General Discussion

---

Originally posted by PlanetNiles

Paldarion what is it that you object to in PvP and what do you think can be done to improve PvP without removing it all together?

---

To be honest, I am a "casual" player with a job and a family and I usually prefer to solo.  I do belong to a multi-world Guild I helped found and we;ve played them all since MORPGs were first introduced.  Many of our members - who are older like me, do not enjoy PvP and find it just a nuisance.

When I'm out adventuring, I don't like the "interruption" of PvP with my limited time.  Its just a pain in the ass.  Worst of all are the gankers, of course, but those who insist on attacking you, even when you explain that you have no interest in PvP just jade you to the whole PvP thing. 

In WoW I would occasionally play a faction for fun, but those times were rare.  PvP frankly drove me away from a few games, but in general, I gave up on specific MMORPGs (EQ, AC, AC2, AO, DAoC, and a few other less popular ones) when things became impossible to solo.  And ALL MMORPGs I've played so far have that "glass level cap" where groups or megaguilds can advance and solo players are left in the dust.

I don't know how many times I've  heard the lame idiots out there saying "well just play single player games."  Trust me, if they made single player versions of the MMORPGs I'd be playing them.  My on-line time will probably go to near zero as soon as Oblivion comes out (assuming its an OK game).

In the past I'd go ahead and buy and pay monthly fees for games knowing I'd never get to finish them, but not any more.  That's why I let D&D Stormreach sit on the shelf.  Currently I am only active in GW while I still have characters in at least 5 games. 

I knoew I'm not the "average MMORPG player." After all, I'm not in Middle School ;)  But I know there is a market for players like me - we are constantly on the forums trying to at least get a few crumbs from the table, so to speak.  If a game ever came out catering to casual solo players, they'd have a loyal player base for a long, long time.

Flame away, I habe asbestos grieves of fire protection +5 :)

---

Originally posted by Paldarion
Flame away, I habe asbestos grieves of fire protection +5 :)

---

Oh no I agree with you on pretty much almost every point you made.

I hate the Gank factor and the "lets gang up on the noob" style of play enganged in by a significant number of PvPers. However I feel the "interuption" factor is a part of a dynamic game-world and that, as well as the community, is why I play MMORPG's.

Thus I feel that PKing (which to be frank is the usual outcome of PvP) should have serious concequences to the killers. As I tried to reply above before the great ghost of MMORP.com ate my post; I don't like playing murder. I stopped playing the great GTA titles because I felt sickened by the constant blood spatter. I feel that if people want to play murderers and serial killers they should suffer the concequences o f their actions even if it means making their character's unplayable.

Oops double post trouble.

Can someone please fix this damn board so that it works for tabbed browsing.

---

Originally posted by PlanetNiles

Thus I feel that PKing (which to be frank is the usual outcome of PvP) should have serious concequences to the killers. As I tried to reply above before the great ghost of MMORP.com ate my post; I don't like playing murder. I stopped playing the great GTA titles because I felt sickened by the constant blood spatter. I feel that if people want to play murderers and serial killers they should suffer the concequences o f their actions even if it means making their character's unplayable.

---

I completely agree. It's a much more realistic approach.

I don't like all these PvP zones. I don't like that game model because it makes the game feel artificial instead of immersive. It makes PvP feel like a separate feature, a separate game within the game. The game world doesn't feel complete, and all aspects of war, crime, and justice are taken out of the basic game and placed in their own little arena. You didn't see Alexander the Great looking for zones to do battle in. You never read about Conan the Barbarian asking for a duel. And the Hobbits feared for the safety of the Shire.

Yet, it's just as unrealistic to have players come back time and again to PvP, with no end in sight.

This is all on WoW and I am keeping the rage in check for public viewing.

WoW was my real first encounter with "unwilling" (world) PVP. I actually quit my PVP server (Mal'Ganis) because it is one of the worst with ganking (more of groups of very high levels roaming around lowbie areas and killing every lowbie they see.) It is quite a shock to come from games like Diablo II which strove to make it harder and harder to world PVP to a game where I could expect to be killing by an insecure level 60 with epic gear who got bored.

I personally do not mind random world PVP with a fair fight. When a 46 Horde warlock who was standing by me for a long time suddenly attacked my 42 rogue while I was busy with a monster, I didn't get pissed; I kicked him in the face (literally) and stabbed him. However when on a 38 priest and a level 60 on an epic mount road by, dismounted, two hit me, and mounted and ran off, that pisses me off. Because see its at that point of "let's fight and have fun" and "lol I'm bored and you're dead aren't I a badass".

Have I ever killed someone more than 10 levels under me? Of course. But I can say it's never been more than 15, while even then, not a 100% fair fight, it has been motivated more by revenge than anything else. It's funny to say it but "they started it." If my lowbie characters (1 27, 2 38s, 1 41, 1 42, 1 48, I guess they are all technically low) had never been bothered by roaving bands of morons, I would not feel like this. My server is very bad with this and bad with people on Alliance (my faction) saying "pvp noob leave or stop whining" and not doing anything about lowbie attacks.

I just wish that there was some kind of penelty for THEM for doing this. I find it funny that the worst that happens is they don't get any honor points from it. Wouldn't it be more fair for them to get a negative mark? They get one for killing civilians, should not they get one for being such cowards? Maybe even preventing such high spans from attacking each other would be an extreme but effective step in stopping what really is a hateful action and what enrages SO many players. I don't want to lose the ability to have random fights with people I have even a slight chance against, I just wish I could level characters without living in constant fear that some loser is angry his mommy didn't hug him enough.

---

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by PlanetNiles

Thus I feel that PKing (which to be frank is the usual outcome of PvP) should have serious concequences to the killers. As I tried to reply above before the great ghost of MMORP.com ate my post; I don't like playing murder. I stopped playing the great GTA titles because I felt sickened by the constant blood spatter. I feel that if people want to play murderers and serial killers they should suffer the concequences o f their actions even if it means making their character's unplayable.

I completely agree. It's a much more realistic approach.
I don't like all these PvP zones. I don't like that game model because it makes the game feel artificial instead of immersive. It makes PvP feel like a separate feature, a separate game within the game. The game world doesn't feel complete, and all aspects of war, crime, and justice are taken out of the basic game and placed in their own little arena. You didn't see Alexander the Great looking for zones to do battle in. You never read about Conan the Barbarian asking for a duel. And the Hobbits feared for the safety of the Shire.
Yet, it's just as unrealistic to have players come back time and again to PvP, with no end in sight.

---

If you're hinting at say, Warcraft's separate PVP zones, the reason for this is it's not supposed to be a full out war (yet)! Many places it is said the factions are "close to all-out war, with skirmishes in disputed areas."

To say that this doesn't make sense is to say that you should be able to attack your own faction members, steal from vendors, loot bodies (oh no UO).

I would LIKE to see Blizzard (sorry all my talk is about WoW but thats my world PVP experience) have some balls and make zones change holding based on how players are doing in PVP in that area, or at least, according to their own story line. I'd also like to see faction NPCs who are like you, who go out and fight the other side. There are of course mobs who look like different races but more often than not, either side can attack them.

I'll never understand the mind-numbingly stupid belief amongst MMO players that a game should last forever.  Really, are you honestly dense enough to think that UO is "dead" because of <insert your barely legible, laughably implausible nonsense quoted below here>.  Do you think, perhaps, that it might have something to do with the game being nearly 10 years old?

How many 10 year old single player games do you fire up on a regular basis?  Or, for that matter, how many 10 year old single player games have over 100,000 people playing them on a regular basis still?

 

---

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.

---

---

Originally posted by preka

I'll never understand the mind-numbingly stupid belief amongst MMO players that a game should last forever. Really, are you honestly dense enough to think that UO is "dead" because of <insert your barely legible, laughably implausible nonsense quoted below here>. Do you think, perhaps, that it might have something to do with the game being nearly 10 years old?
How many 10 year old single player games do you fire up on a regular basis? Or, for that matter, how many 10 year old single player games have over 100,000 people playing them on a regular basis still?

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.

---

Put the hate away dude. FYI I would reckon claiming that nobody plays 10+ year old games is considered a much more stupid statement/idea than the belief that a MMORPG should be around forever (which he didn't say, he said it died because it wasn't fun for newbies). Personally I play a 20 year old system on a regular basis (NES) and I am restoring a much older system for regular play (Atari 2600). Computer wise, Doom is one of my favorite games and that's around your 10 year claim. I won't even bother to go and look at my games, as I don't have a huge urge to try to explain why you are pretty ignorant. Older games are *constantly* played by many many people and just because YOU seem to value being hip n' modern over doing something that's good doesn't mean everyone else does.

As for multiplayer old games, have you ever heard of a little game called Diablo II? It's getting up there and still has a massive amount of players. EQ is getting up there too. Anything else that failed, failed for reasons besides being old (mostly being suck or they became inacessable to newbies).