The state of PvP in games today.

[1998altima]

Discuss what you think about how current games implement PvP. Is it good? Is it bad? Discuss.

[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.

[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

[1998altima]

Originally Posted by Sperg

Most of the games today allow gankfests and repeated lowbie ganking with no reprecussion what so ever...

That about sums it up for what PvP is nowadays.

[Geo]

All we ask for is world pvp. World pvp. With some consequence. Consequence.

[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).

[Metal Wolf]

Any PvP is good but great PvP comes from having purpose or need. And that purpose is what is lacking in all the current offerings save SB.

[willwh]

Originally Posted by Metal Wolf

Any PvP is good but great PvP comes from having purpose or need. And that purpose is what is lacking in all the current offerings save SB.

DaoC, although it has been out for a while, is still rockin!

[Aragoni]

PvP nowadays suck. Except maybe in EVE but the rest... ew....

[Ludo]

I don't really find the pvp that bad - it's often the game's personal skill requirement that totally pisses me off.

[Scottc]

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

The problem with this is that the games you've been playing are totally level based. You wouldn't even have to complain if we were talking about a game that was based on player skill instead of level and equipment.

[Aragon]

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 pretty much sums it up.

[Sperg]

Originally Posted by Scottc

The problem with this is that the games you've been playing are totally level based. You wouldn't even have to complain if we were talking about a game that was based on player skill instead of level and equipment.

This is true, unfortunately this is the only thing we have to base from.

[Aragon]

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

Games that have skills instead of levels turns out alot different then the level-ones. Skill-based games give the newbies "more" of a chance against veterans.

Edit: As long as the game isnt item-based will say!

[Scottc]

Originally Posted by Sperg

This is true, unfortunately this is the only thing we have to base from.

There have been games out that have no levels and are based on player skill as well as hybrids where player level only makes a slight difference, Face of Mankind and Asheron's Call for example. FoM had no levels and you didn't have to worry about getting ganked by people who had better items than you, but rather by people who were more skilled than you. You could fight them and actually have a chance.

[Jangang]

PvP is unfortunately more often then not an afterthought. Something thrown in at the last minute to try and capture the PvP crowds monies, though not willing to give them what they want.

I no longer play your ordinary every day MMO. I'd rather read, or twiddle my thumbs then play these "games". When and only when a game that has the features I want is released will I return to MMO gaming.

I've been waiting for DF for quite a while now, but its always nice to see another join the ranks. I hope Mortal Online lives up to what I expect out of a game.

[koragashi]

Perhaps a 'pvp' server and a 'pve' server ? I just pray we dont need to live off potions ... gah.. i cant stand games where can just keep chugging down heal / mana potions. I'd prefer other means , minor heals , mending wounds , foraging medicines , sitting an resting to replenish even. (sorry if thats a lil off topic lol )

[Pixelz]

PvP in MMOs have a couple of different faces:

1. Score based pvp where all you get is points for killing other players. This includes WoW, GW and most other pve-focused games.

2. Gankfest PvP where there's no real goal but you can run around and kill most people just for the heck of it. This it how UO was back in the day and even today with some arbitrary faction system where you get to control towns that doesn't offer any real benefit. I'd say daoc also falls under this category. No real benefit.

3. World PvP. This includes games like shadowbane, and, that's pretty much it. I know shadowbane has a lot of problems but this is the one thing that's good about that game. The whole game is centered around city building & conquering. Everything can be destroyed, everyone can be killed, no exceptions. If you siege a city, you get to keep the buildings that are there, and those buildings offer real value to the people who control them. Don't like a guild? You can remove them from the map. Literally.

I'll ask the devs to think long and hard about what kind of PvP they want for their game.

[Urielx]

Originally Posted by Pixelz

PvP in MMOs have a couple of different faces:

1. Score based pvp where all you get is points for killing other players. This includes WoW, GW and most other pve-focused games.

2. Gankfest PvP where there's no real goal but you can run around and kill most people just for the heck of it. This it how UO was back in the day and even today with some arbitrary faction system where you get to control towns that doesn't offer any real benefit. I'd say daoc also falls under this category. No real benefit.

3. World PvP. This includes games like shadowbane, and, that's pretty much it. I know shadowbane has a lot of problems but this is the one thing that's good about that game. The whole game is centered around city building & conquering. Everything can be destroyed, everyone can be killed, no exceptions. If you siege a city, you get to keep the buildings that are there, and those buildings offer real value to the people who control them. Don't like a guild? You can remove them from the map. Literally.

I'll ask the devs to think long and hard about what kind of PvP they want for their game.

Did you and I play the same UO? Cause what more of a point could you ask for in PvP then to kill your opponent, take his stuff, kill his horse, and loot his house?

[Sperg]

Originally Posted by Urielx

Did you and I play the same UO? Cause what more of a point could you ask for in PvP then to kill your opponent, take his stuff, kill his horse, and loot his house?

You just made a tear well up in me eye!

[mutantmagnet]

You have a good perspective on the current landscape Pixelz.

To add to that I would say one has to consider the dynamics of how people want to play their game.

I think the current state of pvp is good for those who are being catered to.

Every gamer pvps in one form or another but each gamer has different tastes on how pvp should work.

People used to be happy about WoW pvp because it was world pvp. This changed when Blizzard started funneling pvp into BGs and eventually arenas. Now Blizzard has the Sunwell zone which is designed to bring back some of that world pvp flavor but they have a long way to go to undo that damage.

People used to be happy with Eve Online's pvp when Battleships were the big ships, money was less rare and the focus of combat was small gangs. Now the game has changed where people complain about Capitol ships being the be all end all to do anything because of their greater logistics power and their ability to put a dent in player owned starbases, and the focus has been shifted away from individual pilots and small gangs to fleets. People also dissatisfied because overtime the number of fights where

Now even though there are people unhappy with how these games evolved there are those who are just as happy with how much the game has changed.

People hated world pvp because they wanted to travel elsewhere and do their quests without intereference by the carnage caused by the factional warfare. Also there were more frequent gankings of lower level players by higher level players and the near dominance of raiders in gear most people couldn't overcome with their skill.
People liked eve as it wa before but they love the idea of getting into huge fleet battles and they love the idea of capitol ships, etc.

I don't want this post to get too long but I will say there are other playstyles being catered to out there.

[Pixelz]

Originally Posted by Urielx

Did you and I play the same UO? Cause what more of a point could you ask for in PvP then to kill your opponent, take his stuff, kill his horse, and loot his house?

If the only incentive for pvp is being able to loot people it gets pretty old after a while. Killing his horse? No benefit in that. As for looting houses, you'd have to be pretty lucky to kill someone running around with his house keys in his inventory. I basically want the same thing as you though, but on a larger scale. I want to kill my opponents, take their stuff, siege their towns, take over their buildings & see them lose their guild tags in the process.

Originally Posted by mutantmagnet

there are other playstyles being catered to out there.

The problem is that almost all of the games out there fall into one of the first two categories I listed. I want more then one game (or possibly two if the forbidden vapor game ever gets released) in that last category.

Perhaps "World PvP" wasn't a very good way to describe category #3 as it's nothing like WoW "World PvP". "Land control" or "Player city siege PvP" might be better.

[mutantmagnet]

That's actually my fault. I knew what you were saying when you stated World pvp and shadowbane. I'm just used to calling pvp pre BG world pvp in WoW so it was up to me to use a different colloquialism.

World pvp in WoW could be catagorized as incidental pvp. Afterall a lot of pvping occured back then because players were on there way to other objectives. Once they saw the other faction they would fight them because they were there at the time.

[Ansgar]

build the game around PvP instead of throwing it in as an afterthought...the rest will fall into place

[Loadafreak]

current mmo pvp is your numbers vs your enemies numbers as both of you press buttons with eachother conviently auto-targeted; pressing your buttons in an order that has been proven to be the most effective way to deal with whatever class your enemy is. Combinations that you probably read of some website that other people figured out for you.

It isn't skill so much as it is gear/luck/knowledge of the game.

[Urielx]

Originally Posted by Pixelz

If the only incentive for pvp is being able to loot people it gets pretty old after a while. Killing his horse? No benefit in that. As for looting houses, you'd have to be pretty lucky to kill someone running around with his house keys in his inventory. I basically want the same thing as you though, but on a larger scale. I want to kill my opponents, take their stuff, siege their towns, take over their buildings & see them lose their guild tags in the process.

I'm not saying looting as the only incentive... But looting people never gets old! Hell half of the fun in UO was killing people just to see what kind of random junk they were carrying around.

Killing the guys horse definately had benefits to it, it was good for the economy. Having to buy another horse = less free floating money in the world. Not to mention it was like that 1 extra little kick in the teeth.

Whether you want to admit it or not, a large driving force of a PvP guild is generally ego ( in an open PvP game ). You wanna talk smack? You better be able to back it up or we're gonna come ruin your night.... AND kill your damn horse!

[Morbis]

*sigh* pvp?? Whats that? I forgot... Its bin so long since a game has had real pvp. Pre 97 UO was by far my fav pvp game to date.
I think the state of pvp in games now days is in a very bad state. It seems game makers favor heavy to the "care bears" of today.

I miss the heart pounding pvp when there were 3 peps chasing me down running for my life with my katana of vanq I just got off a dragon. Or the fun I had is I stole some poor bastards boat key and was sailing off with it, laughing as I filled my pockets with loot in the hold. Or sneaking into a persons house as they opened the door.
Haha or the MASS pvp that would happend as a keep was about to fall. Ahhhhh the good ole days.

This game looks great! I cant wait too see more.
I long for a REAL pvp game. I hope I found it!

[Dagger]

I've never been a fan of Rock-Paper-Scissor PvP systems, where you rely on group PvP in order to see a balanced fight, and even then there will be counter setups to your group.

I've never been a fan of healer classes either, and I think that item or support based healing systems is the way to go. Being healed during a fight is made for PvE fights, but can be insanely imbalanced in group PvP. I don't have much of a fun experience playing healer classes in solo PvP either, and they always end up whining for more damage skills on forums due to not being viable and only dying when they're alone.

I think HitPoints matter a lot. With a nice base amount of HP and no hidden backup healers, luck will be more left out of the fighting grounds since fights can last a longer timespan. An MMO fight shouldn't end with a single headshot as in most FPS games either. A headshot should just be like a critical strike, doing double damage or so, while glancing shots only do partial damage.

The simplest games have the most exciting PvP. Few classes and not much buffing or health potion availability around. With few classes it will be easy to balance unforeseen dirty tricks versus certain other classes, and you won't get caught up in a Rock-Paper-Scissors game.