Seein' Red - Now THAT'S PvP
Aug 26, 2008 18:52:32
Submitted by Brent on Aug 26, 2008 18:52:32 CST (comments: 28)
Aug 26, 2008 18:52:32
 "Realm vs Realm PvP combat. If you've killed enough rats today, you can participate in an exciting PvP game that I like to call "Chase the guy with the red name". It doesn't matter what the objectives are, or who that guy is. If he has a red name, chase him down and hit him in the back until he drops dead. And don't worry, there are no consequence to these battles - you'll spawn right back in." - Brent on Virgin Worlds By now, probably half the internet has already read the quote above. I say half because, based on some of the comments I have seen, there must be at least half that never bothered to read the entire article. I am sure there are quite a few people who never got past the italicized words "It isn't fun" two paragraphs above in Brent's article about Warhammer Online. Now, I will admit to being a fan of Warhammer since long before anyone even thought of putting "online" after the first word; but I am far from being a fangirl. Anyone who knows my work, whether in writing or audio, knows I am not a "fangirl" of anyone - I may call Rob Pardo "The Man" but I don't mind blasting his company when I feel they deserve it. "Where is all this going?" you might ask yourself. There is an old Zero Mostel movie (and play) the title of which now has a whole other meaning - "A funny thing happened on the way to the forum". In this case the funny thing is I found myself agreeing with Brent, at least about the above paragraph. After it was my pleasure to be on the last episode of "Shut Up We're Talking" I thought about my beta experiences over the last weekend (Preview Weekend). I went back and re-read Brent's article, and as much I enjoy good pvp I found myself saying "my god he's right." Warhammer isn't good pvp. Now keep in mind there are different types of pvp. There is the open world, pvp server type, with roving gangs of gankers just waiting for an unsuspecting low level character to set one toe inside Stranglethorn Veil, and for the record that isn't good pvp either. There is the arena competition in WoW that Blizzard seems desperately bent on turning into an "E-sport", despite the fact the attempt has already failed in a grand way. There is the pvp where players in Eastern Plaguelands are supposed to try and take a tower for the purpose of obtaining a meaningless buff that no one even cares about - not only is that not good pvp, that's not even pvp. There battlegrounds, such as those in WoW, where twinked players hurl themselves at each other for endless hours - or at least they used to before Blizzard put in things like "the game is over when the other side has had players die 500 times." Why is this important? Because Brent is right, there are no consequences for death in Warhammer Online. Not only are there no consequences, but when you die it even says "Don't worry, it's all part of the game." Now this might not seem important but consider what happens without consequences. Before death had a consequence in Alterac Valley battleground in WoW I have been in battles that have stretched on for six hours. By the end of the battle some players were pleading for one side to let the other side win. Now that dieing in Alterac Valley pvp does have some consequence, it's surprising just how fast those battles go by. Over the years I have been involved in pvp/mmos that have had varying consequences. Back in Ultima Online (before the advent of being able to "insure" your items) dieing meant there was a very real possibility that you could lose everything in your bags. Going forward a bit in my gaming experience, dieing in Everquest 1 meant you lost a whole whopping amount of experience. Dieing in PvP in World of Warcraft used to be of no more consequence then running back to the battle front (which epic mounts made even less of a nuisance that is originally was). Then came the day that I began to play Eve Online and eventually joined a corporation (read "guild" for those who have never played Eve Online). Once I got some skills under my belt, and some isk (in game currency) in my account I ventured out in to low security space with the rest of my corporation. Ah Eve online...now THAT'S pvp. In low security space no one can hear you scream as another player blows your multi-million isk ship out from under you. Some of you who have played Eve might say "oh yes but you can insure the ship". The answer is "not fully and never for the cost of the hideously expensive ships fittings". The fact of the matter is that death in Eve Online pvp has some very serious consequences; including the possibility of permanent character deletion. Now I am sure it is a rare occurrence because you can buy a "clone" of your character - a duplicate, if you will. If one character gets killed you begin playing the duplicate. But should you ever forget to buy a clone you would lose your character; as in gone, poof, deleted, roll over and start from day one. Even should you forget to "upgrade" your clone there is the very real possibility of loosing real world months of training time. Now that's real, white knuckled, exciting pvp. See you online, - Julie Whitefeather |
Submitted by Brent on Aug 26, 2008 18:52:32 CST (comments: 28)
Comments:
'clones' by Brent
Submitted on 2008-08-26 19:01:40 CST
Slight correction, I think. I've never forgot to buy a clone in EVE, but I believe if one did, you'd only lose a certain amount of skill points, not the entire character. Regardless, the ISK loss in EVE is a good example of these consequences I speak of. I think it goes deeper to a coupling between the lack of consequences and the lack of required skill in battle that makes it particularly random and pointless, but that's a whole 'nother column.
'What are you fighting for' by Julie
Submitted on 2008-08-26 19:14:20 CST
In Eve Online there was never any doubt what we were fighting for: our corporation was one of those that was the victim of "corporate espionage" and subsequently a former guild officer who stole an extremely expensive ship (tech 2 I think). After the corporate wars started no where was safe. And THAT is consequences. In the end, however, I guess I wasn't woman enough to handle it. After suffering the consequences a number fo times (and going broke doing it) I had finally had enough. But while it last it was some of the most tension building, exciting pvp I have ever experienced.
As to clones - could be - not having a clone was one of those things that I decided to never risk finding out. Having spent so many months on training upgrading my clone was almost like a religion in itself.
'consequence vs fun' by rocknerd
Submitted on 2008-08-26 19:42:59 CST
i have not played WAR yet. but lets talk consequence a bit. i remember my early days of MMOs, im not one of the most hardcore MMO gamers that played MUDDs or even EQ1 or UO. i came in around DAoC and AO. i remember my experiences with DAoC left me wanting more fun and less responsibility. i dont remember exactly what the death penalty was in DAoC (im sure it was more than enough of a smack on the wrist for me, im puny like that) and im not a PvP fan EVER, so i didnt play any RvR there. but i remember the thing that killed my experience was the down time between fights. do you guys remember? that was the icing on the cake or the pabst pounder in my hand whichever you prefer, but i'd love a pabst. anyways. when WoW came out i remember how fast it felt it almost felt wrong or i felt guilty that i was spending more time playing, fighting, looting, killing than waiting for my health bars to fill. i eventually came to love WoW for the things i disliked about DAoC. and now i hate the certain things in WoW (most of it now) that LotRO and AoC have kinda put a bandaid on. now i KNOW your talking PvP consequences, but the core of this discussion IS the "C" word. what if warhammer is doing this to cut down on downtime and elements of past MMOs that may have felt like more responsibility than fun. i know when it comes to being a hardcore MMO'er im not. i like flowers, ponies and dances with noobs. (in fact thats my indian name). but its worth a 2nd look. how long did it take for WoW to make sense to you on a second nature level? all GREAT things are an acquired taste to me. albums, movies, shows etc... and i have found that every MMO i play doesnt "hit" me until a few months down the road. maybe its just my personal experience with games or maybe its something guttural we all feel...
'It's just a matter of taste' by BiggDawg98
Submitted on 2008-08-26 21:17:15 CST
I agree that at times MMO PvP is like Brent describes, but other times I find it engrossing. I guess in the end it just comes down to personal taste, there are no absolutes in entertainment. Good vs bad PvP is subjective, it really comes down to what you find fun.
Personally I found WAR really fun, but that is just me, if someone else doesn't find it fun, thats perfectly fine. For example a couple of my friends are really into EVE, but I just can't get into the game, I think it's an awesome game and can appreciate it but it isn't for me. There is nothing wrong with people who do like it from my point of view, I just can't get into it.
I think the issue around WAR has really highlighted an underlying need in the general gaming community to have whatever they like be the thing that everyone likes (really more of a larger social popularity issue that is rampant especially in the US). People want to be part of the "In crowd" so they want their MMO to be seen as the coolest. I think this is why you get some of the ridiculous reactions to these topics that we do. It seems like people feel that anything negative someone says about their favorite MMO is also referring to themselves personally. Because if there is something wrong with your MMO there is something wrong with you. Now I don't think this is necessarily a conscious decision people are making, but something that is going on in the background. Also this is just my observation and I have no scientific study to back it up.
Anyways I guess the main point is people should just worry about having fun at whatever they enjoy as opposed to freaking out if someone else doesn't like it or thinks differently. I would expect these kinds of reactions in a political discussion, but then again maybe MMO's will become the internet version of nations?
'Consequences' by PeZzy
Submitted on 2008-08-26 21:58:44 CST
When you plan to put consequences into PvP, you have to make sure you don't scare off subscribers. Mythic isn't planning for EvE's subscription numbers. In a game that thrives on PvP, the last thing you want to do is add crazy things like losing your stuff. Like we need another Shadowbane.
'...' by Heartless
Submitted on 2008-08-26 22:06:59 CST
Its not that I don't agree with you, but I think throwing in the EVE example is an extreme. Having played EVE during one of the largest, game-wide scrums, I can attest to some intense PvP action. Most of it spent in the middle of a one hundred person blob because it was pointless to venture outside of it. Neither I, my corp, or our alliance could survive much more loss than we already had and we still ended up losing the games first Titan.
EVE is a game better talked about than played. The PvP is so risk-centric that it directly reflects in the actions of players. Blobs, gate ganks, pirates, exploiters, etc. No one in EVE fights fair. No one wants to fight fair because there is too much to lose. The only person that is going to get podded without a clone is someone who doesn't know better, aka the newer players.
EVE completely fooled me for six months. Then I suddenly realized the whole risk-centric idea of 0.0 was about as much fun as my real life. I was spending three hours a night flying around our little chunk of space for two minutes of fun. And guess what, that two minutes could make or break a week worth of play time.
Yes, that is impact PvP. Yes, it raises the hair on the back of my neck. Yes, it made me quit the game. Yes, that is exactly why CCP has been adding faction PvP that is fire and forget.
I log into WAR. I queue for a scenario. I am in within a few minutes. Dieing isn't going to set me back a week, but that death could lose the scenario. That scenario loss could push the zone out of our control. That could mean an assault opening on my capital city. Death is not inconsequential, but it DOES NOT PUNISH THE PLAYER DIRECTLY. It is a system of encouragement to the player to keep on trying.
That is good PvP without the blood pressure medicine.
'Thanks' by telstar
Submitted on 2008-08-27 01:00:04 CST
Thanks Julie!
You got me all pumped up to play Warhammer after listening to you on the Shut up we're talking podcast. Your thoughts about no consequences for dying in pvp is a real positive selling point for me concerning Warhammer. I played EVE for a while but never got to any good pvp - maybe I didn't get far enough into the game.
I don't have the time for consequences. It's a game - it shouldn't be a devestation if you die in a game. In this regard, I hope Warhammer is like 99% of the mmo's out there.
'yup' by rocknerd
Submitted on 2008-08-27 01:01:25 CST
yeah, i think the point with WAR is theres SO MUCH "W-A-R" that if you were penalized every time you were killed by a player you would never reach lv 3. this makes more people play PvP especially people like me that are wussies. i never play PvP this might be the first game that gets me playing PvP that i will enjoy.
'Opposites attract...or even match!' by pantognost
Submitted on 2008-08-27 02:30:40 CST
Here we have a perfect example of the old ahem...retort...Opinions are not on an axis, they are on a circle. As you move further apart you are destined to meet.
Julie is, I think, a hardcore pvper. "You are stereotyping" you may say. Well not quite.
Anyone who ties fun pvp with the consequence for dying is a hardcore pvper. She or He is constantly participating in a game where the stakes are high and the adrenaline rushes not because you are having fun but because you are having fear (remember heart rate increases not only with sex but with torture also) . The thing is, fear can be induced much more effectively from imminent loss than excitement from pleasureable audiovisual stimulus can be induced by a non-immersive mean such as a monitor some inches away and a surround sound system. Thus adrenaline rushes more effectively from fear than from fun in this environment. So this pvper thinks that pvp non-tied to the imminent loss fear stimulus is no fun because she or he is addicted to that kind of pvp. He or She does not care for the actual mechanics of the battle, nor cares about the positive consequence of winning (loot, fame etc.). She or he just wants the fix!
There is that other crowd also that wants to rub it in! And what better way to do that than know that on the other end of the keyboard there is someone genuinely upset person because he lost something he cared about! But I am giving the benefit of the doubt here.
Hence the term hardcore pvper. Still with me? No? Ok for the rest of you then.
On the other hand we have Brent. As I read in his bio, a seasoned IT professional having played tons of MMOs and having designed at least one ( I think). He cares about innovative design, fun new ideas and revolutionary concepts instead of doing the "tried and true" one better.
I dare call him a hardcore designer-MMO player.
Both of them agree that WAR is a bland half-baked experience not worth their time. Why?
Because they are both...you guessed it...hardcore!
Well my opinion is that WAR deliberately is trying to be a non-hardcore, casual friendly mainstream experience. So casual friendly that pvp is inconsequential on the loser and only giving bragging rights and rewards on the winner. So no fix for the hard core pvper.
Also It is so mainstream that it does not depart from the concepts and ideas that made the dominant player in this market...dominant. So no super clever lightbulb eureka moment for the hardcore designer-MMO player.
Why am I writing this you might ask? Well first of all there is the ever existing urge for expression (to somes' dismay). There is also a sentiment of unfairness against that game WAR. It said from the very beginning that it is 80% tried and true and 20% innovation.
It is a good steak and a good wine (to steal a metaphor from an other MMO designer) with just a twist in the seasoning and spices...and it says so! It does not claim to be a gourmet meal totally original in recipe. Going to TGI Fridays and complaining they have no exotic fusion dishes seems a bit unfair to me.
Oh and Brent having founded EQ and constantly praising SOE games makes me a bit prejudiced...
If you read all that you are very persistent.
'...' by Damightytom
Submitted on 2008-08-27 02:52:15 CST
EvE-onlines risk and loss system is awesome, it works,it gives the game depth and make people think.
I can't be ported into a game like WAR, because people don't like loosing gear.
Although, exactly like WoW, Warhammer encourages mindless zerging.
And what effect does mindless zerging have on a game? Well let's compare it to EvE's PvP, it's more political, I can't go out there and kill anyone I please to without consequenses I'm able to, but if i would I'm digging my own grave.
I might get a bounty on my head, I might start a war, I might be tracked and hunted down and loose more than I gained from attacking someone.
In games like WoW and WAR I kill someone from the most powerfull guild on my server and I get an angry tell, ya awesome, I made him angry let's see if I can do it again, and again and again untill his friends shows up and I either get killed or run away and tries again when the advantage is on my side again.
What's the point in that?
Okey you might find it extremely hilarious, but I have this picture in my mind that people that actually find that sort of thing fun, isn't very old, or have issues with his/hers selfesteem.
What is fun though, and this of course is all subjective (because that's what we are going for here right? A diskussion, would be boring if everyone including Brent was actually objective all the time and everyone lived happily in Neverland ranch.)
is the atmosphere in EvE, think before you act, because you might end up losing your own stuff, from a penalty, revenge.
And that's a mixture of not only game mechanics but a big part of the community that formed the ingame politics that NEVER EVER will exist in a game like World of Warhammer.
And this is of course everyone elses opinions and not mine, riight.
Good post Julie!
Thanks
'win or loose' by Sente
Submitted on 2008-08-27 02:59:44 CST
Heartless and pantognost:
Great comments overall. While I have not looked into any detail about Warhammer Online, it sounds by the comments here that Warhammer Online might have a bit more focus on the consequences of winning rather than the consequences of loosing. Which sounds quite fine if one is not interested in living and breathing PvP all the time, but rather dabble with it from time to time.
'On EvE and WAR' by Scott
Submitted on 2008-08-27 03:06:56 CST
In response to consequences in EvE, during my newbie days I was in a corp war attempting to help fight an enemy group of ships flying several jumps within our system. Long story short, I got blown up, quickly raced to grab a new ship, undocked, and flew back out to join the fray, not knowing or thinking any better, and got blown up again. So I can say from experience that #1, you ALWAYS verify your ship is insured before undocking it for PvP, and #2 you always verify you have paid for a new clone after dying... I was penalized and lost 24hrs worth of skill training, that I had to retrain due to dying without a up to date clone that could hold my total skill points. The actual penalty is based on a percentage figure that's subtracted against your total SP if you don't have a clone, but typically ends up being whatever skill you last trained.
As far as WAR goes I'm fairly disapointed in a number of people in the VW community for so easily dismissing WAR's RvR as 'pointless' PvP.
WAR is the type of MMO that isn't meant for solo RvR players, and it's not meant to be judged at rank 10, or even 20 for those that tried it in the preview.
It's built as a max level rank 40 MMO RvR sandbox for players to join and build up their own guilds and engage in these massive battles and territorial fights among each other while building their community reputations and honing their tactics.
There is a death penalty, it's called getting your ass handed to you and losing your keep, or your battleground objective while the enemy takes all the spoils and sends your team all the way back to the spawn. Perhaps your guild had a flag bearer and just lost your guild banner to the enemy as well. Maybe they looted your corpes and got some great high-end loot table drops off them.
If WAR core server PvP was anymore hardcore they would simply lose too much of their customer base over it. As it stands now I've got the stereotypical 'carebear' PvE crafting guys in my guild at this moment that won't stop talking about WAR, how much they've enjoyed it, despite never being crazy about PvP. Sure they won't play on the Open PvP server, but they're complete fine with the Core server ruleset for only flagging in RvR areas. I myself prefer the excitement of always being vulnerable in the open, and the same for my enemies, hence going for a Open ruleset server.
As I said in my impressions, yeah WAR ain't pretty nor perfect. But if you understand what it truly offers you as a player at the endgame and that's something you've been missing for years and the existing MMO market has been ignoring or heading in the totally wrong direction with..
I can't afford to wait another 4-5 years for another MMO to come out and be "perfect" and offer everything I could possibly want. After over 10 years I know that bloody well won't happen, and if I can't enjoy what I have now, I'll be waiting forever.
'Good points' by Julie
Submitted on 2008-08-27 07:44:09 CST
It was said several times in the comments but I think said best by Pantognost: "Well my opinion is that WAR deliberately is trying to be a non-hardcore, casual friendly mainstream experience. So casual friendly that pvp is inconsequential on the loser and only giving bragging rights and rewards on the winner. So no fix for the hard core pvper." As we spoke about in Shut up we're talking perhaps this game has incorporated pve and pvp to a great enough extent to attract pve'rs to pvp and not have to worry about hard core addrenaline junkie pvp'ers (which until I read this Pantognost's comments I must admit I never considered myself for even a moment) like myself.
That said, so no one thinks that this article was written simply to jump to Brent's defense. First what I said was honest. It was an "omg" moment when I re-thought everything.
No temper that all with this. While I am a pvp fan (and this is not saying I am real good at it) I am also a Warhammer (without the online part) fan and I just love the Ironbreakers and the whole grudges system. when the servers go live Fran (my co-host) and I will be playing as a team on the same server.
My biggest concern of all about the game is one that I have repeated many times and will continue to do so. Brents words: "If you want a game to be massive it can't have massive system requirements" Now I don't think that is the case here - yet. But I have also added my own addendum: "And it had BETTER run well on the RECOMMENDED system requirements." I am encouraged that the game ran well up until it got to a busy realm vs. realm battlefield. It wasn't unplayable but the frame rates per second dropped down low enough for me to eventually quit over it - as I did with AoC.
So, yes, I am a 110% behind Mythic on this. I hope they can put it all together by September 18. After all, if you have ever played EQ2 (I have played EQ1 and EQ2) the way the game was at live and the way it is now are like two different games.
So no matter what I may think about the pvp I still am going to give the game a chance to get out of beta.
And yes, I am going to discuss these comments on the next WAAAUGHammer edition of no prisoners, no mercy (thanks for the thought Pantognost especially)
'Some more thoughts...' by Heartless
Submitted on 2008-08-27 08:17:54 CST
Consequence in PvP also depends a lot on the player. A veteran EVE player can make PvP infinitely consequential if they so choose. They can run around in cheap tech 1 frigates all day with insurance and clones, never risking anything other than a few minutes of their time. Or they can run in a tech 2 interceptor only engaging targets that they know have no chance of fighting back, knowing full well they are impossible to catch and kill in that interceptor. Both situations have almost no consequences for the player, but both can result directly in a major punishment for their victims.
In WAR, a player can be one of the "just uses throw away tech 1 frigates" type players that rushes into battle and dies repeatedly. Or they can be a team player, and attempt to tackle the objectives. If they die on an objective, fail to defend it, and the enemy takes it, that is a consequence. However, it isn't a consequence derived from punishment to the player.
Yes, I am saying "no one really gets hurt in WAR", but that is a good sign for PvP in my book. There would be no point in having a massive RvR focused campaign if people were not encouraged to participate.
Also, a side comment on the "rushing to Brent's defense". I still think Brent made a fairly bad argument for his point. If you notice, not many people argue his point, just the way he presented it. Especially in lieu of his nod towards SOE games like The Agency and Free Realms, which have absolutely no consequences for anything, being "next generation". So, if no consequences is a fault with WAR, then how can a "next generation" MMO be a game completely built around zero consequences?
Like I've said before. We all understood Brent's points. He just did a really bad job defending them. If he had posted the whole Seinfeld and pizza/steak analogy, it would be a completely different story.
'Casual PvP is bad' by Damightytom
Submitted on 2008-08-28 04:36:53 CST
Okey, so the terms Casual and Hardcore PvP seems to be about that the Hardcore PvPers want an adrenaline rush.
I have played WoW and battlegrounds, and that is Casual PvP if you look at in terms of not losing anything but time if you die and I can tell you it sucks.
90% of the time there's at least 4/10's of all participants just standing around doing nothing leeching from others hard work.
That's probably whats going to happen in WAR. If they have put in meassures to prevent that, awesome but slackers are one persistant and innovative folk, they always find ways to be able to do as little as possible to gain as much as possible.
On the other hand, when you mention Hardcore PvP, like in EVE, You either participate or you don't... There's no in between because if you slack and drop attention on whatever your doing in for example 0.0 space, you probably will get killed.
And the argument about the Frigate and interceptor, what's the difference between that and any other rogue in an fantasy game. PvP is about winning, picking your fights. In WAR and WoW thats being called a cheater, a coward, an exploiter. While in EVE you are being called cunning and smart, because no one wants to die in EvE, and therefore you do your absolute best to stay 1 step ahead, thinking, planning strategies.
All your saying is that Casual PvP involves not thinking at all, just running in and die while doing your AoE spell, well in my opinion you might aswell just play diablo or any other hack'n'slash, because PvP should be about overcomming your opponents, at disadvantages and when you have an advantage against them.
'Eve' by PeZzy
Submitted on 2008-08-28 10:40:04 CST
TBH, people shouldn't be trying to compare this game to Eve, as heavy consequences in WAR would result in people sticking to PvE and the RvR areas would be almost completely ignored. This is an inclusive game, not an exclusive game. Eve took years to reach a subscriber mark of 200k. WAR would be a complete failure if they had Eve's numbers.
'@ PeZzy' by Julie
Submitted on 2008-08-28 11:40:27 CST
You have a valid point - in fact just this morning we submitted a special edition of "no prisoners, no mercy" called the "special Waaaghammer Edition" to Brent. In it Fran and I discuss this very point. I feel the comparison is valid but so is your point. While i have never thought of myself as a "hard core" pvper until Pantognost mentioned it perhaps that is so.
Julie
'Consequences' by Orkomage
Submitted on 2008-08-28 11:43:14 CST
I feel that WAR does a pretty good job of punishing you when you die, without adding that old and tired method of punishing, ie, losing experience or damage your armor. When you die in pvp you lose time, sometimes a significant amount of time. In scenarios, you sometimes must wait 25 seconds just to respawn, plus there is the run back to the fray. In rvr, if you are defending and you're taken out, you've got to run back there and might get taken out along the route. Meaningful pvp and good pvp = fun pvp. Not pvp that slaps it to you because you got owned. You get owned, you take a timeout, you're back to having fun. You can even listen to the dev interviews, they want to take that crap out so people can do more pvp. Good pvp to me is does it play well, are the classes balanced, can i get into the fray relatively quickly, is some strategy involved, things like that. How hard I'm going to be nailed for dieing, which is going to happen plenty in WAR, is in the con column for me. The time punshment is perfect. FPS's have been using it for years and years, and I doubt anyone could say those are bad pvp games, COD4 anyone?
'@ Orkomage' by Julie
Submitted on 2008-08-28 11:47:47 CST
"You can even listen to the dev interviews, they want to take that crap out so people can do more pvp" - Orkomage
In fact I would love to do just that. I didn't know there were dev interviews to be listened to (not the small video casts on their web site I assume). I would love to talk about the inteviews on the next "No Prisoners, No Mercy" can you give me a few Urls please?
Julie
'EVE PvP' by FarSpace
Submitted on 2008-08-28 12:37:04 CST
the thing is in EVE you always get at least one clone automaticaly and loose hours or days of Skilling if you forget to upgrade,
But yes it is harsh and in EVE you have a reason to try to stay alive and that is cool.
But the thing for me is, what if you suck at it and always are on the loosing end?
OR
What if you do win but only when you know your going to anyways?
Either way, in any game, IMO, PvP needs to have a reason, either it is fun to hunt someone down or fun to boost your stats up 1% or etc...
Personaly I like PvP when it is a good back and forth fight you do not know who is going to win untill the end.
Too bad I always know who will loose, and that's me.
But I still try almost every day to some day give someone a good fight, and not just some total Noob mining alone.
As far as WAR, I hope it is good at letting me have some usefulnes in the actual PvP
In EVE I can be useful alright as the worm on the hook maybe, oh well. not the games fault, I realise I just suck. but still.
I know EVE has got good PvP but the time invested to get into it is a lot, and is it worth it if you never even win? Maybe the 1st couple of times.
'Another problem' by Syncaine
Submitted on 2008-08-28 13:12:11 CST
Here is another problem Julie, you are a PvP fan, and defend Brent on his want for more meaningful PvP in WAR, yet you yourself quit EVE because of the PvP being more meaningful. If I'm a company looking to retain customers, what does that tell me?
EVE is a success because in part, CCP set a goal for their market and hit it directly. They are very profitable with 250k subs, while Funcom is sinking fast with 400k in AoC. But to think any game with a core rule set like EVE can hit 1 million+ subs would be rather crazy, and Mythic is aiming far beyond 500k+.
And as others have pointed out, EVE is indeed unique. You can't just look at the PvP without looking at the crafting (no unique or epic items), the economy (ISK matters), production (time is money) etc. If we just toss EVE PvP into WAR (not saying you suggested that btw) it would just not work. Who wants to repeat quests, or re-acquire renown levels to re-arm for PvP? And the opposite is very true as well. EVE would be a total mess without it's PvP, even for Empire players. Demand for modules/ships would crash if no one lost a thing in PvP. Mining would become pointless, mission running would mean far less, etc.
'An aspect of pvp I forgot' by Julie
Submitted on 2008-08-29 10:12:07 CST
I have been going back to my troll hunter for pvp alot lately. It reminded me of one more reason to pvp - revenge. Most of the time when I pvp in WoW it is on the horde side. I recall one battleground where a night elf hunter would do one of those sommersaults every time she shot someone from the horde side. That was back in the day as they say, before honor points were currency. I recall looking for that particular player ever time I went into battle that day.
Rogues...what can I say. It seems that everyone in pvp who isn't a rogue can't stand rogues. I had one night elf rogue sneak up on my troll hunter and kill her. That I can deal with. Then he walked away and laughed that aggravating night elf laugh. Yes, I spent the rest of the battle hunting him down and kill him every chance I got.
I guess what it "boils down to" as grandmother used to say is that if you are really wrapped up in the IP (and yes I will admit I am when it comes to Warhammer) I will get involved with endless mindless pvp just do hurl my dwarven ironbreaker at the greenskins..
*throws down her gauntlet*
Julie
'Slash Agree Orkomage' by Ziss
Submitted on 2008-09-01 10:08:54 CST
Orkomage nailed it imo. Time is as valuable as anything in an MMO. To me, FPS have the best PVP of any games. I know you can't really compare the PVP in a fantasy MMO like WAR to COD4, but the basic concepts are the same. Yes I would like to see some twists put in play, maybe you die and now your spirit has to fight "Mr. Death" in the underworld and if you win, you res. But honestly, I wouldn't even want to deal with that every time I died. So to me a "time consequence" seems like a winner. Atleast until the messiah of resurrection sickness descends upon us.
'hi' by Burro
Submitted on 2008-09-02 15:18:17 CST
The great thing about Eve's Pvp is it gets your heart going. You'll be 4 jumps away from some people and you're getting excited or scared. While huge fleet battles may not be as fun in game, the politics involved on the forums and such that revolve around the big battles are very fun and also a pretty rare thing to find in most other games. However in the same way one gets sick of playing Gears of War and starts playing Call of Duty I'm sick of Eve and am awaiting Eve 2 or better yet a fantasy avatar, pirate ship, or mad max type game with the same mechanics of Eve. I was hoping Stargate Worlds would have the stargates be a way of having an avatar like game with Eve style mechanics (lots of crafting and huge server populations) but it's going to the be the standard "where do I go quest now that I'm level 12" game.
'EVE PVP isn't participated in by the majority in EVE so let's not compare it to WAR' by Saylah
Submitted on 2008-09-02 15:37:48 CST
As great as EVE Online is with PVP that has consequences, please don't forget that CCP has admitted that only a small percentage of the population in a PVP focused game, actually does that brand of "real" PVP. CCP developed and released Factional Warfare in part to lower the bar but from what I've read, players still aren't flocking to it because the consequences are a bit "too real". I have a high regard for CCP and EVE Online. However, it remains one of those games that I love the thought of more than actually playing and I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment.
Chase the red-guy is part of PVP. You're trying to kill someone who doesn't want to be killed. You don't expect to have to chase them? What is surprising about this fact that you must chase down your opponent? This isn't a duck shooting gallery after all. What I liked about the WAR scenarios were that they appeared timed or I completely misunderstood the mechanic. One of the sides is going to reach the node units needed to win or the team with the most is going to win after 15 minutes. I'm absolutely fine with that implementation. As a former hardcore PVPer in WOW, I loved the original Alterac Valley that lasted for hours when there was no phat loot to be had, you just wanted to win. I've posted this comment in the official WOW forums and on my blog and I'm not alone in having like it better. People were slugging it out for hours when there was very little to gain. People were storming Southshore and Tarren Mill when there were no honor points, let alone gear to be gained. Turning everything into an avenue for epics is what crushed PVP and changed the motivation into get it over with so I can get my BG marks.
Death is annoying enough in PVP. There is a resurrection timer, you lose buffs many of which you can't even reapply on yourself, you have to make it back to the frontlines alone or in a small group that is more susceptible to being picked off and at least in WOW, you take a hit on the durability of your gear. I think all of that is consequence enough if you want the masses to participate in PVP. Anything too extreme and you're back to an activity that is for the upper tier or hardcore players like raiding. The idea is to encourage participation not discourage it. I think some of us are getting to the point where we are over analyzing every feature and aspect of a game, and wanting something different or more.
Let's also not assume the nonsense that goes on in WOW will immediately be widespread in WAR. Some players will always want something for nothing. PQs fix that to a degree by providing a mechanic that will reward the people who contributed the most sooner than those who didn't. If someone wants to sit at the entrance in a scenario to gain renown oh well, you can't actually stop them but I have a feeling Mythic will address it sooner than Blizzard. This is a PVP/RVR focused game so I have a feeling people who want to actually engage in PVP are more likely to subscribe and they'll want to fight for their rewards. Because the motivations and end-game are very different between WOW and WAR, I dont think we'll see the same types of non-participation issues witnessed in WOW.
'Consequences' by andrewnutter
Submitted on 2008-09-08 06:55:17 CST
'Consequences' in pvp were the bad old days in MMO's having your items stolen having your pilot blown up and getting your skill points set back are old world and hard core. They do not have a place in today multi million subscriber based MMO's and never will. Even limited Consequences' in games such as Ever quest were experince points are lost and levels can go down (do they still do that?) Limted the player base.
I listened to Witty Ranter today and your comments on MMO' pvp are simply unworkable. You talk about jade empire and how you want that style of pvp and yet you say the war has slow pvp, imagine a jade empire MMO now that would be slow pvp in today's pvp which involves jumping around like fools that kind of pvp would not be workable or even enjoyable.
I would ask you to try something, don't play a game MMO other for one month (can you make it one month?) come back to the game Warhammer and play it on the live servers for 30 days ( I know, I know you don't enjoy it) but do that, try to even get one class to over level 10 (this time) and take your time engross yourself in the gameplay and the community, don't power level don't miss out on the experince of the game.
thank you.
'Time will tell' by Julie
Submitted on 2008-09-08 18:14:10 CST
@ Andrewnutter: "I listened to Witty Ranter today and your comments on MMO' pvp are simply unworkable. You talk about jade empire..." I must be missing something here. While I have heard of Jade Empire thats about it. I have never even mentioned it. Perhaps this was simply a misplaced comment.
A few more comments as we get into the open beta phase. I haven't found the realm vs. realm as much fun as the scenarios. In fact they seem to be extremely popular on the servers that my guild is in - Chrace and Ekrund.
In re-reading some of the comments above a few things stand out:
"That is good PvP without the blood pressure medicine." "" Heartless Gamer
Great quote.
This one from Scott certainly gives one pause for thought:
"...WAR is the type of MMO that isn't meant for solo RvR players, and it's not meant to be judged at rank 10, or even 20 for those that tried it in the preview.
It's built as a max level rank 40 MMO RvR sandbox for players to join and build up their own guilds and engage in these massive battles and territorial fights among." - Scott.
I guess time will tell. So far I have come to think of Warhammer as "Wow without all the bull****" One member of my guild pointed out recently that "mythic doesn't care if one class kills another 100% of the time" pointing out that they want this to be a "team" game. What rvr I have participated in has been far from a "team sport". That, however, has not been the case in some of the scenarios in which I have particpated. Oddly enough this seems to vary from race to race being played. I have no idea why - maybe it's just the servers I play on. Whenver I have played on the chaos side in the "dark elf vs. high elf" it is "every witch for herself" but when I participate in the "greenskins vs. the dwarves" us stunties always seem to stick together.
'Is a high death penalty fun?' by Zane
Submitted on 2008-10-16 02:27:57 CST
Eventhough PVP in EVE online is fun, the death penalty is just to cruel sometimes. The aim with the last expansion was to decrease the death-penalty to try to get more people in to PVP. CCP thems self tried to decrease the death penalty with Factional Warfare.
To say that a minimum of death penalty is not fun is just wrong. It depends on what you are looking for. If real life means a lot of stress for you and gives you little time over for playing, then you probaly not have the time or the lust to play in PVP with high risk. You do not have the time to make enough resources and you probably want to relax.
When you have much time to play and an unstressful real life your aim is probably going elsewhere. Stress, high risk and a high death penalty is probably more fun then. You got the resources and whant to put them into play.
However, I would for sure like to see a game that got a balanced death penalty, like in EVE Online:s factional warfare with T1-components (cheep stuff).
RSS - Blog/Articles