Originally posted by heremypet

Originally posted by robert4818

Its amazing how many times people see that others are not into their form of PVP, and automatically assume that the person must be some sort of young kid.  You would of course be wrong.

The POINT may be more than one on one battles, but the thing that turns people off are the 1 on 1 ganks.  I seriously doubt I would get that lucky shot in as much as you do.  The point though is that there is always the CHANCE however small.  A knife to the ribs, is a knife to the ribs.  It doesn't matter if you are jackie chan or steve urkel. 

The point though is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to actually kill a lvl 50 with a lvl 10 in EQ.  1 on 1, even if the other guy stood there and let me hit him with the knife.  There will be no impossibly low chance, insta-kill crit.  If it was an OPEN PVP world, as opposed to a duel, then he would have just walked up, one-shotted me, moved on (or camped my corpse).  Where exactly is the thrill in that.  HE"S HAVING FUN, but what about me?  I'm supposed to be having fun to you know.

Unfortunatley most people only focus on the amount of fun the killer is able to have, and if the others don't like it, too bad.  When the tables are turned, it inevitabley ends up QQ because now the Gankers have thier fun stolen from them.

 

What do you mean "their form of PvP"?  I'm talking about PvP as it exists in almost every MMO there is.  If you want your character to instantly be on even ground with everyone else right after being created, then you are obviously playing the wrong genre of games.

You can in Guild Wars.

Originally posted by heremypet

Originally posted by robert4818

Its amazing how many times people see that others are not into their form of PVP, and automatically assume that the person must be some sort of young kid.  You would of course be wrong.

The POINT may be more than one on one battles, but the thing that turns people off are the 1 on 1 ganks.  I seriously doubt I would get that lucky shot in as much as you do.  The point though is that there is always the CHANCE however small.  A knife to the ribs, is a knife to the ribs.  It doesn't matter if you are jackie chan or steve urkel. 

The point though is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to actually kill a lvl 50 with a lvl 10 in EQ.  1 on 1, even if the other guy stood there and let me hit him with the knife.  There will be no impossibly low chance, insta-kill crit.  If it was an OPEN PVP world, as opposed to a duel, then he would have just walked up, one-shotted me, moved on (or camped my corpse).  Where exactly is the thrill in that.  HE"S HAVING FUN, but what about me?  I'm supposed to be having fun to you know.

Unfortunatley most people only focus on the amount of fun the killer is able to have, and if the others don't like it, too bad.  When the tables are turned, it inevitabley ends up QQ because now the Gankers have thier fun stolen from them.

 

What do you mean "their form of PvP"?  I'm talking about PvP as it exists in almost every MMO there is.  If you want your character to instantly be on even ground with everyone else right after being created, then you are obviously playing the wrong genre of games.

There are many forms of PVP.

Instanced

Level-limited Team PVP

Level-Limited Open PVP

Level Unlimited Team PVP

Level Unlimited Open PVP

PVP Flagging

Then there's the difference between intended use of the system, and actual use of the system.  The intended use of a system may be so people can easily settle disputes, while the acutal use of the system is to go kill Newbs.

What generally happens is people abuse OPEN pvp and start attacking anyone and everyone, like a psychotic mass murderer.  When people start leaving because of the amount of griefers, the devs step in and add in some sort of safe guard against griefers.  This may be some sort of alignment system, PVP free areas, Flags, etc.  When this happens people who adovocate "OPEN PVP" start complaining when their playstlye starts getting cramped, because they can no-longer force their playstle on others.

Originally posted by robert4818

There are many forms of PVP.

Instanced

Level-limited Team PVP

Level-Limited Open PVP

Level Unlimited Team PVP

Level Unlimited Open PVP

PVP Flagging

Then there's the difference between intended use of the system, and actual use of the system.  The intended use of a system may be so people can easily settle disputes, while the acutal use of the system is to go kill Newbs.

What generally happens is people abuse OPEN pvp and start attacking anyone and everyone, like a psychotic mass murderer.  When people start leaving because of the amount of griefers, the devs step in and add in some sort of safe guard against griefers.  This may be some sort of alignment system, PVP free areas, Flags, etc.  When this happens people who adovocate "OPEN PVP" start complaining when their playstlye starts getting cramped, because they can no-longer force their playstle on others.

 

So basically you want a make-it-fair-for-ME-PvP-in-a-bottle system designed to circumvent the very nature of the game in which the system resides.   That sounds to me like a very confused MMO.

Originally posted by ruiner12

Does everyone believe there should be at least some form of open PvP in every game? If you're looking at it from a realistic perspective, and you are actually living in the world of your game, then doesn't it make sense that you'd run into your enemies at some point and get into a battle? Instanced PvP is fun in it's own way, but it can't compare to open world PvP in the suprise and intensity. To me a game without this form of PvP is lacking an essential element and will crash and burn.

Instanced PVP is for freaking pretenders, bring back the zerg..

8 man stealth groups FTW..

www.youtube.com/watch

Originally posted by Coldren

Zerging and population balance were still an issue, but that is an issue in ANY PvP system

You meant just open/world PVP systems, right?

I have found many newer games to actually institute a kind of combination of the types of PvP. Aion for example. They have a 2 way PvP system with a strong NPC race that makes it a PvPvE which only happens in the Abyss. Ganking is prevalent, but that is where calling on allies to gank back comes in. It has it's own form of Open World PvP that happens only during certain hours of the day because rifts connecting the two ends of the planet emerge. This allows for there to be a very limited amount of griefing because they can only access your territory every so-many hours.

I have found this system quite fun so far :)

For those interested in what open world PvP can (and should) be I suggest you try the PvP server of Spellborn right now (Free at the moment too)

There are a couple of things making it work right now;

-Low population

-Large world

-Some non PvP zones

-Travel times

The low population and large world results in a low player density.  As a result the "gank squads" simply don't operate.  There is just not enough fodder for them.
Not to mention the game supports the explorer player type.
Interesting for me as an EKAS player (Bartle Test) is that this also supports what Bartle said in that Explorers do tend to counter PKers to a point.
The EKs will fight but not just to gank.

The travel times within the large world also make it impractical for zerg squads too.  And if one did appear - you could move to a non-PvP zone if you wanted.

The interesting thing for me is how the PvP works as a result of all these factors.
There are PvP ambushes - but typically it will be one player getting you by surprise while you hand in a quest with an NPC or battle an NPC.
They only get one shot.

There is also an etiquette developing in game
Typically players wont just attack each other.
More often than not though players will simply watch one another. 
Sometimes a standoff results.
Then players will often talk.

Last night a player and I stood (weapons drawn) in a PvP zone.  I was on a quest and had no real intention of fighting - but was prepared to.
Eventually he said "Are you going to fight me?"
I replied "Your call... I am on a quest."
>"Which quest?" he said.  Then he asked "Do you know where the battle ground is?"
Then he sheathed his sword.
So I sheathed mine.

And we stood and talked and helped each other with our quests.

That's pretty common behaviour in Spellborn.  PvP does happen but it is more like a wild west type gunfight than the typical gank/zerg of many games.

You see an enemy player... if you want to fight you draw and attack.
Or, you watch, finger on the button, ready to draw.

Sometimes they draw... sometimes they don't.

Spellborn has its problems (which is why it 'failed' I guess) and has loading screens between zones (which I hate...sigh) but under the current conditions I think it works for PvP in the way I think many MMORPG players imagine PvP should work.
 

It seems obvious to me there are two main types of players here:

• Competitive PVPers.  These players prefer instanced games, where non-skill factors are minimized.  This results in combat where player skill is important.  Your decisions determine the outcome.
• World PVPers.  These players desire world simulation, where you have the option of dealing violently with anyone you come across.

I very much understand the motivations of the former, because that's what I am.  A strong connection between my decisions and the outcome is absolutely critical for a game to feel fun to me.

What I am most curious about are the specific reasons why players feel world PVP is fun.  With so many fights being foregone conclusions, it seems the combat mechanics themselves aren't of interest to these players. I have my hunches why, but would rather hear the pure opinions of others without guiding them into predefined answers.

Originally posted by Axehilt

It seems obvious to me there are two main types of players here:

• Competitive PVPers.  ...
• World PVPers.  These players desire world simulation, where you have the option of dealing violently with anyone you come across.

I very much understand the motivations of the former, because that's what I am.  A strong connection between my decisions and the outcome is absolutely critical for a game to feel fun to me.

What I am most curious about are the specific reasons why players feel world PVP is fun.  With so many fights being foregone conclusions, it seems the combat mechanics themselves aren't of interest to these players. I have my hunches why, but would rather hear the pure opinions of others without guiding them into predefined answers.

I guess I am a world PvPer.

My Bartle type is EKAS.  I normally wouldn't use a personality test result (because I think there are a lot of potential flaws in them) but that one sort of fits.

I like to explore first and for most.
I like PvP for a reason - in most cases that means RvR too.
PvP for me is not just about winning a battle or beating one particular person (although it can be) it is more about the overall picture.
Did my effort contribute?... That's why I play WWIIoL and will probably try EvE when I move on from that.

Spellborn (example above) provides PvP without the RvR.  But it provides something WWIIoL also gives - suspense.
You never know when (or if) you are about to enter combat.
You spawn in (or enter a PvP zone) and it could be quiet and boring or full on PvP?
You may be outnumbered, or on an equal footing?
I like uncertainty - the actaul mechanics of combat (he has a sheld +1 AC-  vs my sword +2  - giving me a +1 advantage min / max type stuff) bores me.

And you don't have to enter combat.  You can pick and choose your battles.  You fight for what is important.

Hope that helps?

 I really do miss the old days of WoW open world pvp.  Where one could get a raid parting to overtake and demolish any good quest hub town (before the god damn minus honor rating bull).  It was really a thrill doing all of that stuff, because it was just for the fun of it, no other reason.  Not to get gear, not to gank, just to poke and prod at the other side until you got a response, and a real battle began.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Coldren

Zerging and population balance were still an issue, but that is an issue in ANY PvP system

You meant just open/world PVP systems, right?

No, I meant all.

Even WoW had issues with population for instanced PvP - That's why they formed the Battlegroups in the first place. Population imbalances left some sides waiting for 5+ hours to get into a BG.

Then there was Wintergrasp, which was time-based open-world PvP, and still they had issues with not only lag, but population. Now it's on a timer AND essentially an instance because you have to que up to join, and you can't fly into the area if you're not in the que. And Zerging was definitely an issue on top of that - Didn't take 100 horde much time to steamroll the 25 alliance members defending.

Every PvP system will have some form of these issues. Even if you control when/where characters can be made, you can't control when they leave.

Why the heck won't they just modernize DAoC?  Throw the CryEngine on that game and resell.  This game has the best RvR/Open PVP ruleset and the 8v8 makes it hella intense for coordinating everything in a fight.  So much more variety on class selection, play-styles and the fact that it was a tri-realm system, /sigh. 

Originally posted by Xantal

Why the heck won't they just modernize DAoC?  Throw the CryEngine on that game and resell.  This game has the best RvR/Open PVP ruleset and the 8v8 makes it hella intense for coordinating everything in a fight.  So much more variety on class selection, play-styles and the fact that it was a tri-realm system, /sigh. 

I completely agree. If they modernized it, it could make bank..

Originally posted by Coldren

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Coldren

Zerging and population balance were still an issue, but that is an issue in ANY PvP system

You meant just open/world PVP systems, right?

 Even WoW had issues with population for instanced PvP - That's why they formed the Battlegroups in the first place. Population imbalances left some sides waiting for 5+ hours to get into a BG.

Every PvP system will have some form of these issues. Even if you control when/where characters can be made, you can't control when they leave. 

Ah I see what you mean.  Suppose I'd agree with that, even if those issues are both more rare and less intrusive than world PVP where one side steamrolls the other.

You'd need to revise the second statement to "Every faction-based PVP system" for it to be accurate. There are a number of types of PVP where pop/zerging issues are rarely or never an issue (RTSes, FPSes, the new DOTA clones.)  MMORPGs could be designed around these types of gameplay without too much trouble

Originally posted by ruiner12

 Instanced PvP is fun in it's own way, but it can't compare to open world PvP in the suprise and intensity. To me a game without this form of PvP is lacking an essential element and will crash and burn.

The problem is that some people don't like the surprise and intensity. The idea of looking over your shoulder all the time isn't really appealing.

I myself prefer the whole rvr thing though I found warhammer's battlegrounds fun.

I really liked the open pvp in Lineage 2 but it became tiresome after a while if you weren't running with a warband or pvp group.

Originally posted by Sovrath

The problem is that some people don't like the surprise and intensity.

I discovered this 10 years ago playing EQ on a PvP server. As simple as jumping an even level player with comparable gear and subsequently killing them would result in being called an Ahole and a loser with no life, responsible for making people quit a game. I remember talking to a few that said their hands were shaking after the fight. The adrenaline rush people would get was simply too much for some people. Fun times

I personally prefer open PvP but I'm also quite aware there is no "best" way when talking about open PvP vs Instanced. There is only personal taste.

Originally posted by Fibsdk

Originally posted by Sovrath

The problem is that some people don't like the surprise and intensity.

 

I discovered this 10 years ago playing EQ on a PvP server. As simple as jumping an even level player with comparable gear and subsequently killing them would result in being called an Ahole and a loser with no life, responsible for making people quit a game. I remember talking to a few that said their hands were shaking after the fight.

 

I personally prefer open PvP but I'm also quite aware there is no "best" way when talking about open PvP vs Instanced. There is only personal taste. The adrenaline rush people would get was simply too much for some people.

Well the first MMO I Played was Ultima Online and I don't think you got much more "open world pvp" than UO was for the first few years.  Then again it was pretty much full loot on death (other than newbie items there weren't bless deeds etc at that time).

I kind miss it.. even the annoying aspects of it.  Tho I do feel that a "better" system would be to have something like Trammel at the start for people who don't like pvp.

However, that was why I liked DAoC because the "frontier" was the frontier and you knew what it meant to be out there.  Tho in the end its really not different than UO after the Trammel split... except that they added Trammel while DAoC launched with the frontier.

I also prefer the way UO worked than DAoC or ANY level/gear based game for PvP.  I really do prefer that your understanding of game mechanics is what allows you to win (even with so called "weak skill builds") as opposed to gear and "I win" buttons.

That I guess is another topic entirely.  Early UO or early DAoC... either one I liked them both.  Most games I've tried to pvp in (besides those two) seem rather pointless or poorly done.  just an opinion to add to the thread...

Most people avoid games with pvp focus, but this kind of game would be nice for pvp fans.

Originally posted by ruiner12

Does everyone believe there should be at least some form of open PvP in every game? If you're looking at it from a realistic perspective, and you are actually living in the world of your game, then doesn't it make sense that you'd run into your enemies at some point and get into a battle? Instanced PvP is fun in it's own way, but it can't compare to open world PvP in the suprise and intensity. To me a game without this form of PvP is lacking an essential element and will crash and burn.

Nope.

1) Games are not real world. Realism does not apply. Otherwise, any form of magic would be out.

2) Use your own logic, *some* open PvP is also not realistic. Why would an enemy can only go to particular zones to pvp? 

3) Games has little form of open PvP are popular. WOW, LOTRO, and many other examples. The assertion that they will crash and burn is just silly.

As a few members before me said something like: "If the mmo does not support world PvP, you should not support the mmo" I agree COMPLETELY.

I remember playing vanilla WoW (Pre-BC) world PvP was the pvp.  There is no "other" sure there was BGs and stuff, but everyone had mats to farm, proffs to raise, and you had to do it all in the world, outside of the instances.  And what happens when you run into an opposing faction trying to get the same mats, or hell, just another player grinding in that area?  You fight, of course.  And it meant something, whoever won got that material, whoever lost had to walk from the graveyard.  Yeah I have to say, world PvP is by far the most important aspect of MMO's, these new ones are... Making me want to punch babies.

I don't get it..

Does anyone here even like instanced PvP?  It looks like everyone supports open PvP.  If that's the case, why do people still continue to play games like WoW where they put PVP in instances?

WoW definitely does not have open PvP, even if you play on their PvP servers there is no reason for people to PvP because of the stupid setup they have there (retarded newbies keep coming back after you kill them)

Anyway, I don't understand why these games are so popular if people prefer World PvP.  Also, instances are another thing that would have to be removed for open world PvP to work.  If instances weren't removed, then there wouldn't be much incentive to attack other guilds.  But if they had world NPCs like EQ did, then guilds would naturally fight against each other in order to progress.

To the guy who complained that his level 1 couldn't kill a level 50 in EQ, big deal?  Maybe your character sucks compared to a level 50 character?  Would anyone even play MMORPGs if you had no way of advancing, lol.  You want a level 1 newbie to be able to take on a level 60 and have it be fair?  Try an FPS or something.

And a level 50 should be able to go kill level 1's if he wants to, it's better than putting stupid limits on everything where you have to be above level x and in zone y to PvP.  

Any MMORPG that doesn't have every zone, every level, etc. open to PvP is a carebear and fake MMORPG and is not worth playing.  When will idiotic MMORPG companies realize that their PvP systems are fucking garbage?  Seriously.. the fact that these shit games don't even have an alternative for real PvP systems is unacceptable.  Look at EQ, bunch of blue servers, and a few hardcore PvP servers. 

But world PvP can't work with the current rules in a failure game like WoW.  I remember how pointless and boring the hillsbrad PvP was before they had battlegrounds.  It was just a meaningless point farm to those players.  Real PvP games have people fighting over non-artificial rewards, and WoW doesn't have any of that (honor/reputation), which is why WoW's PvP system is boring and is for newbs

So according to you levels are the only way of advancing in a game?

Every single game that is dominated by world pvp has always been who has the biggest zerg. I keep trying to find an world pvp game that doesn't devolve into that, I've had no luck so far. The most fun pvp games I've played had scenarios or battlegrounds and arena style pvp (warhammer and guild wars). For open world pvp type games I just don't see the appeal, I've had more fun playing the total war series and rts games rather than a peon who dies in a lag induced massive zergfest.

Originally posted by Ginkeq

I don't get it..

Does anyone here even like instanced PvP?  It looks like everyone supports open PvP.  If that's the case, why do people still continue to play games like WoW where they put PVP in instances?

Yes, some people here like instanced PVP.  Like I said earlier, you're either going to care about player decisions mattering (skill) or you're going to care about world simulation.

Instanced PVP achieves maybe a 60% success rate at getting compettiive games, and perhaps 5-10% of those are fantastic close fights.

In World PVP those numbers fall dramatically. Most battles are very one-sided; they're predetermined, and as a result your decisions don't really matter.

Without interesting decisions, is it even a game anymore?  It seems more like a movie, playing out according to the script. 

Sure, you had a say in how the script was written - you equipped good gear, gathered your friends, and struck when the enemy was weak.  But it's a movie about a well-equipped army crushing some peasant rabble.  That's not even a good movie.

League of Legends (RTS; DOTA clone) takes instanced PVP a step further, by applying a genius matchmaking formula which looks at the skill level of the players in the pool and matches them in a way which gives each team a 50/50 expected chance of winning.  This turns that 60% success rate from before into more like 90% competitive games.  Hats off to Zileas, as LOL provides the most consistently excellent pub matches I've had in any game ever.  Knowing population is balanced (5v5 matches) and skill is balanced (due to matchmaking) means your decisionmaking during the fight is of crucial importance.

LoL is a better "movie" too.  It's the back and forth war movie that has you wondering who'll win right til the end.  It's good conflict.

instanced pvp like for example world of warcraft and autoraidparty ( play whenever you feel like pvp )

open world pvp you fancy go alone to face enemy players end up being ganked most likely a group anyway.

a pvp is best to be instanced without forgetting the option to do that in open world also.

cheers

Agreed, open pvp has its place.  However, like you said, it should have SOME open pvp.  Exclusively open pvp won't draw much of a playerbase anymore.