When your shiny new mmo only has a whopping 3 or 4 things to do, you tend to incentivize the crap outta them.

Originally posted by xenogias

Originally posted by Ausare

Originally posted by xenogias

Originally posted by Ausare

I would say that people that PvP for no "reward", i.e. recognition or physical items, are rare breed.  Most people want their shiny be it a title, item, or territorial hold to show they are "winners".  They want to stand out in the crowd as better than others.  Without that they move on to where they can find that shiny trophy that says they are better than you.  It is that way with PvE raiders too.  Remove the "reward" and many people will stop raiding.  When you are trying to get as many people as you can into a game for profit you have to take into account this mass of people that want to feel better than others in a game.

Thats the thing though. People dont just want rewards for being really good. They want rewards for failing to.  Thats why I miss some of the older games. Hell in Asherons Call your reward for being really, really good was respect. Respect hasnt been a good enough reward for people in a decade or more now.

Wanting rewards for failing is something artificially put in the kids these days that are coddled too much.  I do not think they should get it rewards for failing.  I was talking more about how many would play with no reward vs how many would play with a reward there.

Oh I completely agree. I just think that adults are getting to be the same way and thats part of the problem. Its a "I need an artaficial reward for everything I do." and its not just kids.

the adults are the ones pushing these ideas on the kids.  So the adults have to be buying into the idea that they deserve rewards too.  I blame the hippies.

Originally posted by Requiamer

Originally posted by gainesvilleg

Originally posted by Maephisto

Disclaimer:  this post has nothing to do with PVE.  Some of the arguments I go against are valid when talking about PVE, but not PvP.

 

I read a post by Tardcore today where he brought up a good point.  PvP has been highly incentivized in past games, to a point where people think that PvP has to be rewarded somehow in order for it to be worthwhile.  The argument states since there is no real gear grind, and you are auto leveled to max, then there is no incentive to PvP.  With these changes in GW2, you read constantly that PvP is to be done for fun, or for the lulz or whatever.  Tardcore, and many others, have asked what 'hook" exists that keeps people playing GW2 pvp for the long run.  Given the state of MMO's today thats a fair question.  I think a better question is why must your involvement gaurantee a reward, even if you lose.

I have experience working with a number of competitive PvP teams, and I love my OWPvP.  Among the people who I have played MMO's with, there seems to be a consensus.  We PvP because we like the competition and notoriety from success.  That is the reward.  A lot of people say they are true pvp'ers, yet a lot of people claim they need some type of reward (be it tiered gear or some useless battlemaster/High Warlord title).  You would think the removal of tiered gear from PvP (either competitive or WvW) would be a welcomed idea.  When you directly compete against an individual or team, you can now claim absolute victory.  There is no excuses for losing anymore.

Despite my comments, I am  a little worried about GW2 longevity, because people insist on having a "participation award"?

Am I wrong? ...... Am I in my own little bubble?

EDIT:  Maybe I wasnt clear.  I am against incentives for pvp (unless it is small group/guild incentives (i.e. influence)).  Yet, PvP incentives are almost required and expected.  This is where all the people who argue there is no reason to pvp because i am not rewarded with gear or whatever.  I fear this mmight have negative implications on GW2. .....  Discuss.

 

Well, I've said it before.  Battlegrounds in Themepark MMO's are so inferior to FPS games on so many levels that the only reason to do battlegrounds in a themepark MMO is for the satisfaction of progression.  There really needs to be that hook of progression of some sort or else you might as well play an FPS because they really are so much better (I've listed at least 10 major areas why this is so in other threads and don't want to rehash here.  Just call it my opinion if you don't want to believe this).

Themepark MMO's are strong in social interaction, building your character, gearing your character, and to a lesser degree story.  However, for PVP battlegrounds there isn't much social interaction or story, so all that is left is building your character and gearing your character.  Once that is done (or if it doesn't exist like in GW2) then all that a Themepark MMO Battleground offers you is a vastly inferior experience than you can get from an FPS.

At that point I would ask myself:  What is the point of this?  I'm not advancing my character in any way, and the modern FPS is light years ahead of this in terms of quality, speed, skill, and variety.  And I love my PVP for the sake of PVP I don't NEED a reward for PVP.  But if there isn't any reward, I will gravitate to the superior battleground games which are the FPSers. 

Why would you go play a fps, mmo not only can afford as much as fps, but they also can afford more. And if player versus player isn't player interactions, then i don't know what it is. Pvp is actually everything about player interaction, since they interact with each other? no?

MMO battlegrounds are technically inferior to FPS battlegrounds in almost every way.  I can list the many reasons again, but I've already debated this multiple times on these boards.  For the sake of argument just assume many PVP centric people have this opinion.

And as for social interactions in MMOs I was referring to the SOCIAL interactions, not just the tactical banter of a battlefield.  Tactical banter on a battlefield in an MMO is no different than that in an FPS.  I would consider a social interaction to be more of a leisurly conversation amongs guildmates or friends in game, maybe while doing some less intense PVE.

Originally posted by Ausare

Originally posted by Requiamer
 

Then there is an incentive to PvP if there is any kind of reward for winning.  For many being able to have a title (for example) and have that lording over others that do not is a reward for many.  It is like people with mounts or special armor that just sit in a town trying to show it off seeing how many people click on them.  That is a reward for them.  They want the recogonition of being better than others.  A non-game useful item that others can not get unless they are competatively good can give that.  But if as someoen said you can get that for failing too then the reward is not a real reward.

The problem really doesn't begin at incentive, it's when it offers a reward of power that hurts PVP. This is where the wedge comes into play. The bigger more powerful guilds gain an even greater advantage over people who play in smaller groups. This is something GW2 gets right by doing away with the idea of vertical progression in PVP @ "endgame". Titles are arbitrary to that, cosmetics as well.

I think PvP should be incentivized.  It's just a matter of what kind of incentives you are offering.  For example..

Good Incentives:

• Cosmetic armor
• Titles (which have no gameplay effect)
• Other cosmetic items
• Ranking system
• "Esports" tournaments for real money
• Currency normally earned through PvE such as gold

• PvP armor with stats.  Especially PvP specific stats.  This really just alienates the player base and makes PvP unfair.
• Any stat boosting items, titles, consumables that cannot be earned in PvE too.
• PvP specific spells and abilities that can only be earned through PvP.  (Cosmetic ones are okay)
• PvP specific currency that gives any of the bad incentives when spent. (IE:  Valor/Honor).  If it gives all good incentives this becomes a good incentive as well.

lets hope its minnimal like realm buffs /servers buffs.

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by Ausare

Originally posted by Requiamer
 

Then there is an incentive to PvP if there is any kind of reward for winning.  For many being able to have a title (for example) and have that lording over others that do not is a reward for many.  It is like people with mounts or special armor that just sit in a town trying to show it off seeing how many people click on them.  That is a reward for them.  They want the recogonition of being better than others.  A non-game useful item that others can not get unless they are competatively good can give that.  But if as someoen said you can get that for failing too then the reward is not a real reward.

The problem really doesn't begin at incentive, it's when it offers a reward of power that hurts PVP. This is where the wedge comes into play. The bigger more powerful guilds gain an even greater advantage over people who play in smaller groups. This is something GW2 gets right by doing away with the idea of vertical progression in PVP @ "endgame". Titles are arbitrary to that, cosmetics as well.

But if there is a reward...any reward (title or cosmetic)...then the PvP is not really unincentizied.  Like I said many just want recognition for being a winner...items that come with that are secondary and just show they they are a winner and you are not.  True unincentived PvP would be no one can see anyone's name (so no server recognition) and after a battle you gain nothing but personal satisfaction no one in the game knows you won or lost.  But in the real world...make that game world...there is always a reward or no one would play for very long.  Even just a stat that people can see of how many victories vs defeats is good enough for many people.  Screw titles or items.  I want to have proof I am better.  That is what a lot of people want.

---

Originally posted by gainesvilleg

---

Originally posted by Requiamer

---

Originally posted by gainesvilleg

---

Originally posted by Maephisto

Disclaimer:  this post has nothing to do with PVE.  Some of the arguments I go against are valid when talking about PVE, but not PvP.
 
I read a post by Tardcore today where he brought up a good point.  PvP has been highly incentivized in past games, to a point where people think that PvP has to be rewarded somehow in order for it to be worthwhile.  The argument states since there is no real gear grind, and you are auto leveled to max, then there is no incentive to PvP.  With these changes in GW2, you read constantly that PvP is to be done for fun, or for the lulz or whatever.  Tardcore, and many others, have asked what 'hook" exists that keeps people playing GW2 pvp for the long run.  Given the state of MMO's today thats a fair question.  I think a better question is why must your involvement gaurantee a reward, even if you lose.
I have experience working with a number of competitive PvP teams, and I love my OWPvP.  Among the people who I have played MMO's with, there seems to be a consensus.  We PvP because we like the competition and notoriety from success.  That is the reward.  A lot of people say they are true pvp'ers, yet a lot of people claim they need some type of reward (be it tiered gear or some useless battlemaster/High Warlord title).  You would think the removal of tiered gear from PvP (either competitive or WvW) would be a welcomed idea.  When you directly compete against an individual or team, you can now claim absolute victory.  There is no excuses for losing anymore.
Despite my comments, I am  a little worried about GW2 longevity, because people insist on having a "participation award"?
Am I wrong? ...... Am I in my own little bubble?
EDIT:  Maybe I wasnt clear.  I am against incentives for pvp (unless it is small group/guild incentives (i.e. influence)).  Yet, PvP incentives are almost required and expected.  This is where all the people who argue there is no reason to pvp because i am not rewarded with gear or whatever.  I fear this mmight have negative implications on GW2. .....  Discuss.
 

---

Well, I've said it before.  Battlegrounds in Themepark MMO's are so inferior to FPS games on so many levels that the only reason to do battlegrounds in a themepark MMO is for the satisfaction of progression.  There really needs to be that hook of progression of some sort or else you might as well play an FPS because they really are so much better (I've listed at least 10 major areas why this is so in other threads and don't want to rehash here.  Just call it my opinion if you don't want to believe this).
Themepark MMO's are strong in social interaction, building your character, gearing your character, and to a lesser degree story.  However, for PVP battlegrounds there isn't much social interaction or story, so all that is left is building your character and gearing your character.  Once that is done (or if it doesn't exist like in GW2) then all that a Themepark MMO Battleground offers you is a vastly inferior experience than you can get from an FPS.
At that point I would ask myself:  What is the point of this?  I'm not advancing my character in any way, and the modern FPS is light years ahead of this in terms of quality, speed, skill, and variety.  And I love my PVP for the sake of PVP I don't NEED a reward for PVP.  But if there isn't any reward, I will gravitate to the superior battleground games which are the FPSers. 

---

Why would you go play a fps, mmo not only can afford as much as fps, but they also can afford more. And if player versus player isn't player interactions, then i don't know what it is. Pvp is actually everything about player interaction, since they interact with each other? no?

---

MMO battlegrounds are technically inferior to FPS battlegrounds in almost every way.  I can list the many reasons again, but I've already debated this multiple times on these boards.  For the sake of argument just assume many PVP centric people have this opinion.
And as for social interactions in MMOs I was referring to the SOCIAL interactions, not just the tactical banter of a battlefield.  Tactical banter on a battlefield in an MMO is no different than that in an FPS.  I would consider a social interaction to be more of a leisurly conversation amongs guildmates or friends in game, maybe while doing some less intense PVE.

---

Sure they are inferior, especially the WOW ones, it doesn't mean they all have to be inferior, in fact they are no reason for them to be. And no i don't want to assume anything, especially because i started pvp in mmo 10 years before Wow battleground became a hit. I think i know my share about what is pvp in mmo, and can freely comment on this point.
 
Pvp in mmo is actually too much social interaction for many people that will come cry in the forum saying oin my character is dead because of this asshole, i guess we haven't played the same mmos. This is the reason why Wow made battleground, and why this kind of pvp became so popular and accepted in mmo, they actually managed to take off the "too much social interaction" from the pvp. If you didn't know themepark before wow simply forbid any kind of pvp because of this "too much interaction" and the very bad reaction most player had around it. Turning pvp into match is actually what make pv accepted, because you don't kill other to piss them off, but to win a competition.

Originally posted by Requiamer

 

---

Originally posted by gainesvilleg

---

Originally posted by Requiamer

---

Originally posted by gainesvilleg

  

---

---

MMO battlegrounds are technically inferior to FPS battlegrounds in almost every way.  I can list the many reasons again, but I've already debated this multiple times on these boards.  For the sake of argument just assume many PVP centric people have this opinion.
And as for social interactions in MMOs I was referring to the SOCIAL interactions, not just the tactical banter of a battlefield.  Tactical banter on a battlefield in an MMO is no different than that in an FPS.  I would consider a social interaction to be more of a leisurly conversation amongs guildmates or friends in game, maybe while doing some less intense PVE.

---

 

Sure they are inferior, especially the WOW ones, it doesn't mean they all have to be inferior, in fact they are no reason for them to be. And no i don't want to assume anything, especially because i started pvp in mmo 10 years before Wow battleground became a hit. I think i know my share about what is pvp in mmo, and can freely comment on this point.
 
Pvp in mmo is actually too much social interaction for many people that will come cry in the forum saying oin my character is dead because of this asshole, i guess we haven't played the same mmos. This is the reason why Wow made battleground, and why this kind of pvp became so popular and accepted in mmo, they actually managed to take off the "too much social interaction" from the pvp. If you didn't know themepark before wow simply forbid any kind of pvp because of this "too much interaction" and the very bad reaction most player had around it.

I would say your "inferior" is more personal choice in PvP style of play.

Originally posted by Ausare

 

I would say your "inferior" is more personal choice in PvP style of play.

Can you rephrase please i don't undertand what you are saying.

Originally posted by Requiamer

 

---

Originally posted by gainesvilleg

---

Originally posted by Requiamer

---

Originally posted by gainesvilleg

---

Originally posted by Maephisto

Disclaimer:  this post has nothing to do with PVE.  Some of the arguments I go against are valid when talking about PVE, but not PvP.
 
I read a post by Tardcore today where he brought up a good point.  PvP has been highly incentivized in past games, to a point where people think that PvP has to be rewarded somehow in order for it to be worthwhile.  The argument states since there is no real gear grind, and you are auto leveled to max, then there is no incentive to PvP.  With these changes in GW2, you read constantly that PvP is to be done for fun, or for the lulz or whatever.  Tardcore, and many others, have asked what 'hook" exists that keeps people playing GW2 pvp for the long run.  Given the state of MMO's today thats a fair question.  I think a better question is why must your involvement gaurantee a reward, even if you lose.
I have experience working with a number of competitive PvP teams, and I love my OWPvP.  Among the people who I have played MMO's with, there seems to be a consensus.  We PvP because we like the competition and notoriety from success.  That is the reward.  A lot of people say they are true pvp'ers, yet a lot of people claim they need some type of reward (be it tiered gear or some useless battlemaster/High Warlord title).  You would think the removal of tiered gear from PvP (either competitive or WvW) would be a welcomed idea.  When you directly compete against an individual or team, you can now claim absolute victory.  There is no excuses for losing anymore.
Despite my comments, I am  a little worried about GW2 longevity, because people insist on having a "participation award"?
Am I wrong? ...... Am I in my own little bubble?
EDIT:  Maybe I wasnt clear.  I am against incentives for pvp (unless it is small group/guild incentives (i.e. influence)).  Yet, PvP incentives are almost required and expected.  This is where all the people who argue there is no reason to pvp because i am not rewarded with gear or whatever.  I fear this mmight have negative implications on GW2. .....  Discuss.
 

---

Well, I've said it before.  Battlegrounds in Themepark MMO's are so inferior to FPS games on so many levels that the only reason to do battlegrounds in a themepark MMO is for the satisfaction of progression.  There really needs to be that hook of progression of some sort or else you might as well play an FPS because they really are so much better (I've listed at least 10 major areas why this is so in other threads and don't want to rehash here.  Just call it my opinion if you don't want to believe this).
Themepark MMO's are strong in social interaction, building your character, gearing your character, and to a lesser degree story.  However, for PVP battlegrounds there isn't much social interaction or story, so all that is left is building your character and gearing your character.  Once that is done (or if it doesn't exist like in GW2) then all that a Themepark MMO Battleground offers you is a vastly inferior experience than you can get from an FPS.
At that point I would ask myself:  What is the point of this?  I'm not advancing my character in any way, and the modern FPS is light years ahead of this in terms of quality, speed, skill, and variety.  And I love my PVP for the sake of PVP I don't NEED a reward for PVP.  But if there isn't any reward, I will gravitate to the superior battleground games which are the FPSers. 

---

Why would you go play a fps, mmo not only can afford as much as fps, but they also can afford more. And if player versus player isn't player interactions, then i don't know what it is. Pvp is actually everything about player interaction, since they interact with each other? no?

---

MMO battlegrounds are technically inferior to FPS battlegrounds in almost every way.  I can list the many reasons again, but I've already debated this multiple times on these boards.  For the sake of argument just assume many PVP centric people have this opinion.
And as for social interactions in MMOs I was referring to the SOCIAL interactions, not just the tactical banter of a battlefield.  Tactical banter on a battlefield in an MMO is no different than that in an FPS.  I would consider a social interaction to be more of a leisurly conversation amongs guildmates or friends in game, maybe while doing some less intense PVE.

---

 

Sure they are inferior, especially the WOW ones, it doesn't mean they all have to be inferior, in fact they are no reason for them to be. And no i don't want to assume anything, especially because i started pvp in mmo 10 years before Wow battleground became a hit. I think i know my share about what is pvp in mmo, and can freely comment on this point.
 
Pvp in mmo is actually too much social interaction for many people that will come cry in the forum saying oin my character is dead because of this asshole, i guess we haven't played the same mmos. This is the reason why Wow made battleground, and why this kind of pvp became so popular and accepted in mmo, they actually managed to take off the "too much social interaction" from the pvp. If you didn't know themepark before wow simply forbid any kind of pvp because of this "too much interaction" and the very bad reaction most player had around it.

I'm referring to BATTLEGROUND PVP because that was the topic of discussion.  Not open world PVP which I certainly agree that the MMO has a unique ability to deliver an experience that an FPS cannot.

But if you want to talk about esport battleground PVP without progression, which again was the topic of discussion, than yes EVERY MMO battleground that exists today as well as the GW2 battlegrounds that will be coming are vastly inferior to the modern FPS in almost every way.  The only advantage they have over an FPS is if you want a more fantasy based skill set.

And I've also been doing PVP since it was invented, both in FPS games (original Doom) as well as the early MMOs (which did not have battlegrounds, the topic of discussion).

If you don't recognize the feature by feature shortcomings in MMO battlegrounds versus modern FPS battlegrounds, then there is no point in us arguing further.  I never said it wasn't POSSIBLE for an MMO battleground to equal an FPS battleground, but the fact is they are probably 7 years behind right now...

Originally posted by Ausare

Originally posted by Distopia

 

The problem really doesn't begin at incentive, it's when it offers a reward of power that hurts PVP. This is where the wedge comes into play. The bigger more powerful guilds gain an even greater advantage over people who play in smaller groups. This is something GW2 gets right by doing away with the idea of vertical progression in PVP @ "endgame". Titles are arbitrary to that, cosmetics as well.

But if there is a reward...any reward (title or cosmetic)...then the PvP is not really unincentizied.  Like I said many just want recognition for being a winner...items that come with that are secondary and just show they they are a winner and you are not.  True unincentived PvP would be no one can see anyone's name (so no server recognition) and after a battle you gain nothing but personal satisfaction no one in the game knows you won or lost.  But in the real world...make that game world...there is always a reward or no one would play for very long.  Even just a stat that people can see of how many victories vs defeats is good enough for many people.  Screw titles or items.  I want to have proof I am better.  That is what a lot of people want.

True, but I'm not sure how this is a "but" to what I said, as I am saying incentive is fine as long as it doesn't reward power over others, as that does act as a deterrent rather than a stimulant in the long run. You don't need a rewarding PVp experience as much as you need one where people don't feel overpowered.

You say WoW battlegrounds are inferior as if it is a fact.  But many find the battleground system a very good system and open world to be crappy.   It is like saying Table Tennis is inferior to regular Tennis.  They are not better or worse than another they are just different for different people's tastes. 

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by Ausare

Originally posted by Distopia

 

The problem really doesn't begin at incentive, it's when it offers a reward of power that hurts PVP. This is where the wedge comes into play. The bigger more powerful guilds gain an even greater advantage over people who play in smaller groups. This is something GW2 gets right by doing away with the idea of vertical progression in PVP @ "endgame". Titles are arbitrary to that, cosmetics as well.

But if there is a reward...any reward (title or cosmetic)...then the PvP is not really unincentizied.  Like I said many just want recognition for being a winner...items that come with that are secondary and just show they they are a winner and you are not.  True unincentived PvP would be no one can see anyone's name (so no server recognition) and after a battle you gain nothing but personal satisfaction no one in the game knows you won or lost.  But in the real world...make that game world...there is always a reward or no one would play for very long.  Even just a stat that people can see of how many victories vs defeats is good enough for many people.  Screw titles or items.  I want to have proof I am better.  That is what a lot of people want.

True, but I'm not sure how this is a "but" to what I said, as I am saying incentive is fine as long as it doesn't reward power over others, as that does act as a deterrent rather than a stimulant in the long run. You don't need a rewarding PVp experience as much as you need one where people don't feel overpowered.

The but was more to the main topic here about why must PvP be incentivized...and the reason is because no one would do it very long if there was not some (as in any) kind of reward.  Now what the reward is is very debatable.

Originally posted by Ausare

Originally posted by Distopia

 

True, but I'm not sure how this is a "but" to what I said, as I am saying incentive is fine as long as it doesn't reward power over others, as that does act as a deterrent rather than a stimulant in the long run. You don't need a rewarding PVp experience as much as you need one where people don't feel overpowered.

The but was more to the main topic here about why must PvP be incentivized...and the reason is because no one would do it very long if there was not some (as in any) kind of reward.  Now what the reward is is very debatable.

Okay that makes sense :).

My incentive is FUN and EXCITING PvP matches WvWvW. I realy dont care about gear or rewards i just want some intense and huge PvP BATTLES enjoy myself thats what im looking for.

Thinking a little I think the participation rewards in games is just the string that that the developer hopes will keep more people on the hook that would other wise just get frustrated and leave a game because they never feel like that succeed.  Seems like it might be a profitabilty choice rather than a good competative game environment choice.

Originally posted by Ausare

Thinking a little I think the participation rewards in games is just the string that that the developer hopes will keep more people on the hook that would other wise just get frustrated and leave a game because they never feel like that succeed.  Seems like it might be a profitabilty choice rather than a good competative game environment choice.

The theory makes sense, but if that is what they are doing, it's going horribly IMO. heh.

Originally posted by gainesvilleg

 

I'm referring to BATTLEGROUND PVP because that was the topic of discussion. 

 

Me too.

And ye i think we agreed then. Yes they are not the same, but nothing stop them to afford similar experience in the futur, fps and mmo tend to mix a lot today, and probably will, up untill they find a good match. Both fps and mmo have nice aspects when it come to pvp, i don't think one is superior to the other in fact, they just are 2 different things, and both have strong and weak points. That is also why i like GW2 they actually afford competitive pvp that is more fps like, and WvW that is more mmo like, even thought both try to keep the best quality of both system, and try to wash the weak points.

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by Ausare

Thinking a little I think the participation rewards in games is just the string that that the developer hopes will keep more people on the hook that would other wise just get frustrated and leave a game because they never feel like that succeed.  Seems like it might be a profitabilty choice rather than a good competative game environment choice.

The theory makes sense, but if that is what they are doing, it's going horribly IMO. heh.

 

Yeah