Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Coldren

Zerging and population balance were still an issue, but that is an issue in ANY PvP system

You meant just open/world PVP systems, right?

No, I meant all.

Even WoW had issues with population for instanced PvP - That's why they formed the Battlegroups in the first place. Population imbalances left some sides waiting for 5+ hours to get into a BG.

Then there was Wintergrasp, which was time-based open-world PvP, and still they had issues with not only lag, but population. Now it's on a timer AND essentially an instance because you have to que up to join, and you can't fly into the area if you're not in the que. And Zerging was definitely an issue on top of that - Didn't take 100 horde much time to steamroll the 25 alliance members defending.

Every PvP system will have some form of these issues. Even if you control when/where characters can be made, you can't control when they leave.

Why the heck won't they just modernize DAoC?  Throw the CryEngine on that game and resell.  This game has the best RvR/Open PVP ruleset and the 8v8 makes it hella intense for coordinating everything in a fight.  So much more variety on class selection, play-styles and the fact that it was a tri-realm system, /sigh. 

Originally posted by Xantal

Why the heck won't they just modernize DAoC?  Throw the CryEngine on that game and resell.  This game has the best RvR/Open PVP ruleset and the 8v8 makes it hella intense for coordinating everything in a fight.  So much more variety on class selection, play-styles and the fact that it was a tri-realm system, /sigh. 

I completely agree. If they modernized it, it could make bank..

Originally posted by Coldren

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Coldren

Zerging and population balance were still an issue, but that is an issue in ANY PvP system

You meant just open/world PVP systems, right?

 Even WoW had issues with population for instanced PvP - That's why they formed the Battlegroups in the first place. Population imbalances left some sides waiting for 5+ hours to get into a BG.

Every PvP system will have some form of these issues. Even if you control when/where characters can be made, you can't control when they leave. 

Ah I see what you mean.  Suppose I'd agree with that, even if those issues are both more rare and less intrusive than world PVP where one side steamrolls the other.

You'd need to revise the second statement to "Every faction-based PVP system" for it to be accurate. There are a number of types of PVP where pop/zerging issues are rarely or never an issue (RTSes, FPSes, the new DOTA clones.)  MMORPGs could be designed around these types of gameplay without too much trouble

Originally posted by ruiner12

 Instanced PvP is fun in it's own way, but it can't compare to open world PvP in the suprise and intensity. To me a game without this form of PvP is lacking an essential element and will crash and burn.

The problem is that some people don't like the surprise and intensity. The idea of looking over your shoulder all the time isn't really appealing.

I myself prefer the whole rvr thing though I found warhammer's battlegrounds fun.

I really liked the open pvp in Lineage 2 but it became tiresome after a while if you weren't running with a warband or pvp group.

Originally posted by Sovrath

The problem is that some people don't like the surprise and intensity.

I discovered this 10 years ago playing EQ on a PvP server. As simple as jumping an even level player with comparable gear and subsequently killing them would result in being called an Ahole and a loser with no life, responsible for making people quit a game. I remember talking to a few that said their hands were shaking after the fight. The adrenaline rush people would get was simply too much for some people. Fun times

I personally prefer open PvP but I'm also quite aware there is no "best" way when talking about open PvP vs Instanced. There is only personal taste.

Originally posted by Fibsdk

Originally posted by Sovrath

The problem is that some people don't like the surprise and intensity.

 

I discovered this 10 years ago playing EQ on a PvP server. As simple as jumping an even level player with comparable gear and subsequently killing them would result in being called an Ahole and a loser with no life, responsible for making people quit a game. I remember talking to a few that said their hands were shaking after the fight.

 

I personally prefer open PvP but I'm also quite aware there is no "best" way when talking about open PvP vs Instanced. There is only personal taste. The adrenaline rush people would get was simply too much for some people.

Well the first MMO I Played was Ultima Online and I don't think you got much more "open world pvp" than UO was for the first few years.  Then again it was pretty much full loot on death (other than newbie items there weren't bless deeds etc at that time).

I kind miss it.. even the annoying aspects of it.  Tho I do feel that a "better" system would be to have something like Trammel at the start for people who don't like pvp.

However, that was why I liked DAoC because the "frontier" was the frontier and you knew what it meant to be out there.  Tho in the end its really not different than UO after the Trammel split... except that they added Trammel while DAoC launched with the frontier.

I also prefer the way UO worked than DAoC or ANY level/gear based game for PvP.  I really do prefer that your understanding of game mechanics is what allows you to win (even with so called "weak skill builds") as opposed to gear and "I win" buttons.

That I guess is another topic entirely.  Early UO or early DAoC... either one I liked them both.  Most games I've tried to pvp in (besides those two) seem rather pointless or poorly done.  just an opinion to add to the thread...

Most people avoid games with pvp focus, but this kind of game would be nice for pvp fans.

Originally posted by ruiner12

Does everyone believe there should be at least some form of open PvP in every game? If you're looking at it from a realistic perspective, and you are actually living in the world of your game, then doesn't it make sense that you'd run into your enemies at some point and get into a battle? Instanced PvP is fun in it's own way, but it can't compare to open world PvP in the suprise and intensity. To me a game without this form of PvP is lacking an essential element and will crash and burn.

Nope.

1) Games are not real world. Realism does not apply. Otherwise, any form of magic would be out.

2) Use your own logic, *some* open PvP is also not realistic. Why would an enemy can only go to particular zones to pvp? 

3) Games has little form of open PvP are popular. WOW, LOTRO, and many other examples. The assertion that they will crash and burn is just silly.

As a few members before me said something like: "If the mmo does not support world PvP, you should not support the mmo" I agree COMPLETELY.

I remember playing vanilla WoW (Pre-BC) world PvP was the pvp.  There is no "other" sure there was BGs and stuff, but everyone had mats to farm, proffs to raise, and you had to do it all in the world, outside of the instances.  And what happens when you run into an opposing faction trying to get the same mats, or hell, just another player grinding in that area?  You fight, of course.  And it meant something, whoever won got that material, whoever lost had to walk from the graveyard.  Yeah I have to say, world PvP is by far the most important aspect of MMO's, these new ones are... Making me want to punch babies.

I don't get it..

Does anyone here even like instanced PvP?  It looks like everyone supports open PvP.  If that's the case, why do people still continue to play games like WoW where they put PVP in instances?

WoW definitely does not have open PvP, even if you play on their PvP servers there is no reason for people to PvP because of the stupid setup they have there (retarded newbies keep coming back after you kill them)

Anyway, I don't understand why these games are so popular if people prefer World PvP.  Also, instances are another thing that would have to be removed for open world PvP to work.  If instances weren't removed, then there wouldn't be much incentive to attack other guilds.  But if they had world NPCs like EQ did, then guilds would naturally fight against each other in order to progress.

To the guy who complained that his level 1 couldn't kill a level 50 in EQ, big deal?  Maybe your character sucks compared to a level 50 character?  Would anyone even play MMORPGs if you had no way of advancing, lol.  You want a level 1 newbie to be able to take on a level 60 and have it be fair?  Try an FPS or something.

And a level 50 should be able to go kill level 1's if he wants to, it's better than putting stupid limits on everything where you have to be above level x and in zone y to PvP.  

Any MMORPG that doesn't have every zone, every level, etc. open to PvP is a carebear and fake MMORPG and is not worth playing.  When will idiotic MMORPG companies realize that their PvP systems are fucking garbage?  Seriously.. the fact that these shit games don't even have an alternative for real PvP systems is unacceptable.  Look at EQ, bunch of blue servers, and a few hardcore PvP servers. 

But world PvP can't work with the current rules in a failure game like WoW.  I remember how pointless and boring the hillsbrad PvP was before they had battlegrounds.  It was just a meaningless point farm to those players.  Real PvP games have people fighting over non-artificial rewards, and WoW doesn't have any of that (honor/reputation), which is why WoW's PvP system is boring and is for newbs

So according to you levels are the only way of advancing in a game?

Every single game that is dominated by world pvp has always been who has the biggest zerg. I keep trying to find an world pvp game that doesn't devolve into that, I've had no luck so far. The most fun pvp games I've played had scenarios or battlegrounds and arena style pvp (warhammer and guild wars). For open world pvp type games I just don't see the appeal, I've had more fun playing the total war series and rts games rather than a peon who dies in a lag induced massive zergfest.

Originally posted by Ginkeq

I don't get it..

Does anyone here even like instanced PvP?  It looks like everyone supports open PvP.  If that's the case, why do people still continue to play games like WoW where they put PVP in instances?

Yes, some people here like instanced PVP.  Like I said earlier, you're either going to care about player decisions mattering (skill) or you're going to care about world simulation.

Instanced PVP achieves maybe a 60% success rate at getting compettiive games, and perhaps 5-10% of those are fantastic close fights.

In World PVP those numbers fall dramatically. Most battles are very one-sided; they're predetermined, and as a result your decisions don't really matter.

Without interesting decisions, is it even a game anymore?  It seems more like a movie, playing out according to the script. 

Sure, you had a say in how the script was written - you equipped good gear, gathered your friends, and struck when the enemy was weak.  But it's a movie about a well-equipped army crushing some peasant rabble.  That's not even a good movie.

League of Legends (RTS; DOTA clone) takes instanced PVP a step further, by applying a genius matchmaking formula which looks at the skill level of the players in the pool and matches them in a way which gives each team a 50/50 expected chance of winning.  This turns that 60% success rate from before into more like 90% competitive games.  Hats off to Zileas, as LOL provides the most consistently excellent pub matches I've had in any game ever.  Knowing population is balanced (5v5 matches) and skill is balanced (due to matchmaking) means your decisionmaking during the fight is of crucial importance.

LoL is a better "movie" too.  It's the back and forth war movie that has you wondering who'll win right til the end.  It's good conflict.

instanced pvp like for example world of warcraft and autoraidparty ( play whenever you feel like pvp )

open world pvp you fancy go alone to face enemy players end up being ganked most likely a group anyway.

a pvp is best to be instanced without forgetting the option to do that in open world also.

cheers

Agreed, open pvp has its place.  However, like you said, it should have SOME open pvp.  Exclusively open pvp won't draw much of a playerbase anymore.

Originally posted by ruiner12

Does everyone believe there should be at least some form of open PvP in every game? If you're looking at it from a realistic perspective, and you are actually living in the world of your game, then doesn't it make sense that you'd run into your enemies at some point and get into a battle? Instanced PvP is fun in it's own way, but it can't compare to open world PvP in the suprise and intensity. To me a game without this form of PvP is lacking an essential element and will crash and burn.

Vanguard! yes that's right i said "Vanguard"

Vast non instanced world,i mean vast and only second to eve online in size.

19 Races with own starter area.. www.vanguardmmorpg.com/vanguard_races.php

FFA

Free for all server:
Minimum level 7
20% soft level difference (explained below)
15% coin loot
PvE item durability is disabled on ability activation and PvP death causes a chance for each equipped item to take a large hit
Releasing your spirit after a PvP death takes you to your bind point. You will not drop a corpse.

Team server:
Minimum level 7
20% soft level difference
15% coin loot
Durability is no different than a PvE server
Releasing your spirit drops a corpse (with no experience loss) and transports you to the nearest altar
Defensive targeting and grouping is restricted

The teams

Shadows of Kaerellun

Dark Elf
Kurashasa
Varanthari
Orc
Goblin
Vulmane
Varanjar
Lesser Giant

Order of Alurad

Wood Elf
Raki
Dwarf
Halfling
High Elf
Half Elf
Qaliathari
Mordebi
Gnome
Kojani
Thestran Human

We have support for additional teams, but we feel this is the best initial setup that supports the content and has people able to find opponents from a fairly low level.

The soft level difference means, while your ability to attack someone above the minimum level is unrestricted, if you are more than 20% of their level higher than them, they suffer no penalty and you gain no reward.

The percentages are easily adjustable and we will be enabling coin banking for PvP servers.

Now their is just the first type of PVP FFA server..

This game offers everything but people have been burnt by SOE and are missing out on what is a vastly improved mmorpg.

It's a great game with a low population..

Give the game a go if you havent played it or give the game a second chance if you played it nearly three years ago,a lot has changed concerning bugs.

Even though the whole random deal of open world PvP is great, i find myself wanting a fair XvsX in some sort of arena from time to time as well.

In my humble opinion, I'd want both.

 I like both for different reasons.  Open PvP for the surprises and large numbers and chaos and instanced PvP for the competition and strategy.  Its hard to compete in open PvP when its 10 vs 1 or a lvl 80 vs a lvl 20 or 100 vs 20 or a combination of all 3.   Theres no strategy when you're getting steamrolled or out leveled or out geared.

Originally posted by ruiner12

Does everyone believe there should be at least some form of open PvP in every game? If you're looking at it from a realistic perspective, and you are actually living in the world of your game, then doesn't it make sense that you'd run into your enemies at some point and get into a battle? Instanced PvP is fun in it's own way, but it can't compare to open world PvP in the suprise and intensity. To me a game without this form of PvP is lacking an essential element and will crash and burn.

I think that there should be open pvp and closed pvp server games. However, I really liked having the RvR "lakes" on my closed rvr server. There should be areas in all servers that are not open pvp where you will get flagged for pvp when entering (and un-flagged for leaving) and would have to consider when ever you had a quest or rare spawn kill, or item to gather the consequences of doing so.