I would have to agree some what with the op in that open world pvp has lost much or even all of it's incentive since you can grind out your pvp rank/points via bgs with little worry of unfair 1v1 combat as well as having to hunt down other players in the game world. For me i wish they would give increased incentives to open world pvp (in games that are built or support that type of gameplay.) such as giving the pvpers that pvp in the open world increased points, the ability to take/conquer opposing seattlements (ganting you added benefits and a large influx of points for doing that.), since in open world pvp you gain the saame number of points as you wouldd in a bg there  is little reason to risk ganking/camping by going into open wrld pvp. Thiss is partly from pver's yet it is mostly because of both pve as well as pvp gamers being lazy wanting to gain their points thru the easiest method availible, and outside of those that like the  feeling and playstyle of pvp in open world setting it is just a slower way to gain your goal.

Both of the options of removing instanced pvp on pvp severs (you would also be nerfing the pvp on pve servers since those pvp servers woujld be unused in the queing system.), and the option of removing the incentive of pvp instanced content are good ways of regaining some of the pvp feel for games yet it would be met with a huge outpouring of complaints by both pve as well as pvp gamers. The better way is to give all forms of pvp contetn a incentive that would make it that none of them are better then another in gaining your goal, but that it would be based on your time allowed to do pvp in game. If the bonus for doing a instanced pvp contetn (bgs and such) were spread out into the total pvp points gain from pking in world pvp you wouuld then show that in the long run world pvp would be far more productive to gain your raking/items, then you add in point from capturing cities or objecctives in zones it would increase even more, but you would ned alot of time to do that. Instanced pvp has the fact of being quick and easy to get into as well as complete, which is why it draws the casual gamer/pvper over world pvp which is more of the pvpers with more time on game to play. Instance pvp has been around in wow for along time, but yet only recently with the last few years did  world pvp begin to decline in usage, which is overall from both a incentive (they give you way more pvp points for bgs then pvping open wrold.) as well as many gamers having far less game time now to play in. I would love to have zones or cities that are locked/restricted from play while they are controled by a faction,  with these areas being important lvling, crafting, or instancee areas that would push people to fight over the areas to gain control of them. I do not mi=ean completely like wintergrasp since that is a pvp zone that is contested at points in the day, but as a actual lvling area that would be able to be owned by a faction allowing their people to do quests and gain access to othrr things while they are in control. If you had up to say  of these zones spread pretty well out into the leveling zones you would make it hard for one faction to own them all at any one time, and yet make i possible for them to be faught over evenly.

As opposed to what then Precious?

Whether they're labeled or not, people will do exactly that and hit control points. Like I mentioned with my WoW comment, when there was only world PvP that's still exactly what every one did. They formed big armies and marched on capitols and quest hubs. No reward, nothing other than to kill one another and yet they still played in the same way because it meant something to the other faction.

That's fundamentally how large scale PvP works. Hell, I'd dare say that's how war works.

That's even how Planetside works. And that game is awesome as hell. At least to me...

The thing is it's not just a chain of things and you bouncing from one to the next. In Battlefield and Planetside both, yes there may be a primary focus of conflict, but there's a plethora of ways in which they are handled and there's a wide range of secondary objectives and other areas that are key to control always present external to the main conflict zones that can still make or break a battle.

The failure of any game to capture this is simply the failure to provide anything external to a chain of goals. You want good world PvP then you need a web of interdependent objectives that mean something to the players as both an individual and a faction.

Like in DAoC the relics. Planetside had the different types of facilities. Battlefield had vehicle, missile, and other global utilities tied to control point.

Point being they all had things more that just that gripe that defines what they are and the effectiveness of their playstyle. They don't play like any other PvP games as a result either.

EDIT: I guess another way to say this is this.

In Battlefield, no they aren't all just running from one control point to the next. In it and it's ilk, yes the majority is running between control points in order to achieve their goals. That's what armies do. But there is still all that other stuff happening in the background to make the war successful.

For example in battlefield 2 I rarely participated in capturing control points. Most of my time was spent sabotaging the enemy teams support equipment, radars, and comm stuff so they couldn't call strikes against us or organize properly. From there I'd sabotage their vehicles and call in my own factions strikes to take out troops from their own back lines.

Originally posted by precious328

Two tyrants are destroying the PvP Servers: PvE Players and Incentive.

 

PvE Players: You guys and your damn yearning for "safe" PvP. Your cries have been answered. The result? Instanced and optional PvP mini-games, e.g., 8v8 team death-match, capture the flag, control points, take the hill, hutt-ball, and kick the can. I normally wouldn't mind, as PvE'rs should have a choice. HOWEVER, your bs axioms have spread to my PvP Servers. Innovation is lost; Battlegrounds, Arenas, and Warzones now reside as the dominant form of PvP on both server types.

Incentive: Battlegrounds, Arenas, and Warzones are limited. Normally, there are about 5-6 different instances that are solely dedicated to structured PvP. This becomes mind-numbingly redundant. Strategies are learned by all within 1 month. The match becomes a rinse and repeat type thing... over and over and over and over again. There is nothing "massive" about it.

 

So why do people do it on the PvP Servers? The PvP GEAR. The devs simply toss in a few cool looking duds, place an insanely high kill-point price, and watch the masses conform to the simple rules of kindergarten PvP.

 

THE FIX?

 

Either remove Instanced PvP from PvP Servers OR remove incentive from the Instanced PvP Games via PvP Server.

If you're on a PvP server, you sure as hell can't blame us PvE gamers, blame your own damn lazy PvP people who would rather do instances than open world.  Just because the option is there, doesn't mean you should stop playing the way you would prefer, unless you misunderstand your fellow PvPers who want safer, more level playing field type of content.

Originally posted by precious328

Either remove Instanced PvP from PvP Servers OR remove incentive from the Instanced PvP Games via PvP Server.

That was Blizzard's idea, I can't recall any player coming up with the idea of instancing anything.

This is you raging:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KqqRPvM_Sw    lol

Originally posted by Deivos

Whether they're labeled or not, people will do exactly that and hit control points. Like I mentioned with my WoW comment, when there was only world PvP that's still exactly what every one did. They formed big armies and marched on capitols and quest hubs. No reward, nothing other than to kill one another and yet they still played in the same way because it meant something to the other faction.

 The thing is it's not just a chain of things and you bouncing from one to the next. In Battlefield and Planetside both, yes there may be a primary focus of conflict, but there's a plethora of ways in which they are handled and there's a wide range of secondary objectives and other areas that are key to control always present external to the main conflict zones that can still make or break a battle.

And the reason Planetside was awesome is it combined all that multi-layered strategic/tactical/twitch depth on top of an instanced PVP system (population limits) with lateral progression.

So you got the main benefit of world PVP (massive battles) with almost* none of the downsides.  (* the not-yet-poplocked continents were still unfair battles, which made things dreadfully dull and lopsided.)

What the OP wants cannot exist with the new userbase of these games.

Saddly one of the only way to get fair and even pvp in most game with more then one faction is to lock high pop factions till the other faction/s catch up to the high pop one, although this would annoy alot of people since it would limit your choice as the game got older. Then if you also locked it that once one faction out poped the others with online character you locked the rest of the character of that faction from logging on till the other two go higher pops to make it fairer. Both of these would help to even out as well as combat pop issues, where servvers are largely controled by the faction with the highest pop/online pops, yet can you imagine the whining and bitching that would come on the forums from it? I would lvoe ti myself so that you actually are eve in fighting as well as power within the servers.

Originally posted by Ceridith

It's not the fault of PvEers, it's the fault of softcore PvPers.

Its the fault of the PvErs that consider themselves also PvPers when in reality they are not, and simply cant take the heat.

Originally posted by Sagasaint

Originally posted by Ceridith

It's not the fault of PvEers, it's the fault of softcore PvPers.

Its the fault of the PvErs that consider themselves also PvPers when in reality they are not, and simply cant take the heat.

 No if you pvp even slightly for one or two hours a day you are a pvper weither that is hardcore or not you are still a pvper. What is killing the pvp that you or others like weither it be open world ffa, meaningful death penalty based pvp,  free looting pvp, or what ever other kind of pvp others might like. I could say what you say against those pvper that want instances that have pvp based encouters as well as factions fighitn and competing with each other inside them. IF you pvp you are a pvper, if you pve you are a pveer, if you do both you are both simple as that. IT is merely that people do not want to have to deal with gankers, griefer, or unwanted pvp, which is why so many like bg's and non open world pvp it is a level playing field to enjoy somethign without worrying about that pvper that is going to camp you,, or that obnoioua characetr that would annoying you after you or he died in a pvp fight. Saddly griefing, ganking, and just poor sportsmenship attidute has also made oopen world pvp disliked or hated by most of the pop of mmos.

Its the fault of PvPers that dont understand that they should have better play FPS-Games!

;P

thats why PVP and PVE server exist

anyway OPEN WORLD PVP ....while fun the 1 months of mmo live ....

becomes a gankfest , 10v1 , lvl max vs lvl low

Geared vs no geared

while i agree "bg" are boring and become redudntant after a while , Devs can control what happens there

can control if gear matters , can control the number vs number (and lvl vs lvl)

and "factions" imbalances ,because that will happen .

PvPers aren the type of "fair" player , usually trick , cheat or whatever to win.....not all of them but most...

PvP players destroyed PVP in the last years , check every other mmorpg , WoW open wolrd pvp? AoC? War?(lol) , Aion pvp ect

I miss DaoC days :___(

Where to begin..  I largely find the people who bleat about "Full loot open world PVP" are the kind who would camp the spawn point in Pre-trammel UO and gank people who hadn't completely loaded into the game the first time. 

And mysteriously are the ones who never -do- play the challenging pvp games were you stand to lose a lot if you die,  Because, well, -they- stand to lose a lot.     Your standard Themepark mmo pvper is the type that gets to max level and gets his jollies ganking people who are half their level with no real chance of winning.  Anybody who's set foot in Stranglethorn Vale on a pvp server in classic WoW understands what I'm talking about.

The strange thing is, you never see this kind of player trolling games that cater to the PVPer, like EVE.    Okay, I'll be honest, I'm a straight up hardcore carebear.   I want to get some pvp action, I'll load up TF2, but I played EVE, a game that allowed people to lock on and open fire on you anywhere and everywhere.     Granted in the more civilized parts of the galaxy, doing so meant the cops would find you and kill you, but it was doable.        Hell, I saw more than my share of high sec piracy flying into Jita for my monthiy PLEX.     The thing is, it was never one Solo ganker.   while solo ganking was doable in EvE, most involved gamping gates, or combined arms tactics with one guy tackling he victim while others poured on the pain.

I also bring up Pirates of the Burning Sea, which had open pvp if you sailed through a contested zone (inevitable, as people always kept the capital ports of each country in a contested zone), where, if you died, you could easily lose your ship, and DEFINITELY lost all your cargo.yet, you never saw single gankers here, because the mechanics of the game nearly every aspect of the game heavily reliant on other players

Then there's darkfall.   I've never precisely played this one, but I heard it was the big bad legendary "Open World Full Loot PVP" game people had been clamoring for, to the point where, back when it was in beta, the game had a higher hype than GW2 has now, even with all the fanboys manipulating the hype meter.  yet, now that it's out and people have their wish... I hear a whole lot of nothing regarding the game.

Yet, the PVP whiners never go and try games like eve where such things are possible, you hear them scream and cry and rage and whargarrble for "Open world Full Loot PVP"when there are games that already have it, just not on their terms. And they want to enforce their style of play on others who want nothing to do with it.

..And yet somehow the PVEers are the tyrants? 

Originally posted by Blutmaul

Its the fault of PvPers that dont understand that they should have better play FPS-Games!

;P

No, it's the fault of developers to not understand player behavior since late 1990's.   That's over a decade for devs to create a fun PVP MMORPG.  They failed.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Deivos

Whether they're labeled or not, people will do exactly that and hit control points. Like I mentioned with my WoW comment, when there was only world PvP that's still exactly what every one did. They formed big armies and marched on capitols and quest hubs. No reward, nothing other than to kill one another and yet they still played in the same way because it meant something to the other faction.

 The thing is it's not just a chain of things and you bouncing from one to the next. In Battlefield and Planetside both, yes there may be a primary focus of conflict, but there's a plethora of ways in which they are handled and there's a wide range of secondary objectives and other areas that are key to control always present external to the main conflict zones that can still make or break a battle.

And the reason Planetside was awesome is it combined all that multi-layered strategic/tactical/twitch depth on top of an instanced PVP system (population limits) with lateral progression.

So you got the main benefit of world PVP (massive battles) with almost* none of the downsides.  (* the not-yet-poplocked continents were still unfair battles, which made things dreadfully dull and lopsided.)

There is no character upwards "progression" in WWIIONLINE/PLANETSIDE, which makes both games the cream of the PVP MMO crop.

Even being cream of the crop both games STILL don't have LOGISTICS  simulated, ARGH!  Without simulated logistics, by NPC's, indirect artillery is nothing but a spawn camping tool, and much of the tactics revolves around spawn camping, and much of the code is involved with spawn camp prevention.

Did not read the whole thread...

But has any PvE player come with any real argument instead of the usual "PvP = gankfest" or "PvP player = ganker"? Just out of curiosity...

Have PvE players actually evolved past this point and stopped using the same BS argument, and provided some real material for discussion?

Originally posted by Nerf09

Originally posted by Blutmaul

Its the fault of PvPers that dont understand that they should have better play FPS-Games!

;P

No, it's the fault of developers to not understand player behavior since late 1990's.   That's over a decade for devs to create a fun PVP MMORPG.  They failed.

 Or they relise that pvp based mmos are a small group of mmo gamer pops and so compared to the larger pop of pve as well as pve/pvp gamer choose to actually make a good investment with their time and energy. Sorry but outside of bgs, war-zone, arena pvp that kind of gameplay is dieing as well as not as profitable as pve-pvp based games are. Look at other ggames that are pvp based none are fdoing well even those that are free to play.

Originally posted by askdaboss

Did not read the whole thread...

But has any PvE player come with any real argument instead of the usual "PvP = gankfest" or "PvP player = ganker"? Just out of curiosity...

Have PvE players actually evolved past this point and stopped using the same BS argument, and provided some real material for discussion?

What's the matter?  AOC, EVE, WOW, Darkfall, and a ton of other PVP servers aint doing it for you?  What do you want?  Do you want everyone else to log onto your PVP server as level 1's so you can have your ganking gankfest?

Originally posted by Elricmerren

 

 Or they relise that pvp based mmos are a small group of mmo gamer pops and so compared to the larger pop of pve as well as pve/pvp gamer choose to actually make a good investment with their time and energy.

No actually most players want PVP, just not a WOW-clone version of PVP.   They tried PVP in like UO or Everquest 1 a looooooooong time ago and said, "This is lame," while simultaneously logging onto Counterstrike.

Most players are like me, when they play WOW-clone we play on carebear server, but also play PVP first person shooters.  The longest subscription I've had was WWIIONLINE which is nothing but PVP.

Originally posted by Nerf09

Originally posted by askdaboss

Did not read the whole thread...

But has any PvE player come with any real argument instead of the usual "PvP = gankfest" or "PvP player = ganker"? Just out of curiosity...

Have PvE players actually evolved past this point and stopped using the same BS argument, and provided some real material for discussion?

What's the matter?  AOC, EVE, WOW, Darkfall, and a ton of other PVP servers aint doing it for you?  What do you want?  Do you want everyone else to log onto your PVP server as level 1's so you can have your ganking gankfest?

WhY thE R@gE?

Anyway, thanks for making my point. Still the same old PvP = ganker apparently.

Originally posted by askdaboss

Originally posted by Nerf09

Originally posted by askdaboss

Did not read the whole thread...

But has any PvE player come with any real argument instead of the usual "PvP = gankfest" or "PvP player = ganker"? Just out of curiosity...

Have PvE players actually evolved past this point and stopped using the same BS argument, and provided some real material for discussion?

What's the matter?  AOC, EVE, WOW, Darkfall, and a ton of other PVP servers aint doing it for you?  What do you want?  Do you want everyone else to log onto your PVP server as level 1's so you can have your ganking gankfest?

WhY thE R@gE?

Anyway, thanks for making my point. Still the same old PvP = ganker apparently.

 YOu can check afew of miy posts for them i had brought up afew that i knwo from being both a pvp and pve player are true for me. Though you not reading the thread is kind sad if you are interested in knwoing what is said in it. IT is lazy to ask others to read and then restate for you what has been said in the thread when yhou could read it yourself.