I Have a Dream
Sandbox gamer

I don't think MMO players are content with meaningless pvp.  Its that we just don't have a choice.   Point me to a good mmorpg with meaningful pvp that is halfway decent to play.

EVE Online, Starport, AC1, Classic UO Server, also maybe Wurm Online

Maybe many others havent played everything.... Shadowbane is probably kinda good by now no time to evaluate yet

Most PvP'ers I've argued with, scoffed at me when I said that there had to be mechanics in place that made the fight not a "respawn zerg".

Arguments I was told:

"If I die and can't come back as many times as I like, how is that fun?"

"But I like to fight for all night"

"It's fun to camp the rez spots"

Only reason those guys won any "battle" in non area PvP was because the other side had the most players that couldnt sit up all night playing... How is that a fun way to win a war?

Would you like it if there were a bunch of jerks that just spawn killed you and you lost all progress that you did within the last 2 hours?

Drag- "Would you like it if there were a bunch of jerks that just spawn killed you and you lost all progress that you did within the last 2 hours?"

First, Spawn killing shouldnt be allowed. In EVE Online, its impossible. You spawn invisible and intangible.

Next if you cant afford to lose something then dont wear it. Leave it in the bank. This is why rare items are balanced in open pvp games. People are too afraid of wearing something way too powerful and rare. Keeps PVP way more balanced.

Sure, maybe you'll see big gangs of players running around but still..... There is always a chance an even bigger gang jumps you and takes your valuables. Thus its a lot more self-balancing then no-loot games where you see people wearing their best equipment everywhere they go owning newbs with characters purchased via RMT. They are owning you because Gear > Skill

Also I wonder if this is a knee jerk post did you read my comments at the bottom about Age of Conan / WAR?

 PvP is simple for me. I love the challenge of facing players over mindless mobs.

 Increased travel time -

  I do not want this. The entire point of PvPing is to kill other players. I do not want to spend 10 mins to get to the fight, possibly die in 7 seconds, then spend another 10 mins to get to the fight.

 Advancement through pvp -

  If a game has PvP, it should have advancement through PvP. Far to long have games forced us to advance only through PvE.

  Player Looting-

  I have no problems with player looting as long as items do not mean much. For example, if you could be looted in WoW, and to get 1 item in WoW you raided for 10 hours, fuck player looting. Do not force me to PvE so I can PvP.

  Player Controlled Territories -

 I love the idea of taking over cities, etc. The more goals we have the better.

 Item Decay -

  Just another gay ass way to force us to PvE to pay for our gear so we can PvP. That is, unless we can gain enough money through PvP to support PvP. The problem with this is it caters to the good PvPers and forces the average player to PvE to support their PvP habbit, which I do not like. I want everyone to be able to PvP if they choose with out having to PvE.

 Im fine with having victory conditions. Im fine with a respawn timer. I am not fine with wasting hours of my time by forcing me to run extreme distances or grind endlessly on mobs just to finally get to PvP for 1/10 of my game time. If you punish players for PvPing they simply wont do it. If you punish the losers, the noobs will never learn to PvP because they will be to damn afraid to die and lose xp, cash, or loot.

"next if you cant afford to lose something then dont wear it."

  I hate this concept. Do you think Conan ever thought "i might die here, maybe I shouldnt bring my best sword", fuck no he didnt. The problem with most mmo's is that equipment matters to damn much.

  A good sword is a good sword. The wielder of the sword makes the sword deadly.

Hardcore PvP games where there is player looting and similar things have one problem. You have to dedicate even more time to the games. You can't do anything alone, you'll get ganked, so 90% of the time you're just waiting around to be able to do something.

These games make for very unfair battles, since people will only attack when they outnumber you and there are no balanced fights at all. To me that sucks, win by numbers is not skill...

Not saying I have a better alternative. Anyway, I tend to prefer PvE, don't mind battlegrounds and couldn't care less for world PvP. I like to be able to play without having to be paranoid all the time.

Anyway, different people different objectives...

EVE's is the best. You die you loose your ship and everything it was equipped with. You can loot your enemy's wreck. PVP matters. You can build/destroy stations and take sovergnty of a solar system/region. Owning space matters.

PVP'rs don't like pointless PVP it is just game designers for the most part listen too much to their corporate round table garbage and are full of fail.

 It's why I leave City of Heroes. Fun game. Would keep me if PVP had any real point other then their few simple zones that get old quick.

What is your response to the server lag death issue when it comes to harsh penalties in pvp? What would you tell players that pay for your game that die because of a non game issue>

TonyD writes a good response, agreeing with certain things.

"Increased travel time -

  I do not want this. The entire point of PvPing is to kill other players. I do not want to spend 10 mins to get to the fight, possibly die in 7 seconds, then spend another 10 mins to get to the fight."

In EVE Online you only make a long journey ONCE to your own side of space. At your POS (player owned station), you can bind your consciousness. If you grinded PVE in Empire at a certain point you can bind your consciousness as well. So veterans will 'jump' their consciousness between player owned space and Empire space

Next, EVE Online has Autopilot. So you can set your destination and go watch TV or do some work at at a job. Then you ALT-TAB to EVE and see if you made it. IF you are flying a throw away ship into dangerous space (or a pod) and you get waxed well you simply do it again

EVE Online is unique for having a seamless PVE-PVP that works together. I'm not against getting all you need from PVP however but what they have works well.

Long travel times also gives us many other net benefits like rich localized economies. But you wont realize the benefits unless you experience it

TonyD wrote ----

"Item Decay -

  Just another gay ass way to force us to PvE to pay for our gear so we can PvP."

Hm, but you are playing an MMORPG. Besides, Item Decay also helps PVE by forcing more dependencies between the players and crafters. If you never lose anything, then why do you need Crafters? In real life the economy surges when there is a War due to high turnover of goods. I'm no economics expert but I remember this much from Economics classes and historical text. In the World War, the economy surged when the common man got jobs to help craft suits and gear for the soliders.

"If you punish players for PvPing they simply wont do it. If you punish the losers, the noobs will never learn to PvP because they will be to damn afraid to die and lose xp, cash, or loot."

I think you're imagining the worst. EVE Online is not as cruel to newbies as you imagine. Losers do learn the game the exact same way they learn through failure in other genres. Additionally, everyone knows in EVE Online newbies get along just fine in Higfh Security space. Sure, there is an incident here and there where a Trader flying around a fortune in cargo got hijacked but for the most part its nothing like you envisioned

spirer writes-

"

Hardcore PvP games where there is player looting and similar things have one problem. You have to dedicate even more time to the games. You can't do anything alone, you'll get ganked, so 90% of the time you're just waiting around to be able to do something.

These games make for very unfair battles, since people will only attack when they outnumber you and there are no balanced fights at all. To me that sucks, win by numbers is not skill..."

Not the way it works in EVE Online. Sure sometimes superior numbers come through the gate in our player owned space but players can Gate Camp. So at all times we have players posted at the gate to cover our Bottleneck

Imagine that movie 300 whereas you force all the attackers through a narrow pass. This allows a small force to secure, especially if you let them set traps like we can in EVE. This allows a small force to take victory

I kid to you not I flew around in 0.0 in a defenseless Savager / Mining ship most of the time at the begining. I was very safe as long as  I remained alert.

Sure superior numbers will always help but if the Developer allows for superior tactics you can take victory.

Spirer wrote---

"Anyway, I tend to prefer PvE, don't mind battlegrounds and couldn't care less for world PvP. I like to be able to play without having to be paranoid all the time."

The bad thing about Battlegrounds its impossible to win a long term War against a fighting Guild. Battlegrounds have no impact whatsoever. In games that have rich PVP the battles become truly Epic. It is always clear who the top Guilds are. No artifical ladders are needed

I see so many blogs proposing clever rankng systems and so forth which is funny because it's not really necessary. It can help like we see in Starport but players really do fear those that have power

People like pointless PvP for two reasons.

1. When there is a penalty (XP Loss, Item loss) it increases greifers 10 fold.  Hell, just look at eve.  People kill you just trying to ruin your day.  For a lot of people this isn't fun.

2. Having a penalty for PvP many times makes PvP feel like a JOB.  It's to much like real life and most MMO player play as a escape from real life.  This is why to much realism in games is a bad idea.

Oh Vajuras, I do enjoy your blog posts! My full length comment to come, going to take a min to write and I'm hungry/ thirsty!

First off - I'm all for PvP with consequence. World PvP is my absolute favorite, not instanced FPS style matches. I'm all about territorial control, shifting battlefronts, etc.

Even though it is instanced and forced-even teams (to some extent) I love Alterac Valley in WoW. With the most recent changes, you actually have to play defense and use strategy instead of the two-way Zerg we had before. I've had some very good games recently where a few good players and some good strategy made all the difference and picked up a very close and exciting victory.

If I could do this kind of things with all of my MMO time, in varied environments, w/ varrying details,  I'd be all for it.

The thing that I hate about Alterac Valley is that now (at least in my battlegroup) it takes anywhere from an hour to two hours to get into an Alterac Valley match.

This is one of my biggest problems with open-world consequence filled PvP like you describe. Sure, it's an absolute blast when it happens, all your preparation and waiting pay off in a glorious battle, and you really feel the sting of defeat or the sweet taste of victory...

But the waiting sucks.

I'd rather have my battles decided more on the basis of my skill on the battlefield, not my preparation, not the economies of my faction/guild, not due to superior numbers (because all games have imbalance) ...

I want to always have a chance to be victorious. Why? Because if you always have a chance to win, you always have a chance to lose. That is what creates excitment. Sure, it can be exciting to risk all your gear/guild etc. for the possible reward of taking something from your enemy, but I do agree games are much too item centric these days.

Even in EVE, the great Sandbox, you have insurance and clones etc. It's not true full loot like old UO was.

So what do they do? Make PvP faster to get into, make it generally fair and balanced so all sides have a chance at victory, make it a lot less "risky" and more fun and rewarding.

I've gotten the rush, the absolute thrill of nearly dying but somehow pulling off an amazing win... and instead of losing all my gear and money I instead get to take from my defeated opponents. I've been there, done that.

I've also gotten the thrill of pulling a hard-fought victory out of an even fight. Sure, I didn't win anything or lose anything other then a few points of this and a few marks of that, but it felt great and got my heart pumping fast to achieve that nail-biting victory.

To me, both have had the exact same "Woohoo I won!" factor. No difference at all. But the first example, the defeats taste a LOT worse. A LOT worse. So if I can get the same rewarding feeling of victory from both situations, why would I choose the one that will frustrate/infuriate me more when I lose?

No thanks. It was fun in those earlier games because it's all we knew. But now, it just seems so archaic. So old. I've been there done that and I'm glad I don't have to do it anymore.

I was talking with a guildy about EQ the other day in WoW. He said, and I thought it was great.

"Some people thought the naked corpse runs and decay and all that in EQ made it more 'challenging.' That's a load of bull. There is nothing more challenging about it, the games now are still just as hard, you still die just as often, but they removed the tedium and pain from simple actions in the game. It's a huge step forward."

Then someone else said-

"I once spent a whole day trying to get my corpse back. A whole day. I had to, if I didn't I'd lose everything I owned. It was the worst MMO day of my life. I'm so glad I don't have to pay to waste my time anymore, thank God you don't have to do that anymore. What a waste."

1 server with harsh PvP with DP is definitely a bonus to any game.

1 server with no PvP and all rewards given in groups in PvE would also be an incredible bonus to any game.

The more different servers you have, the better the endresult will be.  Nobody remotedly intelligent cares about what happen on other servers(unless they want to play there, in which case, they can just restart a character and play where they belong).

If 90% of the players pick 1 server, then you have your answer.  You know which variety of servers to focus on in the future, to match the players tastes.  The players are the customers, you have to please them or they will go.  A FFA PvP server pleases me, even if I would never play there no matter what, it OFFERS me an option, and it make me play with more peoples thinking as I do.

I agree 100% Anofalye about server rule sets and giving the player choice, but you have to understand that the devs won't create a server with ruleset A or ruleset B if they don't think enough players will play on it to justify the cost of maintaining/updating/supporting that server.

In a game like WoW with 10+ million people, you could probably have 1 server of whatever type doesn't matter and find enough people to keep it populated.

But in a game with 100k or 200k players, creating that "niche" server rule set might not be the best idea.

Know what I mean?

Heerobya has it right  when he says " Make PvP faster to get into, make it generally fair and balanced so all sides have a chance at victory, make it a lot less risky and more fun and rewarding "

 I want a PvP game. I do not want a PvE game. When Vajuras says " Hmm, but you are playing an MMORPG". I believe this is false logic. Just because one game has item decay, it doesnt mean they all do. Just because one game has crafters, it doesnt mean they all have to. Look at guildwars. I spend hours in RA testing builds and enjoying myself. Gear is easily created, so it matters very little.

 Personally, I am fine with dropping some cash upon death. I love the idea of conquerable cities. I love the idea of goals. I love the idea of advancement through PvP. I want to walk up and see a war raging over a town, then jump into it. I dont want to see a war raging over a town, then say, well I cant help because if I die I lose all my gear then I have to PvE again for hours.

 I want to see wide level ranges all helping each other in PvP. 30 guys attacking a town all ranging from levels 20-max. Why cant this happen? Why must 1 max level be able to kill 300 level 20s easily?

Amen t0nyd, Amen.

People like pointless PVP because then they never have to feel bad about the outcome of a fight.  Even if they gank, so what, the other side lost little, so who cares?  And if they lose, again, no big deal, jump right back in and fight again.

Its not the way I prefer to PVP, but then I don't make games.

•  

• tonyD wrote:

   "I want a PvP game. I do not want a PvE game. When Vajuras says " Hmm, but you are playing an MMORPG". I believe this is false logic. Just because one game has item decay, it doesnt mean they all do. Just because one game has crafters, it doesnt mean they all have to. Look at guildwars. I spend hours in RA testing builds and enjoying myself. Gear is easily created, so it matters very little."

  I didnt design an entire game here in this blog. My comments are not widespread to all games. This blog is about why do players love pointless PVP in mmorpgs.

  Advancement through all PVP is a totally different topic. What does item decay and PVE have to do with one another? If player looting is in play what in god's green earth is stopping you from taking it from another player? who is forcing you to PVE?

   

   

heeroboya- "I agree 100% Anofalye about server rule sets and giving the player choice, but you have to understand that the devs won't create a server with ruleset A or ruleset B if they don't think enough players will play on it to justify the cost of maintaining/updating/supporting that server.

In a game like WoW with 10+ million people, you could probably have 1 server of whatever type doesn't matter and find enough people to keep it populated.

But in a game with 100k or 200k players, creating that "niche" server rule set might not be the best idea.

Know what I mean?"

Well we are kind of talking about age of Conan here a game where over 60% of your pvp audience is voting for a harsh DP

Accutly in WoW you have people who gank, and will gank you till you take the rez hit or get into a PvP free area. Or where there are guards.

Well if gear isn't going to matter that much, then why should i raid? If I'm just going to lose it to some other player. Why should I care about some big scary thing that i have to kill. If I'm going to lose the rewards.

Granted me personally I would take pride in killing just a thing but alot of others want a item reward for it. Some uberness weapon to go with it.

And yes i was one of those people who took pride in taking down Ony =)

TonyD wrote - "I want a PvP game. I do not want a PvE game. When Vajuras says " Hmm, but you are playing an MMORPG". I believe this is false logic."

Yeah but you dont understand. In a game with player looting you can take items from other players. How is that PVE?

Also it is not my logic its my preference I like to play through all the game content both PVE/PVP. If I just wanted to play PVP I'd stick to purely FPS. Not saying an all PVP MMO cant work I'd play it. But I am saying I like both pve/pvp. How else will I learn the lore of the game?

Nightdragon8, I am not sure about Raiding. There are many other methods we can arrive at Victory Conditions. For instance I briefly mentioned Keeps / Guild owned lands. The victory condition is going to be tricky you need a way to declare when the fight is over whether this means ending the siege once a certain object is destroyed or when all the siege equipment has been destroyed

Victory conditions is what I'm mainly driving at. Once I see mmorpgs try to get this happening bettwer for world PVP then I am sure pvp rewards of some sort will probably rain down fromt he heavens for players

"First off - I'm all for PvP with consequence. World PvP is my absolute favorite, not instanced FPS style matches. I'm all about territorial control, shifting battlefronts, etc."

you always say that heeroboya but you comments in the bottom of your post betray you

"This is one of my biggest problems with open-world consequence filled PvP like you describe. Sure, it's an absolute blast when it happens, all your preparation and waiting pay off in a glorious battle, and you really feel the sting of defeat or the sweet taste of victory...

But the waiting sucks."

That's a developer/design decision. It has nothing to do with harsh DP.

"I'd rather have my battles decided more on the basis of my skill on the battlefield, not my preparation, not the economies of my faction/guild, not due to superior numbers (because all games have imbalance) ..."

Developer decisions, not related to harsh DP.... there is nothing stopping developers from doing scenario based play but mix in consequences.

"
I want to always have a chance to be victorious. Why? Because if you always have a chance to win, you always have a chance to lose. That is what creates excitment. Sure, it can be exciting to risk all your gear/guild etc. for the possible reward of taking something from your enemy, but I do agree games are much too item centric these days."

You guys are getting too knee deep in the player looting thing. I mentioned many other ideas. They are not all-inclusive. I wanted to get people thinking about other creative ways to arrive at victory Conditions in World PVP...... Death penalty is a sure way. There are others though. PVP rewards and such can be addressed later

"Even in EVE, the great Sandbox, you have ins