| Thread (55 posts) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Lepidus 9/26/06 5:06:19 PM
|
|||
Novice Member
Joined: 1/07/04 |
Keith "Mayson" Sarasin talks about PvP in this new editorial, exclusive to MMORPG.com. Find out what he thinks, then give us your own thoughts in the comment thread below.
You can read more here. |
||
| |
|||
|
Brynn 9/26/06 6:33:11 PM
|
|||
Novice Member
Joined: 12/17/03 |
Once again, the reply to this article leads to the home page, not to the forum. Keith Sarasin said: "Another controlling factor for people to misinterpret this cornerstone of the market is the fact that in game PvPers can also be misconstrued as “grievers.” I believe those PvPers are actually called griefers by those who hate PvP. Griever=someone sad about a loss. Griefer, as used in PvP=someone who causes another player grief, meaning ruins his gameplay. And why "misconstrued"? I think the term "griefer" is quite descriptive of a player who plays unfairly. Obviously, I'm one who hates PvP. I think if it's done right and is the aim of the game, it obviously fits a need for some players. But, I also think PvPers are a minority, not a majority, except in games made specifically for player vs player. If PvP is included in a game that also has PvE, the game has to be balanced for the PvP, and I have yet to see that done well. I also think PvP would be a lot of fun if better ways could be found to curtail the problem of immature idiots who play only to take unfair advantage of lower level players. They are cowards, pure and simple. |
||
| |
|||
|
delateur 9/26/06 6:44:08 PM
|
|||
|
Novice Member
Joined: 8/06/04 |
Two terms are actually misspelled here, as well as misused: 1) Griefer, as the poster above stated, is a person who actively tries to ruin the enjoyment of another player, and is not exclusive to PvP. A griefer can do this in a multitude of ways, depending on the game mechanics and how they can be exploited to interfere with another person's gaming experience. 2) Nerf is the correct spelling of a game modification that makes a player weaker due to altering something with the game mechanics, whether or not it directly affects the character, or indirectly affects them due to something outside their control being made stronger. As to the merits of PvP, I have yet to see any. The drive of PvP is simple: to be the best in comparison to your opposition (other players), which from the outset puts you at odds with everyone around you. Teams may cooperate to beat other teams, but individually, people are always still aiming to defeat anyone around them, and will use any method available to them to do so. Unfortunately this involves less noble means than simply perfecting strategies, skill choices, and playstyle. Any exploit that is found will be used, unless the penalties are sufficiently harsh for doing so, and even then, many will still take those risks just to have a short-lived advantage over others. PvP has never, in my experience, encouraged anything remotely desirable in terms of human character, and I doubt it ever will. |
||
| |
|||
|
raccoon 9/26/06 6:56:02 PM
|
|||
|
Novice Member
Joined: 3/04/04 |
Yeah, I have to say this editorial was heavily one-sided. "I like PvP, and here's all the reasons it rocks and why other people are being silly about it".
I for one wouldn't mind PvP so much if it was implemented better and also if it wasn't a necessity. Let's take WoW for instance. On a PvP server, the enemy and allied zones are so close together that the lower zones are constantly under attack by enemy forces, making it difficult if not impossible for people to complete quests and level. This wouldn't be such a big deal if there was a way to stop it, but there isn't. When a person dies, all they have to do is run back from a graveyard, revive, rest up, then repeat the lowbie slaughter. The same thing goes for their much applauded Battlegrounds. You fight, you die, you revive and go at it again. I forget which game it was, but there was a FPS where you would join a game, select a team, then go into a map to complete objectives. There were no respawns. If you got killed completing your objective, you died, and had to hope that the other players could complete it. To me, that's fun, even if I die because there's a sense of accomplishment. But then, that is also a skill game as opposed to a RPG, so it is of course much easier to implement such a system. Until they do fix all the glaring issues with PvP, I won't play it. And if a game is ever stupid enough to enforce PvP on players that would rather just do quests and RP, then I won't be purchasing it. |
||
| |
|||
|
sephylight 9/26/06 7:21:20 PM
|
|||
|
Novice Member
Joined: 9/18/05 |
I think Keith needs to go back to his Language and English Composition classes before he's allowed to write another article. :D
|
||
| |
|||
|
Kanis 9/26/06 9:02:59 PM
|
|||
Novice Member
Joined: 7/24/03 |
This topic has been beaten to death, but unfortunately it must be a creature from beyond the grave since this ‘undead’ discussion keeps coming back; and I guess rightly so. See I come at this topic from the side of anti-PvP, and thus most of the pro-PvPer’s will just ignore my comments or pick it apart… non-the-less I wanted to voice and opinion. What most people tend to overlook on this issue is there are three kinds of MMORPG players. The people who PvP, the people who don’t PvP, and the people who don’t care either way. I see this as a false view, since it’s clearly a ‘for’ or ‘against’ topic and there really is no room to sit on the fence. I won’t go into how in PvP games there are grievers or exploit abusers and how this effects the other non-PvP (as well as PvP) players, but think of it this way… If I don’t want to PvP then why should I be forced to be killed on the whim of another player? Its bad enough that in the few games that don’t support PvP (and they seem to be getting fewer by the year) you have to deal with people cheating, kill stealing or just being an annoyance… but in a PvP game this is ten times worst since the end game is to be better than everyone else. A few of the other posts have touched on the fact that PvP games aren’t geared towards everyone’s enjoyment especially in the MMORPG genre. More often then not many developer forget the fundamentals of fun when trying to be different, or as is happening often lately try to catch all groups of players (PvP and non) just to get a bigger market share. So for me it’s easy, I play betas when I get the chance. Helping with bugs and whatever other tasks they ask of me, in return I get to sample the up and coming products (even if geared toward the PvPers). I have no subscription to any games at the moment though because none of them are what I’m looking for unfortunately. K |
||
| "Common sense is NOT common!" |
|||
|
Lepidus 9/26/06 9:30:38 PM
|
|||
|
Novice Member
Joined: 1/07/04 |
Link and spelling fixed. My apologies. As to the editorial being one sided, that was kind of the point. It's his opinion
 |
||
| |
|||
|
DiamondMX 9/26/06 10:11:54 PM
|
|||
|
Novice Member
Joined: 6/28/06 |
There seems to be a belief among the non-PvP'ers that PvP is about making other people feel bad.
This is a part of how it is, yeah - and there are some who believe that's the whole purpose of PvP - those that usually tend towards 'griefing'. But most competitive players actually just want to test their skills out versus other players. I think the griefing part comes from games which encourage gaining more kills in PvP (Anarchy - whose PvP system is pretty good - has a ranking system based on No. of kills). Also, don't forget that players who are a higher level than you have earned their place there (at least as much as is possible in a genre where time often has more value than skill) and that the griefed now can become (if they choose the dark side) the griefer later - or they can become that middle-breed, the anti-PvP'er. It might be worth wondering why directly competitive team games like CS don't have as many active griefers, the players who hinder their own team are far less prominent and usually get bored of the games. Perhaps we need to make PvP more fun to these people than frustrating the other players. How many of the PvP games allow small groups of players to make a real difference - I guess we'll have to see how Archlord plays out. Let's not take the cheating and exploiting into consideration here - it taints the PvM just as much as the PvP, PvM is competitive too, just more indirectly. Oh and as for the balance issues - we can do nought but hope. PS: Devs need to start listening to something other than the vocal minority - too many nerfs are a kneejerk reaction to players feeling put upon, and threatening to leave the game. Take some surveys people! The less vocal people will usually give their opinions when asked - they're just not shouting it from the rooftops. |
||
| |
|||
|
waylanderuk 9/26/06 11:00:16 PM
|
|||
|
Apprentice Member
Joined: 7/11/04 |
Well I know what annoys the crap out of me... People that start playing a PvP centric game with a harsh death penlity then whine like little 4 year olds about having PvP and wanting it changed to suit their views/needs. Safer (not safe but safer) areas exist but the higher end content is not in the safe areas, some equipment does not allowed (or is a instant death sentance to use). But the the ones that don't want to PvP may want to access that equipment without going for the risk. Its not hard to see what game I am refering t | ||
