Funny how when a game that comes out that doesn't feature FFA PVP the woodwork comes alive with players denouncing it because it doesn't appeal to their particular tastes. They flame non FFA PVP games in general and the carebears that play them, insisting that only FFA PVP can be the one true MMO. They trot out the same old excuses, they want the danger, the excitement, it's not about griefing at all...

Just coming at this from the opposite side here but you see how similar that reads compared to the OP. The problem isn't FFA PVP, it's poorly implemented FFA PVP. The OP points to EVE as a very successful MMO that features FFA PVP, which it does, but it's done intelligently. It's when you have no checks and balances in place that these poor implementations can and do lead to a lot of griefing. You can dress it up any way you like but a lot of FFA PVP games do suffer from griefing, and they do scare people off, or just plain piss them off. I can't understand how anyone could be "scared" of a game or a "coward" for not wanting to play one. That's just dumb.

I can see how someone would get pissed off and not bother to play any more if every time he logged in someone corpse camped him. There are a vast number of PvP players out there who don't behave this way but unfortunately there are some who like nothing better than to ruin some poor bastards day by repeatedly killing him until he logs off and those are the guys that ruin it for everyone else. If the system let's them get away with it they'll keep doing it.

I have an EVE subscription myself, so I'm not coming from the carebear camp here. I'm coming from the "I like open PVP if it's done right" camp.

Originally posted by rounner

Going on about non issues and ignoring glaring ones is pretty much what a straw man is. How about answering the two real concerns which have been posted in this thread several times but you havent answered. My paraphrased versions:

- Consequences for killing is too low/ or its a lot easier to break something than make something

- If you can pk loot then it devalues items and completely removes the item collection progression mechanic

Notice these concerns are centered around game mechanics and not around you.

What "glaring issues"? I listed some arguments which I think are bad, I'm not here to propose the ultimate solution to FFA PVP's many design dilemmas. I like the FFA PVP playstyle but I don't think it's for everyone and I don't think all FFA games are perfect.

But the fact that a lot of people hate on PVPers is not a "non issue" - quite frankly I'm sick and tired of the same old stereotypes and misconceptions surfacing time after time - that's why I made this thread.

But sure, I'll adress these "real concerns" for you.

* Yes, any FFA PVP game needs concequences. Most of the current ones (DF, MO) have way too soft consequences and poorly made security systems. EVE has a nearly perfect system imho, every other FFA game should try and copy it. I have proposed this in several threads in the games subforums, most recently in the DFUW forums. But alas, I am not a dev myself and I have to accept that some devs have different opinions about this.

Also, the fact that some games have non-perfect security systems does not mean that FFA PVP per se sucks. It's like saying crafting sucks because some games have poor implementations of it.

* Removing the gear grind and replacing it with a risk vs reward dynamic and player-run economy is not a bad thing in my book. FFA PVP and full loot games do not revolve around acquiring pointless epic loot by running the same raid over and over. Players can still collect items of course, but the important thing in these games are not to wear the ultimate set of gear, but to earn respect and in-game influence through PVP skill, market dominance or metagame politics.

The fact that you may lose all your belongings add an extra dimension to the game and gives you the feeling that all your accomplishments really matter, while the themepark "item progression" is just a carrot devs use to hook players and keep them playing the same premade content over and over.

Originally posted by Loke666

I have nothing against FFA PvP as such, but I dont really think that PvP games have the consequences right.

You cant just go out and randomly kill people IRL, or you can but there will be consequences. If if you live in Mogadishu or another unsafe place there will still be consequences. Problem is that NPC cityguards or guardtowers arent really a big deal.

A western FFA PvP MMO where bountyhunters and sheriffs hunt outlaws would probably work fine, as long as you have the right ratio between the players.

A fantasy MMO where everyone can murder people everywhere with little consequenses on the other hand gets pretty boring fast, particularly one with a big gap between noobs and vets.

A gangwar gangster MMO set during the 20s could also be fun, but there you really dont want to be caught killing members of your own gang.

And of course not all MMO PvPers are sociopaths, that are just the people constantly griefing noobs just for the fun of it.

But the real problem is that in the real world you actually can get killed or jailed for a long time and that is really bad, in MMOs you respawn fast with often little penalties. Murdering people in MMO should be something that you do more as a last resort or during war than something you walk around and do all day out of boredom.

I agree with this post. My main problem with FFA PvP games is that their are no real consequences for your actions. The risk to reward ratio is skewed to be too much reward for not enough risk.. If a group of players want to roleplay bandits, and kill and rob other players, I'm fine with that as long as they are willing to be hunted down, not allowed in towns, etc. There should be some kind of negative consequences to balance it out.

The more MMO's I play the more I like the idea of a bit more FFA PvP.   Maybe then some people would tone  their anti-social, annoying behaviour down. 

I could probably live with some ganking to be provided the ability to kill people that are annoying.

Your arguments are just a bunch of nonsense!  You miss the point, to this point no game has come up with a ruleset  yet that can control the griefers.  Those that just play the game to ruin it for others.  Nothing wrong with good pvp, just that griefer play has no place in it.   UO came close, but the Age of Shadows killed that game when they made equipment overpowered.

The new Darkfall may be much better, have to wait and see.

Originally posted by Tolroc

Originally posted by Loke666

I have nothing against FFA PvP as such, but I dont really think that PvP games have the consequences right.

You cant just go out and randomly kill people IRL, or you can but there will be consequences. If if you live in Mogadishu or another unsafe place there will still be consequences. Problem is that NPC cityguards or guardtowers arent really a big deal.

A western FFA PvP MMO where bountyhunters and sheriffs hunt outlaws would probably work fine, as long as you have the right ratio between the players.

A fantasy MMO where everyone can murder people everywhere with little consequenses on the other hand gets pretty boring fast, particularly one with a big gap between noobs and vets.

A gangwar gangster MMO set during the 20s could also be fun, but there you really dont want to be caught killing members of your own gang.

And of course not all MMO PvPers are sociopaths, that are just the people constantly griefing noobs just for the fun of it.

But the real problem is that in the real world you actually can get killed or jailed for a long time and that is really bad, in MMOs you respawn fast with often little penalties. Murdering people in MMO should be something that you do more as a last resort or during war than something you walk around and do all day out of boredom.

I agree with this post. My main problem with FFA PvP games is that their are no real consequences for your actions. The risk to reward ratio is skewed to be too much reward for not enough risk.. If a group of players want to roleplay bandits, and kill and rob other players, I'm fine with that as long as they are willing to be hunted down, not allowed in towns, etc. There should be some kind of negative consequences to balance it out.

 

 i fully agree and i also believe the mechanics should be that you dont have a majority of bandits. A hardcore style requires a hardcore life.

1) easily differentiated from other players. Iike the idea that players change to evil races when they go bad. This way you know that a troll what happens when a dwarf goes evil, an ogre is what happens when a human goes evil, an ork is what happens when an elf goes evil. Easy to spot, and makes sense in the game.

2) kos to guards, towns, outposts etc. The closer to town the harder it should get. There should also be npc rangers and player rangers that can hunt you down. Even in the wilderness there should be the odd ranger and wardens patrolling.

3) trade convience for power. They get so rules that makes their life easy. Much like speccing for a role, players should be able to choose gods and abilities that minimize your risk to the the evil players. It would be normal for a "good" god to grant things like cheaper and more efficient resurections, equipment binding, god plane storage (dimensional bag linked to your gods plane), detect evil, and other tools to mitigate your risks. You would be able to choose the ones right for you.

Evil is the opposite, the gods are cruel, vindictive and are only interested in power. Thus no protective convienience, only more power.

You want to make evil hard enough that only a small minority would stick with it. My optimal ratio is 96% good to 4% evil.

of the 4% evil you want them to be able to fight amongst themselves for power and the top players would get some ability to instigate npcs to cause events on the good players.

4) If one character goes evil, they all go evil. Evil is server bound.

5) You cannot choose to be evil at the begining. You earn it by killing players outside of a "wartime", where a wartime would be legl killing of players your at war with.

6) Evil players can be hunted by anyone.

Originally posted by Biskop

"FFA PVP games are not commercially successful, which means they are bad"

Probably the worst argument ever. First of all, it's just false. EVE is one of the most successful MMOs of all time, with a strong player retention and a very active development - despite being an almost ten years old niche FFA game. DayZ, a buggy FFA mod (with permadeath) for a buggy military simulator, has attracted over a million players to date, a standalone is in the works and the WarZ, a simliar game from another dev, is getting loads of attention as we speak. Darkfall: Unholy Wars is another upcoming FFA title with a lot of hype.

So, it seems FFA games can attract quite a substantial audience. But even if the above argument was based on facts, it would be false. All games do not need WoW-like numbers to be successful, and a product can be extremely qualitative without being a mainstream hit - otherwise we would all be eating at McDonald's read Twilight books, and watch Hollywood movies exclusively.

FFA is not for everyone, but its audience is not as small as some people like to claim.

I honestly never saw EvE as FFA PvP.  There are areas that are much safer than others due to game mechanics (Concord).  Shadowbane on the other hand, yea, you go out in the world alone, you expected to get attacked by pretty much anyone outside your alliance.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by CalmOceans

While I don't care for PVP, I'll give people one simple reason out of the hundreds there are why PVP is unpopular.

They call every PVE player a carebear as a derogatory term. People are not welcomed in PVP communities, they are put down, in PVE communities they are welcomed with open arms.

You've obviously never spent much time around raiding guilds.

Dont think he's spent much time with PvPers either. You dont typically get called a care bear JUST for liking PvE. When you start whining about PvP and trying to turn PvP games into PvE games is when you get called a carebear. PvPers are very welcoming to people who dont whine constantly that there is PvP in a known PvP game. The fact that you think people arent "welcomed" is kind of amusing considering the large clans & guilds formed in PvP games that create zergs.

Even more amusing is the fact that you actually believe if some of us went into a PvE game and did the same things as "carebears" and started whining that there is too much PvE and not enough PvP and trying to turn the game into a PvP game we wouldnt instantly be called grifers, lowlifes, sociopaths, psychos, etc.

Anyway as to some of the others in here talking about stuff like consequences for killing, etc. I take it most of you didnt spend much time in a variety of PvP games. Most games with FFA PvP do have pretty hard consequences. Just to name a few I can think of from various games:

- Inability to access / live out of NPC cities due to getting killed by guards / guard towers, etc causing you to lose access to quests

- being red to and able to freely be killed by anyone and your attackers receive no punishment

- several games where you dont normally drop items, but being red / murderer status can cause you to lose equipped items

- Along with the 1st point, being unable to access NPC cities often also means living a much harder life in general by not being able to access certain features such as banks, NPCs to trade stuff with, auction houses, etc. In some cases these can be accessed but only via a lot of travelling to special areas only available to reds and putting yourself at risk of being attacked along the way, in some cases they simply become completely unavailable unless you somehow remove your red status.

Anyway there are other types of consequences that exist too, those are just a few examples. But unlike many of you seem to believe, most FFA PvP games are not about just freely killing everyone everywhere with no consequences to your actions. Some are better able / more willing to deal with the consequences and adapt to surviving witht he hinderances that come along with being red.

Don't know about the "worst" argument against FFA PvP, but I do know the absolute best argument against FFA PvP.

PvP'ers themselves.

Peple who like FFA PVP are old school/hardcore gamers. Every1 else is in love with themepark mmos where they do heroic/hardcore things when they kill 1 boss, 24vs1 on any mode. Thats BS, thats not HC. You like to think you  are doing something HC but tactical brainless deepz  24 players vs 1 noob Boss with 10.000.000 hp and a crap rotation that you have to learn never was and never will be HC.

Hardcore is something similar with: "Being afraid to leave your town/hometown cuz some1 could kill you". How can 1 boss beat this feeling? Never!!

Build a game around "im afraid to be killed" and you will have the most succesful game in mmo industry ever made...and which company will do it, will be #1. 

for me, 10 mil sheeps, chinese and bots is far from having succes. Oh, $$$ wise, true...but quality > quantity

So instead of 24 v 1 NPC , you get 24 v 1  poor sucker thats today's sheep.    Most open pvp I've been invovled hasn't been anymore skillful than fighting a npc boss.  Sure there has been moments of quality pvp, most has ethier been me ganking or being ganked.

Originally posted by Grochie

So instead of 24 v 1 NPC , you get 24 v 1  poor sucker thats today's sheep.    Most open pvp I've been invovled hasn't been anymore skillful than fighting a npc boss.  Sure there has been moments of quality pvp, most has ethier been me ganking or being ganked.

 

 

This, once again, just isn't true.

I've had cases in FFA PvP where I've been chased by people who out-number me 10-1 in a few games (WoW, GW2, Darkfall, EQ1), and I've lived. Why? Clever use of game mechanics, and instinct.

Just because you are the type of player who throws his arms up and whines on the forums when he's ganked, doesn't mean everyone is.

If you don't like PvP - be a fairy. Problem solved.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

The problem with many FFA PvP games is that they are designed to support VASTLY inequal competition and a certain subset of players seem to thrive on that particular dynamic.

In other words,  you wouldn't play Chess against a little kid (or probably even an adult)  you had just taught the rules in the same way you would an experienced opponent that had played for years....and if you did, most people would think there was something wrong with you.

Most people who enjoy competition actualy do consider relatively "fair" competition an important element of play in order to enjoy it.....and that is a big part of the reason FFA games tend to be unpopular even with many players who actualy enjoy competitive player or PvP in other games.

You wouldn't play chess against a little kid? Er it's not meant to be simulating a game of chess is it.

There is plenty of "competition" to be had in a FFA, open pvp environment, the trouble comes when people seem to think that "competition" only comes in one format i.e. "equal numbers small team combat".

No risk in pvp is a yawn fest.

Need full loot of an EvE/Perpetuum style "lose what your in if you die" type of mechanic.

I dont care how hardcore the pvp says he is, if hes pvping in a game where a loss is a free trip back to his bind, its a fail.

I like open world pvp, I played on Rallos Zek for years but that was never free for all pvp.  I quite like EVE's pvp system, I am not overly keen on that as a game though.  I perfer open world to battlegrounds or special RvR zones.

I had a couple of really memorable fights on RZ,  I had a lot more fights that weren't though and were really no more hardcore or skillfull than casting on someone that overpulled, or having someone drop me at a zoneline after a bad pull.

Originally posted by Apraxis

Originally posted by Paradigm68

What the OP's title implies but doesn't address is that there must be some good arguments against FFA PvP. What are they?

As far as I'm concerned there is one good one:  In a persistant online RPG the concept of consequence and context free killing over and over is completely counter to the point of the genre. Unless the lore supports people killing each other for no reason and with no response from the local authorities or the populace, it just doesn't fit. Putting multiplayer deathmatch style play in an RPG makes no sense. 

The funny part is. In general in europe the arguement is completely the other side. A Role Playing game have to have FFA PvP on, so you are able to play your role. And over there are a few dedicated roleplaying boards, even in the nowadays more or less died out roleplaying scene for mmorpgs.

That a good FFA PvP game should have different consequences for different kinds of player kills is another discussion, and i agree with it. That you have to handle different kills(in lore) differently.(like it is as example in Arche Age) But to turn PKin off is no solution at all. But on the other side roleplaying in MMORPGs become anyway more or less non existent since the masses(WoW and even before) where attracted from MMORPGs.

I got some decent role playing in Old UO and a lot in some UO freeshards, after that it become less and less. I got in DAoC or SWG involved in some kind of roleplaying. But after WoW or almost any game after WoW i really didnt encounter any roleplaying, and withit i am didnt roleplay a lot in MMORPGs anymore. It is just frustrating nowadays. Therefore i play regulary PnP Sessions with a few friends for that.

If they would maybe again reduce the masses in MMORPGs, with servers with just a few hundred, i guess, it could be possible again to really roleplay. But somehow i doubt that we will something like that anywhere in the next few years.

Ohh... and that is now rather off topic.

Yes, i think a mulitplayer mmo has to have pvp and should have some open world pvp. I agree that forcing all the players to be friendly is also counter to the idea of an MMORPG. Which is one of my main problems with LoTRO, which while an amazing game, i get bored of too quickly.  But there is a huge difference between pvp that is part of the game and recognizes that fact and FFA. Free For All, just doesn't belong in a game genre in which nothing else in the game is FFA without any constraint.

Originally posted by Disatisfied9

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Of course you never ever get asshats, greifers and jerks in raid guilds or on pve servers

Exactly, PvErs are saints compared to those PvP felons.

The difference is that they can't affect my enjoyment much.

Jerks in raid guilds .. just raid on LFR and PUGs .. don't like the group .. hit the quit button. I don't have to suffer anyone.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Disatisfied9

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Of course you never ever get asshats, greifers and jerks in raid guilds or on pve servers

Exactly, PvErs are saints compared to those PvP felons.

The difference is that they can't affect my enjoyment much.

Jerks in raid guilds .. just raid on LFR and PUGs .. don't like the group .. hit the quit button. I don't have to suffer anyone.

 

In the same way, if you don't like FFA, hit the quit button.

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Disatisfied9

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Of course you never ever get asshats, greifers and jerks in raid guilds or on pve servers

Exactly, PvErs are saints compared to those PvP felons.

The difference is that they can't affect my enjoyment much.

Jerks in raid guilds .. just raid on LFR and PUGs .. don't like the group .. hit the quit button. I don't have to suffer anyone.

 

In the same way, if you don't like FFA, hit the quit button.

And that's exactly what many many MMO players do.

There are only a small minority of PvP players that are really dedicated to making the person on the other end of the keyboard feel bad.   But their impact is much larger than their number.   Players who don't like that sort of thing will quit your game if you make it too easy to do.   And that's why its harder to have nice things.