Originally posted by Vinterkrig

Originally posted by Ferrel_Thane

1. Pure "skill" PvP can only be found in the FPS genre. Why do I say that? Quite simple: it provides about as close to equal odds as anything can. FPS games rely heavily on player skill. The only limitations are your hardware and connection. Factors like class balance, gear, levels and one of the ten other off setting factors do not effect you. MMO PvP is not as skillz oriented as people want you to believe.

 

lets set the record straight right here, right now

skill = being able to make fast decisions, good tactics, using terrain to your advantage, being able to overcome higher #s then you/your group, working well as a team, remembering your enemies and their weaknesses, and being able to counter any disadvantages you have

a fps = best aim, best ping, best frame rate, there is skill that is similar in a fps but its not pvp as far as mmos go

 

they aren't the same, even fps games have ranks now as well... so its not an "even" playing field.... learn your facts first pal

As far as facts go, just because FPSs have ranks they are still, on average,  a closer even playing field than MMOs. You can't just explain that way by suggesting I don't know what I'm talking about. You're welcome to try but eventually it gets silly.

Additionally, I did not suggest that PvP in MMOs took no skill. I merely pointed out the fact that it does not represent an even skill as much as players (much like you) try to suggest. Lets look at your example:

Fast decisions - Sure, absolutely.

Good tactics - Define a good tactic in an MMO. Most are pretty basic. Attacking from the rear means no blocks or parries.

Terrain - Unfortunately I'm not buying this one. Terrain can obscure you but I don't know a lot of MMOs that give benefits for using high ground and attacking down hill. The closest you get is ranged classes standing on something harder to reach.

Beating larger numbers is a result, not a "skill."

Now lets look at things that drastically reduce skill requirements in MMOs.

Level disparity, loot disparity, numeric disparity, class balance, and random chance make up just a few. No matter how "good" you are the chances of you defeating a player of average skill who is 10+ levels higher than you is slim. No amount of skill will consistently beat an average player who has a huge gear advantage in a loot centric game. More importantly, no amount of skill will ever defeat the absolute basis of all MMOs: random chance.

No matter what you do you cannot control the roll of the dice. You can influence it as best you can but ultimately it is the decider. The best PvP player on the planet can be defeated by the worst due to a simple critical roll.

So, while I appreciate your suggestion that I don't have my facts in order, I must respectfully point out that you're trying to gloss over a lot of hard truths regarding how these games are designed.

This is a situation of wanting something that is basically not possible (or at least profitable). Before you immediately click "quote" and reply to only the first sentence of this post read the rest.

1. Pure "skill" PvP can only be found in the FPS genre. Why do I say that? Quite simple: it provides about as close to equal odds as anything can. FPS games rely heavily on player skill. The only limitations are your hardware and connection. Factors like class balance, gear, levels and one of the ten other off setting factors do not effect you. MMO PvP is not as skillz oriented as people want you to believe.

2. A pure PvP game is also setting itself up for a very narrow market. I recognize that PvP players are vocal but the community size does not match in numbers to the decibels of the shouting. You might find yourself in a very small game (see Planetside).

3. You might find yourself with nothing to do. MMOs are 24/7. That doesn't mean there are players active at all times. If you play off peak you could literally log in to nothing or so few players it isn't fun. Who likes to play Battlefield with only three people on the map? I don't. PvE content at least provides -something- for a player to do solo.

4. You still might find yourself with nothing to do. If you want to be solo or your guild isn't on and a rival guild is out in force you might get bowled over and ganked over and over again until you just log out. This happens in Warhammer Online when one side gets over whelming force for a play period. Eventually, after being destroyed with no chance of victory over and over, even the bravest defenders just leave. With PvP your play experience is too dependent on other players. This leads to a very volatile and inconsistent experience.

I'm sure I'll get lots of disagreement but most of that stuff isn't opinion. Those are real concerns when trying to make a profitable product. I am no PvP lover but I love having the -option-. Battlegrounds, scenarios and PvP specific zones float my boat. The idea that a game would be centered on that, however, does not.
 

Great article!

I think you're hitting on a larger topic in MMOs in general: removing the second M from MMORPG. I've been writing and talking about this a while myself. We're going to be playing MORPGs shortly if we're not careful.

In my long time playing these games I've seen guilds go from the all important organization that you defended like a Nation to "things" that you put on and discard as you would make-up. This is equally true for grouping.

Everyone has such a violent reaction to the idea of forced grouping and guild content that if you write an article about wanting more group content in general you're bound to get buries or hate mail. It is all perceived as an attack on soloing. Don't get me wrong, I believe we should all be able to solo. I don't, however, believe soloing should be the most effective way to level. Sadly, in most games it is. We are penalized for grouping. Why bring this up though?

If you don't really need to find a group why do you need a guild? The organization is only good for socializing, raids and large scale PvP.  If that guild doesn't do something the way you like it leave and find another one. Loyalty is simply out the door. We're more concerned about "me" instead of "us." 

I was a proud member of my EQ1 guild for over four years. When I retired from that game I was still considered a member. I am to this day. When I moved to EQ2 I helped build a guild for over two years and eventually turned that into a multi-game organization. The point is, I see the guild before anything else and so do my core members. That feeling is not common in our community anymore. We are all, to put it truthfully, old. Younger (I'm not talking about actual age here either) games don't seem to get it. They're from the WoW culture. Things are done differently now.

By creating so much solo content, reducing down time to zero, and making it possible to group without any communication we've lost a big piece of the MMO experience. I'm sure this post alone will draw a decent amount of disagreement but I miss how things used to be. Grouping was a social function that allowed you to get work done at the same time. It might have been tough but sitting all night, grinding in Lower Guk or one of a hundred other dungeons, talking to your friends and guild mates was great. The action wasn't going every single moment. We talked, we laughed, we complained and you better believe we loved it.

Rosetta stones, so to speak, have been sent out to Warhammer Bloggers. I recieved one at Epic Slant. I know Tome of Knowledge also recieved one. The third I am aware of at this time went to Da'Toughest. There is also additional information on those three blogs.

There are a number of reasons/theories behind this.

From a design perspective you have to look at the challenges of a "skill based" progression system. It is difficult to balance 12 classes. It is incredibly difficult to balance "any combination of 40 skills out of a total fo 250." Players will essentially weed out the "bad" skills and power build. Balance will be challenging. That is a head ache some developers aren't willing to take on.

You also have the issue of content progression. With classes and levels it is clear where a character should be by quest and mob con. With skills that is a bit more gray. It might be viewed as confusing to players. Then you have to consider that casual players might "gimp themselves."

Now, truthfully, I think the benefits of "skill based" far out weigh the detriments but those are some of the reasons I've been given over the years.

Great links here, thank you for taking the time to compile them all.