| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (32)

Posted: May 30th 2010 8:07AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would like that there be different flavors of pvp in every online game, so everyone can be happy, but it seems game developers side servers on just PVP or no PVP. Currently I'm happy with Eve Online's Player vs. Player dynamic.

Posted: May 30th 2010 8:08AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Earthrise shall save us from carebeardom!

Posted: May 30th 2010 8:26AM GenericPerson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While I'm not a fan of the you die you lose everything mentality. But what I wish to see more of is a PvP system where you have a reason to fight. As of right now the Mythic RvR system is the best (sadly). Don't get me wrong, there are a few games that allow some sort of possession to players/guilds but I feel that Mythic has it right now.

I'm almost surprised some Chinese/Korean game house has ripped off the idea and put it in one of their games.

Posted: May 30th 2010 8:36AM Matix said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Old PVP systems rewarded people in gangs of players with no lives that killed anything and everything that moved. It had no redeeming story value and the consequences of dying after just starting your character was such that you were permanently gimped from being able to play and make headway in the game.

Long story short there's no "fun" or "excitement" for a new player to die and lose all their starting money/gear before their toon has even fully loaded in the game world.


"Fair" is a loaded, subjective word people use to hide biases and prejudices behind as to avoid having to defend them.

An equitable death penalty would be one with a balanced work+loss /to/ reward ratio that still encourages people to play.

WOW's PVP system works well in that players compete for scant amounts of honor and, in turn, no one is so grossly doused by a death that people keep coming back to play. People don't avoid PVP, they go to BGs, etc. for it.

Now, were a game to do what SWG originally intended--Jedi being unlock-able characters that could waste 15 people alone and that would be permanently dead if killed--but that allowed the special character to level faster than regular players, that would be equitable as the amount of reward would be high enough and the amount of work low enough to make the risk balanced to the reward.


In summary, what's "fair" is going to depend on what the player puts into the character, what the player has to GAIN from killing other characters (extra power, loot, etc.), and whether work+loss /to/ reward is balanced out.

Posted: May 30th 2010 8:42AM archipelagos said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I see no problem with the status quo as there are games catering for both consential and non-consential PvP. If it was just one or the other there'd be an issue but that's not the case. I suppose the current situation doesn't appeal to those who would rather every single MMO released henceforth was one singular play-type and everyone had to just suck it up if they didn't like it.

Thankfully, that's a mindset that most don't share.

Posted: May 30th 2010 9:01AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Darkfall was some of the best PvP i've ever played, not only because you felt completely invested in the combat (unless you ran around naked firing mana missile all the time), but also because i belonged to a clan that was at war with many other clans of the same race, which meant i couldn't cross the street without looking over my shoulder constantly. while this meant an exciting environment, it also meant a very paranoid player, which ended up not being much fun at all. it was the harshest environment in which i'd ever played, though, and there is much fun to be had in that kind of gameplay if you're up to the challenge.

Posted: May 30th 2010 9:06AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Now I like to PvP ... and that is the key defining phrase - player vs player or player AGAINST player...so how drill down and define it further?

Here is a question to consider - Is gang raping a newbie actually player against player?

Here is the problem - open, no consequence PvP drives off the bulk of the MMO crowd. You could argue that but all we really need to do is point to Darkfall and other games with this feature which are predominately small in subscriber base.

Full loot - here is the real issue - if you take all of a dudes stuff you effectively remove him from PvP and the fight for duration however long that might be for that individual.So is that really a feature of player against player? It would seem to me it more a method to deter PvP...Hmmmm maybe I guess, it depends.

IMHO, it makes players reluctant to engage in PvP.

To much risk is as bad as to little.

To little and you basically have Counter Strike, bobbing around and instant respawns...
But then the game needs to be built around a meaningful consequence that doesn't take away from the actual Player against Player combat. If I'm too worried about losing my stuff to fight or not use it...then the focus is no longer player against player but avoidance and ensuring victory through overwhelming certainty.

The advantage in an open PvP environment is it does build strong communities within the game. It is usually absolutely necessary. Again this tends to go against the majority of the market which typically crying for soloing because they don't want to group for whatever reasons. Essentially wanting community-less mmo's.

So you can easily see where the market goes.

There are pros and cons to both extremes but IMHO, I don't think either one is any good really.

To harsh is no fun, to easy is no fun, plain and simple.

Posted: May 30th 2010 9:22AM Alex Oglitchkin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"The advantage in an open PvP environment is it does build strong communities within the game. It is usually absolutely necessary. Again this tends to go against the majority of the market which typically crying for soloing because they don't want to group for whatever reasons. Essentially wanting community-less mmo's."

That statement is only truly when it comes to attacking or defending a certain thing as a group. Other than that you are back to enemies later on rare spawns and badmouthing each other over stupid stuff. Seen this happen in many of MMOs.

If they truly wanted to get more casuals into pvping they would implement some crazy systems where you can't pvp anyone higher or lower than "x" level. The rewards of winning highly outweigh the loss. But stuff like that won't happen and thankfully for them some games offer PVE servers with minimal PVP to satisfy them.

Here is the biggest fact of all.......... PVP will NEVER be balanced 1v1 of different classes.
Reply

Posted: May 30th 2010 9:47AM Pingles said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
As a hardcore care bear :) I do wish PvE games had more hardcore PvP in them. I liked Dark Age of Camelots system of having specific zones define the level of PvP.

There were safe zones where there were plenty of guards looking out for enemy players and then PvP zones where your rewards were increased but you ran the risk of being hunted by players.

The thrill of being in a PvP zone is unmatched, even for a care bear like myself. But for me there needs to be a place I can go in-game where I can XP in peace, too.

Posted: May 30th 2010 10:06AM Bhima said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Its safe to say that the MMO gaming community at large has already voiced their opinion just based off of subscription numbers. Lets see... games that punish you severely like EVE or Darkfall have probably under 200,000 players combined. WoW has over 11 million. Taking all personal stories aside, I actually think this debate has already been ended by the choices players have already made.

Do I think there is a market for the punishing style of pvp from games like Darkfall? Sure there is, but its a small niche market. I personally like to pvp in a similar fashion to FPS games or fighting games with the added complexity of gear, different classes and some sort of reward. I also think that open world pvp is great because of the added danger, but it should also only be limited to the hardcore players as well.

Posted: May 30th 2010 10:46AM Firebreak said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I have to argue your number and conclusion from them. WoW is an outlier in the clearest sense. No other US game can get close to those numbers that WoW talks about, at best they are getting 300 - 400,000. These are the numbers for the other successful mmo's such as EQ and EQ2 and the like. These leads to my second point that EVE has 300,000 subs and is growing every year which is unheard of in mmo's even for WoW. Plus you are leaving out games such as Lineage and Lineage 2 which have brutal PVP systems that have millions of subscribers, just few in the US.

All I am really saying is be careful when drawing conclusions from numbers they are often misleading.
Reply

Posted: May 30th 2010 11:25AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You do know that Eve has a 300k subscriber base on its own right and darkfall is somehwere around 50k I heard a respectable number in todays market with so many MMO's and F2P games.

Eve's PVP is just about right as you get the 1v1's and the groups going against each other in null security space but you still have spots for the PVE's in low security and high security space.

With loot drops but the pk'ed players still respawning the PVP system would be just about perfect IMO if they took away insurance payments to gankers who get blown up by the games concord security after they kill players in high security space and steal their stuff.
Reply

Posted: May 30th 2010 1:53PM kasapina said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Back when runescape removed the hardcore wilderness, people were really angry and a lot of them quit. So, people enjoy hardcore pvp, as long as you can "turn it off". Basically, the wilderness was a big area where you were allowed to fight anyone within a certain level range (the deeper you went, the lighter that limitations became), and when you kill someone, they retain between 0 and 4 of their items, depending on a a few things, but usually 1, and you get all the stuff they drop (possibly losing it as you try to make your way back to the pvp free zones). So, penalizing pvp is really appreciated by players, especially if the reward is big and it can be toggled on or off.
Reply

Posted: May 30th 2010 1:55PM kasapina said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oops, meant to say hardcore pvp in the last sentence.
Reply

Posted: May 30th 2010 10:16AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
A game needs to be designed around its PvP system, not the other way around. If you design the game with PvP as an afterthought, whatever PvP you introduce will just be a distraction on the side rather than a full game in itself.

Full-loot or permadeath PvP is incompatible with a level-grind system. It just turns into a race to level cap to be granted auto-win. New players are heavily discouraged from playing unless they like the "King of the hill" mentality, and frankly, that's a terrible mentality for fostering the kind of supportive community an MMO needs to survive.

Ganking will always be the biggest problem with PvP, I think. There will always be a group of players who play MMOs simply to emulate modern warfare with a legal god-mode code on, and there will always be players who rightfully feel that being made to fight impossible battles from dawn to dusk is simply uninteresting. Making PvP accessible and fair for all players at least removes the barriers for entry, and prevents one-sided fights that drive away new players before they can start.

-SirNiko

Posted: May 30th 2010 10:26AM Saker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree with some of the commentators above

"I would like that there be different flavors of pvp in every online game, so everyone can be happy". I think this is a very obvious and sensible approach, there's no particular reason there can't be some kind of spectrum available, differing levels of PvP in different game areas, for some reason "developers" haven't tried implementing any such systems.

"Old PVP systems rewarded people in gangs of players with no lives that killed anything and everything that moved. It had no redeeming story value and the consequences of dying after just starting your character was such that you were permanently gimped from being able to play and make headway in the game.

Long story short there's no "fun" or "excitement" for a new player to die and lose all their starting money/gear before their toon has even fully loaded in the game world." I couldn't agree more, I remember this going on early Ultima Online and it was what turned me off completely to a game that otherwise I would have easily loved.

Posted: May 30th 2010 10:43AM Averice said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ the comments of "developers should just introduce a myriad of different server types and none of them have touched on it", I know Blizzard at least has explained why they haven't. It was something about how so many different iterations of the same game just wouldn't work, it would detract from the cohesive whole that is the game itself. If every server is different, then there isn't really any game wide community. The exact quote is probably lost to time since it was used over 5 years ago during the WoW beta, but that's the gist of it from what I remember.

Posted: May 30th 2010 11:01AM Muddleglum said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
EQ had different PvP server types back in the day. Why can't they do it in games today?
You had a FFA server, Racial Teams servers, and then finally an allignment based Good vs. Nuetral vs. Evil 3 way.
Alternative server types are the answer.

Posted: May 30th 2010 11:03AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well I hate to say that Runescape got this one right. You had to travel to a large zone in the world for open world PVP and if you died you lost all the items on you besides the three most valuable items. You could also keep things in a bank for safe keeping. Along with there open system they introduced a system like Battlegrounds and Arenas were you lost nothing from dying. Perfect balance IMO. Not a harsh system but not forgiving either.

Posted: May 30th 2010 11:10AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I think people get the wrong idea from Darkfall. The game isn't fail because it's so cutthroat and punishing. You don't lose gear you spent weeks grinding because that's not how you get gear Losing gear isn't a big deal. What makes Darkfall so fail is its crap graphics, clunky animation and holier-than-thou player base. If a game could use that system, where you don't grind out expensive gear, and do it better than Aventurine then I think that would be a game that would catch on better than EvE or Darkfall.

What I'd like to see more of is permadeath in BG style matches, similar to TF2's Arena rules. You die, you're out of the match for the remainder.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW