Originally posted by maplestone

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

So, the PVE fight is far more "unbalanced" and crap than the pvp (which usually is crap too...imagine).

The assumption you are making is that people are seeking balance.  What if they are seeking texture, atmosphere and fantasy  rather than e-sport?

I was directing that post only to the people that say to avoid pvp only because balance or fairness issues.

Originally posted by maplestone

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

So, the PVE fight is far more "unbalanced" and crap than the pvp (which usually is crap too...imagine).

The assumption you are making is that people are seeking balance.  What if they are seeking texture, atmosphere and fantasy  rather than e-sport?

Given how popular is e-sport (see the huge success of LOL), i doubt many are seeking something else. If they are, they can play games like PS2 where pvp is everywhere.

The point is that different players want different gameplay. It is a mistake to ignore e-sports, which is obviously popular.

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

My first mmos played (UO and L2) had open PVP and it was regarded as essential part of the enviroment, indispensable to the social, political and economic dynamics of the virtual world. People in almost totality did all the other things provided by the server (pve, craft, etc) preparing to pvp in search of resources, domains, ownerships of castles/fortress/territorys, glory, respect, rivalry, revenge, fun and etc.

I only made contact with people that hate PVP after joining WoW and reading foruns. This was a novelty to me and let me very intrigued and curious about the reasons of the people that avoid PVP. Reading opinions and various texts in the internet, i saw that this population "pvp-hater" can be subdivided in 2 categories: people that likes or is indiferent to pvp itself, but hates the "free pvp" ("open world FFA pvp") and people that are truly scared of any type of pvp, even the structured. I came to a conclusion about the ultimate (or primary) causes that make PVP be disliked by some  people:

 

1- PVE characters stays in certain spots waiting to be approached, while players can come to you.

 

       Keeping all the other factors equal, is this the main "annoyance" of the pvp to much people. If the monsters stayed wandering the world, invading cities, aproaching players while they are occupied, distracted, no prepared or no "in mood" to fight, this "annoyance" would be regarded as a normal thing and pvp would be less loathed by these people. These monster and other AI NPC attacks would be considered "legitimates" and source of thrill, adrenaline and adventure, challenging the players in strive to survive, dodging or fighting the threats. But the same, if made by human-controled characters, is (consciously or no) regarded as "illegitimate", "desnecessary", "harassment", etc

But in 99,9% of  today mmos, the PVE characters stay stopped in specific spots waiting to be slaughtered like sheeps in the pasture (see item 2).

This item explains the complains about "balance", zerg and trans-level kill too: PVE characters can too be "overpowered", in greater number or higher lv, but they stay in their spots, allowing the players approach them only if in advantageous conditions.

 

 

2- Human-controled characters is much more harder to defeat in 99% of the time.

 

As the AI tecnology is still far away from the capacity of a actual human brain, the human-controled characters, in equal conditions, will be more harder to defeat and unpredictable. To defeat a human-controled player requires a minimum of training, attention and motor coordination from the players, ie, skill and mental work, which not everyone is willling to do or have. Some people (i dont know if the majority or no) wanna play a mmo to just  "relax" and do unchallenging things as pastime, like knitting.

If the AI controlled characters had the same complex fighting behavior and tactics of the humans, the pvp would be less hated by these people too, since there wouldn't much difference.

 PVE characters can only become "hard" with gigantic increase in their stats, but still are predictable like a bull in the arena and can be easily beaten by a group of players whose only "challenge" is to form and keep a group able to memorize a handful of "movements". 

 

3- In most mmos, PVE offfers more guaranteed rewards.

 

This is the main reason to much people. In 99% of the mmos, the PVE offers game rewards in a regular and guaranteed way, while PVP dont, or, if it offers, is at a high risk that sometimes dont compensates. Many mmos fails in create a functional risk-reward system  to the pvp, and ends up not attracting the population that dont pvp for fun, but could happily (?) pvp if the potential reward is tempting. These mmos with bad risk-reward systems makes the pvp be practiced only by the people that have fun in doing it regardless of the "reward".

The sandboxes mmos almost always creates a good risk-reward system, since the players competes by countless things in the open world.

 

 

In summary: pvp requires more work, attention and skill to be handled (either fighting, fleeing, dodging or avoiding) and not always gives valuable rewards to tempt the people turned away by these requirements.

  

This is what people like you will never understand.  Its BECAUSE of people like you, your attitudes, and your narcissistic overinflated sense of skill, and overall chest beating BS that most people hate open world styles of PVP and PVP games.

It has nothing to do with being "afraid".  To suggest someone is afraid of dying or playing PVP in an MMO is the height of absurdity.  The only fear we have is the fear of the massive headache that will certainly follow.

People don't like it because its not FUN.  Most people don't think its hilarious to pwn a bunch of n00bs and drink their delicious carebear tears, and then sit around patting each other on the back for kicking some ass even though you outnumbered the other side 2:1.

Any by the way, the hatred for PVP started long before your beloved L2.  Back in the late 90's, shortly after UO released, the developers of EverQuest went and played UO and decideed to remove any major leel of PVP because they had horrible experiences with griefers, campers and just general assholery. Thus it was born.

Originally posted by rojo6934
im a PvE person, but i dont fear PvP. I like open world PvP but i strongly dislike both permadeath and Full Loot, specially if i have to pay to play the game and get ganked, full looted and / or perma dead.... i can live with getting ganked since thats the nature of the beast (open world pvp), but all i can say about the other two (permadeath and full loot) is that  my money has a value im not willing to waste with them. I do not enjoy that so i dont play those games. Even for free, i just dont enjoy those two features so i dont support them or any game that has them.

I dont look full loot pvp with good eyes because the following reason:

If two player, A and B, with same lv and gear, fight each other and A wins, than B will be without gear and "broken" to pvp, cant have the chance to recovery his loss looting from others, since he dont have more gear to be competitive. This system, in that way, damage the gameplay experience and the pvp enviromental challenge itself.

To avoid that issue, there is some solutions:

1- Gear matters little to the strenght.

2- Gear be cheaper and easier to get.

3- The best solution (IMO): no full loot, only partial loot, like in archeage. The player can drop some resources but no his gear, wich will keep him competitive without damage the "progression" provided by gear being expensive or hard to get.

PVP is stressful. You have to deal with not being good eough or being made fun of etc. Theres a rush of adrenaline for most people too. Some like, others don't because gaming is usally a relaxing and comfortable activity. Not everyone is competative. And like you said, there's hardly ever any reward for PVPing so if losing makes someone feel bad and winning gets you nothing of value (bragging rights have zero value to most of us since it's a game and having skills in the game have zero value it's self) then why bother.

Personally, I like to idea of open world pvp, but I'd never actively seek out pvp. I like the idea of having to defend myself and friend or even just getting away from a threat, but at the time, it can get stressful when you have the entire playbase coming after you constantly over and over. Open world pvp games need systems in place to effectively "punish" random murder. Something like jail time where the player goes to jail if caught and then has to play in that enviroment and do certain things for a certain period of time without progressing in the main game. This way, people will only kill if have to, really really want to, or think the person they're killing is really work dealing with the punishment. That way you don't have non-stop chaos. That's what most non-pvpers don't want; non-stop harrassment, trash talk, mean spiritedness etc. Because that's unfortunately what many (not all) pvpers are like. They are quick to throw insults and just all around harsh for no reason.

If pvpers really want more people to pvp with them, then stop refering to people as carebears and try being nice.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

It is a mistake to ignore e-sports, which is obviously popular.

It wasn't my intent to claim publishers should ignore this market - rather I'm commenting on the limits to which you can take conflicting playstyles and put them on the same map without just creating frustration and annoyance with each other.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by maplestone

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

So, the PVE fight is far more "unbalanced" and crap than the pvp (which usually is crap too...imagine).

The assumption you are making is that people are seeking balance.  What if they are seeking texture, atmosphere and fantasy  rather than e-sport?

Given how popular is e-sport (see the huge success of LOL), i doubt many are seeking something else. If they are, they can play games like PS2 where pvp is everywhere.

The point is that different players want different gameplay. It is a mistake to ignore e-sports, which is obviously popular.

E-sports lack the political/diplomatic/social/economic aspects provided by a sandbox mmo with free pvp. They only have the tactical aspect (the fight itself), which is very good but we can have more. :)

I kind of fail to understand the purpose of this thread, and I did read the original poster's first offering.

What I was reading was something alone the lines of " I played UO as my first MMO and it had PvP as its only option for server type, and everyone accepted it and got used to it. "

Well, that's cool and all, but when UO was brand new a friend of mine that was playing it said " hey, check this out ". I did and the game wasn't my thing. I felt the graphics were too crude and I wasn't a big fan of the Diablo style camera angle. So I took a pass on it, and many other people felt the same as I did.

Everquest came out soon after from Sony. Huzzah, it had better graphics, different camera options, and so I felt more comfortable playing it. Surprise surprise, it was offered intentionally as a PvE centric game, which people accepted and got used to.

So... I don't get the point of your post. You had a First Time Experience with MMO's with UO that was PvP centric. Other people had First Time Experiences with MMO's that are PvE centric. That's simple enough to understand, but you failed to get another concept as being understood when you placed "people that don't like pvp" in two different camps.

A third kind of player likes PvP IF THE GAME IS MADE FOR PVP from the ground up. I happen to be one of those. I'm mostly "scared" of PvP in games that use character mechanics that are intended for PvE play that are altered and balanced and put through the wringer over and over by Devs when those mechanics are used for PvP. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone with that sentiment.

I've played on exclusively pvp servers before and enjoyed it. My problem with pvp is it forces you to min/max. I don't mind that some of the time but most of the time i prefer playing characters based on my mood.

People that say such PvPers should go play games like Planetside2 and LoL are fucking stupid

That's like saying you PvEers should go play offline games.

OWPVP for the win.

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by maplestone

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

So, the PVE fight is far more "unbalanced" and crap than the pvp (which usually is crap too...imagine).

The assumption you are making is that people are seeking balance.  What if they are seeking texture, atmosphere and fantasy  rather than e-sport?

Given how popular is e-sport (see the huge success of LOL), i doubt many are seeking something else. If they are, they can play games like PS2 where pvp is everywhere.

The point is that different players want different gameplay. It is a mistake to ignore e-sports, which is obviously popular.

E-sports lack the political/diplomatic/social/economic aspects provided by a sandbox mmo with free pvp. They only have the tactical aspect (the fight itself), which is very good but we can have more. :)

 

 

Who cares - people make millions on E-sports and that is why it is popular. Who cares what a sandbox game gives you as far as the rest, if you have asshats in the game that always post in chat - 'I PWN NOOBS - I AM LEET!' People get sick of seeing that and the other asshat behavior.

Originally posted by evilastro

You forgot the main reason people dont like OWPvP.

It is rarely 'fair'. OWPvP is too susceptible to unstoppable zergs. Run around with a group of 6 and what chance does 1 player stand against you? Get a raid of players and you can wipe out any small groups without breaking a sweat.

This is what happens when you get OWPvP. You dont get fair 1 one 1 fights, or even full group vs full group. Sure you get them sometimes against rogue characters, but the only reason they are engaging you 1 on 1 is because they know that they have the advantage from getting the jump on you.  More often than not you will get full groups of stealthed players hiding near PvE objectives simply to grief soloers and small groups.

Now your response is probably 'Well its a MMO, you should be grouping anyway'. Which is fair enough I guess, but these types of players wont engage anyone that would be a challenge or even a fair fight. They only engage when its obvious they will win. Which is why OWPvP is such a noxious beast and puts many PvE players off.

Instanced PvP on the other hand is optional. You cant be taken unaware and the numbers are evenly balanced. I wont say its always fair, but it has a lot more chance at being balanced than OWPvP. You mentioned that human controlled characters are harder to kill - fair point, but if you really enjoy the challenge of fighting another player, wouldnt it be better to do it in an instanced scenario where you know its a balanced fight?

While I have enjoyed OWPvP on a few games, often I just cant be bothered because I know it will turn into a senseless gankfest with no challenge whatsoever. You either steamroll or you get steamrolled, no skill needed. That's why I prefer instanced PvP seperate from the open world.

As said before, instanced pvp only provides the fight itself, the tactical aspect, but lacks the political/social/diplomatic/economic aspects provided by a mmo full of disputable resources in the open world and free pvp. BGs are like "colosseums" and OWPvP like a world where there is war and political disputes.

Originally posted by cheyane

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

My first mmos played (UO and L2) had open PVP and it was regarded as essential part of the enviroment, indispensable to the social, political and economic dynamics of the virtual world. People in almost totality did all the other things provided by the server (pve, craft, etc) preparing to pvp in search of resources, domains, ownerships of castles/fortress/territorys, glory, respect, rivalry, revenge, fun and etc.

I only made contact with people that hate PVP after joining WoW and reading foruns. This was a novelty to me and let me very intrigued and curious about the reasons of the people that avoid PVP. Reading opinions and various texts in the internet, i saw that this population "pvp-hater" can be subdivided in 2 categories: people that likes or is indiferent to pvp itself, but hates the "free pvp" ("open world FFA pvp") and people that are truly scared of any type of pvp, even the structured. I came to a conclusion about the ultimate (or primary) causes that make PVP be disliked by some  people:

 

That assumption is only because you played UO and L2 I played Everquest so your point of view is not relevant to me. It is only because initially the games within the MMORPG sphere were limited. Even then with Trammel even UO changed. So your whole premise is a personal experience and not facts you would like to extrapolate. Crafting,interaction ,political and social structure worked remarkably well in Everquest and Everquest players from 1999 can attest to this. Guilds gained glory by downing dragons and that victory was sweet to be server firsts. I think your narrow view is not one held by those of us who played Everquest as our first MMORPG.

The mmos that i played before matters little or nothing to what i am defending in the thread: the primary or "deep" reasons to some people avoid or hate pvp. They only explains my initial strangeness of the this subject.

It's not that pvp "scares people" per se, its rather that everyone has their own particular TYPE of pvp that they strongly prefer over all others. 

For me I dont like totally full loot systems, a system like shadowbane had is preferential to me, equipment degredation with inventory loot.

Over all though I prefer games like planetside 2 where I can be a small part in a larger machine, I guess you could say this is a skill issue, since i just dont have the reaction time to be good in your traditional small group or individual pvp, especially when the combat comes down to timing cooldowns, using counter or stun abilities or generally just micromanaging alot of different abilities.

Originally posted by maccarthur2004
As said before, WoW is one of the worst mmos regading the easiness to gank. I think this fact is partly responsible for the extreme skepticism of some people about the possibility of effectively control gank in a mmo with free pvp.

I think the lack of a successful example certainly helps the skepticism stay strong.

Not saying it can't be done, just not sure the effort to deal with it would be a useful expenditure of time.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

I came to a conclusion about the ultimate (or primary) causes that make PVP be disliked by some  people:

1- PVE characters stays in certain spots waiting to be approached, while players can come to you.

2- Human-controled characters is much more harder to defeat in 99% of the time.

3- In most mmos, PVE offfers more guaranteed rewards.

In summary: pvp requires more work, attention and skill to be handled (either fighting, fleeing, dodging or avoiding) and not always gives valuable rewards to tempt the people turned away by these requirements.

The points are correct, the conclusion is wrong.

Points 1 and 2 are the same - mobs are static and easy. Point 3 is part of the reason for that. For most MMO gamers, the mobs are a means to their goal - the goal being advancement. Fighting mobs in and of itself is not a primary goal for most players. An example of this is how many TERA players found the Bigg Ass Monsters (BAMs) very fun earlier on when they were a small part of leveling, but in the areas where they are primary content, many avoid it or look to get past it as fast as possible.

In PvP, the battle is the goal for the PvPer and an obstacle to one's goal for the PvE player. The challenges and objectives the PvE player is working toward in their PvE experience is greatly different from the challenges presented when a PvP player intervenes.

"My first mmos played (UO and L2) had open PVP and it was regarded as essential part of the enviroment, indispensable to the social, political and economic dynamics of the virtual world."

You are part of that 20% or so that engages in that activity. That is why you see it as essential and indispensable. You more than likely have not had much contact with people on the other side or experienced the other side, which would explain why after so many years you are writing this post, mystified about the playstyle of the other 80% or so of the playerbase. Your follow up posts reinforce this, as it is clear it isn't so much that you disagree with what others are presenting, rather playstyles outside of your own are so foreign to you taht you seem to be having trouble undertsanding them. Until such a time when PvPers are having their PvP experience ruined by someone baking bread at them, the gamers who engage primarily in FFA PVP will maintain a general disconnect with the rest of the playerbase's perspective on how different playstyles impact gameplay.

 In short, they are not afraid of PVP or PVPers, they are simply playing a different game than you are.

Nice post. There is nothing i disagree.

In fact, as already said by other guy here, PVE and PVP are 2 things that not necessarily mix well, and PVPers and PVErs seek completely different experiences: while the pvper (the majority) wanna challenging fights and others challenges that only humans can deliver, the pvers wanna only "progress" their characters through a easy and no-risky collection or gathering of things.

Originally posted by Arglebargle

Originally posted by maccarthur2004
As said before, WoW is one of the worst mmos regading the easiness to gank. I think this fact is partly responsible for the extreme skepticism of some people about the possibility of effectively control gank in a mmo with free pvp.

I think the lack of a successful example certainly helps the skepticism stay strong.

 

Not saying it can't be done, just not sure the effort to deal with it would be a useful expenditure of time.

???

I SWEAR to you, with all my heart, that i was much more frequently ganked in WoW than in L2. WoW fails more in preventing gank than most mmos, even FFA mmos.

Originally posted by botrytis

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by maplestone

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

So, the PVE fight is far more "unbalanced" and crap than the pvp (which usually is crap too...imagine).

The assumption you are making is that people are seeking balance.  What if they are seeking texture, atmosphere and fantasy  rather than e-sport?

Given how popular is e-sport (see the huge success of LOL), i doubt many are seeking something else. If they are, they can play games like PS2 where pvp is everywhere.

The point is that different players want different gameplay. It is a mistake to ignore e-sports, which is obviously popular.

E-sports lack the political/diplomatic/social/economic aspects provided by a sandbox mmo with free pvp. They only have the tactical aspect (the fight itself), which is very good but we can have more. :)

 

 

Who cares - people make millions on E-sports and that is why it is popular. Who cares what a sandbox game gives you as far as the rest, if you have asshats in the game that always post in chat - 'I PWN NOOBS - I AM LEET!' People get sick of seeing that and the other asshat behavior.

This ^^ If players don't care about the political aspects, why spend resources on it?

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

 

As said before, instanced pvp only provides the fight itself, the tactical aspect, but lacks the political/social/diplomatic/economic aspects provided by a mmo full of disputable resources in the open world and free pvp. BGs are like "colosseums" and OWPvP like a world where there is war and political disputes.

well, actually OWPvP does not have to have politics. PS2 has zero politics, and it is open world. Personally i highly doubt the politics/social/diplomatic stuff is why people pvp.

Look at the popular pvp games (like WOT, LOL, even WW2online & PS2), it is about jump in and have battles .. the only advantage of a MMOpvp vs COD is that there are more poeple, and the game never "ends" and reset.

Personally, i like PS2 .. and i don't want politics or socialization ... it is all about (for me) be able to jump in, find a good vantage point, and head shot people (sniper play style, i am sure there are other ones too).