sole purpose of chess is to beat your opponent. You aren't getting loot, you aren't getting territory control or control of resources.
Which is, I bet, a part of the conflict in an mmorpg. However, if the game has battlegrounds or some such things then "yes" the purpose is to "win the game."
Kudos, a thought out response.
Lets use Chess. Two players sit down to a game of Chess, at some point, one of them will win, one of them will lose, or they will be so evenly matched, they will stalemate.
A stalemate is where neither player can win the game, at which point, they re-start the game and see if they can win this time.. but the goal here, is to Win.
Now in a lot of MMO's, you start the game with a Stalemate. You can't win the game and you can't lose either, at best you can just trade pieces on the board, which will get instantly replaced.
Imagine how boring a game like that would become for the players. imagine sitting at a chess board, stuck in an endless cycle of trading pieces. Sure, I took your pawn, you took my knight, then I took your castle and you took my pawn.. look at us fighting.. at first it might even be fun.. the thrill of the fight.. but that does not change the fact that is is nothing more than a game of conflict for the sake of conflict, since no one can win and no one can lose, it will go on forever, and ever, and ever... until at least one of the players get bored and leaves.
When that happens the remaining player will just cry they have no one to play with.
Without that Win Mechanic, the PvP is just people killing each other for the sake of killing each other. Conflict for the sake of Conflict.. purposeless pointless violence purely for the sake of violence in and of itself.
There aren't many pvp mmo's that don't have that win state. Whether it's Lineage/Lineage 2/Dark Age of Camleot, Elder Scrolls Online (etc) that allow a win for a castle/keep or a Battleground that allows for a "win" just like in Chess.
Killing the other person is considered that same win by many, so the entire analogy doesn’t support what he thinks it does anyway. You win the fight, the match, the royale, the siege, the cook-off. It doesn’t matter. That’s all subjective.
That may be true, but in PvP it become PKing, and a one-sided event. I played UO for it's first 12 years or so. And in all that time, what I saw from PKers were tactics to insure "victory." Anything from killing newbs to all sorts of bushwhacks. I do commend them for their strategies, they played smart. Ghost scouts, gating in companions, playing the numbers odds, etc. But the fact is that it drove many away from the game, and such game design keeps most PvP focused games from doing well for very long. It's a game killer in MMOs.
This is my point, See in a game of Chess, there is a point to the conflict, to win the game.
In the MMO's you play, there is no point to the PvP, you are simply attacking people to attack them, in an endless cycle of pointless, purposeless violence for the sake of violence.
It's the exact same point "to win the game."
The game being the combat between two opponents.
However, an mmorpg is a bit different than a game of chess. The sole purpose of chess is to beat your opponent. You aren't getting loot, you aren't getting territory control or control of resources.
Which is, I bet, a part of the conflict in an mmorpg. However, if the game has battlegrounds or some such things then "yes" the purpose is to "win the game."
Kudos, a thought out response.
Lets use Chess. Two players sit down to a game of Chess, at some point, one of them will win, one of them will lose, or they will be so evenly matched, they will stalemate.
A stalemate is where neither player can win the game, at which point, they re-start the game and see if they can win this time.. but the goal here, is to Win.
Now in a lot of MMO's, you start the game with a Stalemate. You can't win the game and you can't lose either, at best you can just trade pieces on the board, which will get instantly replaced.
Imagine how boring a game like that would become for the players. imagine sitting at a chess board, stuck in an endless cycle of trading pieces. Sure, I took your pawn, you took my knight, then I took your castle and you took my pawn.. look at us fighting.. at first it might even be fun.. the thrill of the fight.. but that does not change the fact that is is nothing more than a game of conflict for the sake of conflict, since no one can win and no one can lose, it will go on forever, and ever, and ever... until at least one of the players get bored and leaves.
When that happens the remaining player will just cry they have no one to play with.
Without that Win Mechanic, the PvP is just people killing each other for the sake of killing each other. Conflict for the sake of Conflict.. purposeless pointless violence purely for the sake of violence in and of itself.
There aren't many pvp mmo's that don't have that win state. Whether it's Lineage/Lineage 2/Dark Age of Camleot, Elder Scrolls Online (etc) that allow a win for a castle/keep or a Battleground that allows for a "win" just like in Chess.
Even in those situations, None of that is a Win Mechanic, that is just a grind, you take a keep, you lose the keep, you kill another player, they kill you, it's no different than a generic PvE grind, but you are killing other players purely for the sake of it. They have not lost, you have not Won, you just endlessly fight each other.
In a game like say, GW2, they have WvW, at the end of the Week, a Team Wins, and it matters who wins and who loses.
Just like in sPvP in GW2, you have ranks and tiers, your wins matter, just as do your losses. Each match, there is a drive to win, a reason to fight, it is not violence for the sake of it.
In a game like say Linage 2, players can just kill each other, there is no meaning to that PvP, it is violence for the sake of violence, no other reason. Players killing each other simply because they can.
Even in DAoC, you could run around and randomly kill people from other fractions with no rhyme or reason, you are killing purely for the sake of killing, and even then you are not winning the fight, as chances are it was not a duel, it was a gank. They are just annoyed, not bested.
The only way that someone can legibility win in those kinds of games, is to drive the other player from the game in frustration.. allow that to process... the only way that anyone can legitimately win in those PvP games, to drive off the games population.
And that is why PvP MMO's fail.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
This is my point, See in a game of Chess, there is a point to the conflict, to win the game.
In the MMO's you play, there is no point to the PvP, you are simply attacking people to attack them, in an endless cycle of pointless, purposeless violence for the sake of violence.
It's the exact same point "to win the game."
The game being the combat between two opponents.
However, an mmorpg is a bit different than a game of chess. The sole purpose of chess is to beat your opponent. You aren't getting loot, you aren't getting territory control or control of resources.
Which is, I bet, a part of the conflict in an mmorpg. However, if the game has battlegrounds or some such things then "yes" the purpose is to "win the game."
Kudos, a thought out response.
Lets use Chess. Two players sit down to a game of Chess, at some point, one of them will win, one of them will lose, or they will be so evenly matched, they will stalemate.
A stalemate is where neither player can win the game, at which point, they re-start the game and see if they can win this time.. but the goal here, is to Win.
Now in a lot of MMO's, you start the game with a Stalemate. You can't win the game and you can't lose either, at best you can just trade pieces on the board, which will get instantly replaced.
Imagine how boring a game like that would become for the players. imagine sitting at a chess board, stuck in an endless cycle of trading pieces. Sure, I took your pawn, you took my knight, then I took your castle and you took my pawn.. look at us fighting.. at first it might even be fun.. the thrill of the fight.. but that does not change the fact that is is nothing more than a game of conflict for the sake of conflict, since no one can win and no one can lose, it will go on forever, and ever, and ever... until at least one of the players get bored and leaves.
When that happens the remaining player will just cry they have no one to play with.
Without that Win Mechanic, the PvP is just people killing each other for the sake of killing each other. Conflict for the sake of Conflict.. purposeless pointless violence purely for the sake of violence in and of itself.
There aren't many pvp mmo's that don't have that win state. Whether it's Lineage/Lineage 2/Dark Age of Camleot, Elder Scrolls Online (etc) that allow a win for a castle/keep or a Battleground that allows for a "win" just like in Chess.
Even in those situations, None of that is a Win Mechanic, that is just a grind, you take a keep, you lose the keep, you kill another player, they kill you, it's no different than a generic PvE grind, but you are killing other players purely for the sake of it. They have not lost, you have not Won, you just endlessly fight each other.
In a game like say, GW2, they have WvW, at the end of the Week, a Team Wins, and it matters who wins and who loses.
Just like in sPvP in GW2, you have ranks and tiers, your wins matter, just as do your losses. Each match, there is a drive to win, a reason to fight, it is not violence for the sake of it.
In a game like say Linage 2, players can just kill each other, there is no meaning to that PvP, it is violence for the sake of violence, no other reason. Players killing each other simply because they can.
Even in DAoC, you could run around and randomly kill people from other fractions with no rhyme or reason, you are killing purely for the sake of killing, and even then you are not winning the fight, as chances are it was not a duel, it was a gank. They are just annoyed, not bested.
The only way that someone can legibility win in those kinds of games, is to drive the other player from the game in frustration.. allow that to process... the only way that anyone can legitimately win in those PvP games, to drive off the games population.
This is my point, See in a game of Chess, there is a point to the conflict, to win the game.
In the MMO's you play, there is no point to the PvP, you are simply attacking people to attack them, in an endless cycle of pointless, purposeless violence for the sake of violence.
It's the exact same point "to win the game."
The game being the combat between two opponents.
However, an mmorpg is a bit different than a game of chess. The sole purpose of chess is to beat your opponent. You aren't getting loot, you aren't getting territory control or control of resources.
Which is, I bet, a part of the conflict in an mmorpg. However, if the game has battlegrounds or some such things then "yes" the purpose is to "win the game."
Kudos, a thought out response.
Lets use Chess. Two players sit down to a game of Chess, at some point, one of them will win, one of them will lose, or they will be so evenly matched, they will stalemate.
A stalemate is where neither player can win the game, at which point, they re-start the game and see if they can win this time.. but the goal here, is to Win.
Now in a lot of MMO's, you start the game with a Stalemate. You can't win the game and you can't lose either, at best you can just trade pieces on the board, which will get instantly replaced.
Imagine how boring a game like that would become for the players. imagine sitting at a chess board, stuck in an endless cycle of trading pieces. Sure, I took your pawn, you took my knight, then I took your castle and you took my pawn.. look at us fighting.. at first it might even be fun.. the thrill of the fight.. but that does not change the fact that is is nothing more than a game of conflict for the sake of conflict, since no one can win and no one can lose, it will go on forever, and ever, and ever... until at least one of the players get bored and leaves.
When that happens the remaining player will just cry they have no one to play with.
Without that Win Mechanic, the PvP is just people killing each other for the sake of killing each other. Conflict for the sake of Conflict.. purposeless pointless violence purely for the sake of violence in and of itself.
There is a point with full loot, though.
In the MMORPG I play, certain items could easily represent a hundred hours of play. Killing someone and taking their 200 MegaWatt Toroidal Hyper Plasma Reactor has real meaning.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Even in those situations, None of that is a Win Mechanic, that is just a grind, you take a keep, you lose the keep, you kill another player, they kill you, it's no different than a generic PvE grind.
It is very different in fact. You compete with other people.
That is the point you don't seem you get, a competition means you can win and in an MMO, they can never lose and you can never win, Your just a bunch of sociopaths locked in an endless cycle of violence for the sake of it, till enough people get bored it, and the game ends.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Even in those situations, None of that is a Win Mechanic, that is just a grind, you take a keep, you lose the keep, you kill another player, they kill you, it's no different than a generic PvE grind.
It is very different in fact. You compete with other people.
That is the point you don't seem you get, a competition means you can win and in an MMO, they can never lose and you can never win, Your just a bunch of sociopaths locked in an endless cycle of violence for the sake of it, till enough people get bored it, and the game ends.
Well, you did just strongly imply Chess was a meaningless game, so generalizing MMORPG players as sociopathic is about the same volume.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
This is my point, See in a game of Chess, there is a point to the conflict, to win the game.
In the MMO's you play, there is no point to the PvP, you are simply attacking people to attack them, in an endless cycle of pointless, purposeless violence for the sake of violence.
It's the exact same point "to win the game."
The game being the combat between two opponents.
However, an mmorpg is a bit different than a game of chess. The sole purpose of chess is to beat your opponent. You aren't getting loot, you aren't getting territory control or control of resources.
Which is, I bet, a part of the conflict in an mmorpg. However, if the game has battlegrounds or some such things then "yes" the purpose is to "win the game."
Kudos, a thought out response.
Lets use Chess. Two players sit down to a game of Chess, at some point, one of them will win, one of them will lose, or they will be so evenly matched, they will stalemate.
A stalemate is where neither player can win the game, at which point, they re-start the game and see if they can win this time.. but the goal here, is to Win.
Now in a lot of MMO's, you start the game with a Stalemate. You can't win the game and you can't lose either, at best you can just trade pieces on the board, which will get instantly replaced.
Imagine how boring a game like that would become for the players. imagine sitting at a chess board, stuck in an endless cycle of trading pieces. Sure, I took your pawn, you took my knight, then I took your castle and you took my pawn.. look at us fighting.. at first it might even be fun.. the thrill of the fight.. but that does not change the fact that is is nothing more than a game of conflict for the sake of conflict, since no one can win and no one can lose, it will go on forever, and ever, and ever... until at least one of the players get bored and leaves.
When that happens the remaining player will just cry they have no one to play with.
Without that Win Mechanic, the PvP is just people killing each other for the sake of killing each other. Conflict for the sake of Conflict.. purposeless pointless violence purely for the sake of violence in and of itself.
There is a point with full loot, though.
In the MMORPG I play, certain items could easily represent a hundred hours of play. Killing someone and taking their 200 MegaWatt Toroidal Hyper Plasma Reactor has real meaning.
Until someone kills you for it.. and then it still has.. real meaning?
That's the point, the PvP has no meaning, you're just attacking people for no other reason than to hurt them, inflicting pain purely to inflict pain, that is in the purest way, violence for the sake of it.
You don't think that sounds like a Sociopath, to attack someone purely just to hurt them, because it will cause them duress, maybe.. you get the greatest victory of all and drive them from the game?
You don't see a problem with that set up and design?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
This is my point, See in a game of Chess, there is a point to the conflict, to win the game.
In the MMO's you play, there is no point to the PvP, you are simply attacking people to attack them, in an endless cycle of pointless, purposeless violence for the sake of violence.
It's the exact same point "to win the game."
The game being the combat between two opponents.
However, an mmorpg is a bit different than a game of chess. The sole purpose of chess is to beat your opponent. You aren't getting loot, you aren't getting territory control or control of resources.
Which is, I bet, a part of the conflict in an mmorpg. However, if the game has battlegrounds or some such things then "yes" the purpose is to "win the game."
Kudos, a thought out response.
Lets use Chess. Two players sit down to a game of Chess, at some point, one of them will win, one of them will lose, or they will be so evenly matched, they will stalemate.
A stalemate is where neither player can win the game, at which point, they re-start the game and see if they can win this time.. but the goal here, is to Win.
Now in a lot of MMO's, you start the game with a Stalemate. You can't win the game and you can't lose either, at best you can just trade pieces on the board, which will get instantly replaced.
Imagine how boring a game like that would become for the players. imagine sitting at a chess board, stuck in an endless cycle of trading pieces. Sure, I took your pawn, you took my knight, then I took your castle and you took my pawn.. look at us fighting.. at first it might even be fun.. the thrill of the fight.. but that does not change the fact that is is nothing more than a game of conflict for the sake of conflict, since no one can win and no one can lose, it will go on forever, and ever, and ever... until at least one of the players get bored and leaves.
When that happens the remaining player will just cry they have no one to play with.
Without that Win Mechanic, the PvP is just people killing each other for the sake of killing each other. Conflict for the sake of Conflict.. purposeless pointless violence purely for the sake of violence in and of itself.
There is a point with full loot, though.
In the MMORPG I play, certain items could easily represent a hundred hours of play. Killing someone and taking their 200 MegaWatt Toroidal Hyper Plasma Reactor has real meaning.
Until someone kills you for it.. and then it still has.. real meaning?
That's the point, the PvP has no meaning, you're just attacking people for no other reason than to hurt them, inflicting pain purely to inflict pain, that is in the purest way, violence for the sake of it.
You don't think that sounds like a Sociopath, to attack someone purely just to hurt them, because it will cause them duress, maybe.. you get the greatest victory of all and drive them from the game?
You don't see a problem with that set up and design?
I disagree; inflicting pain is rarely the goal of others, and never the goal of mine.
It could be to assert dominance, to deny resources to an enemy group, or because the item was necessary.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
This is my point, See in a game of Chess, there is a point to the conflict, to win the game.
In the MMO's you play, there is no point to the PvP, you are simply attacking people to attack them, in an endless cycle of pointless, purposeless violence for the sake of violence.
It's the exact same point "to win the game."
The game being the combat between two opponents.
However, an mmorpg is a bit different than a game of chess. The sole purpose of chess is to beat your opponent. You aren't getting loot, you aren't getting territory control or control of resources.
Which is, I bet, a part of the conflict in an mmorpg. However, if the game has battlegrounds or some such things then "yes" the purpose is to "win the game."
Kudos, a thought out response.
Lets use Chess. Two players sit down to a game of Chess, at some point, one of them will win, one of them will lose, or they will be so evenly matched, they will stalemate.
A stalemate is where neither player can win the game, at which point, they re-start the game and see if they can win this time.. but the goal here, is to Win.
Now in a lot of MMO's, you start the game with a Stalemate. You can't win the game and you can't lose either, at best you can just trade pieces on the board, which will get instantly replaced.
Imagine how boring a game like that would become for the players. imagine sitting at a chess board, stuck in an endless cycle of trading pieces. Sure, I took your pawn, you took my knight, then I took your castle and you took my pawn.. look at us fighting.. at first it might even be fun.. the thrill of the fight.. but that does not change the fact that is is nothing more than a game of conflict for the sake of conflict, since no one can win and no one can lose, it will go on forever, and ever, and ever... until at least one of the players get bored and leaves.
When that happens the remaining player will just cry they have no one to play with.
Without that Win Mechanic, the PvP is just people killing each other for the sake of killing each other. Conflict for the sake of Conflict.. purposeless pointless violence purely for the sake of violence in and of itself.
There is a point with full loot, though.
In the MMORPG I play, certain items could easily represent a hundred hours of play. Killing someone and taking their 200 MegaWatt Toroidal Hyper Plasma Reactor has real meaning.
Until someone kills you for it.. and then it still has.. real meaning?
That's the point, the PvP has no meaning, you're just attacking people for no other reason than to hurt them, inflicting pain purely to inflict pain, that is in the purest way, violence for the sake of it.
You don't think that sounds like a Sociopath, to attack someone purely just to hurt them, because it will cause them duress, maybe.. you get the greatest victory of all and drive them from the game?
You don't see a problem with that set up and design?
I disagree; inflicting pain is rarely the goal of others, and never the goal of mine.
It could be to assert dominance, to deny resources to an enemy group, or because the item was necessary.
You have piqued my interest.. The item was Necessary for what?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
This is my point, See in a game of Chess, there is a point to the conflict, to win the game.
In the MMO's you play, there is no point to the PvP, you are simply attacking people to attack them, in an endless cycle of pointless, purposeless violence for the sake of violence.
It's the exact same point "to win the game."
The game being the combat between two opponents.
However, an mmorpg is a bit different than a game of chess. The sole purpose of chess is to beat your opponent. You aren't getting loot, you aren't getting territory control or control of resources.
Which is, I bet, a part of the conflict in an mmorpg. However, if the game has battlegrounds or some such things then "yes" the purpose is to "win the game."
Kudos, a thought out response.
Lets use Chess. Two players sit down to a game of Chess, at some point, one of them will win, one of them will lose, or they will be so evenly matched, they will stalemate.
A stalemate is where neither player can win the game, at which point, they re-start the game and see if they can win this time.. but the goal here, is to Win.
Now in a lot of MMO's, you start the game with a Stalemate. You can't win the game and you can't lose either, at best you can just trade pieces on the board, which will get instantly replaced.
Imagine how boring a game like that would become for the players. imagine sitting at a chess board, stuck in an endless cycle of trading pieces. Sure, I took your pawn, you took my knight, then I took your castle and you took my pawn.. look at us fighting.. at first it might even be fun.. the thrill of the fight.. but that does not change the fact that is is nothing more than a game of conflict for the sake of conflict, since no one can win and no one can lose, it will go on forever, and ever, and ever... until at least one of the players get bored and leaves.
When that happens the remaining player will just cry they have no one to play with.
Without that Win Mechanic, the PvP is just people killing each other for the sake of killing each other. Conflict for the sake of Conflict.. purposeless pointless violence purely for the sake of violence in and of itself.
There is a point with full loot, though.
In the MMORPG I play, certain items could easily represent a hundred hours of play. Killing someone and taking their 200 MegaWatt Toroidal Hyper Plasma Reactor has real meaning.
Until someone kills you for it.. and then it still has.. real meaning?
That's the point, the PvP has no meaning, you're just attacking people for no other reason than to hurt them, inflicting pain purely to inflict pain, that is in the purest way, violence for the sake of it.
You don't think that sounds like a Sociopath, to attack someone purely just to hurt them, because it will cause them duress, maybe.. you get the greatest victory of all and drive them from the game?
You don't see a problem with that set up and design?
I disagree; inflicting pain is rarely the goal of others, and never the goal of mine.
It could be to assert dominance, to deny resources to an enemy group, or because the item was necessary.
You have piqued my interest.. The item was Necessary for what?
It could be sold to another player for profit, or used in the construction of a military or civil asset.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
This is my point, See in a game of Chess, there is a point to the conflict, to win the game.
In the MMO's you play, there is no point to the PvP, you are simply attacking people to attack them, in an endless cycle of pointless, purposeless violence for the sake of violence.
It's the exact same point "to win the game."
The game being the combat between two opponents.
However, an mmorpg is a bit different than a game of chess. The sole purpose of chess is to beat your opponent. You aren't getting loot, you aren't getting territory control or control of resources.
Which is, I bet, a part of the conflict in an mmorpg. However, if the game has battlegrounds or some such things then "yes" the purpose is to "win the game."
Kudos, a thought out response.
Lets use Chess. Two players sit down to a game of Chess, at some point, one of them will win, one of them will lose, or they will be so evenly matched, they will stalemate.
A stalemate is where neither player can win the game, at which point, they re-start the game and see if they can win this time.. but the goal here, is to Win.
Now in a lot of MMO's, you start the game with a Stalemate. You can't win the game and you can't lose either, at best you can just trade pieces on the board, which will get instantly replaced.
Imagine how boring a game like that would become for the players. imagine sitting at a chess board, stuck in an endless cycle of trading pieces. Sure, I took your pawn, you took my knight, then I took your castle and you took my pawn.. look at us fighting.. at first it might even be fun.. the thrill of the fight.. but that does not change the fact that is is nothing more than a game of conflict for the sake of conflict, since no one can win and no one can lose, it will go on forever, and ever, and ever... until at least one of the players get bored and leaves.
When that happens the remaining player will just cry they have no one to play with.
Without that Win Mechanic, the PvP is just people killing each other for the sake of killing each other. Conflict for the sake of Conflict.. purposeless pointless violence purely for the sake of violence in and of itself.
There aren't many pvp mmo's that don't have that win state. Whether it's Lineage/Lineage 2/Dark Age of Camleot, Elder Scrolls Online (etc) that allow a win for a castle/keep or a Battleground that allows for a "win" just like in Chess.
Even in those situations, None of that is a Win Mechanic, that is just a grind, you take a keep, you lose the keep, you kill another player, they kill you, it's no different than a generic PvE grind, but you are killing other players purely for the sake of it. They have not lost, you have not Won, you just endlessly fight each other.
In a game like say, GW2, they have WvW, at the end of the Week, a Team Wins, and it matters who wins and who loses.
Just like in sPvP in GW2, you have ranks and tiers, your wins matter, just as do your losses. Each match, there is a drive to win, a reason to fight, it is not violence for the sake of it.
In a game like say Linage 2, players can just kill each other, there is no meaning to that PvP, it is violence for the sake of violence, no other reason. Players killing each other simply because they can.
Even in DAoC, you could run around and randomly kill people from other fractions with no rhyme or reason, you are killing purely for the sake of killing, and even then you are not winning the fight, as chances are it was not a duel, it was a gank. They are just annoyed, not bested.
The only way that someone can legibility win in those kinds of games, is to drive the other player from the game in frustration.. allow that to process... the only way that anyone can legitimately win in those PvP games, to drive off the games population.
And that is why PvP MMO's fail.
So you are abanoning your Chess analogy?
'Cause, in chess, I win, you win, I win, you win, a stalemate, you win, I win.
See a grind.
Oh wait ... it's the actual game, the actual moves, the actual experience?
Then the same can be said about a castle siege (which, by the way, in some games actually give the capturing side benefits) or a pvp fight.
I'm sorry but your last paragraph almost wants me to write "show me where the bad pvp game touched you ..."
It's cynical and not really fitting except for people who buy into that type of defeatist thinking.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It's really very simple. If you can't lose anything then where's the risk? It's all about instilling risk in the endeavor. For me, it creates substance in my experience. It makes me feel a part of it.
I've played a LOT of PvP MMORPGs. My first PvP Multiplayer probably was Tribes or Quake or Quake 2. I played a lot of the ActionQuake mod in 1998. My first PvP in MMORPGs was Rallos Zek in Everquest in 1999.
You don't have to understand it. Just know that some of us want it in the MMO.
On the flip side, I persistently don't understand why other players DON'T like PvP, or actively discourage it. I can ATTEMPT to, but my attempts will usually be futile, since I can't share the same feelings. I understand enforced peace and harmony are good things, and relaxing, whilst war, backstabbing, treachery--and other things frequently seen in open PvP-enabled environments--are unfair and even hurtful, but I as yet cannot get myself to LIKE the former with the same passion. It's not the unfairness I like, or the hurt, but the capacity to do both good and evil, freely. I play on the Chaos server in Wurm Online and I can't tell you how many times I'd listen to people in teh chat from the PvE servers who gave me the impression we were two different species. When it's all said and done, I'll simply walk away from chat. Live and let live. We're different.
One time I was slaying Hill Giants on Sullon Zek (in Everquest). A player with the skeleton illusion visited. I saw the name and panicked. He's a top killer on the server! Moments later, he says in chat, something to the affect of "Don't worry. I'm I won't kill you." So I sat there with him and we chatted. It was like a dudebro moment or something. I'ts just not everyday you meet the highest rated killer and he's chill as you collect thousands of plat. The best part of the story is we never became friends. I never even knew him. He just up and decided he wasn't interested in killing that night. I really can't say how many moments like this happened on Sullon Zek. It wasn't all mindless killing. We made a lot of friends in the process, even as our friends would periodically be murdered alongside us and thousands of plat and some experience are lost. We found meaning in all this apparent unfairness, and longterm fellowship.
Even in those situations, None of that is a Win Mechanic, that is just a grind, you take a keep, you lose the keep, you kill another player, they kill you, it's no different than a generic PvE grind, but you are killing other players purely for the sake of it. They have not lost, you have not Won, you just endlessly fight each other.
In a game like say, GW2, they have WvW, at the end of the Week, a Team Wins, and it matters who wins and who loses.
Just like in sPvP in GW2, you have ranks and tiers, your wins matter, just as do your losses. Each match, there is a drive to win, a reason to fight, it is not violence for the sake of it.
In a game like say Linage 2, players can just kill each other, there is no meaning to that PvP, it is violence for the sake of violence, no other reason. Players killing each other simply because they can.
Even in DAoC, you could run around and randomly kill people from other fractions with no rhyme or reason, you are killing purely for the sake of killing, and even then you are not winning the fight, as chances are it was not a duel, it was a gank. They are just annoyed, not bested.
The only way that someone can legibility win in those kinds of games, is to drive the other player from the game in frustration.. allow that to process... the only way that anyone can legitimately win in those PvP games, to drive off the games population.
And that is why PvP MMO's fail.
So you are abanoning your Chess analogy?
'Cause, in chess, I win, you win, I win, you win, a stalemate, you win, I win.
See a grind.
DAFKQ?
What do think this is, playing some isolated solo game in your moms basement with a friend, where it is just the two of you?.. .. No. This is an MMO, so it's public, and even at the public park with the no life old dudes, you lost, it's time move along loser and let someone else sit down and play.
In fact, I could use any competitive sport out there, and like an MMO, it's public, not some private little instance with you and your buddies locked in a little circle, no.. you lose the game, you lost, go away, and accept your loss. Using Football, the loser goes to the loser track and faces other losers, the winner goes to the winner trace and faces other winners.. that is how it works.
Just like GW2, with their PvP Arena games, you moved up and down on the ranks with each win or loss, you didn't just get to sit there and keep going at it again and again.. you win and move up you face new players more in your rank, you lose and move down you face new players, you don't just get to go at it again and again and again.
That same system was used again in their WvW, where winning and losing moved you up and down in rank.
Know when that cycle shit happens of facing the same people over and over and over again and becomes a grind.. when the population bottomed out and the game is dead.. that is when that shit happens.
I'm sorry but your last paragraph almost wants me to write "show me where the bad pvp game touched you ..."
It's cynical and not really fitting except for people who buy into that type of defeatist thinking.
I never really got into PvP till GW2, with their WvW system. I mean I am not gonna lie, I always thought it was moronic to just run around and kill other players, I played me some DAoC when that launched, but ended up just dueling other players, I played Hibernia and we were always out numbered, by both Albion and Midguard, so trying to wage war was pointless, but I tried to have fun with it as it were. The duels were a lot of fun to be honest, the test of skill, the challenge, you don't see that in most PvP MMO's, it's all just bullying really.
Anyway,, got into the WvW on GW2 simply for map completion, because you know.. pointless PvP just seemed Pointless.. but then I saw this idea of winning, the idea that these battles mattered, changed the game for me, it suddenly was important to hold the keep, it mattered that we fought for 3 hours to prevent them from taking it, because we could place second, not 3rd, there was a sense of teamwork, a sense this had meaning, and at the end of week, we got our reward, we moved up (or down) as the case may be.. and we felt pride in our fight.. and waited for our NEW opponents, what would this week bring us.
Then GW2 had some kind of screw up with their system and we got stuck with the same teams for like 12+ weeks straight and it did not matter who won, or by how much, we were just stuck together, and that totally killed the game mode for me.. took all the purpose out of it. What was the reason to fight if winning or losing didn't matter.
I have moved on to MOBA's, BR's, and Arena Games, I like MOBA's and Arena games better because there is that gives a greater sense of winning and losing to them, BR's just feel like a grind to be honest.
So no.. a PvP game never Hurt me, I fact the opposite really.. I have learned to love PvP with a Purpose, and realized when I was stuck in what felt like an endless match up, without that win mechanic.. the once dynamic and fun PVP became pointless violence for the sake of violence.
The game itself didn't change on me, the keeps and towers, classes, and point system was all the same, but I realize that I was fighting and killing people, just to fight and kill them, their was no reason for this, the points didn't matter, the kills didn't matter, winning and losing didn't matter, because we still be stuck together next week.
The system was so broken, that we could never win or lose our way out of it, but we at least had the illusion that there was a system where we could win and lose, I cannot fathom how anyone can PvP without even that in place.
I have since moved on to Arena games (Battle Royals are kind fun, but quickly feel like a grind, as again, winning and losing has no meaning). I am looking into Anthem and their PvP system to see what they have set up, and also Crowfall and Camelot Unchained.
It's not PvP that is the issue.. it's systems where the PvP is nothing more than Violence for the Sake of Violence that is the issue.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
In a way Battle Royale and MOBAs do give the players a sense of purpose when they kill other players. There seems to be a reason to kill them and since there is no lasting impact beyond the game in the sense no one is sitting at your corpse waiting for you to come back so they can kill you again it is in my opinion a better way to PvP. It is more enjoyable and fair and I think this the perfect medium for PvP.
I feel open world should be more about working together and faction PvP is something that works too like in DAoC. I definitely prefer working together against a common enemy instead of killing another player just because you can. Realm versus Realm is definitely more meaningful than random acts of killing another player for the sake of it.
It's really very simple. If you can't lose anything then where's the risk? It's all about instilling risk in the endeavor. For me, it creates substance in my experience. It makes me feel a part of it.
@Hawkaya: I get it that you enjoy the risk. I personally don't care about the risk. Or at least, a very specific risk would be more interesting for me. I loved the Lineage 2 sieges. I started playing the game just for those sieges. The risk of losing the castle was important so I get your idea of risk.
But that's pretty much where it ends for me. I don't care about anything more or less such as losing/looting gear or some such thing. That always felt hollow for me. But maybe that feels hollow for me like open world pvp feels hollow for Ungood ...
which leads me to Ungood ...
@Ungood: My statement about chess still stands. I win, you win I win you win. It's the game that is the important thing. What happens before the win or the lose or the draw.
I sense you just don't appreciate that part. Probably like I don't appreciate winning or losing in a full loot game.
For me, some of the best pvp matches I've ever had were either "in the world" of Lineage 2 or (believe it or not) in the world of Tera (loved Tera pvp).
The next runner up would be Warhammer Battlegrounds (or whatever they were called). Never had so much fun other than the above.
So what does that mean? One game where it's just running around killing people with the possibility of a siege and castle ownership (which was a big deal because you actually kept it for two weeks with all the benefits) one game where it was running around killing each other and one game where it was very specific matches where you were matched on a ladder.
It seems to me that you appreciate the ladder type of pvp because you get a ranking. But the actual battles aren't really that interesting to you. The idea of kicking out an enemy clan from a leveling area isn't interesting.
I should add that even though I love sieges (I'd pay $50 a month for just full Lineage 2 sieges) flipping keeps, like in Elder Scrolls Online or Warhammer, were never of interest though fun for a bit. So I suppose that is the risk that Hawkaya mentions.
I suppose that is what you would call grind. I don't consider it grind.
Which gets back to the original post, the reason people make full loot pvp games is that they enjoy a particular type of pvp. They don't find it a grind. They enjoy the risk. It doesn't leave them hollow. They don't require or maybe even want a ladder.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It's pretty clear the goal of many of the indie games is to have player politics and area control. I would give a go in some of these games but they are technical/mechanical mess.
They also make design choices I dislike for games like this. I don't want power gaps or grind EXP, gold or resources. I also want a large world so the size can keep constant conflict at bay and space to build.
Sovrath said: @Ungood: My statement about chess still stands. I win, you win I win you win. It's the game that is the important thing. What happens before the win or the lose or the draw.
Then you are being deliberately obtuse.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I'm going to say this again. Without a Win Mechanic, PvP is purely violence for the sake of Violence. Nothing more, it is that petty, shallow, and depending on how it rolls out, that level of sociopath. Just killing each other for the sake of killing each other.
I get that some people don't like that realization, but that is what it is.
On top of that, All PvP is to hurt your opponent in some way, anyone that even entertains otherwise is deluding themselves, you are attacking them, you not giving them fucking cupcakes.
In fact, look at everyone that has tried to mention meaningful PvP, notice, the way that put value on the PvP, is based entirely on how badly they can hurt the other player, often taking pride in how many hours of their play time they can take from them. So the PvP in all these games boils down to players taking pride in being a murderous thieves towards other players.
I get that none of you thought of it that way.. but can any of you give me a legit other way to look at it ?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
The real question should be: "Why do ONLY indie developers make them ?"... I let you guess the answer
Large corps go after the money making formula, indies build what they want to play.
This thread was answered a long time ago. The real question should be “why complain when small companies try to shake things up and do things differently?”
The real question should be: "Why do ONLY indie developers make them ?"... I let you guess the answer
Large corps go after the money making formula, indies build what they want to play.
This thread was answered a long time ago. The real question should be “why complain when small companies try to shake things up and do things differently?”
Nobody complains, but I personally don't like good ideas wasted and failing because of elements like full loot PvP.
That’s complaining. This thread is complaining. They are the devs, they are the ones taking the time and risk to create their dream they are not working for you. It’s not like there isn’t a multitude of non full loot games to choose from.
Sovrath said: @Ungood: My statement about chess still stands. I win, you win I win you win. It's the game that is the important thing. What happens before the win or the lose or the draw.
Then you are being deliberately obtuse.
No that's not really my style.
If we play chess and I win and then we play again and you win and we keep on doing that, then that is no different than me meeting you in an mmorpg, having a fight and I'm winning and then we meeting and having a fight and you win, etc, etc.
What we need to do in order to win is different. But the actual engagement, knowing our class, knowing the other class and what it can and can't do, is the excitement. Just like knowing how to open a game all the way to checkmate (or forcing a stalemate) is the excitement of chess.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I'm going to say this again. Without a Win Mechanic, PvP is purely violence for the sake of Violence. Nothing more, it is that petty, shallow, and depending on how it rolls out, that level of sociopath. Just killing each other for the sake of killing each other.
I get that some people don't like that realization, but that is what it is.
On top of that, All PvP is to hurt your opponent in some way, anyone that even entertains otherwise is deluding themselves, you are attacking them, you not giving them fucking cupcakes.
In fact, look at everyone that has tried to mention meaningful PvP, notice, the way that put value on the PvP, is based entirely on how badly they can hurt the other player, often taking pride in how many hours of their play time they can take from them. So the PvP in all these games boils down to players taking pride in being a murderous thieves towards other players.
I get that none of you thought of it that way.. but can any of you give me a legit other way to look at it ?
This is a faulty premise, a false dichotomy.
You are failing to see there are different degrees of winning; I would consider the example I gave upthread a major win, just like claiming victory in a ranked duel is a very minor win.
It's the same way that winning a game of Chess doesn't mean that you have won Chess for all time. Seeing things in such black and white terms is silly, here.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
The real question should be: "Why do ONLY indie developers make them ?"... I let you guess the answer
Large corps go after the money making formula, indies build what they want to play.
This thread was answered a long time ago. The real question should be “why complain when small companies try to shake things up and do things differently?”
Nobody complains, but I personally don't like good ideas wasted and failing because of elements like full loot PvP.
That’s complaining. This thread is complaining. They are the devs, they are the ones taking the time and risk to create their dream they are not working for you. It’s not like there isn’t a multitude of non full loot games to choose from.
I see. You're the kind of guy for whom everything not going your way is complaining.
You must have a very sad life surrounded by complainers.
There's still no explanation of why all those MMOs miserably fail, though.
They are bad game mechanical, technically and many time make poor choices with gameplay. Do you really think Mortal Online would be successful if it was PvE?
Comments
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I played UO for it's first 12 years or so. And in all that time, what I saw from PKers were tactics to insure "victory."
Anything from killing newbs to all sorts of bushwhacks.
I do commend them for their strategies, they played smart. Ghost scouts, gating in companions, playing the numbers odds, etc.
But the fact is that it drove many away from the game, and such game design keeps most PvP focused games from doing well for very long.
It's a game killer in MMOs.
Once upon a time....
In a game like say, GW2, they have WvW, at the end of the Week, a Team Wins, and it matters who wins and who loses.
Just like in sPvP in GW2, you have ranks and tiers, your wins matter, just as do your losses. Each match, there is a drive to win, a reason to fight, it is not violence for the sake of it.
In a game like say Linage 2, players can just kill each other, there is no meaning to that PvP, it is violence for the sake of violence, no other reason. Players killing each other simply because they can.
Even in DAoC, you could run around and randomly kill people from other fractions with no rhyme or reason, you are killing purely for the sake of killing, and even then you are not winning the fight, as chances are it was not a duel, it was a gank. They are just annoyed, not bested.
The only way that someone can legibility win in those kinds of games, is to drive the other player from the game in frustration.. allow that to process... the only way that anyone can legitimately win in those PvP games, to drive off the games population.
And that is why PvP MMO's fail.
In the MMORPG I play, certain items could easily represent a hundred hours of play. Killing someone and taking their 200 MegaWatt Toroidal Hyper Plasma Reactor has real meaning.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
That's the point, the PvP has no meaning, you're just attacking people for no other reason than to hurt them, inflicting pain purely to inflict pain, that is in the purest way, violence for the sake of it.
You don't think that sounds like a Sociopath, to attack someone purely just to hurt them, because it will cause them duress, maybe.. you get the greatest victory of all and drive them from the game?
You don't see a problem with that set up and design?
It could be to assert dominance, to deny resources to an enemy group, or because the item was necessary.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
What do think this is, playing some isolated solo game in your moms basement with a friend, where it is just the two of you?.. .. No. This is an MMO, so it's public, and even at the public park with the no life old dudes, you lost, it's time move along loser and let someone else sit down and play.
In fact, I could use any competitive sport out there, and like an MMO, it's public, not some private little instance with you and your buddies locked in a little circle, no.. you lose the game, you lost, go away, and accept your loss. Using Football, the loser goes to the loser track and faces other losers, the winner goes to the winner trace and faces other winners.. that is how it works.
Just like GW2, with their PvP Arena games, you moved up and down on the ranks with each win or loss, you didn't just get to sit there and keep going at it again and again.. you win and move up you face new players more in your rank, you lose and move down you face new players, you don't just get to go at it again and again and again.
That same system was used again in their WvW, where winning and losing moved you up and down in rank.
Know when that cycle shit happens of facing the same people over and over and over again and becomes a grind.. when the population bottomed out and the game is dead.. that is when that shit happens.
We understand each other?
I never really got into PvP till GW2, with their WvW system. I mean I am not gonna lie, I always thought it was moronic to just run around and kill other players, I played me some DAoC when that launched, but ended up just dueling other players, I played Hibernia and we were always out numbered, by both Albion and Midguard, so trying to wage war was pointless, but I tried to have fun with it as it were. The duels were a lot of fun to be honest, the test of skill, the challenge, you don't see that in most PvP MMO's, it's all just bullying really.
Anyway,, got into the WvW on GW2 simply for map completion, because you know.. pointless PvP just seemed Pointless.. but then I saw this idea of winning, the idea that these battles mattered, changed the game for me, it suddenly was important to hold the keep, it mattered that we fought for 3 hours to prevent them from taking it, because we could place second, not 3rd, there was a sense of teamwork, a sense this had meaning, and at the end of week, we got our reward, we moved up (or down) as the case may be.. and we felt pride in our fight.. and waited for our NEW opponents, what would this week bring us.
Then GW2 had some kind of screw up with their system and we got stuck with the same teams for like 12+ weeks straight and it did not matter who won, or by how much, we were just stuck together, and that totally killed the game mode for me.. took all the purpose out of it. What was the reason to fight if winning or losing didn't matter.
I have moved on to MOBA's, BR's, and Arena Games, I like MOBA's and Arena games better because there is that gives a greater sense of winning and losing to them, BR's just feel like a grind to be honest.
So no.. a PvP game never Hurt me, I fact the opposite really.. I have learned to love PvP with a Purpose, and realized when I was stuck in what felt like an endless match up, without that win mechanic.. the once dynamic and fun PVP became pointless violence for the sake of violence.
The game itself didn't change on me, the keeps and towers, classes, and point system was all the same, but I realize that I was fighting and killing people, just to fight and kill them, their was no reason for this, the points didn't matter, the kills didn't matter, winning and losing didn't matter, because we still be stuck together next week.
The system was so broken, that we could never win or lose our way out of it, but we at least had the illusion that there was a system where we could win and lose, I cannot fathom how anyone can PvP without even that in place.
I have since moved on to Arena games (Battle Royals are kind fun, but quickly feel like a grind, as again, winning and losing has no meaning). I am looking into Anthem and their PvP system to see what they have set up, and also Crowfall and Camelot Unchained.
It's not PvP that is the issue.. it's systems where the PvP is nothing more than Violence for the Sake of Violence that is the issue.
I feel open world should be more about working together and faction PvP is something that works too like in DAoC. I definitely prefer working together against a common enemy instead of killing another player just because you can. Realm versus Realm is definitely more meaningful than random acts of killing another player for the sake of it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
It's pretty clear the goal of many of the indie games is to have player politics and area control. I would give a go in some of these games but they are technical/mechanical mess.
They also make design choices I dislike for games like this. I don't want power gaps or grind EXP, gold or resources. I also want a large world so the size can keep constant conflict at bay and space to build.
I get that some people don't like that realization, but that is what it is.
On top of that, All PvP is to hurt your opponent in some way, anyone that even entertains otherwise is deluding themselves, you are attacking them, you not giving them fucking cupcakes.
In fact, look at everyone that has tried to mention meaningful PvP, notice, the way that put value on the PvP, is based entirely on how badly they can hurt the other player, often taking pride in how many hours of their play time they can take from them. So the PvP in all these games boils down to players taking pride in being a murderous thieves towards other players.
I get that none of you thought of it that way.. but can any of you give me a legit other way to look at it ?
This thread was answered a long time ago. The real question should be “why complain when small companies try to shake things up and do things differently?”
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
You are failing to see there are different degrees of winning; I would consider the example I gave upthread a major win, just like claiming victory in a ranked duel is a very minor win.
It's the same way that winning a game of Chess doesn't mean that you have won Chess for all time. Seeing things in such black and white terms is silly, here.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance