Trending Games | Elder Scrolls Online | Star Wars: The Old Republic | World of Warcraft | WildStar

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,645,179 Users Online:0
Games:681  Posts:6,079,390
Rift (Rift)
Trion Worlds | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 03/01/11)  | Pub:Trion Worlds
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

General Discussion Forum » The Pub at MMORPG.COM » What is the appeal of Arena PvP. I seriously don't get it.

8 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Last Search
148 posts found
  ShakyMo

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/21/11
Posts: 7246

4/23/13 1:56:41 PM#61
Jason
1 wow isn't open world it consists of 4 separate world zones, they just hide it well with airships and whatnot.
2 Instanced pvp is vastly different to zoned pvp. You just walk to zoned pvp, its always up and always live. Instanced pvp you wait for a match sat in a city then teleport to one of multiple instances when the sides are full, 5 minutes later its over and you're back to queueing. Also there Is far less scope for emergent gameplay. Finally the pvp in instanced pvp games like wow is entirely separated from pve and has no impact upon the rest of the world at all (yes this is also true with gw2s WvW, but not in general)
3 even in ffa games there are areas of the world that are pvp flagged and areas that aren't
4 daoc also had ffa servers anyway
5 you've been reading a lot of TESO threads I see.
  moosecatlol

Apprentice Member

Joined: 8/25/10
Posts: 1149

4/23/13 2:00:18 PM#62

Muh Immersions!

 

Seriously now, if you can't find the entertainment difference in equal combat, then you shouldn't even bring up the topic of development.

"There is no such thing as Infiltration" then the OP goes on to list CTF arenas. Stealth and Map control are always large factors should game balance permit it.

It's not like anyone would ever enjoy two equal forces battling it out for glory.

 

Honestly, ask yourself, what is more fun to watch?

A: The one-sided fight

B: The equal challengers

 

However personally I prefer a system in which there is no gear element in arena PvP. You hit just as hard as the next guy, the only thing that matters is if you will hit the next guy, or will the next guy hit you.

 

P.S. Your confidence betrays you.

 

  StonesDK

Hard Core Member

Joined: 8/06/11
Posts: 1803

4/23/13 2:02:23 PM#63
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by StonesDK
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by StonesDK
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by StonesDK
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by StonesDK

What I don't understand is, why a whole thread is dedicated to discussing, why others like something that you don't.

 

There are people out there that likes a swift kick in the groin or getting feces smeared all over themselves. Instead of trying to understand why people like something, just accept that, that's just how it is.

You just answered you own question.

Some like to discuss why they don't understand others. Just accpet that, that's just how it is.

I didn't ask any question

You said "What I don't understand is, why a whole thread is dedicated to discussing, why others like something that you don't."

While you miss a question mark, isn't "why a whole thread is dedicated to discussion ..." .. a QUESTION?

Not if there's no question mark

Still .. now do you accept what you don't understand?

Nope I still don't understand why a whole thread is dedicated to it. Unless of course it's to elevate ones own opinion and tastes above others then I do. Then it's business as usual around here

Take your own advice.

Some like to discuss why they don't understand others. Just accpet that, that's just how it is.

But I am. I'm not discussing it in a dedicated thread made by myself?

 

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 17961

4/23/13 2:04:26 PM#64
Originally posted by StonesDK
 

But I am. I'm not discussing it in a dedicated thread made by myself?

 

And discussing it in a non-dedicated thread made by others is ok?

  JasonJ

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/19/13
Posts: 414

4/23/13 2:10:22 PM#65
Originally posted by ShakyMo
Jason
1 wow isn't open world it consists of 4 separate world zones, they just hide it well with airships and whatnot.
2 Instanced pvp is vastly different to zoned pvp. You just walk to zoned pvp, its always up and always live. Instanced pvp you wait for a match sat in a city then teleport to one of multiple instances when the sides are full, 5 minutes later its over and you're back to queueing. Also there Is far less scope for emergent gameplay. Finally the pvp in instanced pvp games like wow is entirely separated from pve and has no impact upon the rest of the world at all (yes this is also true with gw2s WvW, but not in general)
3 even in ffa games there are areas of the world that are pvp flagged and areas that aren't
4 daoc also had ffa servers anyway
5 you've been reading a lot of TESO threads I see.

1. WoW shipped with 2 world zones that actually made sense, two continents, two zones which has nothing to do with it, DaoC has 3, one for each faction even though the lands are connected...nice lame attempt at a red herring. You failed at your distraction attempt.

2. Instanced PvP is the next step from zoned PvP, its seperate from the world. Once again, a lame attempt to dodge and not face reality. Open world is open, zoned is not, its closed off. Instanced is also closed off and a step even further from open world and in fact, is just zoned with more than one copy and in fact creates as many copies needed to allow more people to fight outside the open world and thus is zoned for EVERYONE with the limits you get from zoned PvP. Failed again, hard.

3. Not in all of them, and FFA has nothing to do what is being said, nor does it have anything to do with zoned PvP. 0 for 3 son.

4. DaoC having FFA servers has nothing to do with it being the game that created zoned PvP. 0 for 4

5. So have you. total fail.

  StonesDK

Hard Core Member

Joined: 8/06/11
Posts: 1803

4/23/13 2:14:07 PM#66
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by StonesDK
 

But I am. I'm not discussing it in a dedicated thread made by myself?

 

And discussing it in a non-dedicated thread made by others is ok?

Yup, otherwise I would have made a self defeating statement about not understanding why people create threads because they don't understand something

 

  Cuathon

Advanced Member

Joined: 10/24/04
Posts: 2254

Draw Something is now an MMO. God has forsaken us.

4/23/13 2:44:48 PM#67
Originally posted by Axehilt

Ever heard of games like Soccer or Chess?  In these controlled-arena games players actually compete to see who is more skilled (as opposed to who has played longer or who brings more friends.)

So basically arena PVP is the closest MMORPG PVP gets to being real PVP.  Normally MMORPG PVP is Casual PVP.

Actually Chess is mostly about who has played longer. Only extremely high level chess is about intellectual capacity. Same for soccer. In fact skill in general is mostly about practice.

The only real test of skill would be to match up people who have spent the same amount of time, or very similar, on a skill. Its also about training. One player of chess spending 100 hours with a skilled teacher will almost always outplay another player who learned the moves of the pieces and was alone from then on with 100 hours of practice.

RPGs are about character skills. My character spent 500 hours training to cast those level 15 fireballs and yours spent 20 hours so he lost.

Why do you think top players in esports have up to 10x more games played as the average person. I have over 3000 games played in LoL. Competitive players have 30000+. But somehow their skills have nothing to do with how long they ahve played right?

The fact is that the same players who never had a chance against my level 1000 paladin probably never had a chance against DoubleLift either, because doublelift put in 5000-10000 hours of time or more.

There is this weird disconnect in people's minds where those two quite comparable things are totally different. And by weird disconnect I mean that there is no culturally accepted excuse to fall back on for failure. The reason that people don't complain about character skill vs player skill is that everyone would laugh in their face. Not because they actually consider it any different. They still make the excuses to themselves, they just don't say it out loud.

 

And we aren't even getting into the more obscure reasons for why one person has an advantage that isn't some sort of natural superiority but just something hidden that you never thought of. Its possible to trace the paths of one player who really likes a certain character or playstyle based on nothing more than random chance that later ends up not being competitive but which ate all of their time while the other player had picked a viable path.

Player one can do things with character a that would blow your mind but he sucks at competitive player because character a is garbage in the meta or garbage no matter what.

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 17961

4/23/13 2:48:39 PM#68
Originally posted by Cuathon
Originally posted by Axehilt

Ever heard of games like Soccer or Chess?  In these controlled-arena games players actually compete to see who is more skilled (as opposed to who has played longer or who brings more friends.)

So basically arena PVP is the closest MMORPG PVP gets to being real PVP.  Normally MMORPG PVP is Casual PVP.

Actually Chess is mostly about who has played longer. Only extremely high level chess is about intellectual capacity. Same for soccer. In fact skill in general is mostly about practice.

The only real test of skill would be to match up people who have spent the same amount of time, or very similar, on a skill. Its also about training. One player of chess spending 100 hours with a skilled teacher will almost always outplay another player who learned the moves of the pieces and was alone from then on with 100 hours of practice.

RPGs are about character skills. My character spent 500 hours training to cast those level 15 fireballs and yours spent 20 hours so he lost.

Why do you think top players in esports have up to 10x more games played as the average person. I have over 3000 games played in LoL. Competitive players have 30000+. But somehow their skills have nothing to do with how long they ahve played right?

The fact is that the same players who never had a chance against my level 1000 paladin probably never had a chance against DoubleLift either, because doublelift put in 5000-10000 hours of time or more.

There is this weird disconnect in people's minds where those two quite comparable things are totally different. And by weird disconnect I mean that there is no culturally accepted excuse to fall back on for failure. The reason that people don't complain about character skill vs player skill is that everyone would laugh in their face. Not because they actually consider it any different. They still make the excuses to themselves, they just don't say it out loud.

 

And we aren't even getting into the more obscure reasons for why one person has an advantage that isn't some sort of natural superiority but just something hidden that you never thought of. Its possible to trace the paths of one player who really likes a certain character or playstyle based on nothing more than random chance that later ends up not being competitive but which ate all of their time while the other player had picked a viable path.

Player one can do things with character a that would blow your mind but he sucks at competitive player because character a is garbage in the meta or garbage no matter what.

I agree. In fact, if you look at the Korean pro gamers, they practice 18 hours a day. You will *never* beat them in their game.

 

  Robokapp

Elite Member

Joined: 11/15/09
Posts: 4152

The only luck I had today was to have you as my opponent.

4/23/13 2:50:12 PM#69
Originally posted by Dauzqul

I say this with 100% confidence: If rewards were removed from Battlegrounds / Arenas, nobody would play them. Why? Because they are boring.

some mmo players in fact would like to play an e-sport. They just can't articulate their feelings that way.

 

what's the reward for playing a game of league of legends ? basically nothing. Yet ranked games and E-spots scene is full of people who play them.

 

Let's go back to ancient rome. Tey have a standing army and are big at constantly finding another barbarian tribe to stomp. Why do they need gladiator games ? Some people just like the simplicity of it. no hunting, no strategy in terms of 'do i fight or flee', just combat.

 

it's not an MMO concept, I agree...it's more Mortal Combat. But it has its appeal. You can't deny that it does.

  Siveria

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 3/11/11
Posts: 1135

4/23/13 2:51:40 PM#70
I don't get what the appeal is either considering how pointless arena-like pvp is. I much prefer land control or something that actually means something. I find arena pvp lame, and quite boring most of the time. This is just me though.

Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:

A. Proven right (if something bad happens)

or

B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)

Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!

  Slampig

Hard Core Member

Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 2372

Whatever you do, do NOT speak ill of Asheron's Call 2...

4/23/13 2:54:42 PM#71
Originally posted by Dauzqul

Please help me understand the appeal for such a terrible PvP concept...

 

#1. Everyone looks the same (Everyone of the same class will ultimately be wearing the same PvP gear).

#2. Redundant Gameplay - In order to obtain PvP gear, you must play the same few instances over and over and over again.

#3. What is "Massively Multiplayer" about 10 vs 10 Team Deathmatch, Domination, or Capture the Flag?

#4. Since there are so few instances, the best and obvious strategies are learned by all within the first month. Thus, gameplay becomes a rinse and repeat process.

#5. There is literally zero element of surprise. Everyone is pre-buffed and expecting combat. Everyone knows where the opposition is coming from. Everyone is ready. There is no such thing as an ambush or grand escape. There is no such thing as infiltration.

#6. Immersion Breaking... especially with concepts such as Huttball. Arena PvP ultimately makes the MMO feel dumbed down for children.

 

Instanced PvP is simply Developer Laziness. Instead of actually thinking about how to make a worldly and mature PvP system, developers decide that it's cheaper and easier to make these small instanced PvP zones. They know people will play anything for some type of item reward.

 

I say this with 100% confidence: If rewards were removed from Battlegrounds / Arenas, nobody would play them. Why? Because they are boring.

What is so massively multiplayer about three or four chumps jacking a solo player?

And yet again, another "children" reference...

That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!

  Robokapp

Elite Member

Joined: 11/15/09
Posts: 4152

The only luck I had today was to have you as my opponent.

4/23/13 2:55:43 PM#72

One must look at the concept of 'consent pvp' to understand this topic.

 

the advocates of consent pvp tend to love arena pvp. because everyone consented when he queued. non-pvp players who want to try pvp casually fit in here.

 

the advocates of more realistic, more ruthless pvp who have no restraints sometimes hunting their pray and so on prefer open-world. gankrs ar a small and un-representative segemnt of this playerbase.

  MumboJumbo

Advanced Member

Joined: 7/18/10
Posts: 3069

Veni, Vidi, Converti

4/23/13 2:57:22 PM#73

Most mmorpg gameplay = combat

AI combat is generally not as good as player combat with teamwork and variation.

hence some of the best gameplay in mmorpgs is arena pvp. No zerg.

  Vesavius

Old School

Joined: 3/08/04
Posts: 7029

Players come for the game, but they stay for the people- Most Devs have forgotten this.

4/23/13 3:00:39 PM#74
Originally posted by Dauzqul

Please help me understand the appeal for *this* PvP concept...

 

Options.

Thats it really... options.

The vast majority of the market prefers optional PvP.

You obviously don't, that's fine, but the open world gankfest PvP model is niche and you will just have to accept that. As an 'adult' I mean.

  Sovrath

Elite Member

Joined: 1/06/05
Posts: 16621

4/23/13 3:04:07 PM#75
Originally posted by Cuathon
 

Actually Chess is mostly about who has played longer. Only extremely high level chess is about intellectual capacity. Same for soccer. In fact skill in general is mostly about practice.

I would disagree with this.

With anything there is a learning curve, but once the learning is over, the moves are understood, the strategies are understood, the skill then happens.

You are trying to say it takes exactly "x amount of time" to be able to master the game, the more time the more "extra master there is".  And that is simply not so. Some people can play for over 20 years and not master what someone with far less time under their belts can master. This is about talent and aptitude.

Same goes with musicall instruments.

Someone can practice for 10 years for certain amount of time each day and still have someone better than them with far less years under thier belt.

Don't discount talent and aptitude.

 

  aesperus

Elite Member

Joined: 1/04/05
Posts: 4508

4/23/13 3:11:45 PM#76
Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by Cuathon

Actually Chess is mostly about who has played longer. Only extremely high level chess is about intellectual capacity. Same for soccer. In fact skill in general is mostly about practice.

I would disagree with this.

With anything there is a learning curve, but once the learning is over, the moves are understood, the strategies are understood, the skill then happens.

You are trying to say it takes exactly "x amount of time" to be able to master the game, the more time the more "extra master there is".  And that is simply not so. Some people can play for over 20 years and not master what someone with far less time under their belts can master. This is about talent and aptitude.

Same goes with musicall instruments.

Someone can practice for 10 years for certain amount of time each day and still have someone better than them with far less years under thier belt.

Don't discount talent and aptitude.

You're both kinda right.

Talent / strategic intelligence can definitely win a game of chess, but the games been around for so long it's mostly about who knows the moves that have been pre-established. It's only at the highest lvl of chess play where people know the moves so well that they are able to properly improvise / outthink your opponent. Until then you may think you're doing something unique & clever, but 99/100 what's actually happening is a sloppily played move you didn't know existed.

  Sovrath

Elite Member

Joined: 1/06/05
Posts: 16621

4/23/13 3:19:45 PM#77
Originally posted by aesperus
 

You're both kinda right.

Talent / strategic intelligence can definitely win a game of chess, but the games been around for so long it's mostly about who knows the moves that have been pre-established. It's only at the highest lvl of chess play where people know the moves so well that they are able to properly improvise / outthink your opponent. Until then you may think you're doing something unique & clever, but 99/100 what's actually happening is a sloppily played move you didn't know existed.

I think you can outhink your opponent at any level.

My sense is that you mean at the higher levels, at master status, where one wins solely on talent, ability knowledge and less on your opponent making multiple mistakes.

but players who aren't masters probably make more mistakes which may or may not be picked up by the opponent.

Still, there are some really young chess masters who can outplay people who have played for longer but they just don't have the talent or capacity, no matter how long they played or how much they have studied.

  Benedikt

Tipster

Joined: 12/12/04
Posts: 1206

We live for the One, we die for the One.

4/23/13 3:21:26 PM#78
Originally posted by Dauzqul

Please help me understand the appeal for such a terrible PvP concept...

 

#1. Everyone looks the same (Everyone of the same class will ultimately be wearing the same PvP gear).

#2. Redundant Gameplay - In order to obtain PvP gear, you must play the same few instances over and over and over again.

#3. What is "Massively Multiplayer" about 10 vs 10 Team Deathmatch, Domination, or Capture the Flag?

#4. Since there are so few instances, the best and obvious strategies are learned by all within the first month. Thus, gameplay becomes a rinse and repeat process.

#5. There is literally zero element of surprise. Everyone is pre-buffed and expecting combat. Everyone knows where the opposition is coming from. Everyone is ready. There is no such thing as an ambush or grand escape. There is no such thing as infiltration.

#6. Immersion Breaking... especially with concepts such as Huttball. Arena PvP ultimately makes the MMO feel dumbed down for children.

 

Instanced PvP is simply Developer Laziness. Instead of actually thinking about how to make a worldly and mature PvP system, developers decide that it's cheaper and easier to make these small instanced PvP zones. They know people will play anything for some type of item reward.

 

I say this with 100% confidence: If rewards were removed from Battlegrounds / Arenas, nobody would play them. Why? Because they are boring.

ad 1) can be - but what is wrong with that? it just mean that skill will be more important then eq.

ad 2) what? you are mixing some specific game with concept of arena pvp in general, since "In order to obtain PvP gear, you must play the same few instances over and over and over again." have nothing to do with the general arena pvp concept.

ad 3) nothing. what has "massive multiplayer" to do with 1 specific option inside mmorpgs?

ad 4) see ad 2) since same applies here (not to mention that arena pvp would work even it you had really just arena with nothing in it.

ad 5) yes - and thats why skill matters a lot more then in open pvp. everyone is on the same footing.

ad 6) what does arena pvp have to do with "dumbing game down"? also immersion break - what does that mean? are you telling me that you sometimes forget you are just playing a game? than sir you probably have a serious problem.

 

"Instanced PvP is simply Developer Laziness. Instead of actually thinking about how to make a worldly and mature PvP system, developers decide that it's cheaper and easier to make these small instanced PvP zones. They know people will play anything for some type of item reward."

what is "more mature" about open pvp? if you think that jumping someone who doesnt expect it is more mature than fighting on the equal terms then we have nothing to talk about.

"I say this with 100% confidence: If rewards were removed from Battlegrounds / Arenas, nobody would play them. Why? Because they are boring."

well i say with 100% confidence you are wrong. would number of ppl playing it decrease? absolutely, some goes for open pvp. would nobody play it? not a chance. do you know how many people play fps shooters, the ones which dont have any kind of rewards? more then how many people plays open pvp.

  Benedikt

Tipster

Joined: 12/12/04
Posts: 1206

We live for the One, we die for the One.

4/23/13 3:23:56 PM#79
Originally posted by Robokapp

the advocates of more realistic, more ruthless pvp who have no restraints sometimes hunting their pray and so on prefer open-world. gankrs ar a small and un-representative segemnt of this playerbase.

sorry, but - are you serious? what is "more realistic" about open pvp? do you see in RL people just running around killing anyone they could w/o serious (and usually pernament) consequences?

 

edit: and no - gankers are not small and unrepresentative segment of open pvp fans.

  Axehilt

Novice Member

Joined: 5/09/09
Posts: 7213

4/23/13 3:53:31 PM#80
Originally posted by Cuathon

Actually Chess is mostly about who has played longer. Only extremely high level chess is about intellectual capacity. Same for soccer. In fact skill in general is mostly about practice.

The only real test of skill would be to match up people who have spent the same amount of time, or very similar, on a skill. Its also about training. One player of chess spending 100 hours with a skilled teacher will almost always outplay another player who learned the moves of the pieces and was alone from then on with 100 hours of practice.

RPGs are about character skills. My character spent 500 hours training to cast those level 15 fireballs and yours spent 20 hours so he lost.

Why do you think top players in esports have up to 10x more games played as the average person. I have over 3000 games played in LoL. Competitive players have 30000+. But somehow their skills have nothing to do with how long they ahve played right?

The fact is that the same players who never had a chance against my level 1000 paladin probably never had a chance against DoubleLift either, because doublelift put in 5000-10000 hours of time or more.

There is this weird disconnect in people's minds where those two quite comparable things are totally different. And by weird disconnect I mean that there is no culturally accepted excuse to fall back on for failure. The reason that people don't complain about character skill vs player skill is that everyone would laugh in their face. Not because they actually consider it any different. They still make the excuses to themselves, they just don't say it out loud. 

And we aren't even getting into the more obscure reasons for why one person has an advantage that isn't some sort of natural superiority but just something hidden that you never thought of. Its possible to trace the paths of one player who really likes a certain character or playstyle based on nothing more than random chance that later ends up not being competitive but which ate all of their time while the other player had picked a viable path.

Player one can do things with character a that would blow your mind but he sucks at competitive player because character a is garbage in the meta or garbage no matter what.

This is not a complicated concept.  Chess is a controlled arena focused on skillful competition:

  • Population: People would laugh if you suggested being able to bring in guild mates to do a 2v1 chess match.
  • Progression: People would laugh if you suggested being able to start with 2 queens after winning 100 chess matches and "leveling up".
  • Player Skill: People would say "yeah, that's the point obviously" if you pointed out that playtime loosely translates to player skill, which decides who wins.
Obviously in competitive games if you're outplayed you should lose.  That's the point.  But with progression systems (game-rule advantages gained through playtime) you create the potential for an unskilled player to beat a newer (but more skilled) opponent, purely on the basis of playing longer.  If the playing field were even, the unskilled player would lose.
 
For this reason, serious competitive PVP games seek to eliminate most or all non-skill elements.
 
Whereas casual PVP games (like MMORPG PVP) allow non-skill elements to exist, which really dilutes it as a competitive platform because bad players will win much more often than they otherwise would.  If you're a bad player, casual PVP has a certain appeal.  But the human mind is pretty good at identifying just how meaningless casual PVP is, and despite the fact that it's so damn casual this style of PVP isn't actually all that popular (real PVP games are vastly more popular.)
8 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Last Search