Still, I gotta have some hope -- as an MMO addict I will always be chasing that dragon.
I'm totally with you on hoping, it would make me extremely happy if SOE does PvP right for a change. I'm a PvP enthusiast and would just love to see them do it right.
Not to be rude but could you go back in time and follow SOE, play their games,
What makes you think I haven't? lol
Look up what they're saying and believe them or don't. But there is nothing...absolutely nothing they've said that EQN is going to be a WoW clone. In fact they've been saying the opposite.
Not to be rude but could you go back in time and follow SOE, play their games,
What makes you think I haven't? lol
Look up what they're saying and believe them or don't. But there is nothing...absolutely nothing they've said that EQN is going to be a WoW clone. In fact they've been saying the opposite.
I didn't say EQN is going to be a WoW clone, I said their PvP may follow WoW's PvP model of contested zones vs safe zones, plus instanced BG's and arenas. You can believe otherwise, but I believe that's the route they'll take.
Not to be rude but could you go back in time and follow SOE, play their games,
What makes you think I haven't? lol
Look up what they're saying and believe them or don't. But there is nothing...absolutely nothing they've said that EQN is going to be a WoW clone. In fact they've been saying the opposite.
I didn't say EQN is going to be a WoW clone, I said their PvP may follow WoW's PvP model of contested zones vs safe zones, plus instanced BG's and arenas. You can believe otherwise, but I believe that's the route they'll take.
Wont be a sandbox. In a sandbox, players define those things, not devs.
I didn't say EQN is going to be a WoW clone, I said their PvP may follow WoW's PvP model of contested zones vs safe zones, plus instanced BG's and arenas. You can believe otherwise, but I believe that's the route they'll take.
Ah. I see I misunderstood then.
Yeah implementation no one knows.
The only thing is from a tweet in response to the question:
A true sandbox needs open world PVP with risk/rewards.
I didn't say EQN is going to be a WoW clone, I said their PvP may follow WoW's PvP model of contested zones vs safe zones, plus instanced BG's and arenas. You can believe otherwise, but I believe that's the route they'll take.
Ah. I see I misunderstood then.
Yeah implementation no one knows.
The only thing is from a tweet in response to the question:
A true sandbox needs open world PVP with risk/rewards.
Smed's response...
gg. Bring it on. Those who don't want pvp still have EQ2!
I agree with item deterioration through death, both PvP and PvE and what you said at the end about PvE solutions was my dirt thought. If the death penalty is that bad and that harsh I'd imagine the rest of the game is as well. If there was a large amount of difficulty overall it would balance PvP/PvE just fine.
In fairness I do see why mats while PvPing would be more important because if PvE is arguing for consensual PvP then PvPers shouldn't be forced to PvE either. Which the replacement would be territory control and fights for power. In a big enough world I think both could coexist but contrary to what I said before it would need to be in areas strictly PvP.
I agree with item deterioration through death, both PvP and PvE and what you said at the end about PvE solutions was my dirt thought. If the death penalty is that bad and that harsh I'd imagine the rest of the game is as well. If there was a large amount of difficulty overall it would balance PvP/PvE just fine.
In fairness I do see why mats while PvPing would be more important because if PvE is arguing for consensual PvP then PvPers shouldn't be forced to PvE either. Which the replacement would be territory control and fights for power. In a big enough world I think both could coexist but contrary to what I said before it would need to be in areas strictly PvP.
In a snadbox players decide when it's time to PvP and where. I'm sure there will be punishment in place for open murder, bounties and such. This will keep the game world civil.
I agree with item deterioration through death, both PvP and PvE and what you said at the end about PvE solutions was my dirt thought. If the death penalty is that bad and that harsh I'd imagine the rest of the game is as well. If there was a large amount of difficulty overall it would balance PvP/PvE just fine.
In fairness I do see why mats while PvPing would be more important because if PvE is arguing for consensual PvP then PvPers shouldn't be forced to PvE either. Which the replacement would be territory control and fights for power. In a big enough world I think both could coexist but contrary to what I said before it would need to be in areas strictly PvP.
In a snadbox players decide when it's time to PvP and where. I'm sure there will be punishment in place for open murder, bounties and such. This will keep the game world civil.
Sorry , bcbully, punishment does nothing to players in open world PvP. Played many games where the punishment was loss of level, etc and people didn't care. One game, you lost items (like rares and such) and people didn't care. You actually have to have a group of people who actually want to play by the rules, otherwise you have nothing.
I mean look at all the people who hack games to farm, etc. It is against the rules and you can lose your account, etc and people still do it.
Punishment only works if people care about the consequences.
About balance between PvP and PvE, how you can have it in a FFA open world PvP?...if EQN will have public dungeon and open raid how can you have a challenging PvE content if you can be attacked by the other faction players when you are raiding...if you re fighting a difficult boss, how can you handle it and simoultaneously manage an heavy enemy players attack?
I see 2 possible solutions:
1) make a really easy PvE
2) make all PvE istanced
I dont like these solutions.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
The PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server.
This isn't the reason at all. You are way off base.
Where many are coming from is that we want a game designed from the ground up with a fully integrated PVE/PVP experience such that the economy and gameplay are dependent on the existence of both.
It is a game design philosophy and a point you have either misunderstood or overlooked.
edit: the part of your post I cut out I just found illogical.
Again, if the PvP is "consensual," then there is no debate.
I feel like the point is here -> .
o/ <- yet you are way over here
It could be me that is lost though, at what point does the word consensual become relevant in regards to anything I have said here.
I was outlining what I want. I get that you want "consensual" pvp by your definition. That has no bearing on my explanation to you of why your assumption that we want "PvEers" to "populate the servers" is wrong.
The word "consensual" is imminently relevant. It is what this debate is all about. If your contention is that the word "consensual" is not relevant, then you are right, we have nothing to discuss.
The sole issue in this entire PvE vs PvP debate is whether EQN should have "consensual" or "non-consensual" PvP. If we can all agree that EQN should have "consensual" PvP, then ...
... no other compromise would be necessary rendering the very nature of this entire thread irrelevant.
This thread blew up over night - 20+ pages, so I'm responding as I come across posts I find interesting. I agree that PvP should be consensual; however I still don't view consensual PvP the way that most of you are talking about. If EQN were to be open world PvP then consensual is logging into the game. I don't want a game where someone flags themselves for PvP, nor do I want a game where the PvP is in battle grounds.
The type of PvP I am looking for is asset destruction. I will take a flight lesson from EvE; if an enemy corps flies into our alliance space, then either we form up a squad to go hunt him, or a gate camp is put in place. Now in EvE there are 2 main camps NBSI or NRDS. Basically they mean if they are anyone outside of your corps you kill it, or the other one is if they aren't specifically an enemy leave them alone. Those are not hard coded views though, they were player created. So in my flight example above, an explorer could be neutral in his standings and think he was fine to fly wherever, but to my alliance we shoot anyone not of our alliance/corps. When we engage the explorer and destroy his ship, he gets upset and why we are killing a neutral, but to us we are just protecting our space. Bottom line he logged into a PvP game and gave consent to be killed by his log in.
How the above relates to EQN. If I'm in a guild in EQN and I want to have my guild be the best, then there might be a day where I need to kill lowbies to keep them from leveling. It's not meant to be griefing or ganking, just a method of ensuring my guild stays on top, or claws closer to the top. These views are only seen by me through the lenses of asset destruction. I enjoy territory control and sieges.
I will always vote for non-consensual PvP in a game, not because I'm looking to grief, but because it helps when trying to defend against or attack enemy guilds.
About balance between PvP and PvE, how you can have it in a FFA open world PvP?...if EQN will have public dungeon and open raid how can you have a challenging PvE content if you can be attacked by the other faction players when you are raiding...if you re fighting a difficult boss, how can you handle it and simoultaneously manage an heavy enemy players attack?
I see 2 possible solutions:
1) make a really easy PvE
2) make all PvE istanced
I dont like these solutions.
Or you just make the rewards for PvE that much greater, giving you an incentive to take the risk. Not just the incentive to take the risk, but if the reward is higher, you can even hire mercenaries to guard you while you pve!
Originally posted by ethion Sounds nice in principle but PvP combat breaks PvE game mechanics. So PvP makes PvE gameplay suck.... So no thanks unless the PvP is an add on option on PvE gameplay. Meaning there isn't any adjustment to balance PvP skills etc. I want all those abilities that PvP stole from the PvE gameplay. Long crowd control, rooting, charming, unbalanced classes, pure melee pure healer, bufs and debufs, etc. Real class differenciation not just different shades of the same thing with different graphics and effects.
I agree in part to your post, but based on different reasoning. I agree that long crowd control, rooting, charming etc could be brought back, but I want it brought back FOR PvP. The reason most of those things were taken out is because of PUGs and bgs. Along the way, the PvP side of things started focusing on solo play instead of team play.
If you go back to a group/team/guild oriented combat system, then it doesn't matter if you reintroduce the above crowd controls because group members can cure/cleanse etc. Shadowbane had differing classes and pure healers etc. and it was all about PvP, but it was PvP as a group. The best solo classes in the game sucked in group combat and some of the best group specs stunk in solo PvP. Balance has to be around the group and not the individual class.
so again the "compromise" is give PVE'rs about 30% of the map in which they are somewhat protected and enjoy (but can still be PVPed) and PVPers get 70% of the map to enjoy, and really 100% of the map since they are allowed to go in this "high-sec" zones as well.
that doesn't sound like much of a compromise to me, it sounds more like a i get to have what i want and you get ... well nothing and have to like it.
BETTER compromise - the SWG OVert/Covert system. give people a reason and incentive to join factions in the game and give them incentives to flag for PVP and fight. however if you don't want to PVP you don't have to ever flag.
I agree with item deterioration through death, both PvP and PvE and what you said at the end about PvE solutions was my dirt thought. If the death penalty is that bad and that harsh I'd imagine the rest of the game is as well. If there was a large amount of difficulty overall it would balance PvP/PvE just fine.
In fairness I do see why mats while PvPing would be more important because if PvE is arguing for consensual PvP then PvPers shouldn't be forced to PvE either. Which the replacement would be territory control and fights for power. In a big enough world I think both could coexist but contrary to what I said before it would need to be in areas strictly PvP.
In a snadbox players decide when it's time to PvP and where. I'm sure there will be punishment in place for open murder, bounties and such. This will keep the game world civil.
Sorry , bcbully, punishment does nothing to players in open world PvP. Played many games where the punishment was loss of level, etc and people didn't care. One game, you lost items (like rares and such) and people didn't care. You actually have to have a group of people who actually want to play by the rules, otherwise you have nothing.
I mean look at all the people who hack games to farm, etc. It is against the rules and you can lose your account, etc and people still do it.
Punishment only works if people care about the consequences.
Even real life have criminals, but unlike MMOs, they can go to jail for a long time for their crimes or even be executed (permadeath). Too few MMOs have justice system or at least tools.
Originally posted by Utinni Hopefully they don't emphasize PvP too much. The whole beauty of everquest is that they dont balance classes for PvP.
I hope they listen to this, if one thing I have learned over the past 10 years of MMO's, it is that when you balance classes for PvP, your PvE suffers greatly. These 2 play styles just do not mix in a great game, the result of trying to mix them yields a mediocre PvP game with mediocre PvE thrown in. At least up to this point it has not worked out.
Its a shame because I think it could be a simple fix, by adding PvP and PVE only gear. Make the pvp gear worthless in a PvE situation and PvE gear worthles in a PvP situation. Just make the values on the gear null if a player is using the wrong gear in a situation. For pvp skills let the players choose what skills they want to use for PVP only, but those skills are only PvP based, would have no effect on the PvE mobs, that way you can still balance the class skills for true PvE roles.
I would go one step further and just put PvP stats and PvE stats on the same gear. But then PvE players wouldn't like it because of the way that happens; it's crafted not dropped. I still believe that raids should drop resources not actual gear. Allow crafters to craft the best gear in game, but with the needed resources from raids. Then a player could place whatever PvP stats and PvE stats on their gear, it wouldn't be limited to either or and the gear is only limited by the quality of resources you use.
@Utinni - I'm really hoping the new but different is exactly the opposite of the traditional EQ IP and they do got with a PvP centric design.
But even giving both stats on a single piece of gear does nothing for how a player can be killed in the world. There is nothing a developer can do to code for PvP and PvE on the same server, that is up to us as a society and how we handle defeat. The best PvPers aren't ones that never lose, no they are the ones that pick themselves up and learn a lesson from every time they do lose.
Be prepared to be labeled a sociopath, bind camper, waste of life, griefer, etc. The PvE crowd around here is completely unreasonable and simply will not accept that people like us exist. People that like consequences for our actions. People that like RISK so that our successes are that much more REWARDING.
actually from all the discussions i did read on pve vs pvp, its actually completely opposite - pvpers are the unreasonable ones.
i never saw any pveer objecting to having servers specifically for pvp, but i saw A LOT of pvpers (i would even said most of them) objecting to having servers specifically for pve.
Why are you talking about pvp and pve servers? How does that at all relate to what I said? PvE players are by far the worst, most annoying people ive ever argued with. Its constantly changing the subject, putting words in my mouth, ignoring points, insulting me, making things up about mypersonality, etc.
i was responding to the sentense "The PvE crowd around here is completely unreasonable and simply will not accept that people like us exist. "
i dont know any pveer who dont accept that people like you exists. we do. and we are just fine with you playing that way as long as we have option to play our way - aka separate servers. as for the last sentence, i have seen this on both sides, but VERY rarely seen any pveer calling pvp names, while A LOT of pvpers speak about pvers only as about "carebears" with conotation of someone inferior.
About balance between PvP and PvE, how you can have it in a FFA open world PvP?...if EQN will have public dungeon and open raid how can you have a challenging PvE content if you can be attacked by the other faction players when you are raiding...if you re fighting a difficult boss, how can you handle it and simoultaneously manage an heavy enemy players attack?
I see 2 possible solutions:
1) make a really easy PvE
2) make all PvE istanced
I dont like these solutions.
Or you just make the rewards for PvE that much greater, giving you an incentive to take the risk. Not just the incentive to take the risk, but if the reward is higher, you can even hire mercenaries to guard you while you pve!
I dont think that a mercenary system can be a valid solution.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
so again the "compromise" is give PVE'rs about 30% of the map in which they are somewhat protected and enjoy (but can still be PVPed) and PVPers get 70% of the map to enjoy, and really 100% of the map since they are allowed to go in this "high-sec" zones as well.
that doesn't sound like much of a compromise to me, it sounds more like a i get to have what i want and you get ... well nothing and have to like it.
BETTER compromise - the SWG OVert/Covert system. give people a reason and incentive to join factions in the game and give them incentives to flag for PVP and fight. however if you don't want to PVP you don't have to ever flag.
I think one of the main points those of us on both sides of the fence here are trying to drive home is that we aren't really interested in compromise. I want an integrated PVE/PVP experience and i'm not willing to compromise on that just like some want to be completely free of all possibility of PVP and they are unwilling to compromise on that.
In the end I will compromise as i'm going to try this game regardless, but we're pretty much just speculating and talking about our ideals here.
I do want to get what i want and if others do not want it then that is fine by me, I only differ from what you say in that I don't feel they have to like it. I see nothing wrong with that. We are talking about games after all.
I'm not interested in some kind of compromise if the end result is what in my mind and by my tastes is an inferior game design as the one you outline from SWG that I will most likely ditch in a month and continue looking for something more in line with what I will enjoy.
Be prepared to be labeled a sociopath, bind camper, waste of life, griefer, etc. The PvE crowd around here is completely unreasonable and simply will not accept that people like us exist. People that like consequences for our actions. People that like RISK so that our successes are that much more REWARDING.
actually from all the discussions i did read on pve vs pvp, its actually completely opposite - pvpers are the unreasonable ones.
i never saw any pveer objecting to having servers specifically for pvp, but i saw A LOT of pvpers (i would even said most of them) objecting to having servers specifically for pve.
Why are you talking about pvp and pve servers? How does that at all relate to what I said? PvE players are by far the worst, most annoying people ive ever argued with. Its constantly changing the subject, putting words in my mouth, ignoring points, insulting me, making things up about mypersonality, etc.
i was responding to the sentense "The PvE crowd around here is completely unreasonable and simply will not accept that people like us exist. "
i dont know any pveer who dont accept that people like you exists. we do. and we are just fine with you playing that way as long as we have option to play our way - aka separate servers. as for the rest last sentence, i have seen this on both sides, but VERY rarely seen any pveer calling pvp names, while A LOT of pvpers speak about pvers only as about "carebears" with conotation of someone inferior.
No, see? Even now you have no idea what our desires are. "People like us" are people who want a game that is built around each individual facet of gameplay including pvp. If it's possible to have a "non-pvp" server, then that means it's feasible to simply cut out pvp and still have a game.... THAT'S NOT THE GAME WE WANT. That would be a game where pvp is an afterthought, a minigame, boring.
About balance between PvP and PvE, how you can have it in a FFA open world PvP?...if EQN will have public dungeon and open raid how can you have a challenging PvE content if you can be attacked by the other faction players when you are raiding...if you re fighting a difficult boss, how can you handle it and simoultaneously manage an heavy enemy players attack?
I see 2 possible solutions:
1) make a really easy PvE
2) make all PvE istanced
I dont like these solutions.
Or you just make the rewards for PvE that much greater, giving you an incentive to take the risk. Not just the incentive to take the risk, but if the reward is higher, you can even hire mercenaries to guard you while you pve!
I dont think that a mercenary system can be a valid solution.
Well ok.....? Mercenaries exist in games like UO and Darkfall but I guess you just don't want to believe that.
Either way, I also said that if the rewards were great enough, it would be worth the risk of farming them.
About balance between PvP and PvE, how you can have it in a FFA open world PvP?...if EQN will have public dungeon and open raid how can you have a challenging PvE content if you can be attacked by the other faction players when you are raiding...if you re fighting a difficult boss, how can you handle it and simoultaneously manage an heavy enemy players attack?
I see 2 possible solutions:
1) make a really easy PvE
2) make all PvE istanced
I dont like these solutions.
Or you just make the rewards for PvE that much greater, giving you an incentive to take the risk. Not just the incentive to take the risk, but if the reward is higher, you can even hire mercenaries to guard you while you pve!
I dont think that a mercenary system can be a valid solution.
A popular term these days is "emergent gameplay."
An example of this sort of thing would be when a group of PVE dungeon runners decide they dont' like people PVPing them when they run dungeons. They might find an area where there is a large group of PvPers together in a sort of alliance and strike a deal where they will craft weapons and armor for that group and in return the PvP guilds or groups will watch their backs.
This sort of territory control system can work in a game. When the developers don't necessarily program in a way for PVE players to be safe farming dungeons but the players form systems themselves where such a thing can happen. Maybe the territory is so large and so well policed by players that the PVE group never has any issues at all?
You don't have to like it, but you do have to admit that such things are valid and possible.
About balance between PvP and PvE, how you can have it in a FFA open world PvP?...if EQN will have public dungeon and open raid how can you have a challenging PvE content if you can be attacked by the other faction players when you are raiding...if you re fighting a difficult boss, how can you handle it and simoultaneously manage an heavy enemy players attack?
I see 2 possible solutions:
1) make a really easy PvE
2) make all PvE istanced
I dont like these solutions.
Or you just make the rewards for PvE that much greater, giving you an incentive to take the risk. Not just the incentive to take the risk, but if the reward is higher, you can even hire mercenaries to guard you while you pve!
I dont think that a mercenary system can be a valid solution.
Well ok.....? Mercenaries exist in games like UO and Darkfall but I guess you just don't want to believe that.
Either way, I also said that if the rewards were great enough, it would be worth the risk of farming them.
I think that it is not a valid solution, because a raid is supposed to be very long and difficult PvE event (some hours) so probably the mercenaries will be wiped by enemy players moderately fast and the players involved in the raid will not be able to continue it and fight the enemy players at the same time...if the mercenaries are too strong to being overwhelmed by enemy players you will lose the motivation to do this kind of PvP.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
Comments
I'm totally with you on hoping, it would make me extremely happy if SOE does PvP right for a change. I'm a PvP enthusiast and would just love to see them do it right.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
What makes you think I haven't? lol
Look up what they're saying and believe them or don't. But there is nothing...absolutely nothing they've said that EQN is going to be a WoW clone. In fact they've been saying the opposite.
I didn't say EQN is going to be a WoW clone, I said their PvP may follow WoW's PvP model of contested zones vs safe zones, plus instanced BG's and arenas. You can believe otherwise, but I believe that's the route they'll take.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
Wont be a sandbox. In a sandbox, players define those things, not devs.
Ah. I see I misunderstood then.
Yeah implementation no one knows.
The only thing is from a tweet in response to the question:
A true sandbox needs open world PVP with risk/rewards.
Smed's response...
gg. Bring it on. Those who don't want pvp still have EQ2!
I agree with item deterioration through death, both PvP and PvE and what you said at the end about PvE solutions was my dirt thought. If the death penalty is that bad and that harsh I'd imagine the rest of the game is as well. If there was a large amount of difficulty overall it would balance PvP/PvE just fine.
In fairness I do see why mats while PvPing would be more important because if PvE is arguing for consensual PvP then PvPers shouldn't be forced to PvE either. Which the replacement would be territory control and fights for power. In a big enough world I think both could coexist but contrary to what I said before it would need to be in areas strictly PvP.
In a snadbox players decide when it's time to PvP and where. I'm sure there will be punishment in place for open murder, bounties and such. This will keep the game world civil.
Sorry , bcbully, punishment does nothing to players in open world PvP. Played many games where the punishment was loss of level, etc and people didn't care. One game, you lost items (like rares and such) and people didn't care. You actually have to have a group of people who actually want to play by the rules, otherwise you have nothing.
I mean look at all the people who hack games to farm, etc. It is against the rules and you can lose your account, etc and people still do it.
Punishment only works if people care about the consequences.
About balance between PvP and PvE, how you can have it in a FFA open world PvP?...if EQN will have public dungeon and open raid how can you have a challenging PvE content if you can be attacked by the other faction players when you are raiding...if you re fighting a difficult boss, how can you handle it and simoultaneously manage an heavy enemy players attack?
I see 2 possible solutions:
1) make a really easy PvE
2) make all PvE istanced
I dont like these solutions.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
This thread blew up over night - 20+ pages, so I'm responding as I come across posts I find interesting. I agree that PvP should be consensual; however I still don't view consensual PvP the way that most of you are talking about. If EQN were to be open world PvP then consensual is logging into the game. I don't want a game where someone flags themselves for PvP, nor do I want a game where the PvP is in battle grounds.
The type of PvP I am looking for is asset destruction. I will take a flight lesson from EvE; if an enemy corps flies into our alliance space, then either we form up a squad to go hunt him, or a gate camp is put in place. Now in EvE there are 2 main camps NBSI or NRDS. Basically they mean if they are anyone outside of your corps you kill it, or the other one is if they aren't specifically an enemy leave them alone. Those are not hard coded views though, they were player created. So in my flight example above, an explorer could be neutral in his standings and think he was fine to fly wherever, but to my alliance we shoot anyone not of our alliance/corps. When we engage the explorer and destroy his ship, he gets upset and why we are killing a neutral, but to us we are just protecting our space. Bottom line he logged into a PvP game and gave consent to be killed by his log in.
How the above relates to EQN. If I'm in a guild in EQN and I want to have my guild be the best, then there might be a day where I need to kill lowbies to keep them from leveling. It's not meant to be griefing or ganking, just a method of ensuring my guild stays on top, or claws closer to the top. These views are only seen by me through the lenses of asset destruction. I enjoy territory control and sieges.
I will always vote for non-consensual PvP in a game, not because I'm looking to grief, but because it helps when trying to defend against or attack enemy guilds.
Or you just make the rewards for PvE that much greater, giving you an incentive to take the risk. Not just the incentive to take the risk, but if the reward is higher, you can even hire mercenaries to guard you while you pve!
I agree in part to your post, but based on different reasoning. I agree that long crowd control, rooting, charming etc could be brought back, but I want it brought back FOR PvP. The reason most of those things were taken out is because of PUGs and bgs. Along the way, the PvP side of things started focusing on solo play instead of team play.
If you go back to a group/team/guild oriented combat system, then it doesn't matter if you reintroduce the above crowd controls because group members can cure/cleanse etc. Shadowbane had differing classes and pure healers etc. and it was all about PvP, but it was PvP as a group. The best solo classes in the game sucked in group combat and some of the best group specs stunk in solo PvP. Balance has to be around the group and not the individual class.
so again the "compromise" is give PVE'rs about 30% of the map in which they are somewhat protected and enjoy (but can still be PVPed) and PVPers get 70% of the map to enjoy, and really 100% of the map since they are allowed to go in this "high-sec" zones as well.
that doesn't sound like much of a compromise to me, it sounds more like a i get to have what i want and you get ... well nothing and have to like it.
BETTER compromise - the SWG OVert/Covert system. give people a reason and incentive to join factions in the game and give them incentives to flag for PVP and fight. however if you don't want to PVP you don't have to ever flag.
Even real life have criminals, but unlike MMOs, they can go to jail for a long time for their crimes or even be executed (permadeath). Too few MMOs have justice system or at least tools.
I would go one step further and just put PvP stats and PvE stats on the same gear. But then PvE players wouldn't like it because of the way that happens; it's crafted not dropped. I still believe that raids should drop resources not actual gear. Allow crafters to craft the best gear in game, but with the needed resources from raids. Then a player could place whatever PvP stats and PvE stats on their gear, it wouldn't be limited to either or and the gear is only limited by the quality of resources you use.
@Utinni - I'm really hoping the new but different is exactly the opposite of the traditional EQ IP and they do got with a PvP centric design.
But even giving both stats on a single piece of gear does nothing for how a player can be killed in the world. There is nothing a developer can do to code for PvP and PvE on the same server, that is up to us as a society and how we handle defeat. The best PvPers aren't ones that never lose, no they are the ones that pick themselves up and learn a lesson from every time they do lose.
i was responding to the sentense "The PvE crowd around here is completely unreasonable and simply will not accept that people like us exist. "
i dont know any pveer who dont accept that people like you exists. we do. and we are just fine with you playing that way as long as we have option to play our way - aka separate servers. as for the last sentence, i have seen this on both sides, but VERY rarely seen any pveer calling pvp names, while A LOT of pvpers speak about pvers only as about "carebears" with conotation of someone inferior.
I dont think that a mercenary system can be a valid solution.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
I think one of the main points those of us on both sides of the fence here are trying to drive home is that we aren't really interested in compromise. I want an integrated PVE/PVP experience and i'm not willing to compromise on that just like some want to be completely free of all possibility of PVP and they are unwilling to compromise on that.
In the end I will compromise as i'm going to try this game regardless, but we're pretty much just speculating and talking about our ideals here.
I do want to get what i want and if others do not want it then that is fine by me, I only differ from what you say in that I don't feel they have to like it. I see nothing wrong with that. We are talking about games after all.
I'm not interested in some kind of compromise if the end result is what in my mind and by my tastes is an inferior game design as the one you outline from SWG that I will most likely ditch in a month and continue looking for something more in line with what I will enjoy.
No, see? Even now you have no idea what our desires are. "People like us" are people who want a game that is built around each individual facet of gameplay including pvp. If it's possible to have a "non-pvp" server, then that means it's feasible to simply cut out pvp and still have a game.... THAT'S NOT THE GAME WE WANT. That would be a game where pvp is an afterthought, a minigame, boring.
Well ok.....? Mercenaries exist in games like UO and Darkfall but I guess you just don't want to believe that.
Either way, I also said that if the rewards were great enough, it would be worth the risk of farming them.
A popular term these days is "emergent gameplay."
An example of this sort of thing would be when a group of PVE dungeon runners decide they dont' like people PVPing them when they run dungeons. They might find an area where there is a large group of PvPers together in a sort of alliance and strike a deal where they will craft weapons and armor for that group and in return the PvP guilds or groups will watch their backs.
This sort of territory control system can work in a game. When the developers don't necessarily program in a way for PVE players to be safe farming dungeons but the players form systems themselves where such a thing can happen. Maybe the territory is so large and so well policed by players that the PVE group never has any issues at all?
You don't have to like it, but you do have to admit that such things are valid and possible.
I think that it is not a valid solution, because a raid is supposed to be very long and difficult PvE event (some hours) so probably the mercenaries will be wiped by enemy players moderately fast and the players involved in the raid will not be able to continue it and fight the enemy players at the same time...if the mercenaries are too strong to being overwhelmed by enemy players you will lose the motivation to do this kind of PvP.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.