The state of PvP in games today.

[Oda]

Originally Posted by Surly

...

Couldn't agree more with you on this.

[Visage]

Originally Posted by Surly

Fuck that, fuuuck that. I tell you, that's the most obnoxious point of view I hear people having. The more "kinds" of PvP?

There is a fundamental flaw in that kind of thinking, and it is specifically the idea that "PvP" is a feature to be IMPLEMENTED in games. It is most certainly not. Player vs. Player conflict is the heart and soul of every multiplayer game since Multi-User Dungeon... even though that dumbass pirate with his gold snatching ways was a bit of a distraction.

PvP is the natural byproduct of an environment without restrictions. To force players into behaving with safe zones, and then allowing consensual PvP in certain areas and calling dueling a "pvp feature" is exactly what is wrong with the philosophy behind a lot of mainstream MMOs today. You can't "put" different kinds of PvP into a game, you can only remove player freedom and give it back in small doses while misrepresenting them as features. It's an effrontery, and for that matter an affront to the very notion of a purported "freedom based" sandbox game to try and entice people with such made up ideas and trick them into thinking they've been given all these awesome options.

"Oh my, Game X has 50 types of PvP! It must be HARDCORE. What's this, Mortal Online... it only has one kind? 'full PvP'? Wow, just the one? How carebear!"

When PvP is done right, it's not even worth mentioning on the feature list because you simply did nothing with it. When you swing your weapon and it makes contact with anything, it deals damage. Period.

If we are going to apply real world rulesets to a virtual game, we need to look at how a society functions. Your sword and armor have to be made by someone, food, horses blah blah blah were all provided by people who did not engage in "pvp" . Because you only had one death, people were much less likely to attack someone else unless there was a payoff. People didn't ride around killing randomly, and if you killed someone in a town, the town would police itself and you might end up hanging from a tree branch.

You cannot have a world that functions if it is just a bunch of assholes running around killing each other over and over again, but we all play for the thrill of killing the other guy, so how do you make pvp happen?

1 It is ridiculous for one player to have 100 times the health and damage of another. While leveling is the yardstick by how you measure your charactors development, it is stupid to make a level 50 person invulnerable from the level 10 person. It didn't happen in real life and it shouldn't happen in a game. Somehow there needs to be a mechanic for equalizing higher and lower level players, forcing the choice of "should I gank this guy or not"?

2 Like I said before, random serial killing did not happen. There was a purpose to killing someone, say in the process of stealing. Therefore make it worthwhile to attack someone by being able to gain something from them. I think MMOs actually have it backwards, the higher level toons should be more worried than the lower ones, since the higher levels have better armor and weapons and gold that the lowbies want.

Killing should have a purpose, the purpose might be as simple as wanting the area to hunt in, but there should be a risk to every encounter regardless of the difference in charactor levels.

[-z|o-]

Originally Posted by Surly

Fuck that, fuuuck that. I tell you, that's the most obnoxious point of view I hear people having. The more "kinds" of PvP?

You entitled to your opinion and im entitled to mine.

What instanced PvP offers is controlled environment, which is suitable for competitive type of PvP (leveled playing field). This emphases individual player skill and finesse in teamwork.

World battles, especially the ones involving sieging bases/cities are more immerse and random, and majority of the time the outcome is decided by numbers and other random variables.

You may prefer only one of the kind of PvP, but i like both. Having more options of how to play will only make game more diverse and more interesting to play in the long run.

[Izr]

The biggest issue being hinted at here is this : purpose driven PvP and not terribly mindless and inconsequential action.

What would be really ideal is that over the course of a character's development, significant moments in PvP can be remembered and looked back on as important turning points.

[admiralnlson]

Originally Posted by Surly

Fuck that, fuuuck that. I tell you, that's the most obnoxious point of view I hear people having. The more "kinds" of PvP?

There is a fundamental flaw in that kind of thinking, and it is specifically the idea that "PvP" is a feature to be IMPLEMENTED in games. It is most certainly not. Player vs. Player conflict is the heart and soul of every multiplayer game since Multi-User Dungeon... even though that dumbass pirate with his gold snatching ways was a bit of a distraction.

PvP is the natural byproduct of an environment without restrictions. To force players into behaving with safe zones, and then allowing consensual PvP in certain areas and calling dueling a "pvp feature" is exactly what is wrong with the philosophy behind a lot of mainstream MMOs today. You can't "put" different kinds of PvP into a game, you can only remove player freedom and give it back in small doses while misrepresenting them as features. It's an effrontery, and for that matter an affront to the very notion of a purported "freedom based" sandbox game to try and entice people with such made up ideas and trick them into thinking they've been given all these awesome options.

"Oh my, Game X has 50 types of PvP! It must be HARDCORE. What's this, Mortal Online... it only has one kind? 'full PvP'? Wow, just the one? How carebear!"

When PvP is done right, it's not even worth mentioning on the feature list because you simply did nothing with it. When you swing your weapon and it makes contact with anything, it deals damage. Period.

So say we all!

[Tatum]

Originally Posted by Visage

If we are going to apply real world rulesets to a virtual game, we need to look at how a society functions. Your sword and armor have to be made by someone, food, horses blah blah blah were all provided by people who did not engage in "pvp" . Because you only had one death, people were much less likely to attack someone else unless there was a payoff. People didn't ride around killing randomly, and if you killed someone in a town, the town would police itself and you might end up hanging from a tree branch.

You cannot have a world that functions if it is just a bunch of assholes running around killing each other over and over again, but we all play for the thrill of killing the other guy, so how do you make pvp happen?

1 It is ridiculous for one player to have 100 times the health and damage of another. While leveling is the yardstick by how you measure your charactors development, it is stupid to make a level 50 person invulnerable from the level 10 person. It didn't happen in real life and it shouldn't happen in a game. Somehow there needs to be a mechanic for equalizing higher and lower level players, forcing the choice of "should I gank this guy or not"?

2 Like I said before, random serial killing did not happen. There was a purpose to killing someone, say in the process of stealing. Therefore make it worthwhile to attack someone by being able to gain something from them. I think MMOs actually have it backwards, the higher level toons should be more worried than the lower ones, since the higher levels have better armor and weapons and gold that the lowbies want.

Killing should have a purpose, the purpose might be as simple as wanting the area to hunt in, but there should be a risk to every encounter regardless of the difference in charactor levels.

For the most part, I'd agree. You need incentives for PvP, but you also need penalties and consequences for random PK's. If some one wants to play the outlaw/murderer they should have that option, but it shouldn't be easy.

Really, I think you almost have to have a faction vs. faction and/or guild vs. guild system. Any kills within that system would be legal and this should give most players all the PvP they need.

[Pluro]

I pretty much some it up.... no game has ever mastered the art of real pvp yet not eve wow.

[yXXe]

Guild Wars went a LONG way with PvP. It was not meaningful PvP, but your mind and reactions were mandatory to win. Gear meant nothing, or, as little as possible without moving gear effectively, the limitless amounts of builds meant that you truly would win, with you as a skiller player won earnestly. Fury, well.. If anyone knows about that game, then I need say no more.

[Surly]

Originally Posted by Tatum

For the most part, I'd agree. You need incentives for PvP, but you also need penalties and consequences for random PK's. If some one wants to play the outlaw/murderer they should have that option, but it shouldn't be easy.

Really, I think you almost have to have a faction vs. faction and/or guild vs. guild system. Any kills within that system would be legal and this should give most players all the PvP they need.

What is a "criminal" but who you define as one through arbitration or morality? In a freedom based game, common sense dictates that players themselves define criminal behavior, and dish out the punishments themselves. How can you prefer game mechanics for the arbitration process, making you become a global "criminal" for something as common as theft or killing?

I ask because "crime" is not always crime, and in some people's cases it is never regarded as such. To steal, for instance, from another group of players would be perfectly acceptable if they are your enemies. You aren't going to be "evil" for trying to compete in an assertive way in a video game all about competition, are you?

Everyone should be free to choose their own path, and be at the mercy of other players who judge them... rather than letting an intangible force keep track of their actions and impose penalties on them. Players merely need to be given the tools to set laws for the lands they conquer, instruct NPC guards to carry them out, and have at least some rudimentary method of managing it all with the in-game interface. Yes, if you act in a way that offends people in one area of the world you should have to face the music and be punished for it, but if that same behavior is acceptable to another group of players then you should be free to join them without some invisible monkey on your back because of some silly majority consensus on morality. Let players have the freedom and the tools to enforce laws that are as strict or as loose as they feel is necessary in their locality, don't make everyone abide by the same metaphysical limitations of one demographic's playing preference.

I say the whole system of orthodox alignment tracking in MMORPGs is obsolete, last-generation technology that just carries over to new games because of convention. You want to shed these silly global rules during "declared" PvP encounters for consensual Guild vs. Guild or "realm vs. realm" events already. Doesn't it seem a little convoluted to enforce these arbitrary rules the rest of the time when players could simply police themselves if given the tools to do so?

The penalty for PvP is death, and the loss of all your items, if you lose. I don't think you should force every player to be penalized simply for picking a style of play that you don't like.

[Xzi]

Originally Posted by Tiberias

Non-consequential mini-games, repeatable never-ending battleground instances or arenas (AKA group duels). Seems more and more toned down, safe, and having no impact on the game world. No clan pride, city pride, faction pride, zone control. In one word: sad.

This says it all. PvP in MMOs has become a joke. Try walking into a professional FPS tourney and saying, "well, I suck at FPSes, but I'm good at PvP in MMOs." You'll get laughed out of the building. We need an MMO where twitch-based gaming and strategy mix. Mortal Online has the opportunity to do just that.

[Shurt]

Originally Posted by Sperg

More often than not I believe PvP is implemented poorly in todays mmo's. PvP as a premise should be based on 2 like individuals, or groups of like individuals competing to see whose better in a battle of quick wit and skill. Most of the games today allow gankfests and repeated lowbie ganking with no reprecussion what so ever, therefore most of the time there is no skill needed only levels. I would like to see games levy heavy penalties against unprovoked characters that attack and kill characters 10 - 20 levels lower than themselves

Not saying I condone this type of action, but this is the beauty of straight PvP. Open PvP environments that do not have restrictions or penalties imposed, usually develop a community of players that are "For" or "Against" aka "Good" or "Evil". So for example, sperg is against this type of activity, so most likely he will join a guild that is "Good" and defend those lower level characters from the "evil" doers. I remember many times back in the day playing Asherson's Call that myself and guildmates would goto newbie areas and fight against "Gankers" in order to allow lower levels to play. Obviously have guards control the city but, outside is free game.

[James Olson]

Originally Posted by Visage

If we are going to apply real world rulesets to a virtual game, we need to look at how a society functions. Your sword and armor have to be made by someone, food, horses blah blah blah were all provided by people who did not engage in "pvp" . Because you only had one death, people were much less likely to attack someone else unless there was a payoff. People didn't ride around killing randomly, and if you killed someone in a town, the town would police itself and you might end up hanging from a tree branch.

You cannot have a world that functions if it is just a bunch of assholes running around killing each other over and over again, but we all play for the thrill of killing the other guy, so how do you make pvp happen?

1 It is ridiculous for one player to have 100 times the health and damage of another. While leveling is the yardstick by how you measure your charactors development, it is stupid to make a level 50 person invulnerable from the level 10 person. It didn't happen in real life and it shouldn't happen in a game. Somehow there needs to be a mechanic for equalizing higher and lower level players, forcing the choice of "should I gank this guy or not"?

2 Like I said before, random serial killing did not happen. There was a purpose to killing someone, say in the process of stealing. Therefore make it worthwhile to attack someone by being able to gain something from them. I think MMOs actually have it backwards, the higher level toons should be more worried than the lower ones, since the higher levels have better armor and weapons and gold that the lowbies want.

Killing should have a purpose, the purpose might be as simple as wanting the area to hunt in, but there should be a risk to every encounter regardless of the difference in charactor levels.

There is so much to say about your post. I find it distracting how you speak of realism as such a complex abstraction. Should the game mirror real life or not? You make statements that are seemingly paradoxical reflecting a general confusion. No, people do not run around randomly killing each other. There exist a complex system of social constructs bearing consequences both physical and psychological. Yet all this is removed when communication is proxied (perhaps you should read the Milgram study) through the internet. When the authoritarian influence is removed we fall back to more primal reactions to those around us, I'm sure you have read Lord of the Flies. So are humans naturally "evil" or is the idea simply a social construct? Do MMOs prove the Ring of Gyges? Now feel free to explorate these ideas at your leisure and let's get back to the topic of PVP.

Open PVP, is a free-for-all system of combat where I can attack anybody, anywhere, for any reason. There may or may not be consequences for doing so. If you are out farming materials, it would be wise to be weary of strangers and keep your form of escape at the ready. If you are low level I offer the same advice. The world of an "open" MMO is a hard place to live. You will be ganked and looted many times, you will lose precious items and valuable resources. When I played UO you have no idea how many times I've Alt-F4'd in anger. Yet there are certain rewards that can be gained. The enviroment promotes strong bond to your fellow players. If you truely detest those player killers, get a guild together to vanquish them. Step up as the player, descide how your world is formed and enforced. Stop relying on the game to provide the story.

My gribe, legos started coming with the story built into the box and children no longer needed an imagination. The same happened to MMOs.

[no-one]

The trend seems to be to send the PVPers to an isolated zone to PVP for the sake of PVP. Even WOW has done better than that. I hope this game raises the bar for PVP games.

[Latro]

EVE excepted, I think MMOs today put in PvP as an afterthought. They call it a "feature" among other features that the game has. "You can PvP here while you're waiting to kill <insert boss name> in this game!", the say. But they don't make PvP important to the game. It's just something else to do. To me, this fits into the "theme park syndrome" of these sorts of games. "Go here, do this, oh lookie now you can go here and do this" and so on. PvP is just another ride you can hop on for a bit and then hop off of. Participation or the lack thereof has no impact on the world as a whole.

[Fyzzle]

You guys rock. I'm looking forward to real PvP again.

[Aesir]

I played EQ2 on a PVP server, that is all factional PVP. I really don't like when there is a preset enemy and the only interaction with them is fighting. It's too 2D to be enjoyed for any extented period of time.

Then the fact that as long as a character were within the attackable level range of a zone, you got as much benefits from killing him/her as someone your own level. This naturally ended up being a lower level gank fest mainly by scouts and mage nukers. That is frustrating.

Then there is SWG....which I'm not even gonna go into. It's just too sad.

Imo, a game needs to have no rules and be self-policed by its community or it just gets really boring, really fast.

[Lordbaldur]

Games today I think are way too focused on pvp, I mean WoW went from being the no. 1 PVE game to just being focused around arena teams and I see that happening to WAY too many other good PVE games. It was a sad day when they added duels and later faction pvp in EQII and that made me quit, games should stick to their roots and MMO's are about co-operation not destroying others fun. I hope you guys can understand that.

[James Olson]

Originally Posted by Lordbaldur

Games today I think are way too focused on pvp, I mean WoW went from being the no. 1 PVE game to just being focused around arena teams and I see that happening to WAY too many other good PVE games. It was a sad day when they added duels and later faction pvp in EQII and that made me quit, games should stick to their roots and MMO's are about co-operation not destroying others fun. I hope you guys can understand that.

Another troll. This thread is full of constructive conversation, please add something worth reading.

[1998altima]

Originally Posted by Lordbaldur

Games today I think are way too focused on pvp, I mean WoW went from being the no. 1 PVE game to just being focused around arena teams and I see that happening to WAY too many other good PVE games. It was a sad day when they added duels and later faction pvp in EQII and that made me quit, games should stick to their roots and MMO's are about co-operation not destroying others fun. I hope you guys can understand that.

Dude I'm sick of your attitude. WE WANT TO FIGHT! Don't you understand this. And who says anything about not cooperating? I can cooperate with my friends to kill another person. That is cooperation, no? Did I destroy the other persons fun, maybe. But if that happened to me then I'd learn to not go out by myself and maybe next time I'd bring friends with me to go get revenge on the guy who killed me. This is what real fun is. The problem with mmo's these days is that it's PvE content first and then add-on PvP. It should be the other way around. I want to go kill a few orcs while I'm waiting for some PvP action.
You basically want a multiplayer game to play with your friends and fight against big bosses, am I right? I mean you don't even have to play a PC MMO you can just play a console game with more controllers and play "cooperatively" with your friends.

[popularboy]

Originally Posted by Greenwolf

I'd like to see combat equal to if not greater than Mount and Blade's system.

Current MMO's usually allow you to clip through other players, or if not, you can at least clip through their weapons to close.
A spearman should be able to use his spear physically to keep a swordsman at bay and out of range. A swordsman who gets around a spear should be able to attack without retribution until the spear user manages to get some space or drop his spear for a shorter weapon. A scythe or flail should be able to at least partially bypass a shield. A dagger-wielder who gets up behind a lightly armored opponent should be able to go Psycho on his backside, with quick repetitive downward stabs in rapid succession until the target can get away (if he can quickly).

It creates too much lag.

[Urielx]

Originally Posted by Tatum

Really, I think you almost have to have a faction vs. faction and/or guild vs. guild system. Any kills within that system would be legal and this should give most players all the PvP they need.

Nothing pisses me off more in games today then some smack talking cackbag that you can't do anything about cause he's "on your side"... HELL WITH THAT.

Originally Posted by -z|o-

You entitled to your opinion and im entitled to mine.

What instanced PvP offers is controlled environment, which is suitable for competitive type of PvP (leveled playing field). This emphases individual player skill and finesse in teamwork.

World battles, especially the ones involving sieging bases/cities are more immerse and random, and majority of the time the outcome is decided by numbers and other random variables.

You may prefer only one of the kind of PvP, but i like both. Having more options of how to play will only make game more diverse and more interesting to play in the long run.

Instanced PvP is like calling something casually hardcore. Why do you want to fight in a controlled environment? Fights are supposed to be chaotic and adaptive. Instances of any sort ruin whatever game they're in. It detracts from competition, and community.

With regards to the last statement especially. Putting hard coded limits onto a game doesn't make it diverse in the long run, it limits and restricts it. If there's no set way to tell you how/when/where to fight is what's going to make diversity.

[Jangang]

Originally Posted by Surly

Fuck that, fuuuck that. I tell you, that's the most obnoxious point of view I hear people having. The more "kinds" of PvP?

There is a fundamental flaw in that kind of thinking, and it is specifically the idea that "PvP" is a feature to be IMPLEMENTED in games. It is most certainly not. Player vs. Player conflict is the heart and soul of every multiplayer game since Multi-User Dungeon... even though that dumbass pirate with his gold snatching ways was a bit of a distraction.

PvP is the natural byproduct of an environment without restrictions. To force players into behaving with safe zones, and then allowing consensual PvP in certain areas and calling dueling a "pvp feature" is exactly what is wrong with the philosophy behind a lot of mainstream MMOs today. You can't "put" different kinds of PvP into a game, you can only remove player freedom and give it back in small doses while misrepresenting them as features. It's an effrontery, and for that matter an affront to the very notion of a purported "freedom based" sandbox game to try and entice people with such made up ideas and trick them into thinking they've been given all these awesome options.

"Oh my, Game X has 50 types of PvP! It must be HARDCORE. What's this, Mortal Online... it only has one kind? 'full PvP'? Wow, just the one? How carebear!"

When PvP is done right, it's not even worth mentioning on the feature list because you simply did nothing with it. When you swing your weapon and it makes contact with anything, it deals damage. Period.

I love Surly's rants. They are always a good read, and often like in this case spot on.

[Jangang]

Originally Posted by Visage

If we are going to apply real world rulesets to a virtual game, we need to look at how a society functions. Your sword and armor have to be made by someone, food, horses blah blah blah were all provided by people who did not engage in "pvp" . Because you only had one death, people were much less likely to attack someone else unless there was a payoff. People didn't ride around killing randomly, and if you killed someone in a town, the town would police itself and you might end up hanging from a tree branch.

You cannot have a world that functions if it is just a bunch of assholes running around killing each other over and over again, but we all play for the thrill of killing the other guy, so how do you make pvp happen?

1 It is ridiculous for one player to have 100 times the health and damage of another. While leveling is the yardstick by how you measure your charactors development, it is stupid to make a level 50 person invulnerable from the level 10 person. It didn't happen in real life and it shouldn't happen in a game. Somehow there needs to be a mechanic for equalizing higher and lower level players, forcing the choice of "should I gank this guy or not"?

2 Like I said before, random serial killing did not happen. There was a purpose to killing someone, say in the process of stealing. Therefore make it worthwhile to attack someone by being able to gain something from them. I think MMOs actually have it backwards, the higher level toons should be more worried than the lower ones, since the higher levels have better armor and weapons and gold that the lowbies want.

Killing should have a purpose, the purpose might be as simple as wanting the area to hunt in, but there should be a risk to every encounter regardless of the difference in charactor levels.

Without discounting anyything you've said, it should be noted that this is a GAME. Sometimes the "purpose" is simply to enjoy yourself. (Again, it being a game and all.) Fighting another person is fun, and doing it in a setting without preset rules, and arbitrary conditions is that much more fun. (Even when you are the 'victim'.)

[TehPenguin]

Originally Posted by Jangang

Without discounting anyything you've said, it should be noted that this is a GAME. Sometimes the "purpose" is simply to enjoy yourself. (Again, it being a game and all.) Fighting another person is fun, and doing it in a setting without preset rules, and arbitrary conditions is that much more fun. (Even when you are the 'victim'.)

QFT. Exactly its a game and games are suppose to be a freedom away from rl not a constraint on what you want to do. I remember in UO or anyother free pvp world/game I had fun being the "victim" especially when you turn the tables on the would be gankers, or if I died I would gather up a group of buddies and hunt him down take his recall rune to his house, then we would wait for him there and gank him(if he had his key on him we would loot his house too :P miss looting so much).
And then he would be "omg ownage", after that it would be full fledged guild war, KOS, or we would have a new friend :P, dang I miss the good ole days.