Trending Games | World of Warcraft | Dragon Age: Inquisition | EverQuest | WildStar

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,905,149 Users Online:0
Games:757  Posts:6,292,762
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System Req: PC | Out of date info?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 First « 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 » Search
148 posts found
  Quirhid

Elite Member

Joined: 1/28/05
Posts: 5664

Correcting wrongs on the Internet...

4/23/13 8:22:41 PM#101
Originally posted by Horusra
open world pvp in the current form fails in mainstream because 70% is ganking.

More like 90%, but yeah.

I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  Purutzil

Elite Member

Joined: 10/02/11
Posts: 2905

The Critical Hit Pretzel!

4/23/13 8:24:17 PM#102

Fair PvP. Thats all. In terms of how much 'skill' and all that takes place, that can be very subjective. I personally do support it to a degree... though at the same times its not exactly something that can be balanced out very well without harming the ability for classes to feel unique. 

 

I don't really feel it feeling 'dumbed down' or 'unimerssive' really. I'm the type though that finds ganking quite silly to find enjoyable, killing people who aren't ready/stand a chance to me is quite a pathetic calling and yet some people enjoy that, perhaps being able to hide the fact they suck at fair fights.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with it, its hilarious to see terrible players fail against me in a fight they should win, but at the same time I don't know why that type of pvp to them is 'fine' but having a scenario or actual organization is stupid. More seen as a type of way to 'grief' players, not really showing much class or for the purpose of 'fighting the other faction' in those types of games. 

Again just me, maybe I'm just weird for prefering a fair fight (if I EVER pvp) over killing people with no chance to fight back.

  Axehilt

Novice Member

Joined: 5/09/09
Posts: 7213

4/23/13 8:29:45 PM#103
Originally posted by tazarconan
Originally posted by Dauzqul

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.

If we are talking about all upcoming mmos you should speak to a friend of mine where every game that comes out he asks only one thing.is there Arena?

And every time u try to explin him how gorgeus world pvp could be in that game he comes with an answer. Whats the fun in slaghtering outnumbered  ppl ??

Only working formula so far for world pvp is from what ppl claim Daoc's and icant express an opinion cause i havdnt the luck to play it back then.

Your friend sums up the #1 reason World PVP is a casual niche: what's the fun in slaughtering outnumbered people?

I wouldn't say DAOC is the "only working formula".  If anything, EVE is the "only working" world PVP formula, and is relegated to an appropriately niche level of success.  Impressive longevity, but way less popular than mainstream PVP titles.

Dauz's comment that instanced PVP is dev laziness conveniently ignores the history of every PVP game ever, from Go to Chess to Soccer to TF2 to LoL to Arenas, where you see a consistent pattern of 99% of those games being controlled arenas where skill decides the victor.  It's not dev laziness.  It's pure competition, pure PVP, unmarred by non-skill factors.

  Cuathon

Advanced Member

Joined: 10/24/04
Posts: 2254

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

4/23/13 8:35:56 PM#104
Originally posted by Axehilt
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.)

No, the more skill characters win every time. It just happens that we measure this in different ways.

I never said anything about bringing guild mates. My comment was about time translating to skill.

How is "non-casual" pvp not meaningless? It means absolutely nothing. It has no value outside of a single game that you are good at. There is no benefit to real life that is greater for "competitive" pvp vs "casual."

Just because you PERSONALLY enjoy it doesn't make it objectively more meaningful.

 

I was once a top tier player of a competitive battle chess game. I prefer PvE and "casual" PvP because its less repetitive and more interesting. Not because I am "bad." There are WAY more shitty players of competitive PvP than FFA MMOs. LoL alone has 35million registered accounts and 99% of them are terrible players. The reason they prefer LoL has nothing to do with their skill at it. Your obnoxious insistence on making value judgements over decisions primarily mediated by random and relative cultural influence is so annoying.

You are basically just a cleverer version of NariusSeldon. The amount of dogwhistle based trolling you do is pretty much on par with his.

  Sulaa

Novice Member

Joined: 7/13/11
Posts: 905

4/23/13 8:36:38 PM#105

I do get instanced PVP appeal.  RTS and FPS non-mmo mulitplayer games are using exactly same fundamental concept and I do actually like playing multiplayer rts & fps arena games from time to time. 

It's not something what I look for in mmorpg's though.  It's odd for me. It's like putting hardcore turn-based strategy in middle of action packed fast First Person Shooter.   

What's interesting though - it's an emerging genre of arena 3rd person Arena PVP games, like Forged or Panzar.   They still are work in progress and there was already first failure (War), but number of that games will grow.

It's much cheaper and faster to develop a game that is basically Arena PVP taken out from mmorpg and made as a standalone lobby game. Additional benefit is that it will allow to make better mechanics - not constrained by PVE & open world mechanics.  Imho when we talk about perspective counted in years - then games like that will start stealing those players that currently play mmopprg's mainly or only for Arenas and Battlegrounds.

  Rossboss

Novice Member

Joined: 10/26/10
Posts: 241

4/23/13 8:48:45 PM#106

It really comes down to 1 word: Modularity. Modularity (for what we are discussing) is creating a reusable object, zone, arena, dungeon or any number of other things that take user input or users into a controlled situation where no external factors aside from what the users have on them and with them can be introduced.

If you can modularize content, you can reuse it virtually limitlessly without introducing any outside factors. Instanced areas are also a product of modular design. It's the same level, the same monsters, all with consistent factors and behaviors. It makes the game cooperate in any circumstances and eliminates external factors like Quests, guards or other monsters, and seals off a controlled environment where the players have no reason to do anything but kill eachother.

It's like if you put two people on the earth and said, "Live your lives, there's a whole world of things to do, and try to progress, and watch out for the other guy cause he wants to kill you" versus "Your in a room and neither of you can escape, and the other guy wants to kill you." The first statement gives you the option of not even making contact with the killer, while the other one is similar to a situation taken from one of the Saw movies. Think of it as an old Roman Arena, you can control the players in the main area and force them to kill, where as if you got 2 random people from the rest of the world and told them to kill eachother, they'd most likely think you were mentally insane.

That being said, the upside to arenas are the fact that both parties of players have singular goals that conflict and give them a specific reason to kill eachother without any ulterior motives. The parties have prepared themselves to enter into combat with another player and are mentally in the mindset to do so. The downside to arenas is that open world PvP has no meaning to these players and they have little to no respect for rules and regulations that are put in place to give them other things to accomplish. The players that use the arenas have no sense of meaningful open world PvP and most of the time force PvP upon unwilling players for no reason aside from personal gain. This is where ganking comes into play, because 90% of the time this is what open world PvP amounts to in games that provide the feature.

I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift.
I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough.
I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.

  Axehilt

Novice Member

Joined: 5/09/09
Posts: 7213

4/23/13 9:30:39 PM#107
Originally posted by Cuathon

No, the more skill characters win every time. It just happens that we measure this in different ways.

I never said anything about bringing guild mates. My comment was about time translating to skill.

How is "non-casual" pvp not meaningless? It means absolutely nothing. It has no value outside of a single game that you are good at. There is no benefit to real life that is greater for "competitive" pvp vs "casual."

Just because you PERSONALLY enjoy it doesn't make it objectively more meaningful.

 I was once a top tier player of a competitive battle chess game. I prefer PvE and "casual" PvP because its less repetitive and more interesting. Not because I am "bad." There are WAY more shitty players of competitive PvP than FFA MMOs. LoL alone has 35million registered accounts and 99% of them are terrible players. The reason they prefer LoL has nothing to do with their skill at it. Your obnoxious insistence on making value judgements over decisions primarily mediated by random and relative cultural influence is so annoying.

You are basically just a cleverer version of NariusSeldon. The amount of dogwhistle based trolling you do is pretty much on par with his.

Pure nonsense.

  • In Darkfall a veteran player attacked me.
  • I landed 20+ sword hits and 3 arrows.
  • He landed 3 sword hits.  Three.  I probably dodged 15 others.
  • I died. He had 96% life remaining.

Are you going to argue that he won because he was more skilled?  Pure nonsense.  

He won because the game's mechanics arbitrarily reward playtime by providing nearly-insurmountable progression advantages.  He had more practice time than I , but was clearly a less skilled player.

The same thing happens to lesser degrees in other games (any game where non-skill factors have a significant influence on combat.)

Personal preference or not, non-skill factors cause skill to be objectively less meaningful.

  • Imagine the decision tree of all Chess possibilities, through to their conclusion.  There will be x total wins by Black.
  • Now imagine a similar tree, except Black starts with 2 Queens.  There are now considerably more than x total wins by Black.
  • The difference between these two numbers represents the objective reduction in the value of player skill when a progression element yields an advantage.  The new decision tree has added situations where skill no longer matters, where once it did.  And that's an objective reduction of the value of player skill.
  nariusseldon

Hard Core Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 20226

4/23/13 11:14:55 PM#108
Originally posted by Sulaa

 

It's not something what I look for in mmorpg's though.  It's odd for me. It's like putting hardcore turn-based strategy in middle of action packed fast First Person Shooter.   

That is innovation .. providing something new.

Though not all new ideas are good .. without trying, you never know. Look at Borderlands .. .putting RPG into FPS .. works perfectly. MMORPGs can use a lot of ideas from other genre.

  ariasaitcho

Apprentice Member

Joined: 5/20/12
Posts: 112

4/23/13 11:27:02 PM#109

open world pvp vs instanced pvp

 

open world: can be fun, for some players. the problem in ganking/griefing almost always gets out of hand. 13yo little boys (mentally at least) believe that it's "cool" and "fun" to repeatedly kill "noobs" who have little to no chance of defending themselves. such players (almost) never take on anything other than solo players and usually move on when a group of players appear. this results in a lower than should be player base because some players are driven away from what could be a good game by idiots whose idea of fun is pulling the wings off of flies. this is called Sadism. and i'm not a Masochist.

 

instanced pvp: allows for players who are within a certain level range to have a somewhat balanced fight where skill (button mashing), toon building (followed script on where best to put points) come more to the fore. surprise and tactics are still in play if the design of the instance was done well. while it is possible for a player of limited skill to "win", it's not something that will happen often enough to worry about. this type of game usually has a large player base because it allows both pve, pvp, and rpg players all to play the same game their own way without any one aspect of gameplay dominating (and thus ruining it for the others).

  nariusseldon

Hard Core Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 20226

4/23/13 11:41:32 PM#110
Originally posted by ariasaitcho

 

instanced pvp: allows for players who are within a certain level range to have a somewhat balanced fight where skill (button mashing), toon building (followed script on where best to put points) come more to the fore. surprise and tactics are still in play if the design of the instance was done well. while it is possible for a player of limited skill to "win", it's not something that will happen often enough to worry about. this type of game usually has a large player base because it allows both pve, pvp, and rpg players all to play the same game their own way without any one aspect of gameplay dominating (and thus ruining it for the others).

That is the main point. Choices are good. Some pve players don't want pvp in their game, and vice versa.

Just one big world pvp mode .. is not conducive to accomodate many player preferences.

  MeltdownZA

Apprentice Member

Joined: 4/24/13
Posts: 15

4/24/13 3:25:01 AM#111

Don't like arena at all.

Riding through the woods in open-world PVP when you could get ganked any time is a lot more exciting IMO.

Although Arena PVP could be great for practice.

monstertruckracingarenas.com

  Sulaa

Novice Member

Joined: 7/13/11
Posts: 905

4/24/13 3:55:30 AM#112
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Sulaa

 

It's not something what I look for in mmorpg's though.  It's odd for me. It's like putting hardcore turn-based strategy in middle of action packed fast First Person Shooter.   

That is innovation .. providing something new.

Though not all new ideas are good .. without trying, you never know. Look at Borderlands .. .putting RPG into FPS .. works perfectly. MMORPGs can use a lot of ideas from other genre.

3rd Person Arena / BG only specialized games will pull more and more players playing mostly for istanced PVP from mmorpg's anyway.   By specializing they'll be able to offer better experience, sooner or later.  Faster developer cycles and not being hold back by PVE mechanics will have it effect. It's only matter of time.       

  BeansnBread

Elite Member

Joined: 9/19/06
Posts: 5562

4/24/13 4:15:54 AM#113
Originally posted by Rossboss

It really comes down to 1 word: Modularity. Modularity (for what we are discussing) is creating a reusable object, zone, arena, dungeon or any number of other things that take user input or users into a controlled situation where no external factors aside from what the users have on them and with them can be introduced.

If you can modularize content, you can reuse it virtually limitlessly without introducing any outside factors. Instanced areas are also a product of modular design. It's the same level, the same monsters, all with consistent factors and behaviors. It makes the game cooperate in any circumstances and eliminates external factors like Quests, guards or other monsters, and seals off a controlled environment where the players have no reason to do anything but kill eachother.

It's like if you put two people on the earth and said, "Live your lives, there's a whole world of things to do, and try to progress, and watch out for the other guy cause he wants to kill you" versus "Your in a room and neither of you can escape, and the other guy wants to kill you." The first statement gives you the option of not even making contact with the killer, while the other one is similar to a situation taken from one of the Saw movies. Think of it as an old Roman Arena, you can control the players in the main area and force them to kill, where as if you got 2 random people from the rest of the world and told them to kill eachother, they'd most likely think you were mentally insane.

That being said, the upside to arenas are the fact that both parties of players have singular goals that conflict and give them a specific reason to kill eachother without any ulterior motives. The parties have prepared themselves to enter into combat with another player and are mentally in the mindset to do so. The downside to arenas is that open world PvP has no meaning to these players and they have little to no respect for rules and regulations that are put in place to give them other things to accomplish. The players that use the arenas have no sense of meaningful open world PvP and most of the time force PvP upon unwilling players for no reason aside from personal gain. This is where ganking comes into play, because 90% of the time this is what open world PvP amounts to in games that provide the feature.

Wait, what? The downside to arenas is that the players that enjoy arenas gank people in an open world? Ridiculous. Games with open world PvP, without arena options, are the worst offenders of unbalanced conflict. The players that DON'T use arenas are the ones interested in unbalanced conflict. If anything, players that prefer arena style combat prefer to be on even footing with their opponent. 

 

How did you come to the conclusion that arena players force PvP onto unwilling players in the open world? How would the players in the open world even be unwilling in an open world PvP game?

 

Games with open world PvP make ganking popular. Adding an arena system to such a game does not increase ganking. If anything, it decreases it since not as many people are in the open world.

SWTOR is the greatest mmo ever!

  Reizla

Hard Core Member

Joined: 12/09/08
Posts: 3049

MMORPGs are no longer about the mass multi-user anymore *sadly*

4/24/13 4:21:27 AM#114
Originally posted by klerken

its actually very simple in my very own opinion,

its pretty much the only way to keep pvp competive and "fair" since all is on equal ground

That's about it where I agree... PvP arena's are all for the masses where mediacore gameplay has become the standard. Most playeds participating in arena PvP don't do any open-world PvP anymore because that's not 'balanced' (yet an other mediacore feature of most MMORPGs there).

I even dare say that these same players will never play a MMORPG line EVE online or Lineage II, where balancing has never really taken place and have obvious stronger and weaker classes/builds. These players lack the real challenge of PvP, showing that with an 'underdog' class/build you can actually PvP and win in the open-world.

Demigoth's RPG adventures ~ My blog

AsRock 990FX Extreme3
AMD Phenom II 1090T ~3.2Ghz
GEiL 16Gb DDR3 1600Mhz
GTX660 (ASUS/EVGA) 3x HD monitor spanned 5760x1080
Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Champion

  BeansnBread

Elite Member

Joined: 9/19/06
Posts: 5562

4/24/13 4:27:42 AM#115
Originally posted by Reizla
Originally posted by klerken

its actually very simple in my very own opinion,

its pretty much the only way to keep pvp competive and "fair" since all is on equal ground

That's about it where I agree... PvP arena's are all for the masses where mediacore gameplay has become the standard. Most playeds participating in arena PvP don't do any open-world PvP anymore because that's not 'balanced' (yet an other mediacore feature of most MMORPGs there).

I even dare say that these same players will never play a MMORPG line EVE online or Lineage II, where balancing has never really taken place and have obvious stronger and weaker classes/builds. These players lack the real challenge of PvP, showing that with an 'underdog' class/build you can actually PvP and win in the open-world.

I am playing EVE right now and love arenas. And arenas are more challenging by far than almost anything I do in EVE. In EVE, we make sure we're going to win before PvP ever starts. There are a lot more facets to the game, but in general, the fight is almost never fair. "Underdogs" almost never win. 

 

And what about arenas makes you think that underdog comps and classes don't also outplay opponents and have incredible victories? It happens far more often in arenas than in EVE.

SWTOR is the greatest mmo ever!

  User Deleted
4/24/13 4:31:18 AM#116
Originally posted by klerken

its actually very simple in my very own opinion,

its pretty much the only way to keep pvp competive and "fair" since all is on equal ground (when they have geared up) and your 100 % confidence is just pulled outta your a** since games like CoD and all the different mobas don't offer much reward except the joy of outplaying your opponents

 

if you wan't to stick to MMO's i guess wow high ranking arenas and GW2 battleground or what its called is still thriving despite people being geared already and just playing to show how skilled they are.

Pretty much this.

It offers a semi-balanced environment where you wont get ganged up on. If you lose, its because you were outplayed, not outnumbered, outleveled or (sometimes) outgeared.

Open world PvP leads to zergs. Nothing can stop the zergs aside from limiting the number of participants - hence battlegrounds / arenas.

  BlueTiger33

Novice Member

Joined: 2/25/13
Posts: 169

4/24/13 4:33:07 AM#117
I hated arena pvp. I liked the BG's and RBG's but I hated arena in wow. It became a cookie cutter build later on.


I will never support freeloaders, no more subsidized gaming.
My Blog

  User Deleted
4/24/13 4:35:43 AM#118
Originally posted by Quirhid
Originally posted by Horusra
open world pvp in the current form fails in mainstream because 70% is ganking.

More like 90%, but yeah.

The main thing that irks me about open world PvP is the lack of any real point, other than being a douche. Most battlegrounds or arenas have objectives or reasoning behind the conflict, wheras open world PvP is just 'hey look at that noob over there, lets kill it'.

Why would that be the natural response to meeting someone new? Totally immersion breaking. In a game with harsh PK rules it might work, with the odd assassin or law breaker, but if everyone is just a murderous ahole... whats the point?   

  Quirhid

Elite Member

Joined: 1/28/05
Posts: 5664

Correcting wrongs on the Internet...

4/24/13 5:28:44 AM#119
Originally posted by Reizla
Originally posted by klerken

its actually very simple in my very own opinion,

its pretty much the only way to keep pvp competive and "fair" since all is on equal ground

That's about it where I agree... PvP arena's are all for the masses where mediacore gameplay has become the standard. Most playeds participating in arena PvP don't do any open-world PvP anymore because that's not 'balanced' (yet an other mediacore feature of most MMORPGs there).

I even dare say that these same players will never play a MMORPG line EVE online or Lineage II, where balancing has never really taken place and have obvious stronger and weaker classes/builds. These players lack the real challenge of PvP, showing that with an 'underdog' class/build you can actually PvP and win in the open-world.

Nope. CCP is currently trying to rid their game of those obviously stronger and weaker builds. About time too. The game had been hugely imbalanced for years with tons of ships that were never used while others were basically the only viable choice in their size & role niche.

The talk about challenges of being an underdog is just idealistic nonsense. Makes me want to question have you ever properly played the game: Overwhelming majority of times, the underdog loses. Why? Because players will not engage unless they are sure to win. Usually, once a fight starts, the outcome is predetermined.

The real challenge comes from playing against a skilled opponent expecting a fight on a level playing field. Eve players themselves say "good fight" after any engagement. They have pretty low standards for a good fight, you see. But actual good fights in games like Eve Online are extremely rare.

Its not a good fight when your opponent just didn't think, wasn't prepared, made an error, isn't even looking for a fight or simply was unable to escape. Then you get these stare downs where players refuse to engage because they don't have an advantage or their advantage is not high enough. People are cowards in games like Eve.

I remember one 6 month stretch in nullsec where I wen't looking for fight almost daily and I can count the number of actual "good fights" with just one hand! Six months!

If I want challenge, I play competitive PvP.

I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  Thane

Hard Core Member

Joined: 8/14/03
Posts: 1944

I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.

4/24/13 5:39:04 AM#120
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).

> well, not in my games, usualy you are able to transmog your gear in one way or another

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

> that's the basic idea of mmos. kill till you got your equip, same idea usualy goes for PvE raids

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

that's more the shooter approach gamestyle wise, also, you fight different people each time

#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.

> usualy raids aren't much more :)  at least not high end content

#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.

> then you are fighting on low lvl. if players are abit skilled, there is an element of surprise, different tactics in combat. different fighting styles and so on

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

> you are not much of a shooter guy, are you? would you call quake a game 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.

> would you raid without items rewards?

on the other hand, quake and other games (not rewarding you with items) are played for over 10 years now.  ever thought about that it MIGHT be just you? people also play lol alot atm, no items here either.

in general i'd say you didn't play alot of FPS games online. that's the basic idea behind "instaced arena pvp". to mess vs people on a similiar skill lvl and see who will be the last man standing.

"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"

8 Pages First « 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 » Search