Trending Games | ArcheAge | Rift | Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn | Guild Wars 2

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,775,282 Users Online:0
Games:722  Posts:6,190,031

Show Blog

Why do MMORPG players love Pointless PVP?

Posted by vajuras Sunday March 2 2008 at 10:25PM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

Other day I tossed out an idea for Age of Conan FFA PVP Server. I was trying to point out that a server without death penalties kinda blow. But the way my story was phrased my point wasn't too clear

Anyway in this blog I want to briefly focus on why I think PVP servers without Death penalties kind of suck.

One player phrased this issue very well:

"Death penalty matters not. Its all about fun. If PvP is fun, people will play."

I would anwser this as a yes-no. In mmorpg space, people usually don't engage in PVP unless they get a reward. In City of Heroes, the PVP zones were always kind of deserted (no rewards). In World of Warcraft, PVP became a LOT more popular when Honor system was introduced. World PVP surged to new heights. All of a sudden, players came from everywhere. But then Battlegrounds came and then World PVP took a nose dive.......

See, a lot of people think PVP is pointless. Why? Well because they lack Victory Conditions. In FPS, table top, cards, chess, checkers, RTS, sports, or ANY other genre we have Victory Conditions. Wars end. In mmorpg space when there is no DP (death penalty), wars go on forever and ever. Players fight like immortal gods. There is no conclusion. No victory. World of Warcraft added Battlegrounds as the anwser which is a portal into an FPS of sorts. That works in a way but now World PVP is dead.....

But what about World PVP? Well there is a reason Blizzard is pulling players into Battlegrounds. It's much easier to enforce victory conditions there when you have NO DEATH PENALTY

In games with a Death penalty like eVE Online wars see a logical conclusion. When pirates assault our base and when we kill them they dont rez. They say, "gg bro". The reason why is because they are looking at up to an hour trip back to our terriority plus they have lost valuable resources. Victory Condition. The winners own the top of the hill and the losers are all dead.

Imagine a long conflict between two Guilds. One Guild keeps killing the other over and over and taking their resources. What do you think will happen? The losing Guild will be forced into surrending. Sometimes they will try to make peace, merge, or pay a tribute to YOUR guild. Victory Condition.

In Starport players earn XP for killing others, doing quests/missions, and a tiny bit for killing NPCs. But what nets you big XP is taking over enemy planets, stealing assets from other players, and of course scoring a big kill. Victory Condition. That is good PVP.  At the end of the era, the server even announces a WINNER. Needless to say Starport has a harsh DP on all the servers. Any player owned assets can be stolen or destroyed at anytime whether you'rte online or not. Makes no difference. Your ship can be destroyed at anytime / anywhere and all cargo is forfeit. Item decay is in play as well.

Anything else is -POINTLESS-. Player looting can get us there. Long travel times can get us there. Item decay alone can help get us there. Hell, exiling the freakin' victim from an area that is being sieged can get us there. Hell even in Guild Wars players cant be rezzed unless a player helps you. No self rezzing. I understand why mmorpgs cant do this but come on its not hard tossing out examples here

In every other genre we have Victory Conditions. For some reason MMORPG is the ONLY genre where players think its okay to fight all night long pointlessly. Screw that. I'm too old for that crap. I want to get my fight on, get my rewards, and go to bed.

Looking forward I am glad the Age of Conan developers agree with me. Border Kingdoms will feature Keep battles and fighting over player controlled terriority. So at least Border Kingdoms PVP looks promising on paper! Warhammer Online will have Victory Conditions all over the place for sieging captial cities and so forth. This too, looks like a good move on paper!

zergwatch writes:

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.

Sun Mar 02 2008 11:20PM Report
vajuras writes:

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

Sun Mar 02 2008 11:24PM Report
wolfmann writes:

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?

Sun Mar 02 2008 11:28PM Report
Dragkill writes:

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?

Mon Mar 03 2008 12:32AM Report
vajuras writes:

  • 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?

  • Mon Mar 03 2008 12:49AM Report
    t0nyd writes:

     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.

     

     

     

    Mon Mar 03 2008 3:04AM Report
    t0nyd writes:

    "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.

    Mon Mar 03 2008 3:08AM Report
    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 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...

    Mon Mar 03 2008 4:37AM Report
    Shohadaku writes:

    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.

     

    Mon Mar 03 2008 5:45AM Report
    fansede writes:

    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>

    Mon Mar 03 2008 8:38AM Report
    vajuras writes:

    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

    Mon Mar 03 2008 8:42AM Report
    vajuras writes:

    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.

    Mon Mar 03 2008 8:47AM Report
    vajuras writes:

    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

    Mon Mar 03 2008 8:58AM Report
    Rollotamasi writes:

    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.

    Mon Mar 03 2008 9:05AM Report
    BadSpock writes:

    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!

    Mon Mar 03 2008 9:34AM Report
    BadSpock writes:

    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."

    Mon Mar 03 2008 10:04AM Report
    Anofalye writes:

    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.

    Mon Mar 03 2008 11:50AM Report
    BadSpock writes:

    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?

    Mon Mar 03 2008 11:54AM Report
    t0nyd writes:

    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?

    Mon Mar 03 2008 12:26PM Report
    BadSpock writes:

    Amen t0nyd, Amen.

    Mon Mar 03 2008 12:55PM Report
    Kyleran writes:

    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.

     

    Mon Mar 03 2008 2:05PM Report
    \r\n

    \r\n

  • vajuras- Mon Mar 03 2008 6:55PM Delete\r\n
      \r\n
    • \r\n

       

      \r\n
    • \r\n
    • \r\n

      tonyD wrote:

      \r\n

       "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."

      \r\n

      What is stopping you from taking it from another player? Who is forcing you to PVE? What you are arguing against here is minor logistics that a Developer can eaisly design around. My blog is focused on a particular issue I didnt present a game idea here.

      \r\n
    • \r\n
    \r\n
  • \r\n

    ";
    vajuras writes:
    •  

    • 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?

       

       

    comments[6262] = "

    \r\n

  • \r\n

    tonyD wrote:

    \r\n

     "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."

    \r\n

    Tony have you ever played a game with player looting? What is stopping you from taking it from another player? Who is forcing you to PVE?

    \r\n

     

    \r\n

     

    \r\n
  • \r\n

    ";

  • vajuras- Mon Mar 03 2008 6:55PM Delete
    •  

    • 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."

      What is stopping you from taking it from another player? Who is forcing you to PVE? What you are arguing against here is minor logistics that a Developer can eaisly design around. My blog is focused on a particular issue I didnt present a game idea here.

  • Mon Mar 03 2008 7:10PM Report
    vajuras writes:

    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

    Mon Mar 03 2008 7:13PM Report
    Nightdragon8 writes:

    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 =)

    Mon Mar 03 2008 7:20PM Report
    vajuras writes:

    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?

     

    Mon Mar 03 2008 7:24PM Report
    vajuras writes:

    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

    Mon Mar 03 2008 7:32PM Report
    vajuras writes:

    "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 insurance and clones etc. It's not true full loot like old UO was."

    Here we go... EVE Online is doing the LOGICAL thing. It makes no sense for a ship to be blown to bits and be fully looted too. No, just no. What they did was logical for their universe.

    "make it a lot less "risky" and more fun and rewarding."

    A guild that has just lost a Titan would disagree with you there.... someone that forgot to insure their ship would disagree. someone that just lost billions to corporate espinage would disagree.... Less risky? Relative.

    "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."

    yeah but we can get that in an FPS. MMORPGs are supposed to be persistant. None of that stuff you mentioned is persisted. You made no impact.

    What does that matter in a long term war between enemy guilds? That stuff cannot end a long term war period

    "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?"

    Again, we are talking about persistant battles. Impact. How can I beat my enemy guild, knock them off the top of the food chain if I cant hurt them? Impact.

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

    XP Loss isn't a good Death penalty too me. Never was. never liked XP debt. I've never supported xp debt. Not all DP is the same

    Mon Mar 03 2008 7:55PM Report
    t0nyd writes:

    Like I said earlier, player looting is fine, aslong as I dont have to waste tons of time getting equipment through pve. I am fine with a little pve mixed in with my pvp. I just dont want another WoW on my hands. I do not want to have to raid to get equipment just to turn around and lose it when I die in PvP.

     If equipment doesnt matter, player looting really doesnt matter.

    vajuras wrote ' if i wanted to stick to pvp id play an fps"

      Thats fine. I play fps all the time. I would also like a pvp mmorpg. I didnt say that I was totally against pve anyway. My focus is pvp. If I am raiding a town, im fine with killing mobs and players. My point is, I do not want to spend months leveling to finally enjoy pvp at endgame. I want to pvp from levels 1 to max. I want to gain experience, money, and equipment while I PvP. I want rewards that will encourage PvP and not penalties that will discourage PvP.

    Mon Mar 03 2008 9:20PM Report
    vajuras writes:

    "

    Like I said earlier, player looting is fine, aslong as I dont have to waste tons of time getting equipment through pve. I am fine with a little pve mixed in with my pvp. I just dont want another WoW on my hands. I do not want to have to raid to get equipment just to turn around and lose it when I die in PvP.

     If equipment doesnt matter, player looting really doesnt matter."

     

    Player looting creates a self-balancing system of a sorts in regards to use of items in PVP. If something cost your Guild a lot to build (like Siege equipment) you wont be careless and lose it in any old fight.

    Thus it causes players to not always bring out their best gear but rather, they pvp with what they can afford to lose

    This means even if Raiding existed- who gives a care they wont be wearing that crap to pvp zones unless they have big balls of steel

    Mon Mar 03 2008 11:26PM Report
    Visc writes:

    I think one problem is PvP is starting to resemble FPS. Like many have stated "die, respawn, repeat". An example that I can use is the game Call of Duty ,which was one of my 1st PvP games. Yes it is PvP but at a different level, a very basic one. I agree that MMO's should have a strict death penalty or it is noting more than a  grand scale FPS. 

    Yes.... I play EvE and yes it makes you think alot more about what you are about to do before screaming "LEROY JENKINS" and trying to bust a gate camp just trying to move your ships thru some low sec area.The penalty makes you consider your actions unlike FPS's or PvP with no penalty. 

    As I was plotting my course lastnight in an attempt to move my stealth bomber out of low sec I noticed a system with a bright red circle. I noticed this because I was researching my course on my starmap before my planned course. This system had 147 ships DESTROYED in the past HOUR. When I type DESTROYED it means just that. These players had just lost probably billions of ISK and hours of gameplay in that 1 hour span and who knows how many other ships were lost. I gurantee they all knew exactly what the risk was before getting involved in a conflict like this. This is what I love about this type of system and what i hated about FPS/PvP with no penalty. This system makes me and other players THINK about what we are going to do to each other.

    Tue Mar 04 2008 9:12AM Report
    Pelagato writes:

    lol...

    I have seen people pvping a lot, probably because they fell some strange pleasure inside them selves when they pwn other real player... Is like competence.. the felling you get when you win... see the point.

    Tue Mar 04 2008 9:54AM Report
    BadSpock writes:

    I honestly think Warhammer Online is taking the right approach to answer a great many of our PvP questions.

    Open world PvP with consequence, control and capture various towers and even raid and raze enemy cities. Cool stuff.

    All PvP, both instanced and open world adds towards your armies overal victory conditions. Sure, the instanced stuff has it's own conditions, X number of flags captures etc, but each battle win adds to your armies overall goal of absolute victory = city siege.

    You can PvP from level 1 to max rank, can get all your gear from PvP, etc.

    I really think (if they pull off all they promise) it's going to really, really attract a LOT of the PvP folk from WoW and many other games. 

    But it (should) still have good PvE.

    Tue Mar 04 2008 10:47AM Report
    vajuras writes:

    "
    t0nyd- Mon Mar 03 2008 3:08AM Delete
    "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."

    I dont think you watched Conan then he was a Thief that picked his fights wisely. He tip toed around looting people for their stash in the NIGHT. Conan didnt put on all his best gear and run out to fight an army by himself. And for sure didnt respawn like an immortal god.

    He picked fights he could win and reduced his risks.

    Tue Mar 04 2008 11:59AM Report
    vajuras writes:

    Yeah heeroboya Warhammer Online has a lot of promising features but we will have to see how they handle loot distribution from all PVP. Looks great on paper. I look forward to Age of Conan and Warhammer Online

    I'm more worried about WAr thoguh cause races are unique to each faction. I think RvR has the potential to suffer from huge imbalance issues

    I'm a bit more behind Age of Conan for the sandboxy features. I jusyt hope I wont hagve to raid

    We will see man I'll buy both. I'll try both.

    Tue Mar 04 2008 12:02PM Report
    BadSpock writes:

    I'm sure I'll be trying both too!

    But you are right, 6 races each with 4 classes is 24 unique classes to balance.. that's a lot.

    With such a PVP centric game, the class HAVE to be balanced or it'll ruin the game... I only pray their have some good QA testers, and the beta testers are doing their jobs!

    If not, let me into beta please, I'll be a very active tester! lol

    Tue Mar 04 2008 1:05PM Report
    Dragkill writes:

    "Next if you cant afford to lose something then dont wear it. Leave it in the bank"


    What sense is that going to be if you're fighting something? Why would you put on something weak to kill something strong?

    Wed Jun 18 2008 11:04AM Report
    vajuras writes:

    Risk vs Reward. If you're good or half way decent like me in EVE- you will pull out your big guns when you go to war. If you're a newbie or poor, you bring what you can afford to lose

    So, you bank what you cant afford to lose in EVE or only pull it out when you are safe. Listen, when I do NPC stuff (PVE) in EVE I bring out my expensive ship. But when I am going on Fleet Battles- I bring what I can afford to lose

    I do firmly believe there are other ways to get to Victory Conditions w/o looting possibly. Checkout my other blog on Victory Conditions

    Player Looting is cool, I like it. But there are other ways to solve the issue I mention in this blog as well

    Thu Jun 19 2008 10:19AM Report

    MMORPG.com writes:
    Login or Register to post a comment