PvP is just an annoyance in otherwise fun games.  There may not be actual packs of griefers, but there are enough in every game with PVP to make the game unenjoyable.  With limited playing time, I try to accomplish something in every session - be it 30 min, one hour or multiple hours.  Getting repeatably ganked while harvesting [Ryzom] or running to an appropriate level dungeon [AC Darktide] or just fighting different MOBs [DAoC] wastes my time and essentially ruins the game for me.  It was always repeatedly ganked, sometimes by the same individual[s] and sometimes not, but it was never just once so that I could "ha ha, good moves there /salute" and move on.

@The_Grump: The "participation trophy" was after my time. The issue that I have with pvp is that, in EvE for example, if you start the game and play for a few months and then go looking for some pvp: You lose. Period. You will kill no one unless you run to the starter system and suicide gank newbie ships. It's funny though, that guy at the beginning of the article who said he's played EvE for 4 years and only been attacked twice. Lol. Maybe he just hops in to update his skills, I got attacked within 1 jump of Jita 3 times last week. Meh, in a game where there is some possibility, even a small one, of success then pvp is ok. If you're a 2 month old character in EvE vs a 7 year old character in EvE? You lose. If you're a level 22 warrior in WoW running through Lakeshire and you get jumped by an 80 (and you will, believe you me ;-D)? You lose.

Let's be perfectly honest here, shall we? All the ardent supporters of PvP here are people who, by and large, win at pvp. If you deny it then make a WoW character on laughing skull server, level to 20 or so, run to the first contested zone you can find, and log in to the realm forums and demand some pvp. Spend the next 12 hours getting one-shot before you can even pop your hearthstone to escape. Rinse/repeat for a month or so. If, after that, you still come on here and tell me you love pvp I will believe you.  Personally? I love PvP in some games. I love it in EvE when I find a 3 month old character flying an industrial on a courier mission through low sec. I have yet to find a three month old in null sec but someday.... I like it in WoW when I'm on the way to help a guildie in stv and I arrive right after his 30 gets attacked by a couple 50's and I cheerfully butcher them. I love PvP when I snipe some dude from cover in CoD:MW. Or when I find a sniper with very little situational awareness when I'm on my pyro, sneak up behind him and WHOOSH! Sniper Flambe'!

Getting killed isn't nearly as much fun as killing but as long as I do the killing a fair amount of the time I'm ok with it.

Tnhere onoly 1 thing i hate bout PVP and it is in every game ever seeen with PVP, gankers stupid ppl think it cool to kill u over and over again while they are 50 and u are lvl 2.If someones says oh that dont happen 9 times outta 10 they are ones doing it. I mean I have no prob with good ol fashion fight me against him if is somewhat fair fight, and say i just turned 50 i dont expect to win against someone been 50 for a yr and been out there, but for 50's sit there and kill lvl 2;s over and over same guy mind u and sit there and laughs at u like see am cool I can kill u, probable cant fight ppl his own lvl why he camps babie area's.Like Mortal online, game was made for 2 type ppl theives and gankers what fun is it to run round butt naked with nothing on even cause everytime u get something muight help from good smeritain here ur ganker or theif kills u and off he goes leaving u bear naked. I am a crafter by my account and if u cant last 2 min into a game forget it aint worth my time to waste let the theives and gankers have game will go elsewere to craft....

The only misconceptions about pvp in most of these games is that the developers think people will play fair, while most do there are enough that will take advantage of any edge to ruin it for the rest of us.

I don't know any f2p that even has a resemblance of fair pvp.  Everyone is pay to win and not a cheap pay at that.  Saw someone say that Warhammer has the best pvp, which is a real laugh to me.  Best pvp I ever had was DAoC pre Atlantis.  UO was not bad either before they borked it up with later expansions.  Even AC had better pvp on Darktide than Warhammer.  Too bad Mythic could not look back at their past to see what worked.

As far as I'm concerned, and this is just imho as always, an MMO without PVP it too much of a walk down a path in the forest. It's pretty, I enjoyed it but I never left the path. The only real, unscripted moments any game can throw at you has to revolve around other players. The chaos factor. Without the chaos, possibilities, whatever you want to call it, it's still enjoyable but not as much as it could have been. For me. When the day finally comes that someone launches a true triple A title, maybe not focused on PvP but allowing for the fact that players can do what they could if it were a real world, with definite consequences of those actions in place, I'll be happy man and I think many people will finally understand that there isn't a true challenge unless another player, prick or not, is behind it. At least in an MMO, FPS, etc. Don't get me wrong, love games like Bioshock but unless Bioware can pull that off in a multi-player world, we're stuck with each other as our best competition.

Originally posted by Harpy_Lady

Win or lose, II dislike PVP immensely. Nothing will change that. I don't like the playstyle. It's the same as playing sports to me. Which I also dislike. There is absolutely nothing that will change my dislike for PVP.

That said, if others want to PVP, go for it. Just don't force it on the rest of us.

 

I'd have to agree with you! I never liked PvP, and I can easily take out people, but its just not fun to play PvP, and I never understood the fascination toward PvPing.

PvP in most games, suck bunches, theres no balance, and most of it is geared to certain classes, due to there obseen skill pool that excels in 1v1 combat! Thus they have the advantage or most players in the game. Of course there are other classes that may have a certain hidden skill that completely flops the game around and they can easily win now! Also often or not the PvP systems in games just aren't fully developed, and the engine is just bad thus creating a horrible PvP experience.

Also there are players out there that gear themselves with extrodinary armor thats is nearly impossible to catch up to! Why!? because they excelled in a certain area before everyone else, they have connections that others don't and once they become ontop they stay ontop, due to them being able to do things others can't. Usually Cash Shops in MMO's allow players to excel past others easily in game because its an instant upgrade usually that other players CANT afford. Thus is what throws off PvP battles, its not skill ever, but its always about numbers, and whom uses there oftenly "cheating" skills the best.

One thing I do hate, of which I've done, is moves that stun, Stun here stun there. Its not really a strategy, its just a broken PvP move thats irritating, the other player Cant defend themselves, or come up with a strategy to defeat you. I've beaten an elite player once with no armor using this tactic that they could not avoid. This is why I HATE PvP

MMORPG's are the worst game system to have PvP.   There is no PvP system in an MMORPG that is any good at all - with the exception of Planetside and that is because it is an FPS type MMORPG/FPS.   The rest...suck.    If MMORPG's are going to have PvP then level the playing field and allow for player skill to be what decides who wins and who loses instead of arbitrary set of skills(games that are heavily skill based like DF are still full of fail) and the roll of dice.  

Make an MMORPG that has combat like Mount and Blade or BF2 and then let's talk PvP.

[quote]Originally posted by uncus
[b]Getting repeatably ganked while harvesting [Ryzom] or running to an appropriate level dungeon [AC Darktide] or just fighting different MOBs [DAoC] wastes my time and essentially ruins the game for me.  It was always repeatedly ganked, sometimes by the same individual[s] and sometimes not, but it was never just once so that I could "ha ha, good moves there /salute" and move on.
[/b][/quote]

It sounds likely to me that maybe in your harvesting scenarios the opponent was after the same resources as yourself and possibly perceived you as a threat to him/her or "his/her" resources. You also have to expect a PvP situation bordering any instance. Instances are areas of the game where groups of players (all of similar levels) will come together on a regular basis. This makes the area a "Hot Spot" for PvP. A PvP enthusiast prefers to stay within these "Hot Spots" in order to get the most PvP action. Being in a low population area is to the PvP enthusiast what wastes his/her time and essentially ruins the game for them.

Ganking is an entirely different conversation. Granted, some people will not engage in PvP Combat unless they are absolutely positive that they have the upper hand on their opponent. It's sad but it's very true. However, most people tend to run around with a group of friends knowing that at any time they could stumble upon a group of opposing enemies and realize the difficulties that could arise in fighting them alone. It is also slightly more fun to share these PvP experiences with friends. This seems all fine and dandy up until the point where that lower-level solo player of the opposing faction runs out onto the road in front of your party. Ideally, you just run past him and leave him be, hoping that he will notify his faction of your presence. Though commonly players will launch the attack expecting the player to whine about it or request assistance via his/her chat channels. In either scenario the goal here is to alert the opposing faction that you are a threat within their territory. You are attempting to create a "Hot Spot" of your own through this behavior. The deeper within their territory you get (which unfortunately also happens to be the usual "lowbie" or low-level areas) the more of a rush you get because you feel as if it took more of a challenge to get there or because you've managed to launch an attack on an area that you shouldn't have a chance in hell of getting to.

UO (Ultima Online) had implemented a Faction system where there were Faction Strongholds located outside of town and in otherwise desolate areas. These Strongholds were ideal PvP "Hot Spots" for any Faction member. This system also worked because the Faction Ruleset only applied on the Felucca (PvP) half of the shard (realm) allowing those that aren't interested in the conflicts to avoid it completely. In my opinion no other PvP system has ever succeeded as well as the UO systems. With Guild Wars, Factions, and the Chaos/Order system, you didn't even have to become a murderer in order to enjoy the competition. Toss in the fact that FFA PvP only existed on the Felucca side of the shard and you have the perfect system. One that rewarded those that were willing to face the additional risk and one that sheltered those unwilling to participate. Neither side wrong, nor punished, just different.

---

Originally posted by Ozmodan
The only misconceptions about pvp in most of these games is that the developers think people will play fair, while most do there are enough that will take advantage of any edge to ruin it for the rest of us.
I don't know any f2p that even has a resemblance of fair pvp.  Everyone is pay to win and not a cheap pay at that.  Saw someone say that Warhammer has the best pvp, which is a real laugh to me.  Best pvp I ever had was DAoC pre Atlantis.  UO was not bad either before they borked it up with later expansions.  Even AC had better pvp on Darktide than Warhammer.  Too bad Mythic could not look back at their past to see what worked.

---

I have to agree with that. Though I was too big of a UO fanatic at the time and never got to try DAOC. I really regret that :/

Maybe I missed it but I don't see any misconceptions about PvP here. It's always about the gear and I don't believe anyone really thinks other wise. One would wish it was about skill but not one really believes that. More often then now unless it's structured it is a gankfest and these designers have to know that. They might not want to openly admit as it could be bad for business but they know full well what systems they designed. Those that have the most money to buy multiple accounts will have a clear advantage over everyone else. Those that don't have a life and play the game nonstop will have an advantage over everyone else.

What I would have liked for them to have done was address the difference between a PvPer and a Pker. It is the PKers that give PvP a negative reputation (not a misconception but highlight the problems that are actually there) and who simply want prey.

It would have been nice if Shadowbane, Ultima Online and the creation of Trammel, and Dark Age of Camelot's Frontier were talked about in terms of their positives and negatives. This didn't really seem like a discussion on the topic of PvP. More like PR speak.

Originally posted by Harpy_Lady

Win or lose, II dislike PVP immensely. Nothing will change that. I don't like the playstyle. It's the same as playing sports to me. Which I also dislike. There is absolutely nothing that will change my dislike for PVP.

That said, if others want to PVP, go for it. Just don't force it on the rest of us.

 I don't care for PvP at all either. It has nothing to do with me winning or losing in a PvP situation. I just don't like it, and i take no pleasure from actually winning. It's not for me. I am with you, don't force it on the rest of us. Just make the PvP situation clear and stop trying to cater to both crowds and make both unhappy with the system.

Oh I don't know how you say the word often and exceptional in the same breath and not scratch your head. If veterans OFTEN hunt lower levels in a certain area in AoC , then it is not an exceptional situation or scenaio.

---

Originally posted by Effect
Maybe I missed it but I don't see any misconceptions about PvP here. It's always about the gear and I don't believe anyone really thinks other wise. One would wish it was about skill but not one really believes that. More often then now unless it's structured it is a gankfest and these designers have to know that. They might not want to openly admit as it could be bad for business but they know full well what systems they designed. Those that have the most money to buy multiple accounts will have a clear advantage over everyone else. Those that don't have a life and play the game nonstop will have and advantage over everyone else.

What I would have liked for them to have done was address the difference between a PvPer and a Pker. It is the PKers that give PvP a never reputation (not a misconception but highlight the problems that are actually there) and who simply want prey.

It would have been nice if Shadowbane, Ultima Online and the creation of Trammel, and Dark Age of Camelot's Frontier were talked about in terms of their positives and negatives. This didn't really seem like a discussion on the topic of PvP. More like PR speak.

---

Agreed. There are many ways to create a successful PvP game but there are also many things that can destroy it. Item-based PvP is one of the worse afflictions. In a competition over who is the better fighter it just doesn't make sense to involve who has the better gear. I understand the entire carrot on a stick theory as far as PvE is concerned however it just doesn't make any sense to apply the same concept to PvP.

There are ways to have both. If the developers give all items a default DMG cap against other players for example. With a more Arena style of PvP players can be stripped of their items and forced to equip themselves with the gear offered in the arena before the match begins. The original gear would be traded back of course after the match. Certain spells or abilities should not be available in PvP combat and others should also have a DMG cap vs other players..

Also developers need to balance PvP on a 1v1 scale without using a Paper/Rock/Scissors system. Large scale PvP matters little when simple 1v1 combat is not up to par.

These are things that can contribute to a fair, albeit unrealistic, PvP Environment.

DAOC hands down. Absolutely the best pvp in an MMORPG ever. The comment above about it being like having a full PVE game along side a full on PVP game is why it ended up failing. In the beginning anyone could get the best gear with almost no effort. Then they launched TOA and all the people that wanted to just PVP had to step inside the realm of PVE for a short time and they went bonkers. The worst part of all the negative attitudes concerning TOA was that it wasn't necessary to get everything. Most classes only needed a few things and some classes didn't need artifacts to be competitive unless they were into soloing. My tic had all his MLS in two weeks and two artifacts I wanted a week later. My scout made it to RR8 with nothing but player crafted gear and old world drops with maybe 15 evenings spent getting to ML10. The pvp in DAOC was hinged so much on tactics that gear better than player crafted was only an issue one v one.

I dislike PvP due to the jerks who either 1. play the OP class to win or 2. glitch/use super dirty tactics to win.

I'm not against using some dirty tactics to win but constantly abusing the ones that are borderline glitching (shooting through terrain or abusing the collision system) is just bullcrap.

Thats really the only reason why i dislike PvP but unfortunately that pretty much sums up PvP in just about every game.  The only game where i did not experience that (as much) was Darkfall but because i could never catch up to the other players i often found myself getting killed.

PvP has it's place.  Most of my enjoyable PvP time came from playing on a open ended PvP servers in AoC, or in SWG as a full time special forces person.  The need for constant awareness brings a new tension to the game.  That's a very different play experience than the mini-game scenario.

Equipment can make a difference in 1v1 fights, or even 1v2.  But in all out PvP I think it's situational awareness, skill and coordination that make for the win in team play.

An MMO has to make room for both PvP and PvE.  The PvP mini-game does help to avoid widespread ganking, res-pad camping, or rogue groups of 80s sweeping through level 20 zones.  The recent changes to reputation and outlaws put some damper on that in AOC.  Good coordinated player responses to wipe the gankers are even more rewarding.

Bottom line for me; if you're going in for PvP be prepared to lose.

In EVE we say every ship you fly you must be prepared to lose every time you un-dock.  And a loss in EVE has real setback consequences unlike most other games.  The devs did a good job in EVE for making the PVP experience playable for even new players in cheep ships mixed in with the big girls and boys.  There is a role for each player no matter their skill level. 

Expet the worst, strive for the best by being prepared, and have fun (it is just a game)!  And expect to lose a lot to become good.

Follow-on comment:  Many mentions of duche-bag players above, and nobody enjoys beating or losing to irratating players.  But I think it's a pleasure to lose to someone who shows a lot of skill and a good attitude.  When you're eating dirt because the other player turned the tables and got the best of you, then salutes you for a good fight, it is still a rewarding experience.  When they smack-talk you after jumping you with six fo their friends acting like they are uber warriors you just want to jam a pole-arm up their anterior region sideways.  And that's all part of the PvP experience!

I didn't see anyone on that panel qualified to speak about PVP.

The only PvP I even enjoyed was the RvR in DAOC.

The biggest misconception those devs had about PvP in MMOs is that they think that people who are coming to the genre for PvE should have any interest in PvP.

Am I Anti-PvP?  Hardly.  But my PvP is confined to games which are designed solely for PvP.  I play (most) MMOs for the social, PvE experience.  Why?  Because they are designed for PvE primarily.

I don't demand PvE in my PvP games nor PvP in my PvE games.  I wish the devs would stop trying to mix the two.  If they want a PvP MMO, fine, but build it ONLY as a PvP MMO.  Don't have the player spend 90% of their time PvE then say the remaining 10% is the awesome PvP.  If that's the case your game is PvE, is going to suck at PvP, and has no business having PvP in it.

Originally posted by crockopoopoo

Originally posted by Harpy_Lady

Win or lose, II dislike PVP immensely. Nothing will change that. I don't like the playstyle. It's the same as playing sports to me. Which I also dislike. There is absolutely nothing that will change my dislike for PVP.

That said, if others want to PVP, go for it. Just don't force it on the rest of us.

I would agree with that.  People generally PvP for two reasons: 1) they're intensely competitive or 2) they enjoy fucking with others (sometimes it's both).

So far, MMORPGs have never provided a compelling in-game reason to engage in PvP.  No territory is won or lost for good (siege timers, vulnerability, the ability to respawn/zerg and take back an objective you just lost), and no victory over another player means anything since they're right back in the fight after rezzing.

Counter-example: EVE, where you very much can win or lose territory, and victories definitely mean something.