| 30 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
On a theoretical level, I do not understand why other people believe player vs. player content in computer games is bad. Please leave past game experiences out of this discussion. Currently, in computer games the best form of inteligent competition is against other players. From a sporting perspective I want to compete against a formidable opponent that pushes me to better myself. In sports many machines are used to train a player, but the end goal of the training is to raise your skill to compete against another player. In tennis they have ball serving machines. In baseball they have batting cages. Bowling has bumperball. (j.k. just seeing if you are paying attention) In sports it is not offensive at all to compete against other players. It would be a boring world if people did not have a competative spirit. I see competition as a form of entertainment. Why then does the online game community have such an aversion to player versus player content in computer games? |
|
|
2/28/07 2:14:22 PM#2
The answer is simple. Most games, no matter what other content they have, are based on grinding up the level treadmill. This is the only goal and the only action. Actually doing it is, in the end, not really what matters to the players. It is getting 'to the top.' Any set back or action that detracts from this (ie. getting PKed, loosing your stuff, having someone steal your drop, etc.) makes people mad because all the actions they do in the game consume their time and they want their reward. Because of this we see arbitrary systems to regulate drops, instanced dungeons, PvP consent or special zones, etc. In other words these games are designed based on single player mechanics which don't really work with tons of people playing. So they revise and make things more and more like a single player or cooperative multi-player game, but not a massively multiplayer online role playing game where you could BE and DO anything you wanted in a WORLD and your actions and interactions one with another would SHAPE that world.
If for once the game wasn't about grinding up the level treadmill and the world were totally player driven, then sure everyone would welcome PvP and all that comes with it. Otherwise there would be nothing else to do. And believe me, if for once a game tapped the vast unmet potential of putting the interactions of thousands of individuals to work in driving the game forward, there would be no shortage of things to do. IronOre - Forging the Future |
|
|
2/28/07 2:21:44 PM#3
also, remember that most game players, at least the new ones coming realizing the MMO universe have never heard of pvp, the closest thing they have had to pvp is FPS pvp, hopefully as people begin to see the potential, companies will begin to do what was described by the post before me. Maybe someday lvl'ing will stop being a grind and players will be able to do anything(age appropriate) as MMO's were once described as.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/Tabatron/Fading-SWGEMU.gif |
|
|
2/28/07 2:46:33 PM#4
State of todays MMORPGs:
Most players out there just want to play a game for fun, no competition, no risks involved and surely not something hard. Just imagine a player wanting to go out with friends and play a little of this and that just for a bit of fun and relaxation. (PvE-Players) PvPers on the other hand are out for competition, want to be the better player and live wth "risk = reward". This fraction is a LOT smaller than the casual player group so companys tend to ignore them or try to put up some alternative PvP system to attract them. The money simply lies with the PvE-Players that want to play a cooperative MMORPG against the NPC-Environment and be a hero of sorts. To hold them in the game timesinks are implemented in various ways (grinding, leveling, items etc) and ever now and then new NPC content is introduced. The online gaming community consists of 80% PvE-Players so their opinions count the most for companys. Their main reasons against PvPing are: 1. Bad community: PvPers are not friendly and just want you dead. They want your loot, speak in leet-speak, play 24/7 and are mostly morons and lamers. The point is that PvP games tend to attract a lot of bad, immature, insulting players. Noone really wants that. 2. Scared of PvP: A lot of players are under-confident and do not believe that they could survive in such a world. So why play a game where all of your wealth can be stripped off you the moment you step into more dangerous areas? Most non-PvPers compare PvP-Areas to a black hole. You move there and you and everything you possess gets sucked away by those immature, insulting children. So why play such a game? 3. No time: to be successful you have to invest time in strategy, character buildup and "player skill". A lot of people do not have this time. PvPing is considered a hardcore play style. 4. No interest: Just interested in a cooperative game, or a glorified chat room (ie not hardcore). I am sure there are a lot more reasons out there. --- |
|
|
2/28/07 2:54:13 PM#5
lets not get hasty and say that all pvp'ers are lamers, and two i agree with your point about pvp really not having actual skill, it needs time and clicking ability, but nothig besides that
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/Tabatron/Fading-SWGEMU.gif |
|
|
3/01/07 1:59:52 PM#6
Now I see here that often made mistake of thinking that PvP means combat and killing other players. There is a VAST variety of untapped PvP potential. I don't want PvP so that I can fight other players (most games have an arena or PvP area for that anyway). I want PvP so that I can for once INTERACT with other players in a meaningful way that shapes the game world. PvP includes merchants making deals and getting trade alliances. Political organizations that elect officials. Towns and City states competing for resources. Racing to claim new land or to prospecting to find a new mining location and establish a prosperous trading post. Even organized sports and competitions within the game world.
Furthermore a game doesn't have to be designed around time consuming leveling to offer this kind of player vs player interaction. Don't confuse PvP with PK. Real PvP based on true interaction between players will take a great amount of actual skill. Players will have to assess a constantly changing complex situation and make strategic decisions based on the information at hand. It really would create a much more interesting environment that would have something for everyone. Just because the current mmo market caters to PvE (mostly because it is easier and cheaper to design) doesn't mean that there isn't a vast potential market for a more interactive type of game. With the genre becoming stagnant with so many copy-cat games it may well need to move in this direction very soon. IronOre - Forging the Future |
|
|
3/06/07 8:06:38 PM#7
yes this last post is genius!, that rings such a bell with me, i reallllllyyyyy hope that someday games, especially online ones, will be more like what was described
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/Tabatron/Fading-SWGEMU.gif |
|
|
3/07/07 8:45:19 PM#8
I think a real issue with PvP is that most casual players' experiences of PvP tend to be negative, rather than positive. This tends to mean that whenever anyone is discussing PvP, there are more negative examples than positive ones available, meaning that by experience more people are likely to say it is a bad thing rather than good, simply because limited experiences with PvP will tend to be negative. That will immediately tend to bias any discussion of PvP to "bad".
Without an example it's hard to explain what I mean by those terms, so my appologies for using an example. In SW:G shortly after release, various active members of the community led large raids, with dozens of NPC stormtrooper cannon fodder included for the other side to play with. They invited anyone in their faction to join them for the assault, regardless of skill or combat effectiveness. That approach was rare, but undeniably fun for all involved, including the defenders who did, almost inevitably through wieght of numbers, win in the end. A positive experience. However, much more common was that a single player equipped with unbalanced weaponry would endlessly circle areas where lower-skilled players took factioned missions, in order to butcher lower level players. That dynamic seems to be very prevalent in the current games, particularly on WoW PvP servers, which by simple numbers of players will have defined many people's experience with PvP - WoW is or was their first and only MMORPG, and a few days on a PvP server may almost inevitably see them forever see PvP as "bad". This playstyle for the hunter is positive, but for the many many prey is a negative. Eventually, the prey simply give up and leave, as their experience is simply negative - which is what seemed to be happening en masse in UO before the introduction of the non-PvP Trammel. That is not the case for all players, indeed many harvesters find PvP a welcome unplanned surprise to break the monotony of reseource gathering that is now also prevalent in many games. Many current game systems facilitate what is generally called "ganking", such that the majority of players either have little or no PvP experience due to "PvE" rulesets, or they tend to have entirely negative experiences with PvP, because they have only experienced the "ganking". This creates a bias, and a definition issue - when we talk about PvP, what do we really mean? I for one do not consider online FPS games, or any form of duelling in MMORPGs as "PvP". At a more fundamental level, I am probably not alone in holding a concern about the messages that many PvP enabled games give. Specifically, many strongly support the idea that preying on the weak is a good thing - there is no underlying mechanic that supports mercy, tolerance, valor, or even self-sacrifice for the greater good. The Law of Armed Conflict is genreally simply not included, such that even fansasy armies who have "prinicples" and "morals" simply do what everyone else does: kill them all regardless. The PvP systems currently tend to support selfishness and a "me" focus. In particular, all of the PvP systems I have seen so far give points for killing an opponent, I have not yet encountered a game that supports points for surrendering or any other option of interacting with an opponent. The penalty for killing a non-challenging opponent tends to be only not recieveing points rather than anything remotely resembling disapproval, even when the action is contrary to the fiction of the game. Alternative game mecahnics could certainly be implemented to support other outcomes, however all of the current games that I am aware of have chosen not to do that. The overall outcome is that the current suite of game mechanics in MMORPGs that I am aware of promote and support antisocial behaviour. Ironically old UO, when it had the "murderer" and "thief" systems, was in many ways on the right track with unstructured free for all PvP. While the penalty mechanics could be avoided to a significant extent, they were still present to convey the message that what the player was doing was "bad". In many ways, by allowing people to play thieves and murderers, UO sent a clear moral message that the newer games have simply abdicated all responsibility for. The current leading games have softened many aspects of their gameplay, but unfortunately they seem to have lost any sense that someone who is ganking or otherwise doing something "bad" should actually face some genuine consequences. The end result is that as a consequence of game design choices, and in particular player conduct rule choices, PvP really is often a "bad" thing, because the most prevalent forms of PvP encourages antisocial behaviour and behavious that is morally wrong. This is an unfortunate trend, because PvP, properly implemented, adds a wonderfully dynamic challenge to players beyond the static content designed into the world. My view is that PvP is actually a brilliant aspect of MMORPGs generally, but in its present implementation in the games I am familiar with it is open very fairly to serious criticism because of the way in which it is implemented. Flute. |
|
|
3/09/07 9:40:20 PM#9
From my experience it has been whenever a change for pvp was mad it affected the pve experience in a negative way. Just look at cox |
|
|
daarco
 Apprentice Member
Joined: 12/19/06
I have Darkfall now! |
4/12/07 3:26:11 AM#10
The problem with PvP is that many thinks of WoW PvP when you talk about it. And that makes it hard to get anywhere in a discussion. If we take Darkfall insted, no levels, no xp, no classes, full loot and anyone can kill anyone every where at any time. Then we can begin to talk real PvP. Now its nothing for players in a arena or something. The PvP is what makes the whole MMO work. And there are no noob characters, everyone can defend them selves from the first minute. And you choose yourself where you wanna spawn on a map. This makes alot of people scream that it will be a ganking feast in a never before seen dimension. And it might be so...in WoW. In WoW it doesnt matter if you kill 50 noobs. If you do that in Darkfall...you maybe wont be able to play anymore with that chracter because you would be hunted by both players and NPC characters...all the time. Any ideas?
http://www.darkfallonline.com/ |
|
4/27/07 11:34:30 AM#11
Exactly =) Thats the mindset most of us who call usselves pvp'ers or pk'ers. A guildmate wrote a manifesto on the same subject: The problem is there is another mindset common to people playing mmorpgs - namely the guy who wants to be a hero in his own mind, and instead of playing a single player game he/she also likes the social aspect of a mmorpg. This sort of person - who might be playing a paladin called "Bert the Brave" - do not particularly enjoy being oneshot by some passing "griefer" when he was just talking in person (roleplaying) to a fair lady (guy playing a female char). It sort of breaks the immersion for him. The problem is there seems to be a lot of people who don't really want to compete when playing a mmorpg. Its weird because you compete in all other games, be it the olympic games, chess, counterstrike, poker, or whatever. For developers its all about getting as many people to pay every month for their game. So they try to please as many people as possible. And up till now no one have been successful with the mmorpg pvp niche. I am sure it will happen at one point - a game like Darkfall could succeed if it ever comes out.
Khael[SUN] |
|
|
5/07/07 4:47:25 PM#12
Now aday I dont buy a game unless there is PvP on it. Just like I dont buy games for xbox unless I can use my xbox live. What can I say its fun to fight other people, get your frustration out online and talk crap. Anyone who says they hate pvp because people camp their drops or take their items is a liar, why? Because when they get to a higher level they do it too. What to do to resolve this? What many games are doing nowaday, either give the player a choice to turn PK on the server or have a server its self that is pvp only(which I like the most because then there is always someone to fight).
|
|
|
5/25/07 1:39:39 PM#13
I don't think there is an aversion to PVP, but most savy game players know bad PVP from good. The first problem is the PVE rule-set. Being a PVE first type of game, lends the game to only work in one fashion, PVE. Bolted-on PVP systems never work out because you can not have a PVP solution in a PVE rule set. Most MMO's are based upon PVE, and thus handle all the games systems, including PVP through the PVE rule-set.A PVE rule-sets thrive on class or archetype differences and force these different classes to group in order to complete a task, beating a quest boss usualy. A PVP systems offer the same grouping dynamic, but for the purpose of defeating other players.I don't think any game has combined PVP with PVE content with any great results. Well, lets face it some PVE skills do not transfer over to PVP with great easy. I think most of the readers have played a game or two that have had the one, or more, ugly duckling PVP class[es], that was the gracefull swan in pve. The PVE rule-set allows for only one solution; the completion of PVE content. The second problem is the so-called "Hardcore" PVP systems. Looting kills and noob-killers are bad for business. In most PVE level driven games, you get an unsavory and unfair faction of PK's that do not want an even or fair fight.(Who does? Right?) High level characters farming lowbies does not have any thing to do with PVP, that is still PVE. A few of the PVP games have had "safe" areas for lowbies, but that is a band-aid fix, and the lowbies still need to feel the threat of a true PVP world without becoming the equivalent of a low-con mob. The real problem with noob-killers is not that they are killing, but the developers have put no tools in place for the players to become competitive. If the New York Yankee's played and defeated several Jr. Highschool teams to win the World Series, then there is no competition, and we would all dismiss the soundness of the Yankee's being the World Champs. Great Heroes need great villians. The PVP systems need to foster competition between similar opponents, and not reward noobie gankers. In most MMO's the PVP is defined by safe areas and PVP areas, and this too fails because this turns off alot of people to instance or zone gankers. Zone in to die! Load kills are cheap. There should be penalties for death, but how much is enough, or too much? Looting your opponent of his gear is pretty harsh in a system that is heavily loot based, meaning alot of exotic item drops, and fosters noobie ganking as a viable income source, which is PVE. Not enough penalty means people will do dumb stuff, and not really fear anything.ZERG! A good PVP systems makes use of all of the character types, and does not favor one formula method for victory. Also a good PVP system is about heroic feats and battles, and not "I ganked out a bus-load of noobs." It is hard to make a competitive game with a rule-set that is PVE, and thus only allowing for PVE solutions, and the stigma of HARDCORE FFA PVP rule-sets that are in fact a surrogate for PVE. |
|
|
5/25/07 1:44:11 PM#14
In sports you can determine where and when you chose to compete.
In a pvp game, you can be griefed while doing other actions.
No game with open 100% pvp will do well outside of the Asian market - that's been shown time and time again. |
|
|
5/25/07 1:49:49 PM#15
it is simple, griefers ruin the market because most games are level based and the lower level toons simply can not compete with well geared and 'tricked out' toons. This leads to alot of frustration over the who playstyle. Add to that those who will win at any cost, including exploits, and you brew up a recipe for a very unfun gaming experience for the person who simply wants to enjoy the game. I've been on all three sides (having playing PvE centric games such as AC and EQ2, Hybird games such as DAoC and AO and full blown PvP games such as Shadowbane and L2. The far and away best experiences (in regards to enjoyment) were in DAoC where PvP was only engaged when it was consentual, but the full blown PvP games have their moments when you get into fights with honorable combatants. |
|
|
Anofalye
Apprentice Member
Joined: 11/19/03
The enemy is so dumb! They believe that WE are the enemy! - A famous orc commander. |
5/25/07 2:00:36 PM#16
PvP means that at least 50% players are losers.
MMORPGs are particuliar in the sense that players are playing a LOT. Most normals peoples cant substain been a loser 50% of the time. - "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - René Levesque about the denial NO on the poll to his dream, project and goal. (Free translation) |
|
5/25/07 9:22:57 PM#17
Originally posted by Anofalye Some games offer this, and people play them. Even the 50% who are dead. I play Monopoly which has at least a 50% rate, and people still play that game. |
|
|
6/02/08 8:15:45 PM#18
PvP and the idea of it being a dirty word is the fact that you're technically killing another player. You don't do that in tennis, football etc. Competing is one thing, but killing is another thing all together. Even virtually, and then take into account how people seem to get off on it and well it's not pretty.
Then you take a step back and look at how many games get screwed because the developers try to balance the game around pvp which then borks the bajeezus outa the pve game which the vast majority of MMOs are mainly pve games, then they try to rebalance again for pve which sets the pvp crowd off. Want a taste of religion? Lick a witch. |
|
|
Adamantine
Hard Core Member
Joined: 1/07/08
War is not the ultima ratio, but the ultima irratio - Willy Brandt |
6/03/08 3:42:23 AM#19
Actually you "kill" the opponent in football, tennis, etc. He is just as technically "dead" in those games as he is when you kill him in a PvP game.
|
|
daarco
Apprentice Member
Joined: 12/19/06
I have Darkfall now! |
6/03/08 3:47:10 AM#20
Originally posted by gpett
Its because not everyone can be a "hero" in PvP. Someone have to loose. For many players the MMO is a way to escape reality for a while. You might be a looser in real life, but in WoW you are a muscular Paladin. That makes it hard for many to realise they might have to be a looser in MMO as well. So if we just could inform everyone that its ok not to be the "best" in evrything.....PvP would be as nice as PvE. Exept in level/class based MMOs. As long as you have levels, we cant discuss PvP. |
