Originally posted by picommander

Originally posted by nariusseldon

That is the beauty of the free market. People can scream about that they want in forums, but all boils down to players voting with their wallets.

Aah now we come to the point: wallets, LoL. Make sure you've read this thread then come back and tell us all about the glory about PS2: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/370814/page/1

It went over his head, Narius. :(

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

Sorry you overlooked one big reason. This is why I don't participate in forced PvP games of any sort and especially mmofps. HACKING SCUMBUCKETS.  If you place players in a situation where beating another person is a priority, they will cheat- cheat - and cheat some more.  I stopped playing CS back when it was in its infancy because a bunch of wallhacking honorless punks ruined the game.  To this day winning at any cost seems more important to the epeen generation than playing on a level ground.

Easiest way to explain is through analogy.  If I decide I want to play golf for a few hours and I get out to the course, am having a good time and suddenly someone runs up to me a forces me to play tennis, I'm not having fun anymore.  I don't want to play tennis.  If I did want to play tennis, I would go to the tennis courts, not the golf course.

For those that may need an explanation, PvE and PvP are different games.  It's acknowledged within the OP that they are fundamently different.  I equate golf to PvE, as it can be a single player game or a team based game.  You can compare score, but you are never really directly influencing the gameplay of anyone else.  Tennis is PvP because you are directly competing with someone and your actions are chosen to cause the opponent to lose.  If it was possible to be forced to play tennis while playing golf, I imagine golf would be a much less popular sport.

Just because someone doesn't want to play your game does not make you better than them.  It does not make them scared of you or your game.  It does not make you hardcore.  It does not make them a carebear.  If you want to be "hardcore" and do something competitive that people may be afraid of doing or may make people afraid of you, take up competitive fighting of some sort.  Video games are not the correct venue for you to accomplish what you seem to hope to accomplish.

Originally posted by killion81

Just because someone doesn't want to play your game does not make you better than them.  It does not make them scared of you or your game.  It does not make you hardcore.  It does not make them a carebear.  If you want to be "hardcore" and do something competitive that people may be afraid of doing or may make people afraid of you, take up competitive fighting of some sort.  Video games are not the correct venue for you to accomplish what you seem to hope to accomplish.

Very well said. Some just don't understand people like different things.

Arena pvp, no pvp, MOBA .. all valid game choices. The fact that they exist in a free market shows that. It is silly to force your own brand of pvp on others.

Originally posted by VendettaDFA

Sorry you overlooked one big reason. This is why I don't participate in forced PvP games of any sort and especially mmofps. HACKING SCUMBUCKETS.  If you place players in a situation where beating another person is a priority, they will cheat- cheat - and cheat some more.  I stopped playing CS back when it was in its infancy because a bunch of wallhacking honorless punks ruined the game.  To this day winning at any cost seems more important to the epeen generation than playing on a level ground.

Well said.  The one thing AI has going for it, it can't cheat, it can't break the rules, it can't use bots, it can't buy gold and get powerful weapons.  It just is.  The fact is, I don't give a damn about challenge, I think "accomplishment" in a game is childish, I play to have a good time, full stop.  I don't want to compete with anyone, I want to have fun.  That's why I'll take a game, like I did recently with Serious Sam Second Encounter, crank it up to Serious mode and put on godmode so I can't die.  Killing hordes of monsters is fun.  Dying isn't.  Swinging my e-peen around and acting like hot shit isn't.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
[mod edit].

I find it amusing that wanting a level playing field and a fair fight equates to being a care bear, Sir you couldn't be more wrong. I played Quake Deathmatch,  QW Rocket Arena, UT, Halflife , Counterstrike ...etc. All of these were PvP and I was having a blast fairly. I ran a CS team that played a season in the CPL and made the playoffs. I built quake maps and duke 3d maps. I tossed it all aside because I will not participate in a hacked game with a bunch of babies who think hacking = being better.  I never even tried planetside 2 because I knew exactly what would occur .... [mod edit]

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by maccarthur2004
 

[horrendousness and blaah blah blah]

If the same flaws from the pvp fight are present in pve in very worst degree, so i necessarily come to the conclusion that isn't that flaws the main cause of the distaste of some people to the pvp, but the real possibility of to lose, to die or have much work.

And the conclusion is still wrong. It's two different objectives at play. It has nothing to do with fears or flaws or the real possibility of to lose, to die or have much work.

That post was specifically adressed only to people that say to avoid/hate pvp only because balance/fainess issues or because the pvp fight is crap. I showed that pve is far worst than pvp in these same aspects, therefore these aren't the real reasons to them avoid/hate pvp.

Actually, you showed nothing, because they are two different objectives. In PvE, the player is killing mobs to get to their goal. In PvP, killing the player is the goal. Presence of a similar mechanic (combat) between the two activities does not automatically make them the same activity, thus the reasons for playing and the perception of the challenges presented are not only distinctly different but incomparable.

Once you understand that we can then move forward with the conversation.

 

I almost totally agree, but in pvp (in the majority), people kill players to get others goals too. A minority of players do pvp just for fun, no caring to rewards, but the majority of pvp fights involves disputes of things in the OW or rewards like in BGs or guild/clan wars. So, in the 2 situations, people kill to achieve some others goals or rewards, however, the pvp is so more complex and fun than pve that some people will do it even without "reward". I dont know players that would butcher mobs without gaining anything just for fun. This can give you a clue about which fight is normally better by itself. :D

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by TheIdealist
Open world pvp is the best thing ever made for mmorpg's! Without open world pvp it's a little bit like a singleplayer game...

How is it a single players game when:

- you trade with others on AH?

- you group with others in dungeons?

- you show off your gear to others?

You don't need pvp at all for a MMORPG.

Since the only manner of interaction in most video games is to kill the other person, I can kind of understand why some people would have no idea that there are other possible ways for it to happen. They've probably never been exposed to it.

 

Most mmos that provide open pvp normally give more ways to the players do meaningful and lasting cooperations (Ex: a clan, alliance or guild).

Originally posted by killion81

Easiest way to explain is through analogy.  If I decide I want to play golf for a few hours and I get out to the course, am having a good time and suddenly someone runs up to me a forces me to play tennis, I'm not having fun anymore.  I don't want to play tennis.  If I did want to play tennis, I would go to the tennis courts, not the golf course.

 

For those that may need an explanation, PvE and PvP are different games.  It's acknowledged within the OP that they are fundamently different.  I equate golf to PvE, as it can be a single player game or a team based game.  You can compare score, but you are never really directly influencing the gameplay of anyone else.  Tennis is PvP because you are directly competing with someone and your actions are chosen to cause the opponent to lose.  If it was possible to be forced to play tennis while playing golf, I imagine golf would be a much less popular sport.

 

Just because someone doesn't want to play your game does not make you better than them.  It does not make them scared of you or your game.  It does not make you hardcore.  It does not make them a carebear.  If you want to be "hardcore" and do something competitive that people may be afraid of doing or may make people afraid of you, take up competitive fighting of some sort.  Video games are not the correct venue for you to accomplish what you seem to hope to accomplish.

This analogy can only be applied if you regard mmos as  "lobbies" or "clubs" where a bunch of players gather to play some e-sports or minigames at will. I regard mmos more as "virtual worlds" where there is dangers, war, political disputes, disputable resources, economics and social challenges.

I dont see sense, in a world, in recriminating a country, a realm, a feudal lord, faction or rogue groups by "forcing" war into us, i see them like dangers to be combated or avoided, a challenge.

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

Originally posted by killion81

Easiest way to explain is through analogy.  If I decide I want to play golf for a few hours and I get out to the course, am having a good time and suddenly someone runs up to me a forces me to play tennis, I'm not having fun anymore.  I don't want to play tennis.  If I did want to play tennis, I would go to the tennis courts, not the golf course.

 

For those that may need an explanation, PvE and PvP are different games.  It's acknowledged within the OP that they are fundamently different.  I equate golf to PvE, as it can be a single player game or a team based game.  You can compare score, but you are never really directly influencing the gameplay of anyone else.  Tennis is PvP because you are directly competing with someone and your actions are chosen to cause the opponent to lose.  If it was possible to be forced to play tennis while playing golf, I imagine golf would be a much less popular sport.

 

Just because someone doesn't want to play your game does not make you better than them.  It does not make them scared of you or your game.  It does not make you hardcore.  It does not make them a carebear.  If you want to be "hardcore" and do something competitive that people may be afraid of doing or may make people afraid of you, take up competitive fighting of some sort.  Video games are not the correct venue for you to accomplish what you seem to hope to accomplish.

This analogy can only be applied if you regard mmos as  "lobbies" or "clubs" where a bunch of players gather to play some e-sports or minigames at will. I regard mmos more as "virtual worlds" where there is dangers, war, political disputes, disputable resources, economics and social challenges.

I dont see sense, in a world, in recriminating a country, a realm, a feudal lord, faction or rogue groups by "forcing" war into us, i see them like dangers to be combated or avoided, a challenge.

 

 

 

 

 

Pvp terrifies me. The first time I saw another player charging at me in wow I shatt all over my keyboard and monitor. Needless to say I have a new monitor now, the keyboard is fine it smells like cabbage a bit but oh well.

The point is pixels can be frightening.

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

Originally posted by killion81

Easiest way to explain is through analogy.  If I decide I want to play golf for a few hours and I get out to the course, am having a good time and suddenly someone runs up to me a forces me to play tennis, I'm not having fun anymore.  I don't want to play tennis.  If I did want to play tennis, I would go to the tennis courts, not the golf course.

 

For those that may need an explanation, PvE and PvP are different games.  It's acknowledged within the OP that they are fundamently different.  I equate golf to PvE, as it can be a single player game or a team based game.  You can compare score, but you are never really directly influencing the gameplay of anyone else.  Tennis is PvP because you are directly competing with someone and your actions are chosen to cause the opponent to lose.  If it was possible to be forced to play tennis while playing golf, I imagine golf would be a much less popular sport.

 

Just because someone doesn't want to play your game does not make you better than them.  It does not make them scared of you or your game.  It does not make you hardcore.  It does not make them a carebear.  If you want to be "hardcore" and do something competitive that people may be afraid of doing or may make people afraid of you, take up competitive fighting of some sort.  Video games are not the correct venue for you to accomplish what you seem to hope to accomplish.

This analogy can only be applied if you regard mmos as  "lobbies" or "clubs" where a bunch of players gather to play some e-sports or minigames at will. I regard mmos more as "virtual worlds" where there is dangers, war, political disputes, disputable resources, economics and social challenges.

I dont see sense, in a world, in recriminating a country, a realm, a feudal lord, faction or rogue groups by "forcing" war into us, i see them like dangers to be combated or avoided, a challenge.

You can see it how ever you want, but the fact remains that it's a game, just like golf or tennis.  It's a massive multiplayer online roleplaying GAME.  People play games for entertainment.  If you want to play a game that is more like a "dangerous virtual world", that's your choice.  I assume that is what entertains you.  However, your preference is no more valid than someone else's preference for a PvE oriented experience devoid of PvP.

Originally posted by killion81

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

Originally posted by killion81

Easiest way to explain is through analogy.  If I decide I want to play golf for a few hours and I get out to the course, am having a good time and suddenly someone runs up to me a forces me to play tennis, I'm not having fun anymore.  I don't want to play tennis.  If I did want to play tennis, I would go to the tennis courts, not the golf course.

 

For those that may need an explanation, PvE and PvP are different games.  It's acknowledged within the OP that they are fundamently different.  I equate golf to PvE, as it can be a single player game or a team based game.  You can compare score, but you are never really directly influencing the gameplay of anyone else.  Tennis is PvP because you are directly competing with someone and your actions are chosen to cause the opponent to lose.  If it was possible to be forced to play tennis while playing golf, I imagine golf would be a much less popular sport.

 

Just because someone doesn't want to play your game does not make you better than them.  It does not make them scared of you or your game.  It does not make you hardcore.  It does not make them a carebear.  If you want to be "hardcore" and do something competitive that people may be afraid of doing or may make people afraid of you, take up competitive fighting of some sort.  Video games are not the correct venue for you to accomplish what you seem to hope to accomplish.

This analogy can only be applied if you regard mmos as  "lobbies" or "clubs" where a bunch of players gather to play some e-sports or minigames at will. I regard mmos more as "virtual worlds" where there is dangers, war, political disputes, disputable resources, economics and social challenges.

I dont see sense, in a world, in recriminating a country, a realm, a feudal lord, faction or rogue groups by "forcing" war into us, i see them like dangers to be combated or avoided, a challenge.

 

You can see it how ever you want, but the fact remains that it's a game, just like golf or tennis.  It's a massive multiplayer online roleplaying GAME.  People play games for entertainment.  If you want to play a game that is more like a "dangerous virtual world", that's your choice.  I assume that is what entertains you.  However, your preference is no more valid than someone else's preference for a PvE oriented experience devoid of PvP.

I agree more on the lines of the Virtual World side of the arguement. however i also see that having a living Virtual world is ruined almost everytime by the same type of people. a virtural world taken about half seriously to seriously can be fun, however you will have a large group of people who dont want to do this. The CoD age of gaming is full of gamers that say "i have a sword who can i put it in" FOM fell to this idea, Now that we have a HUGE casual following of gamers in the MMORPG genre (something UO and other Virtual Worlds didn't have to contend with) we get stuck with people who thinks Virtual World means, Open world Grand Theft Auto. We can all agree that this idea is not fun, try having a political discussion when somone randomly runs up behind both of you Shoots you tea bags and then spams your mailbox with "I PWN JUUU"

In short, Virtual worlds. Great Idea, Great in Practice, Ruined by New Age MMO Community.

There is one major detail you aren't considering.  People like competitive games, not pointless ones.  With PVE, you won't be in a 20-30 lvl zone fighting a mob and suddenly get insta-killed by lvl 80 mobs suddenly riding up to you (on horses magically faster than yours), who then proceed to corpse camp you.

World PVP is not about challenge, it is about ganking.  Very rarely is it ever a fair fight.  Even when a player is the same level, he will have grinded for far better gear and have brought his twenty closest friends who will mob you to death.  That is not hard-core, it is pathetic bully mentality.  PVP gankers are actually the ones who fear a challenge.

Originally posted by taziar

There is one major detail you aren't considering.  People like competitive games, not pointless ones.  With PVE, you won't be in a 20-30 lvl zone fighting a mob and suddenly get insta-killed by lvl 80 mobs suddenly riding up to you (on horses magically faster than yours), who then proceed to corpse camp you.

World PVP is not about challenge, it is about ganking.  Very rarely is it ever a fair fight.  Even when a player is the same level, he will have grinded for far better gear and have brought his twenty closest friends who will mob you to death.  That is not hard-core, it is pathetic bully mentality.  PVP gankers are actually the ones who fear a challenge.

 

 

Brought that up awhile ago. but it is still a valid point.

Originally posted by Rayshe

In short, Virtual worlds. Great Idea, Great in Practice, Ruined by New Age MMO Community.

Eh, I don't necessarily agree. I've played MMOs off and on for the last decade, and I can say with definitiveness that the immature trolling type of individual has always existed. 

Some people play MMOs to RP and be immersed, some people play them to play a game with no additional meaning. Niether is particularly wrong, but one type is more likely to try and ruin the experience of the other, I suppose.

Back in the day a lot of old MMOs had RP-dedicated servers, but with MMOs being as big as they are now, that's not particularly feasible or wanted by most new games. 

Originally posted by Rayshe

Originally posted by killion81

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

Originally posted by killion81

 

 

You can see it how ever you want, but the fact remains that it's a game, just like golf or tennis.  It's a massive multiplayer online roleplaying GAME.  People play games for entertainment.  If you want to play a game that is more like a "dangerous virtual world", that's your choice.  I assume that is what entertains you.  However, your preference is no more valid than someone else's preference for a PvE oriented experience devoid of PvP.

I agree more on the lines of the Virtual World side of the arguement. however i also see that having a living Virtual world is ruined almost everytime by the same type of people. a virtural world taken about half seriously to seriously can be fun, however you will have a large group of people who dont want to do this. The CoD age of gaming is full of gamers that say "i have a sword who can i put it in" FOM fell to this idea, Now that we have a HUGE casual following of gamers in the MMORPG genre (something UO and other Virtual Worlds didn't have to contend with) we get stuck with people who thinks Virtual World means, Open world Grand Theft Auto. We can all agree that this idea is not fun, try having a political discussion when somone randomly runs up behind both of you Shoots you tea bags and then spams your mailbox with "I PWN JUUU"

 

In short, Virtual worlds. Great Idea, Great in Practice, Ruined by New Age MMO Community.

I think you misjudge.  UO was plagued by exactly this sort of player.  The Devs there were continuously scrambling to fix exploitable aspects of the game, and eventually moved to a more controllable system because of this.   Those types of folks are drawn to games where it is easy to exploit and greif.   UO was the home of naked, knife weilding attackers, exploiting game loopholes, iirc.

Not to say that there aren't other problem children coming in from the CoD pieces, but the idea that this is some new activity is somewhat myopic.  It is a huge problem though.

Originally posted by Caliburn101

It should really be entirely obvious that full looting PvP is entirely incompatible with a truly successful MMO without a heavy-hitting and emminently workable consequences system.

Until that is invented - full loot MMOs will always be small-beer and popular only with the ganking crowd and/or niche gamers, and thus not attractive to game companies looking to actually make some serious profit.

Have you played Eve Online? It definitely has the consequences system.

As for my view on PvP, if done well I like it. The biggest issue though is that in most cases it isn't done well (in fact it sucks so much ass it needs special mouthwash to clean out the smell of shit), such as pretty much every themepark in existence. Those open PvP servers really are gank-fests with high level players blasting low level players out of existence, and since with that much level difference a whole squad of low level players wouldn't be able to  make a dent in the high level one even if he sat there with his thumb up his ass it really has no point.

Honestly the only MMO I've seen where I really like the PvP (and actively engage in it, including a couple of weeks ago :) ) is Eve. In there, a squad of week old players in the wimpiest little frigates you could find could in a matter of minutes drop a several-year veteran in a battleship with the strongest equipment in existence on it, as long as the proper tactics and preparations are used. I've seen a squad of guys in the free rookie frigates do just that. This frigate PvP is how I started winning PvP in Eve, though I had an excellent teacher who I still fly with today.

Tried PvP in many games?

99% gank

Even in 6 vs 6 it's really 6 vs 1 X 2.

Alternatives end in stalemates. PvP people rage when you force a stale mate on them. They want the I-Win.

Originally posted by Kiljaedenas

Originally posted by Caliburn101

It should really be entirely obvious that full looting PvP is entirely incompatible with a truly successful MMO without a heavy-hitting and emminently workable consequences system.

Until that is invented - full loot MMOs will always be small-beer and popular only with the ganking crowd and/or niche gamers, and thus not attractive to game companies looking to actually make some serious profit.

Have you played Eve Online? It definitely has the consequences system.

As for my view on PvP, if done well I like it. The biggest issue though is that in most cases it isn't done well (in fact it sucks so much ass it needs special mouthwash to clean out the smell of shit), such as pretty much every themepark in existence. Those open PvP servers really are gank-fests with high level players blasting low level players out of existence, and since with that much level difference a whole squad of low level players wouldn't be able to  make a dent in the high level one even if he sat there with his thumb up his ass it really has no point.

Honestly the only MMO I've seen where I really like the PvP (and actively engage in it, including a couple of weeks ago :) ) is Eve. In there, a squad of week old players in the wimpiest little frigates you could find could in a matter of minutes drop a several-year veteran in a battleship with the strongest equipment in existence on it, as long as the proper tactics and preparations are used. I've seen a squad of guys in the free rookie frigates do just that. This frigate PvP is how I started winning PvP in Eve, though I had an excellent teacher who I still fly with today.

I don't personally care for Eve, but your point is pretty accurate. 

I am holding out high hope for World of Darkness, as the dev team has had all that experiance, and the usual type of game asshats seem perfect for the Sabat anyway.   It somehow just seems appropriate to the story and environment.