I really liked this write up.  I think it fully portrays a certain type of mmorpg gamer that really doesn't prefer pvp - and that is perfectly fine.

OP stated: Which is why all this pampering boils my blood; plus the fact I'm absolutely awful at it

I really like that he mentioned that because he is being honest: He doesn't like pvp because he isn't good at it.  Noboy likes to lose repeatedly, and if you aren't good at pvp, you will lose repeatedly.

But as somebody who is good at PvP or atleast decent - I can tell you that the thrill of PvP will always be better then any other aspect that the game provides, except maybe - MAYBE the social aspect.

I don't think that I've ever been able to say that I agree with any article more. While PvP can occasionally be a tactical event, most times it ends up with somone running in circles around me spamming the crap out of me. An open-world style of PvP would be ideal, but this is increasingly rare.

Adam,  In my opinion the term PvP and the concept of PvP is in contradiction to what an mmorpg (or any role-playing game) is supposed to be.

PvP implies competition - and PvPers are interested in the competition. 

Roleplaying games are about immersing, experiencing, and creating - not competing.   You don't "win" at a role-playing game, you just experience and create within it.   You may encounter conflict and competition - in a true role-playing game, but it is always within the context of a story.  

I think when you say that PvP feels too much like a "game" is getting at this point.  You're sensing this lust for competition among most PvPers, with the virtual world being merely a prop or an arena for them to carry on - to the point that the world doesn't matter, lore doesn't matter,  creating story doesn't matter - and ironically the characters don't matter.    Notice it's not coined Character vs Character - it's called Player vs Player.    It's about the numbers, the skills, and being the best.    PvPing in these games for many "PvPers" is no different for them than a first person shooter,  chess, or ping pong. 

I love competing... in sports, video games, board games, whatever.    But I've always thought that online virtual worlds should not be about that - but should be about the roleplaying, creative experience.   But for many mmorpg players  these worlds are just another platform for competition.

My 2 cents.

Been gaming since 2001.  and all of the games I did pvp in.  The ones I liked most were games like SWG, GW and POTBS.  Liked the concept of Eve more than the mechanics, but the pvp aspect appealed to me.

PvP can be a great tactical experience.  Especially in the age of YouTube.  One of the great selling points of POTBS (which their marketing team never picked up on) are the YouTube videos of the highly tactical PvP.

Yet I mainly agree with the author.  Battleground PvP sucks.  It sucks and it is worthless.  Honordueling is fun, but pvp needs to actually mean something, and that means out in the world.  Doesn't have to be open pvp darkfall style.  but large zones where you know the risks going in, and expect fights, that is where a games pvp system truly shines.

modern pvp comes in two flavors, both are bitter. there's open world aka: gank/grief fest, or there's instanced aka: unbalanced, repeditative heap of parrot droppings. as someone who usually chooses the healer path i find pvp a useless waste of my time, effort, gold (repairs), and mental energy.

now i should preface this buy saying that while i don't completely suck at pvp i'm also not the most skilled player. I'm your basic average pvp player, i have some skill, i understand tactics, and i can generally hold my own against one or two players at my level/skill. why should i bother with pvp instance games when some one can buy their way to the top of the kill charts? why should i bother with open pvp games that encourage griefing/ganking? do i cry when someone with more skill bests me? no! i tip my hat to the better player every time. I take issue with players that think it's cool to go kill "newbs", aka anyone 15-20+ levels below them. I take issue with players that spend $200+ irl dollars on pvp equipment from the item shop so they can win more than they lose. these are the same players that i was beating 7 out of 10 times before they spent cash, and now i'm lucky to get them below 1/2 health before i die?!

tactics are frequently mentioned in relation to pvp battles. what exactly is the tactic behind griefing a healer in an open pvp game? if the tactic is to cause the player to leave the game, and never play another game like it, then success! if the tactic is to cause there to be a shortage of healers at higher levels because all the newer healers were griefed out of the game, then success! i understand that taking out the healer is good in a battle, ie: instanced pvp, or guild vs guild, or the like. and i'm ok with that, i expect it. i don't expect to have some asshat come hand me my arse from 20 levels above me because he was walking through a lower level area and didn't like the way i looked or whatever.

pvp isn't good anymore because of the make a quick buck mentality of developers, and the me, me, me mentality of players. like i said, i usually choose healers. that means i watch your back and keep you healed in battle. i return you need to watch my back so i can continue to heal you. because i can't heal you and hold off a horde of monsters or a couple of players. i will choose my life over yours everytime. so when you die because i got swarmed by others and you call me a newb, don't expect me to ever heal you again. especially since i proabably died too. then there are the "heal me, heal me" then run away if i haven't healed them in 2.14 milliseconds players. . .

i could continue to rant for some time on this subject, but 10+ years of ranting has taught me one thing: it makes no difference.

I don't understand why some of these post in this thread keep harping on about 'meaningful' or 'impacting' PvP.  Its a myth.  It has never happened.  The only changes that have ever been implemented in the Open world PvP mechanic thats being alluded to is server control over certain resource points.  And you know what people do when one faction or another controls an area that the player needs?  They swap to their alt. that matches the faction.  --Zero impact--

With instanced PvP, you have balance and strategy; which is a far cry better than the zerg tactics and unabashed ganking.  Sure it might break the immersion, but if you're in the game for immersion, you're probably not playing PvP and if you're playing for the PvP you're probably not playing for the immersion. 

I for one am looking forward to a time when we can say good-bye and good riddance to Open world PvP permanently.  Hopefully that is not too far off, with the astonishing growth in popularity of the MOBA genre, it seems pretty clear that instanced, balanced, and tactical combat is whats in demand; despite what the vocal minority here might say.

The only PvP I can stomach is the type that has an actual effect on stats and buffs such as DAoC, Eve Online and WAR. As for the battlegrounds I find them dull and boring. I would much prefer the open PvP like Ultima Online and full loot rights with a criminal system. If any MMOs got it right its Eve Online and Ultima Online.

DAoC does a very good second place. As for the rest I do not bother with PvP because it doesn't change anything for me , guild or faction in the game world. And when I kill an opponent I want to loot all his equipment and make death hurt.

Originally posted by zigmund

I for one am sick of pve games - in a word boring.

I am also sick of pve games with instanced pvp. Repetitive hamster in a wheel pvp.

Still waiting for the next "Shadowbane"

Like!

Open world pvp is a gank-fest in  games like WoW-Aion and other clones that are just red team vs blue team, so high level players kill low levels without any penality, any consequences.

For a MMO focused in open world clan-guild wars, the first question is if there is any system that gives the players the freedom to make their own alliances-enemies, because if not, it will be randoms ganking randoms like the WoW's and its clones garbage pvp. As well as there must be a good pk system that punishes players that kill players that are not at war with them, because of this the system of Lineage is the best for owpvp:

Originally posted by Prenho

Themepark players never heard about pk and karma? Any sandbox focused in OW pvp-clan wars that wants to be decent use a pk system. Lineage 1 and Lineage 2 show this. Just add a pk system, there are 2 things to consider:

 

1 - PvP without war:

If player A wants to kill player B but player B is not at war with him(player B belongs to a clan that is not at war with player A clan, or simply doesn't belong to any clan).

So player A starts attacking, so his name changes from White(normal state) to purple(flagged state), so 2 things can happen depending if player B will react or not:

a - Player B doesn't react: if player B doesn't want to react and player A kills him, it means that he killed a player with white name(normal state), so player A will gain karma and his name will change to red color(it means that he became pk, pks are banned from towns and also he can't talk to npcs, and if someone dies while in pk state, he can lose some(or all) items(as his weapon or armor).

A pk player needs to kill monters of his gap of level until he cleans his karma and his name becomes white again. Anyone can kill a pk without worrying, pks can be killed and the killer won't become pk, just will have a change to loot some items from pk after killing him.

A(white name) atks B(white name) = A becomes purple name

A(purple name) kills B(white name) = A becomes red name(pk) gain karma because he killed a white name.

b - Player B reacts: player B decides to fight back, so player B will become a purple name too, both players are purple, so this fight will end up and nobody will become pk, because both players are flagged, the winner will just have to wait some time until his name turns white again.

A(white name) atks B(white name) = A becomes purple name

B(white name) atks back = B becomes purple name 

Both palyer are flagged, so it doesn't matter who wins, nobody will become pk because both players opened flag.

2 - PVP with war

Player A finds player B and he notices that player B belongs to a clan that is at war with his clan, in this case, the rule above does not apply anymore, because both players are at war, so no matter if player A kills player B without player B reacts or not, you can kill him without worrying about becoming pk. The own players make their own alliances and enemies, so if a clan wants to be neutral, it can, just don't accept war from any other clan. 

So as rival clans, they fight for open world bosses, territory control, and politics-enocomy via castle sieges.

"perhaps too difficult for a new gaming culture that is bred on quick matches and a lack of brain."

Get a stick granpa Adam, you elitist ****! This loathed modern PvP is hundred times better than imagination shit you had in old days, and boy was it shit. Elitist ***holes making up how great battles was and other utter nonsense. I always remember those elitist ****s raising themself as generals and trying to give crappy orders only to be responded with John Cena trademark move pushing them to crybaby on forums. 

I honestly agree with pretty much everything in this editorial.

The people that demand stuff like PvP and no gender restrictions in every mmorpg just make me groan..

In the early days of DAoC pvp was quite fun and it was about how well your group worked together.  Decent 8 man groups dominated.  It was not about equipment at all, it was completely about how well you worked together.  Then they added significant gear and magic enhancements in Trials of Atlantis and pvp went south.

Any game that lets gear dominate pvp, really does not have pvp they have gvg (gear vs gear) which is what most pvp is all about these days.

Originally posted by itgrowls
the final image of the White Hand Urukai about to swipe the kid is how PVP is in games that don't require skill, and have unfair unbalanced advantages between those who have gone thru and most likely died their way to getting enhanced armor that prevents those just starting pvp from having a chance at killing them. It's how most of the games that handle pvp handle pvp and it's really sad. Now that GW2 is here, maybe other companies will pay attention to how much more fun the pvp experience is in GW2 and emulate that example, by eliminating stats on armor for pvp entirely.

That is sort of what i looked at it as.  PvP in games like WoW, while you may find them entertaining, they aren't tactical.  It is all about having the right build and then just rolling your face across the keyboard.  Stats win everything.  Not a knock on WoW, but like almost every other themepark game, pvp is an afterthought.  They do it well enough in that format.

Games like EvE (I would say somewhat old school DAOC), SWG, POTBS, UO, it not only mattered what build you had, but posiitioning in fights were also important.  You need positioning to matter if you want pvp to be tactical.  Stats provide some boost but the boost is negligble compared to how you play the game.

*forgive spelling, not used to being up this early hehe*