wow open pvp,where have i heard that before,oh yeah ULTIMA online.oh its DEAD. why cause people got tired of making a lvl 1 char,walking outside and getting ganked. why doesnt open pvp work??cause the VAST majority of pvp'ers are cowards and chickenshits. they attack low levels for fun, they attack people in a monster fight,they camp out corpses.why do people like pvp ,cause they can kill low levels and feel good about themselves. frankly people like pvp cause tehy cant play pve worth crap.

i played on a text mud, we had this kingdom battle.one kingdom attracted the pvp'ers.the other the pvp'ers.
the non pvp kingdom kicked the pvp kingdom ass in every battle.why cause they were more discplined,they were used to following orders,they were used to fightening fair fights.they showed up at the battles.

---

Originally posted by Elandrial
wow open pvp,where have i heard that before,oh yeah ULTIMA online.oh its DEAD. why cause people got tired of making a lvl 1 char,walking outside and getting ganked. why doesnt open pvp work??cause the VAST majority of pvp'ers are cowards and chickenshits. they attack low levels for fun, they attack people in a monster fight,they camp out corpses.why do people like pvp ,cause they can kill low levels and feel good about themselves. frankly people like pvp cause tehy cant play pve worth crap.

i played on a text mud, we had this kingdom battle.one kingdom attracted the pvp'ers.the other the pvp'ers.
the non pvp kingdom kicked the pvp kingdom ass in every battle.why cause they were more discplined,they were used to following orders,they were used to fightening fair fights.they showed up at the battles.

---

Lvl 1 char in UO? Did you even play the game?

Well I would not play a game either one of them had anything to do with.  I will play a game with pvp in it, as long as I do not have to be a part of it.  If the game is geared to PVP, no thank you. 

If any of the laws get passes that prevent the under 18 from playing PVP games, it might help them. 

PVP should be gearless in a game.  A pvp zone that you enter, your given the same weapons and equipment, and made to be the same level.  Then let people kill all they want. 

Personaly, I dislike games that were not designed for PvP that just sort of tack it on as an after-thought. WoW, EQ, CoH, and others, IMO, were not designed for PvP, and trying to play them that way is a dissapointing experience that just highlights things like class inballance and who's farmed the best equipment. If I want PvP, I go to a game that was specificaly made for it.

In the article, the desire for a castle to defend with just a handfull of NPCs to help in the defense sounds exactly like Guild Wars. Now there is a game made for PvP right from its foundation. Its ballanced in both classes and equipment for PvP. You dont have to wait to get action. You don't have to suffer ganking someone and have them be all astonished about it. You don't loose hours of work from defeat. You don't have to be a vet in order to compete. It's brilliant.

So the point isn't what type of PvP is best-- arena, or open season, or whatever. They're all fun approaches to PvP. The point is that if you want PvP, play a PvP game, not a PvE game. There's a fundamental seperation in the basic design of each type of game that makes all the difference in the experience. MMO designers need to focus on a specific target audience, and stop trying to please every type of gamer, because it's not going to happen.

Agree it was a one sided "debate"

FFA PVP appeals mostly to the types that like to kill folk much lower than they are - tried darktide many years ago, got chain ganked like 25 times in levels 1-4 (this before the tutorials came into being) not been back since.  Tried pvp world on DAOC - chain ganked again.  No problem, i now play normal worlds - AC pvp is now available in 2 forms, go pk at any time and you are able to kill other pks only or pklite which is a temporary no concesquence form of the same - theyve even added arenas now for pkl so if ya feel aggressive juss pop in and have at it.  WoW pvp worlds seem very similar to the non pvp ones except for the free licence to gank folk as they xp in contested areas, where they have to go to gain xp past lvl 20 - ooh the fun??  Why not lvl to max on normal worlds then go pvp without the silly gankage?  The wow bg instances are just silly - they should look at DAOC battle grounds if they want to see how it should be done.

DAOC is the best pvp game on the market - lvl to the maximum allowed in each bg - every 5 levels theres a new one, and upto the lvl 50 cap and you can go into pvp knowing you will meet players with similar stats and abilities so its a case of player ability more than chain killing folk 20 levels below you. Yes the balance is sometimes suspect, WoW where u can xp to 60 in a horde/alliance even joint area and then go to a contested area complete with towns/keeps etc would be i suspect even better as the classes seem more balanced - will we ever see it?

Roll on Warhammer

In my opinion, SWG pvp was the best. It wasnt't organized like in WoW BG's. There were bases, there was always pvp in the major cities. Ofcourse they ruined all this was the CU and NGE. But Pre-CU PVP was the best pvp in a game i have ever seen.

---

Originally posted by Torchwood
Well I would not play a game either one of them had anything to do with. I will play a game with pvp in it, as long as I do not have to be a part of it. If the game is geared to PVP, no thank you.
If any of the laws get passes that prevent the under 18 from playing PVP games, it might help them.
PVP should be gearless in a game. A pvp zone that you enter, your given the same weapons and equipment, and made to be the same level. Then let people kill all they want.

---

Immaturity has no age limit.

As an example

I jumped on EQ2's new PvP server when it came out and they made it sound like it was going to be a epic battle between the good and evil. Yet most of the time (granted everyone had to start characters over) it was more about higher level sneaking into the enemy territory, going into the newbie areas and killing helpless newbs.

That is not my idea of fun.

Everyone bitches and moans on how unfair the system is, but no one stops to consider the oppertunity of creating defensive forces to safeguard the area, rather they are all trying to do the same thing.

They need to use the type of PvP in Conquer online. You can turn pking off or on so when you click a person depending on if you have it set on or off you'll start attacking them or not.

Open PvP is a breeding ground for immaturity.  People have no interest in anything aside from making the person on the otehr end angry or irritated.  Most PvPers in the current gaming community are nothing more than teenage boys (or those that act like one) with a Halo 2 mentality.  They want an FPS with a fantasy theme.  Most of these people have no interest in actually playing an MMO other than it's a means to the end.  What I mean by this is that they play the game so they can gain levels or better equipment to make themselves more powerful and able to pick on those that may be less powerful.  It's nothing more than an immature power trip for people who are inadequate losers in real life.

Strategic PvP, and cooperative PvP (DAoC and Guild Wars for example) are at least more well-rounded forms of PvP.  Anyone who has played Lineage 2 or WoW's PvP servers know exactly what I'm talking about.  They are full of foul-mouthed children who enjoy nothing more than griefing and taunting other players.  What the hell is the point in that, I ask.  If they want a pure PvP game or just enjoy being bastards to other players, then they should just go back to their FPS and play Halo 2.

The rest of us don't want to be forced into PvP so we can have our game enperience interrupted by obnoxious kids on an ego trip.  It's unfair and unbalanced.  And no game has any "real" consiquences for this type of PvP action.  No one gets killed by the guards for killing other players, except in Lineage 2, but this can easily be remedied by the player going off and killing monsters.  In other games that offer PvP, like WoW, there is no penalty to killing other players.  It's just for the enjoyment of the higher level person killing those who have NO chance at defending themselves.  None of these people want an even battle, they just want to gank and grief.  I don't call that entertainment.  I graduated from grammar school a long time ago...

I'm don't like to anoy people, so when I try to play the mean rogue I have a hard time deciding if I should attack the poor guy in front of me... But still, pvp is fun.

And, more importantly, I think conflicts are what good roleplay situations revolve around. If you can't hit a character, then you can't threaten him...

But players don't like to be ganked.  Maybe a system could help defining what interrest one character could have killing an other one. I mean... you don't attack someone just "like that" (especially in a world where you can't loot the body anyway)... So, if you see someone attacking some fellow humans, then you have a reason to defend them. The reasons defining who and in what situations you can attack someone could be numerous, the factions you hate, the places you protect, etc...  You could even be a crazy serial killer... but those reasons would have consequences on the hability of other players (and NPC) to see you as a threat. (of course, you wouldn't be able to redefine those reasons easily, nor quickly). And playing the unmoral fool who kills weak adventurers just for fun would mean having a really hard time entering any city.

Maybe that would fix the gank problem...

The essence of this debate is whether PvP is a condition of the server or areas within the server's world. Of course, for those that only PvE, the debate naturally encourages some to post that any PvP, implemented in any fashion, is not the answer. These posts are legitimate, in that they are encouraging those new games that come out to NOT implement a world PvP option in ANY form. There are plenty of us out there that do not derive any sense of satisfaction from beating up on others. I personally have never seen a PvP system that I liked. It either rewarded the powergamers, or the FoTM builders, or the stealthers, or any other set of ideal conditions that gave one person an edge over another. Of course, this is not fun for any player that does not mimic those ideal actions. PvP then becomes just a special kind of grind that is optimized to produce a toon that has perfect equipment, skills, and strategies to beat others. I, for one, do not find this more specialized, player-killing grind to be any more fun than another. Perhaps it is because I have nothing to prove to anyone else, and that I derive enough satisfaction from playing my avatar well, both solo and cooperatively, to satisfy my ego. The idea of beating another human being does not excite me the way it does some, because I'm not a little kid, thus my motivations in life are different. Little kids are trying to carve out their place in the world, and this involves beating down others in various ways, for most. It's a simplistic life model that PvP emulates fairly well. As others have touched on, maturity often breeds less desire to compete, regardless of how nice the rewards might be. PvP emphasizes the most basic human characteristics, which, if pursued without thought, produce the most base humans. I, for one, cannot support anything that does this, MMOG or otherwise. However, in the interest of fairness, I am more than happy to have a sandbox set up where the kids can throw their toys at one another rather than working together to create something wonderful. I probably won't be visiting that sandbox, and I don't consider it to be the place that will stimulate the most personal growth, but being able to choose such an option is key to being human.

I love a challenging PvE game such as EQ was in the beginning.

I love structured war type PvP such as in DAoC.

I have yet to see a game with open PvP that I like. It isn't that I am totally against open PvP, it is just that they games always turn into a game full of murderers. People who like open PvP often say it is because it makes the game more real, and I would be fine with that if it were true. I would love to see an open PvP game where if you killed someone, you became an outlaw. When you are finally captured, you are taken before a jury and if found guilty, your character is either jailed (unplayable for a set time) or executed (deleted) and all that character's belongings are given to the victim. That would be much closer to realism and people would only PK if they felt they had a justifiable reason to do so. Don't think the gankers would go for it though since their goal in the game seems to be to make other people's gaming experience as uncomfortable as possible.

Ultimately, pvp must be meaningful for the specific player involved.

A player must have the choice whether or not to participate. Because of this, games need to incorporate 2 types of servers: Open pvp for the more hardcore pvp'ers and consensual pvp for those who like to pit themselves against another player but who don't like the trash talk, looting of corpses, ganking etc.

Not everyone wants pvp that has huge consequences. People are different. Not everyone wants pvp without consequences.

The Way EQ2 has done it is very on them money, at least for players who want to participate or not. You want to participate, go to a pvp server. You don't, go to a PvE server where there are arenas.

What people are not realizing is that both sides of the player base just can't be mixed.

But this choice of "open pvp / occasional pvp / just pve" could be made possible in one server.

Say you want to never engage in any pvp action. Then you chose it and play a character that is protected by gods, no matter what, but that will never be able to defend anyone against other players.

Say you want to be able to attack anyone that is not protected by some of those gods. Well, then you'll play some kind of mad murderer well known by players, and who could get well known by NPCs nearby the places were you commit your filthy actions.

And then you can also play the occasionnal PVPist who want to be able to engage in combat with a determined percent of the population of players.  The other faction anywhere anytime, the other faction when they attack your faction, any other player when they attack specific factions, etc.

You'd be able to choose the way you interact with other players.

That's close to the way you set your pvp tag on or off on a WoW PVE server, unless you wouldn't set it on or off. You would first define in what situations you accept or want pvp, and then you would face it once in those situations. Wants none, gets none. And that would be RP considering the way defining those situations would be like defining a background and a personnality to your character... I guess everyone could be content with something like that

PvP has been a big part of my life since UO, but I niether agree nor disagree with eaither of the debators in this case. In my opinion the better the combat system the better the PvP system to a certain point, but to make it a perfect PvP game in my opinion there needs to be FFA areas (Felucia, UO), areas in which only oposing factions may confront each other (Contested Areas, WoW, and leveling zones which only last until your characther is capable of defending itself. Thus, adding 3 difficulty levels to the PvP aspect of the game. None of these should be instanced; Instanced PvP zones takes the whole suprise out of PvPing, and in some cases it takes the PvPing out of a game all at once (ie. WSG, WoW)

The FFA areas should only be accessible to the higher level charachters. Your only ally is your party (15 people or less) this drastically reduces the number of people on each side of the battle. A 15 player party limit is not to big and not too miniscule. Lag shouldn't insue ,and it won't be a zerg-fest.

The Contested Areas should be alot like WoW's contested areas starting at a low level and working their way up to the highest level. These areas would be used for bigger battles like GvG or RvR

The starting areas again alot like WoW's starting areas (aka Faction Alligned Zones). They're soul purpose is a safe haven from what lurks behind every tree past the dreaded line, and to allow players to adjust to the game (Learn the controls, find out how the game works, learn basic strats, ect)

I do believe this system would be superior to most to most systems if not all PvP systems available today.

I like variety, and really, that's what we see in games today.  There should DEFINATELY be games where pvp has consequences, permadeath is a possibility, etc.  If you don't like that possibility at all, then don't play the game.  Simple.  Play one of the others out there.

In all "debates" like this, there seems to be a tendancy to assume that there is some "best" situation out there.  Not so. 

EVE seems to be the best example of pvp without restrictions (except in empire zones).  For a while, I liked DAOC, but for me, I need a little bit more purpose in battle.  Day to day, aside from large raids, there didn't seem to be a purpose other than gaining realm points.  It was fun when it had scale, but otherwise, it just wasn't that entertaining to me (and then there was all the cheating).

Somebody suggested that everybody should go out with the same equipment and basic abilities and there should be no death consequences.  Well, that sounds to me like Guildwars.   Arena and tournament combat is just like that.

In fact, almost every suggestion exists except . . . there's no decent permadeath game out there that I know about. 

For me, PvP imotivates most of my PvE activity.  I may play for months at PvE just to gain advantages in PvP (like in DAOC).   Otherwise, gaining levels, getting stuff, etc. just seems pointless other than to "look cool."  That's the big problem for me in WoW.  It's mostly just about obtaining things.  They haven't implemented BGs in a meaningful enough way.

For me, most important in PvP is purpose.  No rules universes can provide purpose like EVE, but so can battlegrounds, etc.  It just has to be done well.  If DAOC had special crafting components that had to be farmed inside little dungeons unique to each keep, the battles would have a LOT more meaning for me!  People fight over resources in the real world!  So we should do in games if we want meaning.

Ooops  Double post.  Sorry.

Hello again!

I'm interested in getting some feedback about my original post.

As I mentioned, I think that PVP could be interesting, fair, and have that uncertainty factor that would keep danger fans truly interested.

Again, I think that characters should mirror humans in that they will all be equally vulnerable. I'm a 39 year old man that can bench press well over 300 pounds, but if confronted by a 12 year old with a machine gun, I would die. However, if I had full body armor on, then my size and age might provide me with an advantage, but let's hope that I don't need to test that theory.

So:

1. all characters will have much the same HP that will never change.

2. Learned or earned moves/powers provide attacks that lower or different characters do not have. Delivering these attacks is what counts, because if they can't be then the little guy wins.

3. Armor, amulets, spells, weapons, and what have you provide the difference between you and the other guy. That would mean that a fairly new person could get some gear from a vet friend and be able to protect themselves pretty well. Maybe a system of loans could be given in game that one's character would have to pay off, or maybe that's too much like real life.

Anyway, I'm curious about your opinions and whether or not such a system would be interesting and what you see was the cost/benefit of it all.

In reference to the post imediately before this one, that system you propose sounds like how most systems end up once you reach the top level in most of these games out there.  For instance, in WoW at level 60, you gear differentiates you from others.  In DAOC, if you are a veteran of RvR, you are going to have some moves that other players don't have.

Furthermore, once you have pretty much maxed your level, everybody has pretty much the same hp, excepting special bonuses, skills, etc.  It's hard to say what hit points really ARE anyway.  Maybe they more reflect your skills at avoiding death until you get too tired, too careless, and that kid with the machine gun finally hits you in the stomach whereas before you were getting away.  Perhaps, the difference in hit points between a kid and you reflects the fact that you might survive an encounter with a 12-year old trying to fire a maching gun at you than if the roles are reversed.  In other words, he wouldn't know how to avoid getting killed as easily as you would.  If it is merely wounding, then it seems like your abilities should drop with your hit points, but I don't see many games where that is the case.  You are fine until you die.

I would say that EVE comes close to what you are talking about.  You have to have your character learn the proper use of various kinds of technology while good gear gives a decent advantage.  You don't have levels, and you are as mortal as the next guy (meaning you have a clone stored away somewhere).  If you blow up, you blow up.  Friends can give you stuff to help you out early on.  You just have to learn how to use it well.  It's a space game, of course.  Perhaps you are thinking more in line with your fantasy type games.  I think more of your skills based games are more what you are talking about.

For example, Ultima Online allowed you to wear anything anybody gave you but you had to practice skills to get good at using that equipment.   People had pretty much the same hit points as I recall.

Another example might be Planetside.  You can get the exact same equipment, but again, you gradually learn skills over time.

I always considered HP to be "health points". They generally represent, roughly, your endurance, while your ability to avoid hits is define by your agility. Thus a warrior with a lot of endurance should be able to take more hits than a rogue, but this rogue will be able to dodge more than the warrior.

Of course, this is not so balanced, but that's the idea : with time and experience, you gain endurance and the capacity of taking more hits in a row. Give a slap to a child, and he may feel hurt and cry. Give the same slap to an adult, and he will just feel offended. This gun example just represent the highlevel spell that takes anyone 5000 points... Now, in those fantasy games the gun/spell is hard enough to master so that no 12 years old could use it.

If it is merely wounding, then it seems like your abilities should drop with your hit points, but I don't see many games where that is the case.  You are fine until you die.

Would be interesting to have this fixed.