Agree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
In my game experience the only system that works well in PvE is the HOLY TRINITY, it imply an aggro managment and a taunt skill. Without a tank with a taunt skill the traditional classes (pure healers, pure dps) cant do their job, cause if they are attacked by mobs and bosses they will probably die, without the healer the tank will be killed as well, without dps you will probably dont be able to kill your enemy (a strong boss for example).
This system is the only one that need a real coordination and interdependence between classes in a party, all classes are important and fondamental for the others due their specic skills and role.
The only alternative system i have tested in another game is the one used in GW2 and i think that is a real fail. Every classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (stay alive, heal themself and do dps) so every class in a group can be replaced by another. The result is a boring and brainless PvE that dont need coordination and tatics between players
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Loke666 Originally posted by GholosAgree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
In my game experience the only system that works well in PvE is the HOLY TRINITY, it imply an aggro managment and a taunt skill. Without a tank with a taunt skill the traditional classes (pure healers, pure dps) cant do their job, cause if they are attacked by mobs and bosses they will probably die, without the healer the tank will be killed as well, without dps you will probably dont be able to kill your enemy (a strong boss for example).
This system is the only one that need a real coordination and interdependence between classes in a party, all classes are important and fondamental for the others due their specic skills and role.
The only alternative system i have tested in another game is the one used in GW2 and i think that is a real fail. Every classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (stay alive, heal themself and do dps) so every class in a group can be replaced by another.
You really didn't say much about the necessity of a taunt ability. Just that without the taunt, the healers and dps would die... why? Many many games exist with tanks that don't have a taunt ability. Id suggest you broaden your horizons.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Karble
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.
Agree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
In my game experience the only system that works well in PvE is the HOLY TRINITY, it imply an aggro managment and a taunt skill. Without a tank with a taunt skill the traditional classes (pure healers, pure dps) cant do their job, cause if they are attacked by mobs and bosses they will probably die, without the healer the tank will be killed as well, without dps you will probably dont be able to kill your enemy (a strong boss for example).
This system is the only one that need a real coordination and interdependence between classes in a party, all classes are important and fondamental for the others due their specic skills and role.
The only alternative system i have tested in another game is the one used in GW2 and i think that is a real fail. Every classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (stay alive, heal themself and do dps) so every class in a group can be replaced by another.
You really didn't say much about the necessity of a taunt ability. Just that without the taunt, the healers and dps would die... why? Many many games exist with tanks that don't have a taunt ability. Id suggest you broaden your horizons.
...because they will probably take the aggro (healing and dps generate many aggro) of the mobs or boss and they will be killed if there is no tank that can take the aggro on himself.
I have played all the most famous MMORPG released since 1999 and i have find in trinity a perfect system for my taste so i really dont need to broaden my horizons...maybe you need if you make this kind of questions.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
...because they will probably take the aggro (healing and dps generate many aggro) of the mobs or boss and they will be killed if there is no tank that can take the aggro on himself.
I have played all the most famous MMORPG released since 1999 and i have find in trinity a perfect system for my taste so i really dont need to broaden my horizons...maybe you need if you make this kind of questions.
"DPS" and "Healer" don't really get 2-shot in the majority of RPG's out there, that's really just an MMO thing and it was forced to make the Trinity work... there's more to the gaming world than MMORPG's, you know. Granted, "DPS" and "Healer" don't exactly exist in most RPG's, either, usually people just have their classes instead that do certain things, and if there is a class that is glass cannon (essentially MMORPG's DPS), they have to play very carefully, and, yes, not rely on the tank to keep aggro for them. That's kind of how things work in reality, I am not sure why this causes a problem. The Trinity is far more unnatural, and it's also a very simplified system that's easy to understand, which I guess is why people cling to it.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW Currently playing: GW2, EVE Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
In my game experience the only system that works well in PvE is the HOLY TRINITY, it imply an aggro managment and a taunt skill. Without a tank with a taunt skill the traditional classes (pure healers, pure dps) cant do their job, cause if they are attacked by mobs and bosses they will probably die, without the healer the tank will be killed as well, without dps you will probably dont be able to kill your enemy (a strong boss for example).
This system is the only one that need a real coordination and interdependence between classes in a party, all classes are important and fondamental for the others due their specic skills and role.
The only alternative system i have tested in another game is the one used in GW2 and i think that is a real fail. Every classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (stay alive, heal themself and do dps) so every class in a group can be replaced by another. The result is a boring and brainless PvE that dont need coordination and tatics between players
What you don't like and call fail is something some people call freedom of choice ....I'm not interested in any game system that makes my enjoyment of the game depend on waiting or searching for someone to show up and play a specific class . Having 3 or 4 people sitting around with their fingers stuck up their asses waiting for a specific healer or tank class to arrive just sucks ...having a class being able to spec for different roles is fine but role specific classes are just not tolerable in a modern game
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Gholos Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Loke666 Originally posted by GholosAgree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
In my game experience the only system that works well in PvE is the HOLY TRINITY, it imply an aggro managment and a taunt skill. Without a tank with a taunt skill the traditional classes (pure healers, pure dps) cant do their job, cause if they are attacked by mobs and bosses they will probably die, without the healer the tank will be killed as well, without dps you will probably dont be able to kill your enemy (a strong boss for example).
This system is the only one that need a real coordination and interdependence between classes in a party, all classes are important and fondamental for the others due their specic skills and role.
The only alternative system i have tested in another game is the one used in GW2 and i think that is a real fail. Every classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (stay alive, heal themself and do dps) so every class in a group can be replaced by another.
You really didn't say much about the necessity of a taunt ability. Just that without the taunt, the healers and dps would die... why? Many many games exist with tanks that don't have a taunt ability. Id suggest you broaden your horizons.
...because they will probably take the aggro (healing and dps generate many aggro) of the mobs or boss and they will be killed if there is no tank that can take the aggro on himself.
I have played all the most famous MMORPG released since 1999 and i have find in trinity a perfect system for my taste so i really dont need to broaden my horizons...maybe you need if you make this kind of questions.
Why would I need to broaden my horizons exactly? Do you understand what youre saying or are you just trying to clumsily throw it back in my face? You're the one making the claim that pve won't work without a taunt. I'm not making the claim that you cant have pve WITH a taunt. I'm merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities and that games exist that have good pve and no taunts. If you've never played those games, broaden your horizons.
People keep talking about PvP breaking PvE, but I don't see why. Maybe if PvP is introduced into a game where there is already complex PvE it would break it. But if the game is designed with PvP and PvE in mind, why can't the mobs be balanced accordingly?
Because PvE in most MMOs is based on increasing stats and PvP is based on changing tactics. This is why some games have gear and skills function differently for each situation (ex: UO, GW1) and other games create separate gear entirely (ex: AoC, GW2).
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Agree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
In my game experience the only system that works well in PvE is the HOLY TRINITY, it imply an aggro managment and a taunt skill. Without a tank with a taunt skill the traditional classes (pure healers, pure dps) cant do their job, cause if they are attacked by mobs and bosses they will probably die, without the healer the tank will be killed as well, without dps you will probably dont be able to kill your enemy (a strong boss for example).
This system is the only one that need a real coordination and interdependence between classes in a party, all classes are important and fondamental for the others due their specic skills and role.
The only alternative system i have tested in another game is the one used in GW2 and i think that is a real fail. Every classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (stay alive, heal themself and do dps) so every class in a group can be replaced by another.
You really didn't say much about the necessity of a taunt ability. Just that without the taunt, the healers and dps would die... why? Many many games exist with tanks that don't have a taunt ability. Id suggest you broaden your horizons.
...because they will probably take the aggro (healing and dps generate many aggro) of the mobs or boss and they will be killed if there is no tank that can take the aggro on himself.
I have played all the most famous MMORPG released since 1999 and i have find in trinity a perfect system for my taste so i really dont need to broaden my horizons...maybe you need if you make this kind of questions.
Tank pvp is easily fixed with one of a few game techniques.
First one is building attack skills into tank designed to help them even the field against casters such as
1. chained hook:::::basically throw a chain with hook at the end...strikes target for X damage and pulls right in front of tank. Usable at 3/4 distance of farthest casting spell.
2. rush attack:::::player launches themselves in the direction of the target closing gap with a powerful strike causing x damage.
3. bolas:::: player throws a rope with two balls attached....hits target causing them to temporarily be knocked to the ground and stunned.
4. Bash::::usable with shield, player hits target causing stun and interruption plus x damage.
People keep talking about PvP breaking PvE, but I don't see why. Maybe if PvP is introduced into a game where there is already complex PvE it would break it. But if the game is designed with PvP and PvE in mind, why can't the mobs be balanced accordingly?
Just being there isn't what breaks it, it's how players play vrs how mob AI works that tends to break things. A skill that is too powerful in pvp because it has some effect that's making a class " OP " can sometimes be useful or critical in pve without being game breaking. ( or vise versa )
Once nerfed to bring it in line for pvp/pve, the skill becomes useless in the other and changes the whole dynamic of how that class plays.
It's easy to say just design a game so that doesn't happen, but history shows it's not that simple. No one else has done it...or even come close. The reason pve's are so vocal is because people are far better at figuring out things developers never intended so it's pvp that ends up with the skills that are broken or need changing and the pve side that gets the nerf.
It happens the other way around some times but not nearly as often. I don't mind a game that has pvp but I know going in that if they're not split it's going to be one of those games that your class will see nerfs and broken skills because of changes from something I don't even do.
It's pretty obvious to understand EQ Next will have sometype of ffa pvp system in it. A paraphrased quote from the devs is that they want players of all types ranging from the matriarch/patriarch (guild leader type), the raid leader, the crafter, AND THE PVPER all playing in the same world. SOE believes a better game will be created if the world is crafted where multiple playstyles can find their own niche in one interconnected world.
Saying you want PvPErs in the same world as the other type of players doesn't mean that you are planning to have Open World FFA PvP in your game. SWG had PvP in the same world as the other players and it wasn't FFA PvP,, you had to flag yourself.
People keep talking about PvP breaking PvE, but I don't see why. Maybe if PvP is introduced into a game where there is already complex PvE it would break it. But if the game is designed with PvP and PvE in mind, why can't the mobs be balanced accordingly?
Because PvE in most MMOs is based on increasing stats and PvP is based on changing tactics. This is why some games have gear and skills function differently for each situation (ex: UO, GW1) and other games create separate gear entirely (ex: AoC, GW2).
Pvp isn't based on changing tactics, it's (supposed to be) about player skill. I don't see how increasing stats for pve interferes with pvp at all. Also some games have pve roles and pvp roles. Take UO for example. Good pvp, good pve, no taunta.
People keep talking about PvP breaking PvE, but I don't see why. Maybe if PvP is introduced into a game where there is already complex PvE it would break it. But if the game is designed with PvP and PvE in mind, why can't the mobs be balanced accordingly?
Because PvE in most MMOs is based on increasing stats and PvP is based on changing tactics. This is why some games have gear and skills function differently for each situation (ex: UO, GW1) and other games create separate gear entirely (ex: AoC, GW2).
Pvp isn't based on changing tactics, it's (supposed to be) about player skill. I don't see how increasing stats for pve interferes with pvp at all. Also some games have pve roles and pvp roles. Take UO for example. Good pvp, good pve, no taunta.
Whoa there. I said nothing about taunt. It's the stupidest band-aid ever added to MMOs.
"Pvp isn't based on changing tactics, it's (supposed to be) about player skill."
You're new to PvP I take it? In PvE, the enemy is made more difficult through stats, with a bit of AI improvement here and there but it's limited. In PvP, you are dealing with a completely different opponent. They are less predictable, don't have a spawn spot or leash, laugh at the idea of fighting the guy with the most armor and least dps, and aren't progressively scaled in stats the way mobs are. The same gear and formula used to combat a 90% resistance 50k HP, quick regenning mob are not going to be the same as the gear and formula needed to fight an equal level player.
If your players aren't constantly changing tactics based on what people are bringing to battle (skills, gear, tactcs, etc) or based on the changes to how what they are bringing works, or the changes in how their opponents are using what they are bringing to battle then your problem is that you don't have much player skill among your playerbase.
EDIT: I just read DamonVile's post above and he does a good job of explaining the difference and how it impacts both sides.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
People keep talking about PvP breaking PvE, but I don't see why. Maybe if PvP is introduced into a game where there is already complex PvE it would break it. But if the game is designed with PvP and PvE in mind, why can't the mobs be balanced accordingly?
They do in most trinity game and the guy I quoted and the guy he quoted were talking about mechanics close to the original EQ. I did however mention the" tanks" of Guildwars and a similar system to that might indeed work (as I said above).
Another way is to get rid of the tank altogether.
The reason why you can't add good PvP to a PvE based mechanic is that you need to use a system that works well for both, so you need to design it that way from the beginning. I have not seen a single PvE based MMO ever make good PvP just like I never seen a good PvP game have good PvE.
PvP don't break PvE and vice versa if you make a system in which both work. But you really can't just add PvP to the regular mechanics. EQN really need new mechanics if it wants to ace both aspects. Otherwise I see 90% of all players on the PvE only servers again.
Why do you guys think that most MMOs have 90% PvE players while a few have the other aspect and very few are in between? It is because they do one thing a lot better than the other. But if you think about both as much when you design the game you can make them both good.
Whoa there. I said nothing about taunt. It's the stupidest band-aid ever added to MMOs.
"Pvp isn't based on changing tactics, it's (supposed to be) about player skill."
You're new to PvP I take it? In PvE, the enemy is made more difficult through stats, with a bit of AI improvement here and there but it's limited. In PvP, you are dealing with a completely different opponent. They are less predictable, don't have a spawn spot or leash, laugh at the idea of fighting the guy with the most armor and least dps, and aren't progressively scaled in stats the way mobs are. The same gear and formula used to combat a 90% resistance 50k HP, quick regenning mob are not going to be the same as the gear and formula needed to fight an equal level player.
If your players aren't constantly changing tactics based on what people are bringing to battle (skills, gear, tactcs, etc) or based on the changes to how what they are bringing works, or the changes in how their opponents are using what they are bringing to battle then your problem is that you don't have much player skill among your playerbase.
EDIT: I just read DamonVile's post above and he does a good job of explaining the difference and how it impacts both sides.
You are right. But the question is if it not is because all mobs in a standard MMO is incredible stupid. Get a better AI and mobs that act more like humans (not fully since that is impossible but smarter) and you solve the issue.
I think that the time when standing still and rotating your skills for PvE will end soon.
"If it's an important aspect of the game design, then taking it out to make a "pve" server would ruin the game."
It would only ruin the PvE server and you'd be playing on the PvP server, right? It wouldn't affect you. That's one of the issues I have with the PvP argument is that it's usually telling others what they have to do instead of just worrying about themselves.
How would having a seperate PvE server ruin a PvP server if PvP was an integral part of the game?
Whoa there. I said nothing about taunt. It's the stupidest band-aid ever added to MMOs.
"Pvp isn't based on changing tactics, it's (supposed to be) about player skill."
You're new to PvP I take it? In PvE, the enemy is made more difficult through stats, with a bit of AI improvement here and there but it's limited. In PvP, you are dealing with a completely different opponent. They are less predictable, don't have a spawn spot or leash, laugh at the idea of fighting the guy with the most armor and least dps, and aren't progressively scaled in stats the way mobs are. The same gear and formula used to combat a 90% resistance 50k HP, quick regenning mob are not going to be the same as the gear and formula needed to fight an equal level player.
If your players aren't constantly changing tactics based on what people are bringing to battle (skills, gear, tactcs, etc) or based on the changes to how what they are bringing works, or the changes in how their opponents are using what they are bringing to battle then your problem is that you don't have much player skill among your playerbase.
EDIT: I just read DamonVile's post above and he does a good job of explaining the difference and how it impacts both sides.
You are right. But the question is if it not is because all mobs in a standard MMO is incredible stupid. Get a better AI and mobs that act more like humans (not fully since that is impossible but smarter) and you solve the issue.
I think that the time when standing still and rotating your skills for PvE will end soon.
The AI isn't the problem. Yes, it's dumb, but that's not because they can't be made smarter. In contemporary MMOs, mobs aren't a goal. They are a means to a goal, that goal being leveling. Change the reason for the mobs and you can change the combat. Be careful what you wish for, though, as that could very well break the coveted trinity.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
Taunting should work in pvp, and some games have done it. I believe it worked in EQ2 where you could change other player targets and turn then to you. I dont think it should force them to continue attacking you, but when melee get on your healer, it would be great to spin them off even for a couple seconds.
That is not my favorite way to solve this but it do work. If EQN is to be a trinity game they either must do this or seriously revamp the tank. EQ2s mechanics were not that good and they would still need to fix it up.
Mobs and players should act somewhat similar in a game with equal amount of PvP and PvE.
"If it's an important aspect of the game design, then taking it out to make a "pve" server would ruin the game."
It would only ruin the PvE server and you'd be playing on the PvP server, right? It wouldn't affect you. That's one of the issues I have with the PvP argument is that it's usually telling others what they have to do instead of just worrying about themselves.
How would having a seperate PvE server ruin a PvP server if PvP was an integral part of the game?
I think everyone can agree it would not.
The crux of the matter being though, if the game is in fact designed for and dependent on pve/pvp integration and the removal of one game mode would be disastrous -- the developers should know that and are not going to give you a PVE server.
I want everyone to be happy playing games, but if and only if a game is designed with integration in mind -- it would be detrimental to the game and an injustice to all players if they were not playing the game in its working state. The population would be split and a large portion of it would be watching their PVE server fail and would then leave the game having never taken the opportunity to try the working state of the game. Maybe that is their choice to play on the proverbial "sinking ship" but it isn't a choice developers are likely to offer, and for good reason.
People keep talking about PvP breaking PvE, but I don't see why. Maybe if PvP is introduced into a game where there is already complex PvE it would break it. But if the game is designed with PvP and PvE in mind, why can't the mobs be balanced accordingly?
Because PvE in most MMOs is based on increasing stats and PvP is based on changing tactics. This is why some games have gear and skills function differently for each situation (ex: UO, GW1) and other games create separate gear entirely (ex: AoC, GW2).
Pvp isn't based on changing tactics, it's (supposed to be) about player skill. I don't see how increasing stats for pve interferes with pvp at all. Also some games have pve roles and pvp roles. Take UO for example. Good pvp, good pve, no taunta.
Whoa there. I said nothing about taunt. It's the stupidest band-aid ever added to MMOs.
Then take out the last 2 words of my post, doesn't really change it. But I admit I was stuck in the mindset of the discussion I was having with somebody else.
"Pvp isn't based on changing tactics, it's (supposed to be) about player skill."
You're new to PvP I take it?
LOL... no....
In PvE, the enemy is made more difficult through stats, with a bit of AI improvement here and there but it's limited. In PvP, you are dealing with a completely different opponent. They are less predictable, don't have a spawn spot or leash, laugh at the idea of fighting the guy with the most armor and least dps, and aren't progressively scaled in stats the way mobs are. The same gear and formula used to combat a 90% resistance 50k HP, quick regenning mob are not going to be the same as the gear and formula needed to fight an equal level player.
Your pvp experience seems to based around typical wow clones or other themepark games. You don't have to have 50k hp mobs, or mobs with quick regen. There are plenty of games (UO, DF, etc) that don't have vastly increasing stat pools, the mobs simply have to increase at a somewhat comparable rate to your character. That's all. It doesn't conflict with pvp at all.
And I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say players laugh at the guy with the most armor and least dps. Plenty of mmo's and non-mmos have tanks in pvp and pve. First of all I already mentioned DFUW's battlebrand warrior. They're a melee class that is meant to push into the caster/squishy target lines of the opponent and fuck shit up. You can say that player will simply laugh at that guy instead of fighting him, but it's just no based on reality. You're just saying it.
If your players aren't constantly changing tactics based on what people are bringing to battle (skills, gear, tactcs, etc) or based on the changes to how what they are bringing works, or the changes in how their opponents are using what they are bringing to battle then your problem is that you don't have much player skill among your playerbase.
I thought you meant changing tactics as in shifting meta-games. Adjusting your play to what the other person/people are doing is included in the idea of player skill. And I don't see how adjusting your play based on what you see is in any way in conflict with pve.
I honestly don't really mind PvP.. my biggest issue with it (and to some extent PvE) is the fact that companies do not ban people who cheat/exploit. *edit* I just wanted to add another angle beyond the "mechanics" one.
While in Planetside 2 after the endless mouth running of Smedley on bannings... they likely did ban the "no name" players who were teleporting objects around inside warpgates to kill people. The largest group in my faction almost all used 3rd party programs and/or exploits... that group is still active today. Just are the mirror groups in the other 2 factions on that server.
Its a bit hard to justify putting time into a game that has PvP when I see people openly cheating and nothing done about it... going all the way back to Dark Age of Camelot doing nothing about radar. Unless you count the 7 day ban *warning* they rolled out the week before WoW launched.. and how dead the servers were (and remained) after... and thus came the clustering.
That's not unique to PvP as of course was seen at the launch of swtor when the server economies were ruined by an exploit. The response was "warnings" and a few 3 day bans... seriously?
Anyway I don't mind pvp at all but I for once want to see a company actually support a clean and level playfield.. especially IF by some chance they happen to have open world pvp.
The AI isn't the problem. Yes, it's dumb, but that's not because they can't be made smarter. In contemporary MMOs, mobs aren't a goal. They are a means to a goal, that goal being leveling. Change the reason for the mobs and you can change the combat. Be careful what you wish for, though, as that could very well break the coveted trinity.
That is very insightful. As long as I have been MMOing I had never considered this.
My take on it has always been that mob AI is stupid and easy to overcome as a result of a least common denominator difficulty system. Perhaps the reasons for the AI is multi-faceted -- if that is the case though that would be bad news for those of us hoping for change wouldn't it?
Not trying to divert the topic, I do see mob AI as relevent to the PVE/PVP balance discussion.
Another christmas list thread, but I wanted to get some opinions on this and to have some coding knowledgeables give me a reality check.
Basically I would like to see player controlled territory, but seeing how this is the "largest sandbox mmo" by territory I mean huge amounts of space. What I believe this would do, it would create PvE zones within PvP borders. I would also like these borders to be organic, so a neighboring faction could push your border back. In addition I think having NPC's controlled by the players would help. I think that if an enemy army wishes to take your castle it should take more than one battle. They could certainly win in one battle, if the make a lengthy push to eliminate all of your players/NPCs and finally lay siege upon your stronghold, but it would be more likely for the pushes to come in spurts. I hate the idea of sieges being limited to a window time, to me that makes no sense despite being beneficial to the casual players.
This could go a far way to strengthen the bond between PvP and PvE players. PvP players are protecting the lands of the PvE from their bloodthirsty adversaries, while PvE'ers are exploring/crafting/suppressing interior NPC mobs and also helping to provide the resources to keep a healthy NPC force.
So what do you guys think?
Fail...
Here's the bottom line and it's true...in todays genre games are trying to appease pvers and pvpers with one game and in the end, one side is happy, or no one is. That said, developers need to understand that unless they are focusing on a niche type of game, you need pve and pvp servers. Pve servers the pvp should be some type of toggle. Pvp servers should be extreme pvp. If this game has pvp servers, I'm in...but I doubt they will.
Incognito www.incognito-gaming.us "You're either with us or against us"
The AI isn't the problem. Yes, it's dumb, but that's not because they can't be made smarter. In contemporary MMOs, mobs aren't a goal. They are a means to a goal, that goal being leveling. Change the reason for the mobs and you can change the combat. Be careful what you wish for, though, as that could very well break the coveted trinity.
The main point of a MMO is being challenged and overcoming that challenge.
And yes, it might break the trinity but it have frankly been the same since Meridian 59 launched in '96. The combat mechanics of MMOs either need some work or to be scrapped entirely and replaced by something new. So far have no game really pulled off a new great combat mechanics but some have done interesting tries at it.
I'm sick to death with skill rotations. A new PvE combat system where you actually have to to think while you play would be a great addition to the genre. You still need group dynamics of course but most pen and paper RPGs have non trinity systems that works excellent.
Most people seems to think that combat mechanics is a choice between FPS zerging and rigid trinity but there are many other possibilities.
Here's the bottom line and it's true...in todays genre games are trying to appease pvers and pvpers with one game and in the end, one side is happy, or no one is. That said, developers need to understand that unless they are focusing on a niche type of game, you need pve and pvp servers. Pve servers the pvp should be some type of toggle. Pvp servers should be extreme pvp. If this game has pvp servers, I'm in...but I doubt they will.
If one side is happy and the other is not then the mechanics of the game is a failure. I rather have no PvP (or PvE) than really bad.
Make a system that works equally good and the problem is solved, then you can add PvE only servers or whatever.
Comments
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
In my game experience the only system that works well in PvE is the HOLY TRINITY, it imply an aggro managment and a taunt skill. Without a tank with a taunt skill the traditional classes (pure healers, pure dps) cant do their job, cause if they are attacked by mobs and bosses they will probably die, without the healer the tank will be killed as well, without dps you will probably dont be able to kill your enemy (a strong boss for example).
This system is the only one that need a real coordination and interdependence between classes in a party, all classes are important and fondamental for the others due their specic skills and role.
The only alternative system i have tested in another game is the one used in GW2 and i think that is a real fail. Every classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (stay alive, heal themself and do dps) so every class in a group can be replaced by another.
You really didn't say much about the necessity of a taunt ability. Just that without the taunt, the healers and dps would die... why? Many many games exist with tanks that don't have a taunt ability. Id suggest you broaden your horizons.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.
...because they will probably take the aggro (healing and dps generate many aggro) of the mobs or boss and they will be killed if there is no tank that can take the aggro on himself.
I have played all the most famous MMORPG released since 1999 and i have find in trinity a perfect system for my taste so i really dont need to broaden my horizons...maybe you need if you make this kind of questions.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
"DPS" and "Healer" don't really get 2-shot in the majority of RPG's out there, that's really just an MMO thing and it was forced to make the Trinity work... there's more to the gaming world than MMORPG's, you know. Granted, "DPS" and "Healer" don't exactly exist in most RPG's, either, usually people just have their classes instead that do certain things, and if there is a class that is glass cannon (essentially MMORPG's DPS), they have to play very carefully, and, yes, not rely on the tank to keep aggro for them. That's kind of how things work in reality, I am not sure why this causes a problem. The Trinity is far more unnatural, and it's also a very simplified system that's easy to understand, which I guess is why people cling to it.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
In my game experience the only system that works well in PvE is the HOLY TRINITY, it imply an aggro managment and a taunt skill. Without a tank with a taunt skill the traditional classes (pure healers, pure dps) cant do their job, cause if they are attacked by mobs and bosses they will probably die, without the healer the tank will be killed as well, without dps you will probably dont be able to kill your enemy (a strong boss for example).
This system is the only one that need a real coordination and interdependence between classes in a party, all classes are important and fondamental for the others due their specic skills and role.
The only alternative system i have tested in another game is the one used in GW2 and i think that is a real fail. Every classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (stay alive, heal themself and do dps) so every class in a group can be replaced by another.
You really didn't say much about the necessity of a taunt ability. Just that without the taunt, the healers and dps would die... why? Many many games exist with tanks that don't have a taunt ability. Id suggest you broaden your horizons....because they will probably take the aggro (healing and dps generate many aggro) of the mobs or boss and they will be killed if there is no tank that can take the aggro on himself.
I have played all the most famous MMORPG released since 1999 and i have find in trinity a perfect system for my taste so i really dont need to broaden my horizons...maybe you need if you make this kind of questions.
Why would I need to broaden my horizons exactly? Do you understand what youre saying or are you just trying to clumsily throw it back in my face? You're the one making the claim that pve won't work without a taunt. I'm not making the claim that you cant have pve WITH a taunt. I'm merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities and that games exist that have good pve and no taunts. If you've never played those games, broaden your horizons.Because PvE in most MMOs is based on increasing stats and PvP is based on changing tactics. This is why some games have gear and skills function differently for each situation (ex: UO, GW1) and other games create separate gear entirely (ex: AoC, GW2).
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Tank pvp is easily fixed with one of a few game techniques.
First one is building attack skills into tank designed to help them even the field against casters such as
1. chained hook:::::basically throw a chain with hook at the end...strikes target for X damage and pulls right in front of tank. Usable at 3/4 distance of farthest casting spell.
2. rush attack:::::player launches themselves in the direction of the target closing gap with a powerful strike causing x damage.
3. bolas:::: player throws a rope with two balls attached....hits target causing them to temporarily be knocked to the ground and stunned.
4. Bash::::usable with shield, player hits target causing stun and interruption plus x damage.
Just being there isn't what breaks it, it's how players play vrs how mob AI works that tends to break things. A skill that is too powerful in pvp because it has some effect that's making a class " OP " can sometimes be useful or critical in pve without being game breaking. ( or vise versa )
Once nerfed to bring it in line for pvp/pve, the skill becomes useless in the other and changes the whole dynamic of how that class plays.
It's easy to say just design a game so that doesn't happen, but history shows it's not that simple. No one else has done it...or even come close. The reason pve's are so vocal is because people are far better at figuring out things developers never intended so it's pvp that ends up with the skills that are broken or need changing and the pve side that gets the nerf.
It happens the other way around some times but not nearly as often. I don't mind a game that has pvp but I know going in that if they're not split it's going to be one of those games that your class will see nerfs and broken skills because of changes from something I don't even do.
Saying you want PvPErs in the same world as the other type of players doesn't mean that you are planning to have Open World FFA PvP in your game. SWG had PvP in the same world as the other players and it wasn't FFA PvP,, you had to flag yourself.
Because PvE in most MMOs is based on increasing stats and PvP is based on changing tactics. This is why some games have gear and skills function differently for each situation (ex: UO, GW1) and other games create separate gear entirely (ex: AoC, GW2).
Pvp isn't based on changing tactics, it's (supposed to be) about player skill. I don't see how increasing stats for pve interferes with pvp at all. Also some games have pve roles and pvp roles. Take UO for example. Good pvp, good pve, no taunta.Whoa there. I said nothing about taunt. It's the stupidest band-aid ever added to MMOs.
"Pvp isn't based on changing tactics, it's (supposed to be) about player skill."
You're new to PvP I take it? In PvE, the enemy is made more difficult through stats, with a bit of AI improvement here and there but it's limited. In PvP, you are dealing with a completely different opponent. They are less predictable, don't have a spawn spot or leash, laugh at the idea of fighting the guy with the most armor and least dps, and aren't progressively scaled in stats the way mobs are. The same gear and formula used to combat a 90% resistance 50k HP, quick regenning mob are not going to be the same as the gear and formula needed to fight an equal level player.
If your players aren't constantly changing tactics based on what people are bringing to battle (skills, gear, tactcs, etc) or based on the changes to how what they are bringing works, or the changes in how their opponents are using what they are bringing to battle then your problem is that you don't have much player skill among your playerbase.
EDIT: I just read DamonVile's post above and he does a good job of explaining the difference and how it impacts both sides.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
They do in most trinity game and the guy I quoted and the guy he quoted were talking about mechanics close to the original EQ. I did however mention the" tanks" of Guildwars and a similar system to that might indeed work (as I said above).
Another way is to get rid of the tank altogether.
The reason why you can't add good PvP to a PvE based mechanic is that you need to use a system that works well for both, so you need to design it that way from the beginning. I have not seen a single PvE based MMO ever make good PvP just like I never seen a good PvP game have good PvE.
PvP don't break PvE and vice versa if you make a system in which both work. But you really can't just add PvP to the regular mechanics. EQN really need new mechanics if it wants to ace both aspects. Otherwise I see 90% of all players on the PvE only servers again.
Why do you guys think that most MMOs have 90% PvE players while a few have the other aspect and very few are in between? It is because they do one thing a lot better than the other. But if you think about both as much when you design the game you can make them both good.
You are right. But the question is if it not is because all mobs in a standard MMO is incredible stupid. Get a better AI and mobs that act more like humans (not fully since that is impossible but smarter) and you solve the issue.
I think that the time when standing still and rotating your skills for PvE will end soon.
"If it's an important aspect of the game design, then taking it out to make a "pve" server would ruin the game."
It would only ruin the PvE server and you'd be playing on the PvP server, right? It wouldn't affect you. That's one of the issues I have with the PvP argument is that it's usually telling others what they have to do instead of just worrying about themselves.
How would having a seperate PvE server ruin a PvP server if PvP was an integral part of the game?
The AI isn't the problem. Yes, it's dumb, but that's not because they can't be made smarter. In contemporary MMOs, mobs aren't a goal. They are a means to a goal, that goal being leveling. Change the reason for the mobs and you can change the combat. Be careful what you wish for, though, as that could very well break the coveted trinity.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
That is not my favorite way to solve this but it do work. If EQN is to be a trinity game they either must do this or seriously revamp the tank. EQ2s mechanics were not that good and they would still need to fix it up.
Mobs and players should act somewhat similar in a game with equal amount of PvP and PvE.
I think everyone can agree it would not.
The crux of the matter being though, if the game is in fact designed for and dependent on pve/pvp integration and the removal of one game mode would be disastrous -- the developers should know that and are not going to give you a PVE server.
I want everyone to be happy playing games, but if and only if a game is designed with integration in mind -- it would be detrimental to the game and an injustice to all players if they were not playing the game in its working state. The population would be split and a large portion of it would be watching their PVE server fail and would then leave the game having never taken the opportunity to try the working state of the game. Maybe that is their choice to play on the proverbial "sinking ship" but it isn't a choice developers are likely to offer, and for good reason.
Then take out the last 2 words of my post, doesn't really change it. But I admit I was stuck in the mindset of the discussion I was having with somebody else.
LOL... no....
Your pvp experience seems to based around typical wow clones or other themepark games. You don't have to have 50k hp mobs, or mobs with quick regen. There are plenty of games (UO, DF, etc) that don't have vastly increasing stat pools, the mobs simply have to increase at a somewhat comparable rate to your character. That's all. It doesn't conflict with pvp at all.
And I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say players laugh at the guy with the most armor and least dps. Plenty of mmo's and non-mmos have tanks in pvp and pve. First of all I already mentioned DFUW's battlebrand warrior. They're a melee class that is meant to push into the caster/squishy target lines of the opponent and fuck shit up. You can say that player will simply laugh at that guy instead of fighting him, but it's just no based on reality. You're just saying it.
I thought you meant changing tactics as in shifting meta-games. Adjusting your play to what the other person/people are doing is included in the idea of player skill. And I don't see how adjusting your play based on what you see is in any way in conflict with pve.
I honestly don't really mind PvP.. my biggest issue with it (and to some extent PvE) is the fact that companies do not ban people who cheat/exploit. *edit* I just wanted to add another angle beyond the "mechanics" one.
While in Planetside 2 after the endless mouth running of Smedley on bannings... they likely did ban the "no name" players who were teleporting objects around inside warpgates to kill people. The largest group in my faction almost all used 3rd party programs and/or exploits... that group is still active today. Just are the mirror groups in the other 2 factions on that server.
Its a bit hard to justify putting time into a game that has PvP when I see people openly cheating and nothing done about it... going all the way back to Dark Age of Camelot doing nothing about radar. Unless you count the 7 day ban *warning* they rolled out the week before WoW launched.. and how dead the servers were (and remained) after... and thus came the clustering.
That's not unique to PvP as of course was seen at the launch of swtor when the server economies were ruined by an exploit. The response was "warnings" and a few 3 day bans... seriously?
Anyway I don't mind pvp at all but I for once want to see a company actually support a clean and level playfield.. especially IF by some chance they happen to have open world pvp.
That is very insightful. As long as I have been MMOing I had never considered this.
My take on it has always been that mob AI is stupid and easy to overcome as a result of a least common denominator difficulty system. Perhaps the reasons for the AI is multi-faceted -- if that is the case though that would be bad news for those of us hoping for change wouldn't it?
Not trying to divert the topic, I do see mob AI as relevent to the PVE/PVP balance discussion.
Fail...
Here's the bottom line and it's true...in todays genre games are trying to appease pvers and pvpers with one game and in the end, one side is happy, or no one is. That said, developers need to understand that unless they are focusing on a niche type of game, you need pve and pvp servers. Pve servers the pvp should be some type of toggle. Pvp servers should be extreme pvp. If this game has pvp servers, I'm in...but I doubt they will.
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
The main point of a MMO is being challenged and overcoming that challenge.
And yes, it might break the trinity but it have frankly been the same since Meridian 59 launched in '96. The combat mechanics of MMOs either need some work or to be scrapped entirely and replaced by something new. So far have no game really pulled off a new great combat mechanics but some have done interesting tries at it.
I'm sick to death with skill rotations. A new PvE combat system where you actually have to to think while you play would be a great addition to the genre. You still need group dynamics of course but most pen and paper RPGs have non trinity systems that works excellent.
Most people seems to think that combat mechanics is a choice between FPS zerging and rigid trinity but there are many other possibilities.
If one side is happy and the other is not then the mechanics of the game is a failure. I rather have no PvP (or PvE) than really bad.
Make a system that works equally good and the problem is solved, then you can add PvE only servers or whatever.