I wont even play a MMORPG thats does not have PVP. Sorry Lotro but I tried.

I strongly disagree wtih you.

Sorry.

I feel like PVP is going to wind up being a major driving force in endgame.

UO's main Endgame was guilds fighting other guilds, normally roleplaying it.  It was very fun and very exciting, I just think that no one else has done FFA PVP Full loot quite as well as origional UO.

We need another game that has solid PVE but a PVP based endgame (or atleast a rich PVP endgame possiblity, for instance combine WoW's quest user friendly grind with DFO's Political intrigue and clan vs clan focus.

Throw in some meaningful PVP with risk vs reward, like DAOCish with keeps giving your side buffs (Your side could be your guild in this situation)

Maybe Guildwars as a persisting world sorta?

Originally posted by Laughing-man

UO's main Endgame was guilds fighting other guilds, normally roleplaying it.  It was very fun and very exciting, I just think that no one else has done FFA PVP Full loot quite as well as origional UO.

Asheron's Call did it better than UO - SO many people missed out I have to constantly let them know a glorious game called Asherons Call existed and did PvP right

Originally posted by logangregor

 

Ill never play a pve only game.

 

I disagree about pure PvP games failing.

Lineage 2,

WoW wouldnt have near the following if it didnt have pvp.

DAOC endgame was primarily pvp based.

Darkfall has a nice little following.

AION game of the year in Korea PvP based endgame

Chronicles of Spellborn-pvp pvp pvp

Warhammer is doing ok for itself

AOC not doing all that well has absolutely nothing to do with its pvp

 

You are a carebear, dont tell us to man up.

noggin.                        
 

---

Originally posted by Druz

---

Originally posted by Laughing-man

UO's main Endgame was guilds fighting other guilds, normally roleplaying it.  It was very fun and very exciting, I just think that no one else has done FFA PVP Full loot quite as well as origional UO.

---

Asheron's Call did it better than UO - SO many people missed out I have to constantly let them know a glorious game called Asherons Call existed and did PvP right

---

So many people like pvp that there are different styles of pvp.

FOr instance, the above poster liked asherons call. OMG I cant stand that hoppity bs, but hey more power to anyone who enjoys that style.

Chronicles of spellborn isnt quite as circle strafe happy as Asherons Call is but is a solid pvp game as well.

Then you have your FFA pvp-- Darkfall, UO, Shadowbane--All great games in there own right.

Then there are arena based systems of pvp like WoWs arena or even better Guild Wars Arena.

EvEs has a very interesting style of pvp as well. Spaceships, politics and myriads of alliances fighting makes for its own specific brand of pvp.

If pvp in mmos was such a fail why would we have so many forms of pvp at our fingertips

Originally posted by XApotheosisX

I mean really almost every pure PVP game has failed or is failing, PVP servers throughout the MMO scene have always been one of the lowest populated servers in any MMO. heck even games that are PVP lite but still are based around PVP (War and AOC) have failed or are failing.

AOC may be getting better but thats because they are adding tons of PVE content while putting PVP on the back burner.

sorry PVPers but face it you have a genre already out there for you ... the FPS MMORPGs are ruled by the PVE'rs yes the Carebears as you would call them. its about time you manned up and figure out that the majority want PVP as a mere change of pace and not the whole point of the game.

I'm pretty sure WoW has a good PvP population.  I think EVE has a good bunch of PvPers also.  Personally, I like games with strong PvE and PvP components.  I enjoy both equally but tend to go to the PvP between content updates especially.

MMORPG's are played because of your character progression.

PvP only as character progression is rather dull isn't it?

Take the ultimate FPS and add character progression to it. Not much depth.

---

A good mmorpg is all about mixing ALL kinds of progression through ALL kinds of end game choices (pvp, pve solo, pve group, crafting, playing the auction house, professions,...)

Like the OP said: "pure" PvP is indeed too limited for a good mmorpg.

RvR is also too limiting I think. The "owned" castle/city/keeps are not a huge success for longer periods of time. And certainly don't hold interest very long for 99% of the guilds after a few weeks.

----

It all LOOKS much more interesting than it really is.

Up until now it is clear that the only long term motivation is the PERSONAL avatar progression, not RvR. And PvP is only one side road to choose from.

But you DO need to have it as that side road....

Originally posted by Zorndorf

MMORPG's are played because of your character progression.

PvP only as character progression is rather dull isn't it?

Take the ultimate FPS and add character progression to it. Not much depth.

---

A good mmorpg is all about mixing ALL kinds of progression through ALL kinds of end game choices (pvp, pve solo, pve group, crafting, playing the auction house, professions,...)

Like the OP said: "pure" PvP is indeed too limited for a good mmorpg.

RvR is also too limiting I think. The "owned" castle/city/keeps are not a huge success for longer periods of time. And certainly don't hold interest very long for 99% of the guilds after a few weeks.

----

It all LOOKS much more interesting than it really is.

Up until now it is clear that the only long term motivation is the PERSONAL avatar progression, not RvR. And PvP is only one side road to choose from.

But you DO need to have it as that side road....

No one that has ever asked for a PvP MMO has ever suggested pure PvP MMO. A PvP world done right has all those things you mentioned but not just at endgame and definately not made in some obscure zone or battle ground. A full PvP world IS the game, fighting for your life.. creating alliances and making hunting grounds your own by defending it from outsiders.. if they want a piece of the pie they need to fight for it. Yes there is room for all of those things you mentioned but it has to feel like a WORLD where there may be danger around the next corner. No one wants a pure PvP game like Fury, or some MMOFPS where aiming is the last thing that mattered. Long term personal avatar progression is something you have to actually fight for - it gives it meaning beyond moving onto the next ride in the theme park for your level range. Surely you can understand that

Originally posted by Druz

Originally posted by Zorndorf

MMORPG's are played because of your character progression.

PvP only as character progression is rather dull isn't it?

Take the ultimate FPS and add character progression to it. Not much depth.

---

A good mmorpg is all about mixing ALL kinds of progression through ALL kinds of end game choices (pvp, pve solo, pve group, crafting, playing the auction house, professions,...)

Like the OP said: "pure" PvP is indeed too limited for a good mmorpg.

RvR is also too limiting I think. The "owned" castle/city/keeps are not a huge success for longer periods of time. And certainly don't hold interest very long for 99% of the guilds after a few weeks.

----

It all LOOKS much more interesting than it really is.

Up until now it is clear that the only long term motivation is the PERSONAL avatar progression, not RvR. And PvP is only one side road to choose from.

But you DO need to have it as that side road....

No one that has ever asked for a PvP MMO has ever suggested pure PvP MMO. A PvP world done right has all those things you mentioned but not just at endgame and definately not made in some obscure zone or battle ground. A full PvP world IS the game, fighting for your life.. creating alliances and making hunting grounds your own by defending it from outsiders.. if they want a piece of the pie they need to fight for it. Yes there is room for all of those things you mentioned but it has to feel like a WORLD where there may be danger around the next corner. No one wants a pure PvP game like Fury, or some MMOFPS where aiming is the last thing that mattered. Long term personal avatar progression is something you have to actually fight for - it gives it meaning beyond moving onto the next ride in the theme park for your level range. Surely you can understand that

Choice primes means.
 

You don't HAVE to "fight for" when going for avatar progression. If you like that you take a PvP route (as on open pvp server or playing pvp options with ALL options open btw: participating in big battles or skirmish or operational moves: your choice !). 

But the PVE route - THE adventure - is as important (if not more), as is the crafting route or the AH - make money route and just buy weapons/gear.

-----

The most important thing is your progression, not the group progression, because the group is as solid as its weakest element and that is just asking too much of the individual player who has RL issues. Hence RvR has to be very fluid and light. Owning "tha place" is not the way to go for long term interest.

The only decent meaning for a player is the progression of his/her avatar. Not the meaning of the universal conquest. That's hollow. It sounds good, but it is not motivating in the long run. One can have extremy fun moments with it, but it is not a long term motivator.

 I would even say that "pure" PvP based mmorpg's are more theme park (your expression not mine) than other mmorpg's. They even limit the gameplay far too much. Do you get ganked everytime you have a walk? They use a gimmick to limit actually the overall gameplay choices.

Full loot and uncontrolled world pvp are sometimes more easy theme park solutions to hide lack of content and designer efforts. Not surprising these games don't hold attention very long for most players.

I think the OP has been well and truely been proved wrong.

Originally posted by spades07

I think the OP has been well and truely been proved wrong.

A pity the initial 800K players in War and AoC launch didn't agree with you.

I think indeed that PvP as a single prime motivator is far too small.

And the RvR modules (end game) lead to :

- unbalanced server problems

- population problems

- long term interest problems

- RL interference problems with guild commitment

- underdevelopped PVE content.

PvP may not be an excuse for an underdevelopped product. As goes the same for calling out such hollow things like "sandbox", "theme park", etc ...

Originally posted by Zorndorf

Originally posted by Druz

Originally posted by Zorndorf

MMORPG's are played because of your character progression.

PvP only as character progression is rather dull isn't it?

Take the ultimate FPS and add character progression to it. Not much depth.

---

A good mmorpg is all about mixing ALL kinds of progression through ALL kinds of end game choices (pvp, pve solo, pve group, crafting, playing the auction house, professions,...)

Like the OP said: "pure" PvP is indeed too limited for a good mmorpg.

RvR is also too limiting I think. The "owned" castle/city/keeps are not a huge success for longer periods of time. And certainly don't hold interest very long for 99% of the guilds after a few weeks.

----

It all LOOKS much more interesting than it really is.

Up until now it is clear that the only long term motivation is the PERSONAL avatar progression, not RvR. And PvP is only one side road to choose from.

But you DO need to have it as that side road....

No one that has ever asked for a PvP MMO has ever suggested pure PvP MMO. A PvP world done right has all those things you mentioned but not just at endgame and definately not made in some obscure zone or battle ground. A full PvP world IS the game, fighting for your life.. creating alliances and making hunting grounds your own by defending it from outsiders.. if they want a piece of the pie they need to fight for it. Yes there is room for all of those things you mentioned but it has to feel like a WORLD where there may be danger around the next corner. No one wants a pure PvP game like Fury, or some MMOFPS where aiming is the last thing that mattered. Long term personal avatar progression is something you have to actually fight for - it gives it meaning beyond moving onto the next ride in the theme park for your level range. Surely you can understand that

Choice primes means.
 

You don't HAVE to "fight for" when going for avatar progression. If you like that you take a PvP route (as on open pvp server or playing pvp options with ALL options open btw: participating in big battles or skirmish or operational moves: your choice !). 

But the PVE route - THE adventure - is as important (if not more), as is the crafting route or the AH - make money route and just buy weapons/gear.

-----

The most important thing is your progression, not the group progression, because the group is as solid as its weakest element and that is just asking too much of the individual player who has RL issues. Hence RvR has to be very fluid and light. Owning "tha place" is not the way to go for long term interest.

 

RvR rarely works when clans in the same realm fight amongst themselves.

On a Open PvP server you HAVE to cooperate to survive, that is one of the few things that make an MMO fresh every day and not a mindless theme park(which some people will not enjoy forever, eventually they'll see through the formula.. everyone eventually does). Don't bring RvR, don't bring instanced battlegrounds, don't bring arenas into this.. I am talking about a world here - a place with player made consequences. PvE is as important as PvP in an MMO, so you can make PvE servers. At the same time you can't just slap world PvP onto any MMO and call it a day, in some MMOs it simply wouldn't work (WoW for a harmless example) The world would be too small, too linear.. too many choke points and not enough open space. The combat system needs to take away level based advantage completely.. no gaining stats automatically when you level up.. you should have to spend points.. and never be able to boost an attribute so high as to be invulnerable. In Asheron's Call for example, your level simply indicated how much total XP you have. A level 70 is nearly on the same footing as a level 90 but a level 10 could never kill a level 70 unless he was debuffed and the level 10 was buffed(plus luck). My point is level or class based fighting like WoW doesn't work well on a 1v1 1v2 1v3 basis because items play too big of a part. But everyone loves items, they just can't be so amazing as to provide a permanent advantage under all circumstances.

Anyway I am getting ahead of myself, you're stressing PvE which is fine but you're missing the big picture. "personal progression" doesn't stop just because PvP is thrown in, you can have your cake and eat it too. Games like AC have as many or more quests as WoW, they're just presented differently with less stress placed on doing them for xp. AC has major arc quests which require a group to kill the big boss at the end with just as much strategy involved without requiring scripts.

No offense you MAY have too skewed of a point of view due to your age concerning a full PvP world.. try to think of it beyond your personal taste, it can be stressful, and it can get your adrenaline pumping and you don't want that, thats why a full PvE server exists - a PvP server in an MMO done RIGHT will not take anything away from the PvE element. At the end of the day we would be playing the same game with my PvP server having a little more danger for those who seek it

*edit* and again, all examples made by those who say PvP worlds don't work do not use any of the MMOs that actually did it right. AoC had too many instances(plus for the first couple of months stats meant literally NOTHING) and it is class based that was not even balanced for PvP in the first place. WAR tried to be WoW with instanced battlegrounds and TINY RvR lakes, NPC guards is a joke, plain and simple WARs system is crap, it was a failed mutation of DAoC and WoW. Any other examples I can pick apart just as easily, these are not well done MMOs let alone PvP MMOs, using them as an example is like using Vanguard as an example for why PvE doesn't work

And how is calling an MMO a "sandbox" or a "theme park" hollow? They describe two clearly different styles in MMO that is understood by anyone that has played both styles along with the brain power to sort the two. I'll be back tomorrow to respond.

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

AoC/WAR are failing because they're both attempts at a PvP class-based themepark.

In my opinion, this subgenre just doesn't work.

If you're going to have a PvP game then it should be sandbox and not subject to the everpresent balance issues that arise from a class-based system. It's what makes EVE great. It's what made UO great (back in the day).

I would not call EVE great, maybe good but not great. And why does pvp has to be in a sandbox....DF failed at this and MO has yet to prove itself, along with the rest of them. UO was great to you because that was probably your first mmo. We always remember and think the first game we played was always the best>>>>it's the golden rule.

AoC and War slipped because of the Dev's, nothing more nothing less

Going by your way of thinking DF is failing because they are attempts at a PvP non-class based sandbox<<<<see how silly that sounds.

Originally posted by jybgess

Just my opinion but I think you are wrong sir

agreed, if something it should be equal in game.

---

Originally posted by Zorndorf

---

Originally posted by spades07

I think the OP has been well and truely been proved wrong.

---

 
A pity the initial 800K players in War and AoC launch didn't agree with you.
I think indeed that PvP as a single prime motivator is far too small.
And the RvR modules (end game) lead to :
- unbalanced server problems
- population problems
- long term interest problems
- RL interference problems with guild commitment
- underdevelopped PVE content.
PvP may not be an excuse for an underdevelopped product. As goes the same for calling out such hollow things like "sandbox", "theme park", etc ...
 
 
 

---

Yep except did you not read:

the success of Lineage 1 and 2
the numbers DAoC acquired
the success of Guild Wars
And 800k numbers of any mmo with the big giant overlooking it's shoulder is good.
And the last semblance of evidence is the big number of PvP servers in WoW, as well as early interviews made with WoW that pvp was a big priority- especially with BGs that aimed to tap fps players.(which by the way is PvP)

Pvp is NOT a secondary Gimmick- it is a very core part of mmos that any mmo that would ignore would be a fool.

Originally posted by XApotheosisX

I mean really almost every pure PVP game has failed or is failing, PVP servers throughout the MMO scene have always been one of the lowest populated servers in any MMO. heck even games that are PVP lite but still are based around PVP (War and AOC) have failed or are failing.

AOC may be getting better but thats because they are adding tons of PVE content while putting PVP on the back burner.

sorry PVPers but face it you have a genre already out there for you ... the FPS MMORPGs are ruled by the PVE'rs yes the Carebears as you would call them. its about time you manned up and figure out that the majority want PVP as a mere change of pace and not the whole point of the game.

Because you suck at PvP, right?

---

its about time you manned up and figure out that the majority want PVP as a mere change of pace and not the whole point of the game.

---

Probably true in that having PvE and PvP options is the best option to have for any mmo.

Originally posted by spades07

 

 

Yep except did you not read:

the success of Lineage 1 and 2
the numbers DAoC acquired
the success of Guild Wars
And 800k numbers of any mmo with the big giant overlooking it's shoulder is good.
And the last semblance of evidence is the big number of PvP servers in WoW, as well as early interviews made with WoW that pvp was a big priority- especially with BGs that aimed to tap fps players.(which by the way is PvP)

Pvp is NOT a secondary Gimmick- it is a very core part of mmos that any mmo that would ignore would be a fool.

Hey I am an avid PvP player in Wow. Having had Arena titles and being Justicar with 2 avatars I enjoy very much its PvP.
 

But the main discussion is ... are the games with their "main focus" on PvP really that attractive? And I think it is not enough to base a complete mmorpg on it.

Like you say, it is a (core) part of any mmo but it is not THE core part as most want it in this discussion.

Just an example: I love the very fluid fast action and responsive avatar fights in Wow. To me it is the first condition of even having a decent PvP fight.

I love going for a title in PvP and do PvP achievements. I love Wintergrasp with its massive fights and I like the BG's even after doing them 2000 times.... But ....

I do know it is only a part of the world I play in and there is (almost) no RvR and .... after having played now multiple PvP focused games .....I do like it that way.

Most people think that PvP is THE main driving force behind a good mmorpg. Nothing could be further from the truth. Is PvP a gimmick? No, but to some people PvP is like the bread and butter for an mmorpg and ... that's not the case either.

---

Everytime these days when I read about those so called RvR games and PvP games (and the only one I didn't try myself was DF), I always think .... Hey ! I can do that exactly in Wow ... and even far better... but what's the fuzz?

One example: doing city raids and fight the Ogrimmar Horde: no problem. Doing those 100/100+ fights to attack a Keep: no problem on any server during prime time. Doing skirmish or competition arena's? No problem.

The fact is PvP is "free" to do. I have immense fun with my Rogue doing those daily open world PvP quests in WotlK with my brother. We roam those zones and own them and when needing reinforcements we just call out our guild and in no time we have open world fights.

I do not need a "spec" PvP game to get that feeling for me.

Does that mean it is "a gimmick" because the next day we redo the daily PvP quests?. Who cares, but I do exactly the same thing as those dreamers in here and don"t overuse the words "meaningful".

Most people see and dream up a game ... while they don't even play their current games to the fullest....

And as my opinion is that the ulitmate goal in every mmorpg is the personal avatar's evolution, not the group ...it is clear "meaningful" PvP is as hollow as "theme park" or "sandbox" definitions.

Meaning: everyone has its own (legitemate but hollow) definitions.

-----

I think that's the thing the OP was trying to say: PvP ok, but it is not the core thing in a world you adventure and live in... unless you want it to have .... as an option not as a single focused target. Hence he used the word "gimmick". Too extreme perhaps, but that's why his thread is an eyecatcher.

Originally posted by Zorndorf

 

I love going for a title in PvP and do PvP achievements. I love Wintergrasp with its massive fights and I like the BG's even after doing them 2000 times.... But ....

I do know it is only a part of the world I play in and there is (almost) no RvR and .... after having played now multiple PvP focused games .....I do like it that way.

Because....? I don't get why you'd be against more battlegrounds or having more people in open world PVP, if you like it so much.

Most people think that PvP is THE main driving force behind a good mmorpg. Nothing could be further from the truth. Is PvP a gimmick? No, but to some people PvP is like the bread and butter for an mmorpg and ... that's not the case either.

< Insert reasoning here > and if PVP isn't, what is?

---

Everytime these days when I read about those so called RvR games and PvP games (and the only one I didn't try myself was DF), I always think .... Hey ! I can do that exactly in Wow ... and even far better... but what's the fuzz?

One example: doing city raids and fight the Ogrimmar Horde: no problem. Doing those 100/100+ fights to attack a Keep: no problem on any server during prime time. Doing skirmish or competition arena's? No problem.

Capital city raids in Wow:

1-) Don't happen very often.

2-) Have absolutely no incentive for players to do it besides "just for the heck of it". As opposed to raids that give ridiculous advantages.

3-) The game wasn't made to support them and it shows. Here i am reenacting the battle of Helm's deep and ooh what's this? Ennemy players running around inside my lines with the consensual pvp tag off, an infinite number of OP city guards appearing out of thin air? Harsh amounts of diminishing returns on honor so i get virtually nothing out of the whole fight and .... lag?

The fact is PvP is "free" to do. I have immense fun with my Rogue doing those daily open world PvP quests in WotlK with my brother. We roam those zones and own them and when needing reinforcements we just call out our guild and in no time we have open world fights.

I do not need a "spec" PvP game to get that feeling for me.

Battlefield 1942 didn't need vehicles or more than one map (Wake Island) for me to enjoy it, therefore vehicles and  over 10 maps are a waste of time.

No really, this is exactly the same kind of logic you are using.

Does that mean it is "a gimmick" because the next day we redo the daily PvP quests?. Who cares, but I do exactly the same thing as those dreamers in here and don"t overuse the words "meaningful".

Most people see and dream up a game ... while they don't even play their current games to the fullest....

Wow has 5 pvp "maps" after 5 years? 5 Maps in any other genre of online gaming is just downright unacceptable.

-----

I think that's the thing the OP was trying to say: PvP ok, but it is not the core thing in a world you adventure and live in... unless you want it to have .... as an option not as a single focused target. Hence he used the word "gimmick". Too extreme perhaps, but that's why his thread is an eyecatcher.

You still havn't explained why PVP can only be an option and not a "single focused target".... As far as i understood your post it's because:

"I like Wow pvp, it's just enough to fullfill my pvp needs, therefore you can't make a pvp-centric game."

Am i the only one who sees some giant LEAPS of logic here?

 

 

Threads like this are created for one reason, to start a 12 page long arguement. The OP knows there are people who put PvP first and enjoy pvp, this is only to cause hatred on the forums. Either that or he is so narrow minded that he can only see the world from his own point of view and no one elses, but I try not to assume anyone has so little intelligence to live that way.

Originally posted by Pinkerl

Alot of people claim that mmorpg pvp is mind thinking and strategic.. well how strategic, tactical mmorpg pvp is, it all gone down the toilet when high level can one hit you. Also ebayers will always win against legit players so the claim about mmorpg pvp being strategic is bs.

Monthly Fee MMORPG = ebayers win / high level win

Free2Play MMORPG = cashshopper win / high level win

PVP in MMORPG = [b]FAIL[/

 

 

 

 

1.  If you are talking about one shotting people I'd like to know what game that is. No I am not talking about low level pvp either. I'm talking about max level.

2.  You say there is no strategy for PvP in MMO's?   I can only assume this means you run into battle mindlessly mashing buttons, die repeatedly, and then proclaim there is no strategy in MMO's.  In other words becuase you don't use strategy and such,  that must mean the game has no stategy.

3.  You talking about ebayers will always win over legit players, well that would go for PvE also.  So what are you suggesting? Get rid of MMO's entirely?  

I think games like DAOC and EVE have the right idea, designed around PVP with PVE activities for support (DAOC was better at this IMO)

Aside from the botters DAoC was the best mmo I have ever played. I guess I fall in the the casual side of players as I play games to relax if i wanted to worry about somebody trying to kill I would have stayed working the prisons or in the military. The pvp crowd needs a couple good games for themselves but for them to succeed they need to do a much better job of actually making the game enjoyable to newer players instead of killing newbies in the starting zone all day. The game won't last until the pvpers learn to crack down harder on thier casualties of puberty.

Originally posted by karat76

Aside from the botters DAoC was the best mmo I have ever played. I guess I fall in the the casual side of players as I play games to relax if i wanted to worry about somebody trying to kill I would have stayed working the prisons or in the military. The pvp crowd needs a couple good games for themselves but for them to succeed they need to do a much better job of actually making the game enjoyable to newer players instead of killing newbies in the starting zone all day. The game won't last until the pvpers learn to crack down harder on thier casualties of puberty.

Pretty sure Asheron's Call is still going since 1999 with the PvP server being the most popular. Having PvE servers for the players that don't want to die and PvP servers for the people that can take it worked pretty well for the game. You sound like you want to play on a PvP server with PvE rules, thats how you get terrible PvP MMOs.. they try to cater to both crowds on the *PvP* server and end up ruining it for everyone.

Originally posted by karat76

Aside from the botters DAoC was the best mmo I have ever played. I guess I fall in the the casual side of players as I play games to relax if i wanted to worry about somebody trying to kill I would have stayed working the prisons or in the military. The pvp crowd needs a couple good games for themselves but for them to succeed they need to do a much better job of actually making the game enjoyable to newer players instead of killing newbies in the starting zone all day. The game won't last until the pvpers learn to crack down harder on thier casualties of puberty.

casualties of puberty..hehe, good one.