Originally posted by Recant
The OP has a great point. Just a shame that as soon as a developer as naive as him puts this into practice, everyone will play a wizard. Or you will have groups of wizards going around 1 shooting content and/or players. Human nature.

All joking aside, I liked a lot of the aspects of the early UO mages

- reagents were required for casting

- spells didn't selectively hurt some and not hurt others

- spell books needed to be scribed, which meant the spells needed to bought or collected

Sounds really limiting and expensive until you consider that what comes with that is

• - the ability to teleport or gate people to custom locations all over the map, including the bottom of the deadliest dungeons
• - a private dungeon only for those with a certain level of magery
• - the ability to cast Chained Lightning and Meteor Showers, damn near decimating anything in the 3x3 area it hits
• - poison, paralyze and fire fields to nightmarishly carpet entire areas of the terrain
• - Blade Spirits that wander, cut and poison every living thing they come in contact with
• - Earthquakes that knock oeverone on screen on their ass (people feel during a quake prior to the introduction of death anims) and knocking them to half health.

I like the whole Spiderman-esque design of with great power comes great responsibility. :) The system definitely had its flaws and is certainly not for the crowd that feels they shouldn't be responsible for their actions, but it was damn fun and a real challenge to effectly play a high level mage without occasionally offing a few off your guildmates. :)

  I agree from a PnP/fantasy novel/Cinematic point of view. When going against powerful Mages in sprpg games,books and movies it usually always takes a whole party (including lesser mages) and some special "table-turner" like an artifact....i.e. the wizards soul buried in a magical jar under a dragons hoard..then release it to fly back into the evil wizard making him mortal again and vulnerable to a swords point,arrow..or some such shite.

Unfortunately in most(all?)  mmos..every player has to be "the chosen one" so balanced PVP must be maintained to prevent the  playerbase from drowning in the tears of the offended.

People gripe about balance even in games that are almost all PvE.  The original EQ is such a game, and people would complain that other classes were better or theirs was gimped ALL THE TIME.

The simple fact of the matter is that if you put a bunch of people in a game they are going to find some way to compete.  Whether it be who can kill MOBs faster, control MOBs better, craft the best items, kill players better, heal the best, etc. etc.  The point is that people will always find SOMETHING to compete over.  It's human nature.

Do you honestly think that if you make a game with no PvP that people are going to stop whining about balance for a hot second?  If you make a game where wizards are like fantasy novel wizards and can kill 200 enemies with one spell, then how do you think the guy playing a warrior is going to feel?  He'll be on the boards bitching about OP wizards just like he would be in a PvP game.  it seriously doesn't make a difference.

The only ways to eliminate balance concerns would be to:

1.  Make every single player exactly the same from start to finish.  But would you really want to play a game with no variety?

2.  Make a game were players cannot compete in anything whatsoever.  First I don't even know if this is possible, and second it kind of seems like the game would be boring.  What kind of game is there were you literally can't do anything better or worse than another player?  A cutscene watching game?

Originally posted by Painlezz

 

We can’t have interesting PvE content (or even PvP content) if every class is balanced to be 1v1 capable.  At that point everyone ends up being the same with tools to combat everyone else.   

That line pretty much answers all that blathering. If you can 1 v 1, then you can just as easily do 100 v. 100 and still have a fun and competitive match. And why shouldn't every class have abilities to combat every other class?

Just sounds like your trying to "ninja in" comments of how you want to be able to 1 shot people sometimes to feel special without having to work for it IMO.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Recant
The OP has a great point. Just a shame that as soon as a developer as naive as him puts this into practice, everyone will play a wizard. Or you will have groups of wizards going around 1 shooting content and/or players. Human nature.

 

All joking aside, I liked a lot of the aspects of the early UO mages

- reagents were required for casting

- spells didn't selectively hurt some and not hurt others

- spell books needed to be scribed, which meant the spells needed to bought or collected

 

Sounds really limiting and expensive until you consider that what comes with that is

• - the ability to teleport or gate people to custom locations all over the map, including the bottom of the deadliest dungeons
• - a private dungeon only for those with a certain level of magery
• - the ability to cast Chained Lightning and Meteor Showers, damn near decimating anything in the 3x3 area it hits
• - poison, paralyze and fire fields to nightmarishly carpet entire areas of the terrain
• - Blade Spirits that wander, cut and poison every living thing they come in contact with
• - Earthquakes that knock oeverone on screen on their ass (people feel during a quake prior to the introduction of death anims) and knocking them to half health.

 

I like the whole Spiderman-esque design of with great power comes great responsibility. :) The system definitely had its flaws and is certainly not for the crowd that feels they shouldn't be responsible for their actions, but it was damn fun and a real challenge to effectly play a high level mage without occasionally offing a few off your guildmates. :)

Exactly....and just like in PnP (e.g. AD&D)...those mages could be major powers...but take out his/her guardians( faithful friends the thief,fighter and cleric)...e.g Mage doesnt pay attention and fire-nukes his/her party along with some of the enemy. Then that mage may be able to take out the rest of his/her adversaries..but just as likely..that mage can now be flanked and his/her squishy body beaten to a pulp.

In PnP...at some point here is a period of time where each class is more or less equal..usually around a certain level. Like order of power at the start is usually fighter /cleric/thief /mage.......then this shuffles around as each gains level with the mage coming out on top (usually at the higher levels)..maybe mage/cleric/fighter/thief. With the last 3 classes rotatable depending on how they specialized or allocated points. Old school. Then again...it's been a long time since I've played D&D/AD&D (1st and 2nd edition) so I could have remembered things in error). I know these days WOTC have pretty much holy trinityed everything.

I think it's more appropriate to say that the "e-sport" mentality has had it's detrimental effects on the MMO genre for many of us. Not necessarily PvP in itself, as there are one or two good PvP games still trucking along.

Originally posted by Painlezz

In an effort to avoid a wall of text I’ll try to keep this short and sweet.

 

PvP has destroyed the MMORPG gaming experience for all of us.  The idea that a “Wizard” with huge fireballs and freezing ice spells should be a balanced fight vs a dude with a sword and shield is stupid.  The idea that a class with a unique spell, making them fun and enjoyable to play in PvE, yet extremely overpowered in PvP, should lose that ability completely is stupid!

Look back at every game that has added PvP and what has become of it.

 

I’m not saying PvP is bad or should be removed from games.  I fully enjoy PvP…  In counter strike, in league of legends, in Heroes of Newerth… 

 

MMORPG should never have balanced PvP.  MASSIVE does not mean 5v5 or even less.  Game balance should be on battlegrounds and huge fights.  Never 1v1 or 2v2 encounters.

 

If a player has a huge fiery death spell that explodes another player in 1 shot, who cares?  If they happen to one-shot 1 player in a 100v100 battle once every 10 min that means NOTHING in the grand scheme of things.

 

We can’t have interesting PvE content (or even PvP content) if every class is balanced to be 1v1 capable.  At that point everyone ends up being the same with tools to combat everyone else.   

 I have yet to see a mmorpg that has balanced classes,  I have seen games that are very close to being balanced though.

There are two thoughts that come to mind when I read your post. 

1) No game should ever add or tac-on pvp to a pve game, it does not work if you do. 

2) On an even playing field (same gear & character level) no class should ever 1 shot another player....that's just bad coding & planning by the Dev's or they desided to "tac-on" pvp in their pve game.

Closest I'll come to agreeing with the OP is that I think class balance in PVP has been overdone.  I prefer the rock-paper-scissors design.  3 types of classes, each with strengths and weaknesses.

As for this destroying MMORPGs, I don't see it.

But OP.. you do realize that MMOs were FFAPVPVE (read: clusterfuck with unexpected PVP as your primary concern) before they were seperated into two distinct subgenres right?  Technically, it was PVE that "destroyed MMORPG gaming," as the concept of the PVE-only game with optional (instanced) PVP was the late comer.

One or two games does not define a whole genre, even if those games were some of the first.

Venge

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

One or two games does not define a whole genre, even if those games were some of the first.

Venge

Uh yeah, the chronological order of these game types is very relevant.  This guy is basically saying that before PVP came along (presumably in the EQ era), everything was golden.  What he fails to realize is that before the EQ era, PVP was already there.

If it helps, compare it to those WoW fanatics who claim that everything prior to Blizzard's New Testament was nothing more than a pagan-filled dark age.  This is the same type of misinformation.

OP, if you seriously feel that “a game “should not have to worry about balance considerations due to the limiting of creative freedom and scale of character abilities then you should stick to reading books or watching film for your speculative fiction entertainment.

A game presents stories to be vicariously enjoyed while being “played for entertainment” unlike a book or film where the “story is the entertainment.”

Originally posted by blazin-ace

OP, if you seriously feel that “a game “should not have to worry about balance considerations due to the limiting of creative freedom and scale of character abilities then you should stick to reading books or watching film for your speculative fiction entertainment.

 

A game presents stories to be vicariously enjoyed while being “played for entertainment” unlike a book or film where the “story is the entertainment.”

 

By nature of design, games present “competitive” situations against a designed environment or other game participants to be overcome as “part of playing.” As a player, you have the just expectation of being equally valued with other participants in tools of play. Skills are your preview to hone. Otherwise, the game suffers not only competitively but in in a darwinistic inspired lack of variety or real options to explore limiting opportunities for playing enjoyment.

 

 

OF COURSE THERE SHOULD BE PVP in an MMO roleplaying video game. To think differently is to live beneath a rock. Even LOTRO had to find a way to include it with all their story concerns.

 

 

Remember that table top roleplaying and roleplaying video games share some traits but are not the same thing and are designed with differing objectives in mind.

LOTRO is the only MMO that has done it right, in my opinion. It's completely segregated off the the rest of the game, and the 'opposing side' to regular players is balanced specifically for PvP to counter regular character.

Which was related to the OP's point about PvP focus unbalancing and dumbing down the rest of the game, it doesn't happen in LOTRO because of how it's designed -- as a sideshow specifically balanced against the PvE foundation of the game.

Pvp is acental for MMORPG's now the type of pvp is probbaly most important, I really think world pvp like vanilla wow as the most fun and they really killed it with all the content they have put into the game and trying to balance it with resil just broke pvp. Also  Battle grounds and Arena's are ok but they get repetative.

---

Originally posted by Wolfenpride
I think it's more appropriate to say that the "e-sport" mentality has had it's detrimental effects on the MMO genre for many of us. Not necessarily PvP in itself, as there are one or two good PvP games still trucking along.

---

Someone might be onto something here. Sure, it cant be the mundane, homoginized, redundant, instanced content that has anything to do with lackluster single-player-esque, linear, entitlement and welfare nature of what was recognized as a mmorpg.

Who cares about being 1-shot?  Lots of people!  Especially if it's not particularly skillful for the 1-shotter to cast the fireball.

The positives don't justify the negatives in this case.  In fact this thread doesn't really describe why fireball 1-shots are positive, and so insanely positive that they justify the negatives of 1-shots in PVP (which are just bad game design unless there's considerable skill or risk behind it.)

This comes off as another "Warriors should suck and always die" thread. :/

Saying that games shouldn't have balanced PVP is just ignorant.  Balance = meaningful decisions.  Imbalance = your decisions don't matter....and if that's the case, why bother playing?