Player vs Player important? - RPGWatch Forums
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Games » General MMORPG » Player vs Player important?

View Poll Results - Do you enjoy Player vs Player?

Never! 10 38.46%
Only occasionally… 7 26.92%
Bring it on! 9 34.62%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

Default Player vs Player important?

December 10th, 2006, 04:06
One of the most common questions and rightfully the most important things to consider in an MMORPG is PvP (Player vs Player where players can freely kill other players without their consent). I just thought I'd share my recommendation for those interested in a heavily PvP oriented MMORPG. Lineage II is the best game for PvP out there. The castle sieges and clan wars are the most intense and fun. A lot of people might argue that Dark Ages of Camelot castle sieges are the best, but I doubt those people have experienced any epic sieges in Lineage II.

I should note, however, that Lineage II is easily the most farmer infested game I've ever played. This doesn't effect you directly but it does effect the economy and in rare instances can give other players unfair advantages. Farming is often done as a full-time job by some people in povery stricken countries. There are a LOT of foreign (mostly asian) players in Lineage II who play solely to obtain game currency and levels to sell currency and characters on ebay and other game account distributors for real money. This is how some people make a living. It is unfortunate for those of us that want a completely fair and balanced game for fun… but even with this downfall, this game is easily my favorite for PvP. PvP isn't just a feature, it's the primary insentive for the overwhelming majority of players to advance through the game and form alliances. Lots of games have PvP as features but don't quite have the same depth or superiority of Lineage II. It's been years since I played it (there may even be a Lineage III out now for all I know), but I still sometimes suffer from withdrawel… that game kicks some major PvP arse!
Add me to your friends list on Steam! My name there is: [GoE]SirDeity
Piranha Bytes' Loyal Fan, SirDeity
SirDeity is offline


SirDeity's Avatar


Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 121


December 10th, 2006, 10:13
There have been many major researches on this subject and the result have been about 20% enjoying pvp, the rest playing for the pve features. The pvp community tend to be very active/vocal which often gives the appearence of them being more common than they actually are.

Star Wars Galaxies had a recent research on how many would like the Galactic Civil War to focus on PvE and how many would like better focus on PvP. 65% voted for more focus on PvE. It should be noted that SWG due to it's major lack of content have chased alot of their PvE community away and never had any Galactic Civil War for PvE players in the first place, causing many to forget it even existed.

Balancing a MMORPG for pvp is often a doubleedged sword. When you balance professions to be equal in 1vs1 fights or be capable alone you often end up with several different fighters who despite their differences all feel the same and add no specific extra role to the group/gameworld. First this cause one or a few professions to be better than the rest (since absolute perfection is impossible and some have 2ndary roles that just is great along with regular fighting skills). Second it reduce diversity between professions so that the "lesser" professions are no longer needed for their special advantages. End result is a game where the majority play the same profession even in PvE.
Last edited by JemyM; December 10th, 2006 at 10:27.
JemyM is offline


JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.


Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM


December 10th, 2006, 12:14
I don't do PvP. I play MMORPGs to play with other people, not against them. It holds no interest to me, since for me combat is not the main thing in any RPG. I prefer questing, exploring, and in MMORPGs the socialising. So if I can, I roll on non-PvP servers.
Sorcha Ravenlock is offline

Sorcha Ravenlock

Sorcha Ravenlock's Avatar


Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 250


December 12th, 2006, 19:43
ditto. PvP is annoying

I'm the co-op type, except for the glorious and frenzied carnage of free-for-all FPS
xSamhainx is offline


xSamhainx's Avatar
Paws of Doom
Original Sin Donor


Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 5,001


December 13th, 2006, 23:38
Seems I am one of the few who love PvP, and think it is a required aspect of the game. In WoW, once I reached 60, my playtime existed 90% out of PvPing. Only at night I was doing BWL, Aq40, naxx etc. But I loved it, and didn't even get bored after reaching higher ranks and having more difficulties. I quit WoW when I was rank 12, but I still think PvPing was the best part of the game.

Even in other games, L2, Mu, or other MMoRPGs, I was usually found at the arena or other PvP-areas. I simply think that PvPing is meant for MMO's. Besides co-questing, what reason is there to be online if you have nobody to compete against?
Neo is offline


Neo's Avatar
Lone Wolf


Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Holland
Posts: 116


December 14th, 2006, 07:07
I used to do a lot of PvE back in the days in WoW, but about a year ago I reshaped my guild into a PvP guild, and we've focused on PvP ever since. There's something about teaming up against other teams which I like, being able to compete against others not just in individual skills but on a tactical level as well. I can't say I'm too fond of PvP in MMORPGs in general, such as being attacked while questing and the likes, but organized PvP is one of the main reasons I play MMORPGs at all.
Maylander is offline


Original Sin Donor


Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bergen
Posts: 6,528
Send a message via MSN to Maylander


December 16th, 2006, 20:18
One of the great aspects of PvP in Lineage II was that, unless there's some kind of special event going on where the area is 100% PvP, such as a castle siege, then the only time you can get attacked my another player is when your clan is at war with another clan. In order for this to happen, one clan leader has to declare war on another clan leader and the other clan leader has to accept the war. This makes it so people who don't want to worry about getting killed by other players while minding their own business can just leave their clan… otherwise they should run when someone attacks or simply try to stick together with other clan mates where you'll be safe from ambush. Also, typically only upper level clans wage wares since no one is really foolish enough to accept a war against a clan that is a lot stronger in levels. Even when at war though, there are still safe places you can go. Cities are safe from PvP always, so you could just set up a merchant shop at a city with your character and go AFK until the enemy leave you alone then you can sneak away without them bothering you.
Add me to your friends list on Steam! My name there is: [GoE]SirDeity
Piranha Bytes' Loyal Fan, SirDeity
SirDeity is offline


SirDeity's Avatar


Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 121


February 22nd, 2007, 09:48
It's not something I require in all MMO's, but if it's done well it sure can be fun.

So far I haven't enjoyed playing on any pure PvP servers in any of the (many) MMO's I've tried. The frustration factor of being repeatedly ganked by some moron while you're just trying to quest or level outweighs the fun factor for me. I loved the RvR side of Dark Age of Camelot, but I also enjoyed playing on the coop server where there was zero PvP. I loved WoW's PvP…BEFORE they added the honor system and BG's. When it was world PvP that we created on our own it was fun. Canned, instanced, repetetive PvP is garbage. I'd probably give Lineage 2 a try but I've already pre-ordered Lord of the Rings Online and that will give me my MMO fix 'till Warhammer Online or Age of Conan comes out. The PvP component of LotRO isn't true PvP but it sounds different enough to be fun for a while at least. For now I'll do without real PvP until Warhammer Online comes out.
Majnun is offline




Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 387


February 22nd, 2007, 11:40
I've been interested in Lineage II on and off, and I've tried the trial for a few days. I've played DAoC before, and though I never got to play end-game and RvR. the battleground were fun enough. Would L2 be really that awesome, and are castle sieges/PvP still active there?

I wouldn't really like grinding all the way to level cap, though. L2 is a grindfest.
Thaurin is offline




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,908


April 10th, 2007, 20:54
I tried my hand at PvP a little in EQ 1, a lot in UO by circumstance, when everyone could attack anyone everywhere (and loot the body clean), and I dont need it. It does not achieve anything in current games, no loot, no xp nor other things except maybe a ranking on how many you have beaten (and my stance on fame is that someone else can have it, including the heroes burial going with it ).
So unless something worthwhile can be achieved by PvP, the developers can leave it out.
Vatras is offline




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Austria
Posts: 3


April 11th, 2007, 11:45
I would argue that PvP and PvE are things that work against eachother and limit the possibilities of both types of gameplay. If you look at PvP, then sooner or later class balancing will be an issue (people will whine and the developers will listen). Class balancing however is a problem in terms of PvE. Class balancing makes class uniform to a certain extent, because no class can be allowed to excel in a certain field. That however makes id difficult to define real class roles how they are needed in mmorpgs that focus on PvE. If you look at WoW you'll realize that the differences between classes are in fact much smaller than let's say in EQ 1.

I'm not against PvP. It's just not my thing… honestly I don't need it in mmorpgs. I guess it can be enjoyable at times - I also played a few battlegrounds, and yes, they can be fun - but I don't consider them a must. I find that PvP is often more repetetive than PvE, as strange as that might sound. Very often you'll do the same thing over and over again, especially if you found a tactic that seems to be efficient.
Ionstormsucks is offline


Ionstormsucks's Avatar
Major Villain


Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 760


April 11th, 2007, 19:40
I have fond memories of PvP in the original UO before T2A came out. In the early days I was mostly on the receiving end as a Ore Miner in Minoc and I would get attacked roughly 2-3 times a night, sometimes I would run away successfully, other times they would kill me and loot the valuable ingots off my carcass. This actually helped make the game more interesting for me, I liked the suspense and the frantic running when I saw anyone who might be a hostile.

After about a month of this I chanced upon a unattended character(AFK) and I killed him (took me about 2 minutes ) and from that day I was changed person, I would constantly seek out people who were at a disadvantage, I would mercilessly attack people already engaged in combat with monsters and quickly one of my characters became a "perma-red" (kill on sight for most players) and then bucaneers den became my haunt where I would team up with the other PK'ers to fight the do-gooders that came to claim our scalps.

After T2A and the Trammel/Felucca debacle things were never the same and I quit shortly after.
Favourite RPGs of all time: Wizardry 6, Ultima 7/7.2, Fallout2, Planescape Torment, Baldurs Gate 2+TOB, Jagged Alliance 2, Ravenloft: The stone prophet, Gothic 2, Realms of Arkania:Blade of destiny (not the HD version!!) and Secret of the Silver Blades.
bjon045 is offline


bjon045's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch


Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sigil
Posts: 1,273


April 24th, 2007, 11:59
Me personally? I'd love a game that penalizes you for killing your own countrymen ( and women ) but rewards you for killing someone your countries at war with, which is quite a realistic way of viewing it.

Of course, if this setting isn't possible ( i.e. a game that doesn't have something akin to "realms" like in DAoC) I'd opt for areas that are totally safe with a few unsafe areas around, but make them areas like travelling between cities, not important PvE areas.

EDIT: forgot to mention I've played games like DDO (dungeons and dragons online) where it's almost all exclusively PvE and liked it ( their bar room brawls don't count, too much damn raid loot lol) BUT! DDO was a much better game in terms of rules and combat, since I could create almost any character I wanted using multiclassing, but enhancements really blew that, so I left. That's the only PvE mmorpg I'll ever like that much I reckon, there were classes, but you could mix and match to your heart's content, so you weren't the same as that Saracen man at arms as compared to your Briton MAA Aren't enough games that give that kind of freedom, mmorpg wise anyhow.
I'm too lazy to come up with a signature, try back later
ThatGuy is offline




Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 25
RPGWatch Forums » Games » General MMORPG » Player vs Player important?
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 22:08.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch