Originally posted by RaSungod The best system I've seen that makes everyone happy is opt in / opt out PvP with TEF flags. That, in my opinion, is the best way to open PvP up to the whole server, while letting people who want to play PvE do so without being bothered. It allowed me to PvP when I was in the mood, or PvE / non-combat play, when I wasn't.
No this sucks, it does NOT make the PvPer happy... it might make some pver who likes to pvp once in a while happy, but it completely fucks up the open world pvp experience
I'm not referring to a pure pvp game, obviously. I'm referring to games where PvE players are inevitable and some want nothing to do with PvP, while others only want PvP sometimes. You need a system that makes everyone happy. If you expect pure PvP, good luck with that in today's world. Super-niche at best.
There are very good PvP only games on the market already. Games like Call of Duty, Battlefield 4 ...
Yeah.. and they are really massive, right? Have a lot of different roles and tactics, right? Have real pvp objectives like a pvp influenced economy, right? I can't understandn why pvp players even complain...
OMFG.
They are indeed massive. Massive with players playing those games to the point it'll dwarf WoW, and every major MMO on the market. Just BF and CoD alone can tally up a major chunk of game play and revenues.
But those games also check griefers rather well, and nothing is better to chase them off the server than sniping or blowing their butts ups if they attempt to camp. Because in those games gear doesn't decide who wins or their level. Lost count how many level 100s in tricked out gear I either stabbed for tags or blew up. I really love the times running down passages and killing a whole squad if they think C4 exploits were funny. ^-^
I have two questions. 1) Why is it so important to the PvP players that the PvE players participate in PvP, when they just don't want to? 2) Why do the PvP players persist in thinking that it's just "balance" or "consequences" that makes PvP something PvE players do not want to participate in?
1) We don't care about PvE only players only interested in raiding and gear grind.
1a) But we do like a living breathing world, we do like that our pvp do have consequences on the world, we do like to have a ingame economy influenced be pvp, we do like to have immersion.
And that means we want to have a strong crafting system, we want to have a strong trading(between players, and optimally with local resources and local trading), we want to have some kind of pve in our games.. not because we want that some pve player(those raiding and gear grind type of pve players) come in, much more because we do like to have some activity apart from constant combat. And we actually enjoy more of a virtual world.
And that means that there is a place for some pve only player, and we do like that they enjoy their playstyle, but without affecting our playstyle.
And point 2) is the solution to get that kind of pvp mmo, a lot of pvp player enjoy, to work. To have good consequences, to have good balance, to have a good balanced risk vs. reward.. that the lessons we learned from games of the past, like UO, like EvE Online and other.
What you are saying sounds a lot like those solutions make the world more interesting for players who are interested in PvP. Which I think is true.
It doesn't answer why, in threads like these and this thread in particular, the idea of consequences, balance or other PvP rule sets are floated as a solution to get PvE players who are not interested in PvP to play PvP centric games. Now you say that the goal isn't to get PvE players who aren't interested in PvP in there, but it seems like other people are interested in this, and they think consequences, balance and anything else that isn't "choice" are the ways to do it.
If someone doesn't like something, whether it's PvP, Onions or Chocolate, different preparations of the things they don't like aren't going to change their mind unless the thing they don't like is minimized so much that they don't notice it. You can put onions in things that people who do not like onions will eat, and it will work so long as they don't notice the onions. That's just how people work. You can have PvE players play in PvP games so long as they don't have to deal with the PvP, but that breaks the whole point of a PvP game in the first place.
I don't think there is a solution. People need to stop acting like there is. Make games for PvP players, but make them interesting. Make games for PvE players, but make them interesting. If the PvE players want flagging, battle grounds, etc., then that's the PvP solution for them. If the PvP players want consequences, balance and PvE content within their PvP rule sets, then that's the solution for them. Stop trying to convince the PvP players or the PvE players that there is some magical solution where everyone can play the same game under the same rule set.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Sure, they might make it challenging at times and/or take certain requirements or a specific number of players etc. but PvE is designed to be "winnable" every time.
If PvE is not winnable, it is broken.
PvP, on the other hand, if all things were balanced and all other factors equal, win rate would be 50%.
Like in PvE, player skill, numbers, gear etc. can up your chance of winning greatly, but fundamentally it is an entirely different objective.
I don't see how it is related to the title of this topic.
It highlights some of the different goals between designing for PvE and PvP. It highlights some of the different player expectations between PvE and PvP. PvE and PvP players are two different markets.
In all honestly there are more than just two different markets. PvE is not PvE and the same is true for PvP. There are so many flavours in PvE and in PvP.. some work together other don't. Some will even profit from each other, some not. It is really much to simple to seperate just PvP and PvE.. especially as some PvP gameplay elements profit from some PvE elements, exactly as some PvE elements profit from some PvP elements.. crafting and trading would be most probably the prime examples.
There is still a focus. I think it comes down to a fundamental choice between games where the choice to PvP happens after a person is playing the game, or before the person is playing the game. There are people who want to choose when to PvP after they've started playing a game, and people who just want the PvP to be "always on". The people who want to choose when to PvP after they have started playing a game are PvE people, and the people who want PvP to be "always on" are the PvP people.
There are many different ways to put games together that satisfy that fundamental difference, but that fundamental difference is not something that is going to be satisfied by any game rules other than PvP being a flag of some sort and PvP being "always on, everywhere".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by hallucigenocide i'm sorry but this has gone on enough! ofc balance matters even to pve players.. have'nt you ever seen complaints about "this class does more damage than mine plz nerf!) ? it's not only a pvp thing pve players cry just as much dont kid yourselves..
I have to admit that I have never seen this. What I hear from PvE players is more long the lines of "You built your character wrong. You could be doing more damage of you did *this* build for them."I do not think I have ever heard a PvE player complain about balance.
:-)It's not the balance they are complaining about, it's the fact that their characters are no longer top on the DPS charts that they complain about. Hunters did not complain when their Beastmaster spec'd toons were the top of the charts, but when the great BM Nerf happened, hoo boy did they get loud. Most complaints from other players about hunters centered around PvP. Mostly rogues. Heh. :-)
This is more along the lines of the PvE complaints I've heard
These complaints are not really about "balance" so much, as they are about, "Why did you NERF my class!?!" No longer can a player 1-shot the Boss (hyperbole), not another player. The complaints tend to focus on the players actions vs. the environment, not other players, which makes sense in a PvE vs. PvP sense. PvP players are the ones I read screaming about balance vs. other players.
I mean, think about it. Why would a PvE player care about what they can, or can not do against another player? If player complains about that, they are, by default, a PvPer.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Sure, they might make it challenging at times and/or take certain requirements or a specific number of players etc. but PvE is designed to be "winnable" every time.
If PvE is not winnable, it is broken.
PvP, on the other hand, if all things were balanced and all other factors equal, win rate would be 50%.
Like in PvE, player skill, numbers, gear etc. can up your chance of winning greatly, but fundamentally it is an entirely different objective.
I don't see how it is related to the title of this topic.
It highlights some of the different goals between designing for PvE and PvP. It highlights some of the different player expectations between PvE and PvP. PvE and PvP players are two different markets.
In all honestly there are more than just two different markets. PvE is not PvE and the same is true for PvP. There are so many flavours in PvE and in PvP.. some work together other don't. Some will even profit from each other, some not. It is really much to simple to seperate just PvP and PvE.. especially as some PvP gameplay elements profit from some PvE elements, exactly as some PvE elements profit from some PvP elements.. crafting and trading would be most probably the prime examples.
There is still a focus. I think it comes down to a fundamental choice between games where the choice to PvP happens after a person is playing the game, or before the person is playing the game. There are people who want to choose when to PvP after they've started playing a game, and people who just want the PvP to be "always on". The people who want to choose when to PvP after they have started playing a game are PvE people, and the people who want PvP to be "always on" are the PvP people.
There are many different ways to put games together that satisfy that fundamental difference, but that fundamental difference is not something that is going to be satisfied by any game rules other than PvP being a flag of some sort and PvP being "always on, everywhere".
Exactly.
It is all tied to player motivations. There are (generally) vastly different intrinsic motivations for PvE only players when compared to PvP only players. Granted, many, if not most tend to fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.
But the game systems are based on rules, based on code: code is fairly black and white, 1 or 0, if/then and/or etc etc.
It is quite difficult to design systems that appeal to all of those grey areas of the spectrum.
How do you design one game system for both the player that wants always-on/no choice PvP and the one that wants choice/sometimes-on PvP? Both can't get exactly what they want in the same system can they?
Sure, they might make it challenging at times and/or take certain requirements or a specific number of players etc. but PvE is designed to be "winnable" every time.
If PvE is not winnable, it is broken.
PvP, on the other hand, if all things were balanced and all other factors equal, win rate would be 50%.
Like in PvE, player skill, numbers, gear etc. can up your chance of winning greatly, but fundamentally it is an entirely different objective.
I don't see how it is related to the title of this topic.
It highlights some of the different goals between designing for PvE and PvP. It highlights some of the different player expectations between PvE and PvP. PvE and PvP players are two different markets.
In all honestly there are more than just two different markets. PvE is not PvE and the same is true for PvP. There are so many flavours in PvE and in PvP.. some work together other don't. Some will even profit from each other, some not. It is really much to simple to seperate just PvP and PvE.. especially as some PvP gameplay elements profit from some PvE elements, exactly as some PvE elements profit from some PvP elements.. crafting and trading would be most probably the prime examples.
There is still a focus. I think it comes down to a fundamental choice between games where the choice to PvP happens after a person is playing the game, or before the person is playing the game. There are people who want to choose when to PvP after they've started playing a game, and people who just want the PvP to be "always on". The people who want to choose when to PvP after they have started playing a game are PvE people, and the people who want PvP to be "always on" are the PvP people.
There are many different ways to put games together that satisfy that fundamental difference, but that fundamental difference is not something that is going to be satisfied by any game rules other than PvP being a flag of some sort and PvP being "always on, everywhere".
Exactly.
It is all tied to player motivations. There are (generally) vastly different intrinsic motivations for PvE only players when compared to PvP only players. Granted, many, if not most tend to fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.
But the game systems are based on rules, based on code: code is fairly black and white, 1 or 0, if/then and/or etc etc.
It is quite difficult to design systems that appeal to all of those grey areas of the spectrum.
How do you design one game system for both the player that wants always-on/no choice PvP and the one that wants choice/sometimes-on PvP? Both can't get exactly what they want in the same system can they?
Originally posted by RaSungod The best system I've seen that makes everyone happy is opt in / opt out PvP with TEF flags. That, in my opinion, is the best way to open PvP up to the whole server, while letting people who want to play PvE do so without being bothered. It allowed me to PvP when I was in the mood, or PvE / non-combat play, when I wasn't.
No this sucks, it does NOT make the PvPer happy... it might make some pver who likes to pvp once in a while happy, but it completely fucks up the open world pvp experience
I'm not referring to a pure pvp game, obviously. I'm referring to games where PvE players are inevitable and some want nothing to do with PvP, while others only want PvP sometimes. You need a system that makes everyone happy. If you expect pure PvP, good luck with that in today's world. Super-niche at best.
There are very good PvP only games on the market already. Games like Call of Duty, Battlefield 4 ...
Yeah.. and they are really massive, right? Have a lot of different roles and tactics, right? Have real pvp objectives like a pvp influenced economy, right? I can't understandn why pvp players even complain...
OMFG.
They are indeed massive. Massive with players playing those games to the point it'll dwarf WoW, and every major MMO on the market. Just BF and CoD alone can tally up a major chunk of game play and revenues.
But those games also check griefers rather well, and nothing is better to chase them off the server than sniping or blowing their butts ups if they attempt to camp. Because in those games gear doesn't decide who wins or their level. Lost count how many level 100s in tricked out gear I either stabbed for tags or blew up. I really love the times running down passages and killing a whole squad if they think C4 exploits were funny. ^-^
Now bring THAT to MMO PvP.
Lol.. i mean player playing at the same time. And 32 or 64 on a small map is not massive. Of course they are successful. I play them, too. But it is a different experience for the exact reasons i mentioned above.
@BadSpock and lizardbones: I agree. Therefore developers have to choose a audience, stick to them, and focus to what they want.. you can't please everyone with just one game. It is just not possible. The problem is much more that in the recent past most developers try to cater to almost everyone and fail with that.
And because of that specialized servers are usually not the solution. Because to do them right you have to do a almost complete different game, and have different patches for those different speciality servers. It might work for a AAA development studio with massive resources and dedication to do such a thing.. because a lot of parts can be shared, like engines, like graphic assets, like lore.. but a lot of things(content and a lot of rulesets) have to be different to really cater to different audiences.
Yeah.. and they are really massive, right? Have a lot of different roles and tactics, right? Have real pvp objectives like a pvp influenced economy, right? I can't understandn why pvp players even complain...
and yet many pvp players are happily playing these games .. some of these games are even more popular than the most popular MMORPGs.
The lesson here is that "truly massive" ... is not required to be fun for many. As to many roles and tactics ... well ... no sandbox pvp mmorpgs have as many roles (heroes) as LoL, right?
And what are "real" pvp objectives? Winning an e-sport game seem to be "real enough" for many.
Yeah.. and they are really massive, right? Have a lot of different roles and tactics, right? Have real pvp objectives like a pvp influenced economy, right? I can't understandn why pvp players even complain...
and yet many pvp players are happily playing these games .. some of these games are even more popular than the most popular MMORPGs.
The lesson here is that "truly massive" ... is not required to be fun for many. As to many roles and tactics ... well ... no sandbox pvp mmorpgs have as many roles (heroes) as LoL, right?
And what are "real" pvp objectives? Winning an e-sport game seem to be "real enough" for many.
by that logic, nothing is required to be fun for some ppl... maybe 3d graphics are not required to be fun for someone, that doesnt mean there arent other ppl that do need em to have fun... Im sure lots of pvpers are happy with their instance FPS game but others would be even more happy if this pvp happened in a persistent open world..
As of pvp objectives, I think he means pvping over resources, or the control of a dungeon, etc. stuff that has a real impact on the game world (and economy)... Im sure winning and e sport match is real to a lot of people, but its not shared along a persistent world, its just a scoreboard
Why force one type of player to play with another when the two want different things out of the game? One wants to pick flowers and slay dragons for awesome loot. The other wants to slaughter the daisy picking dragonslayers. This is why PVE and PVP servers exist. If you want world PVP, play on a PVP server.
When I get home from working hard and just want to relax and quest and not be competitive then I want to be able to do that. I don't want to have to deal with it 24/7 when I log in MMOs, I can spend 10 hours a day a lot dealing with it at work. If I want PVP, I hop on Battlefield for that excitement. I do enjoy some PVP in MMOs though but for me there is nothing fun about having to watch your back all the time when you just want to wind down, relax and explore and quest. If I log on to quest and explore, I want to quest and explore not have some ganker completely ruin my 1 hour I have that night to play an MMO.
Most PvP players don't want to gank lower levels. It's the select few that make people think everyone is a ganker. It only takes 1 gank when some first starts playing as a low level player to think that that is all the game has to offer.
It's not hard to balance PvE and PvP in the same ruleset... the problem is most games do it incorrectly. Lineage 2 so far has had the best system for this that I've ever seen and that's only because obtaining items is so much of a freaking grind. The consequences for being a playerkiller have to be incredibly high and the incentive to NOT be a playerkiller has to be equally as high so that a non-player killer is actually lightyears better pay-off of fun. You will always have people that kill other players, but that's why these rulesets are fun as well.
Bottom line: It's a niche gameplay style and most people could care less about immersion and just want to play a shitty game than experience an interesting world. It's the same reasoning as this: "Why would a gamer want to play farmville?" Farmville is meant to be a time sink rather than an experience.
Bottom line: It's a niche gameplay style and most people could care less about immersion and just want to play a shitty game than experience an interesting world. It's the same reasoning as this: "Why would a gamer want to play farmville?" Farmville is meant to be a time sink rather than an experience.
The ability to run out and kill someone and then teabag their corpse doesn't make the game immersive. People play Farmville because they find it enjoyable. People play video games to enjoy themselves. I doubt anyone is looking for a higher meaning out of it or want to be a part of a "immersive" world. If that's your thing, sweet, but stop spouting generalized nonsense.
Yeah.. and they are really massive, right? Have a lot of different roles and tactics, right? Have real pvp objectives like a pvp influenced economy, right? I can't understandn why pvp players even complain...
and yet many pvp players are happily playing these games .. some of these games are even more popular than the most popular MMORPGs.
The lesson here is that "truly massive" ... is not required to be fun for many. As to many roles and tactics ... well ... no sandbox pvp mmorpgs have as many roles (heroes) as LoL, right?
And what are "real" pvp objectives? Winning an e-sport game seem to be "real enough" for many.
by that logic, nothing is required to be fun for some ppl... maybe 3d graphics are not required to be fun for someone, that doesnt mean there arent other ppl that do need em to have fun... Im sure lots of pvpers are happy with their instance FPS game but others would be even more happy if this pvp happened in a persistent open world..
As of pvp objectives, I think he means pvping over resources, or the control of a dungeon, etc. stuff that has a real impact on the game world (and economy)... Im sure winning and e sport match is real to a lot of people, but its not shared along a persistent world, its just a scoreboard
They're both "scoreboards" one is standardized with points and rankings and the other is measured by the gain in resources/money.
Take EVE for example, lauded as one of the premier examples of pvp in a MMO. Big battles get lots of press about tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars blown up in a video game battle! But there is never a real impact. Prices may go up or down, this corp or that corp may become wealthier than another, but really what has changed? It's just a hidden scoreboard for measuring who's "winning" at any given time.
If you have a castle and my army defeats your army and takes your castle it's not fundamentally different from a competitive DotA match in which you lose points and I gain points. Then the reverse happens, you take back the castle and defeat my guild again. It's like match 2.
People get caught up in the set dressing and think that some impact has occurred, but take away the guilds/team and the game goes on like nothing matters (because it doesn't there is no actual change in the game).
It would take a game with some serious balls to come out with a system in which battles have consequences for everything and actually change how the game is played. As in, certain things cease to exist and cannot be recovered in the game world. For example, let's say there was a wizard's academy that taught a few certain spells and you assault it, the defending guild/faction fails to stop your assault and you conquer it, you learn the spells for yourself and then choose execute the wizards who teach those spells. Those spells cannot be taught to anyone else in the game permanently, or maybe they become exclusive to your guild and only members of the guild can learn and use them, if anyone leaves the guild, they lose access to those spells. That's impact, and there would be crazy outcry, but that's why it would be a ballsy game to take a risk in which content was destroyed for good.
Most PvP players don't want to gank lower levels. It's the select few that make people think everyone is a ganker. It only takes 1 gank when some first starts playing as a low level player to think that that is all the game has to offer.
I can't rightly say what 'most' pvp'ers will do. I can say this: in my first 6 months in WoW, I saw about 20 'world pvpers'. Not one time were they of the same level as their surroundings. Not one time were they within 10 levels of their surroundings. In fact, not one time were they within thirty levels of their surroundings. And of all of those, over half were using exploits to flag pve players. So while 'most' pvp'ers might not be interested in ganking (a belief I don't share, but am willing to consider), the fact is that it is -far more- than simply a 'select few' that are doing otherwise. And when a person points out that they are literally killing off their next generation of competition, they think its fun to laugh about it and troll about it. Now, 10 years down the road pvpers are wondering "why does everyone think we're all cheaters and exploiters just out to gank?!" You can trace the behavior back to UO, even. When griefing became a thing, something should have been done about it on the spot. But it wasn't. It never is. And now, most of your sheep simply refuse to play with you. I can't feel much sympathy, but I really am trying to (and I say that honestly, not in snark).
If the pvp community ever wants to truly share space with the pve community ever again, you will have to deal with no griefing. No camping, no continuous exploiting, no senseless murder sprees. There are a lot of us pve players who would give a game like that a shot. But what passes these days for pvp? I'd rather give myself a root canal than play with people like that.
Authors note: All instances of 'you' are used in the generic, and are not meant to be a challenge or insult to any specific poster
I'm sure the answer is because it's hard to balance, or people either like one or the other in their MMO.
But, one thing I dislike the most in most modern MMO's is the separation of PvP from PvE. I hate instanced PvP because it feels like I'm play a separate game which to me voids the whole point of an MMO world. Games like UO, AC1 (DT) and even SWG to an extant had open world PvP with no separation of the two, and these game gave me the most fun.
I just wish more MMO's would do this, and from what I'm hearing EQN will be , or at least I hope so.
/endrant
EQN will not be open world PvP, you got wrong info or just choosing to spread false rumors. It would be a stupid move on the developers part and mmorpg suicide. UO and m59 plus others failed with PvP only, fact. PvP is just a glorified first person shooter.
Sandbox does not equal PvP only, it can also mean PvE only, EQN will have different servers just like any other mmorpg out there becuae that's what works, acoording to marketing and gamers.
Because they are diametrically opposed systems and audiences. One game is centered on cooperation the other is centered on competition. Carebears and Crybabies weren't meant to mingle.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
I don't think it is hard to get PVP with PVE to work. There are plenty of MMO's with both enjoyable PVP and PVE. In my experience most of the bitching about PVP/PVE comes down to class nerfs and whether PVP should be forced or not.
And most of the time it is just some egoistic solo pvper that wants to see the class nerf (if you pvp in a group, you are less likely victim against the same class all the time) or some antisocial players who want to enforce their playstyle on other players. The second group can be outright annoying when a MMO is obviously not designed with open world PVP in mind.
Both groups can safely be ignored by devs imo. Devs know what they want with a MMO in general terms. And they have their metrics that can show whether a class needs the nerfstick. Better info anyway then some anecdote from some solo pvper with a grudge.
Originally posted by Velocinox Because they are diametrically opposed systems and audiences. One game is centered on cooperation the other is centered on competition. Carebears and Crybabies weren't meant to mingle.
No those are fine together. It's progression at the root of nearly everything. Cooperation and competition are both slaves of progression.
Moba's are based on compete and cooperate. Not progression.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I'm sure the answer is because it's hard to balance, or people either like one or the other in their MMO.
But, one thing I dislike the most in most modern MMO's is the separation of PvP from PvE. I hate instanced PvP because it feels like I'm play a separate game which to me voids the whole point of an MMO world. Games like UO, AC1 (DT) and even SWG to an extant had open world PvP with no separation of the two, and these game gave me the most fun.
I just wish more MMO's would do this, and from what I'm hearing EQN will be , or at least I hope so.
/endrant
EQN will not be open world PvP, you got wrong info or just choosing to spread false rumors. It would be a stupid move on the developers part and mmorpg suicide. UO and m59 plus others failed with PvP only, fact. PvP is just a glorified first person shooter.
So what will it be? I heard it will be all types. Do I do a double face palm? I forget.
I don't think mmorpgs or their players have room to poke fun. A glorified skinner box will lose that battle. Unless mmorpgs show off their fancy business models so cheaters can play too.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by Velocinox Because they are diametrically opposed systems and audiences. One game is centered on cooperation the other is centered on competition. Carebears and Crybabies weren't meant to mingle.
No those are fine together. It's progression at the root of nearly everything. Cooperation and competition are both slaves of progression.
Moba's are based on compete and cooperate. Not progression.
And I believe its just the greed (or financial necessity) of the developer pushing them together to widen their appeal.
Too many times I have seen carebears penalized because crybabies whined about nerfing a system or class that only affected PvP, when the PvE crowd was entirely happy with it and didn't care that the class wasn't balanced with the other classes.
Just as many times I have seen crybabies complain that they don't want separate PvP and PvE servers because the carebears didn't want to be prey for the crybabies while trying to play the game.
Dr. Bartle saw it first, Explorer's vs Socializers and Killers vs Achievers.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
Originally posted by Aison2 gear separation is needed. If the gear is the same and pvp gears you faster, every pve player would see himself forced to pvp. Same vice versa.
Which is what happened in WoW -- again -- when they forced PvPers to raid to get the best weapons; or PvErs to endure PvP for quest/holiday achieves (For the Children achieve is bad all around, not only because it makes PvErs cannonfodder, the message it sends [bringing virtual kids into PvP combat and being a b-a-d parent in the process]).
When the PvE and PvP lines are blurred, the devs are doing a disservice to their own server classification system, too.
A raider doesn't want to PvP he loves raiding and questing. A PvPer doesn't want to raid because he likes PvPing. It's different play styles and different means of satisfaction. When the two are mixed, no one is happy.
actually not entirely true.. alot of PvPers enjoy the occasional PvE aswell and i'm pretty sure some PvEers find some pvp entertaining at times aswell.. they both just want to focus more on 1 of the things.. not exclude it entirely
When it's instanced and totally removed OFF A PvE SERVER PvP can be a fun excursion for bored PvE players.
Not mix and match, then claim "you have a choice!", as your PvE stats nose-dive so Mr. Ganker can gank level 50 PvErs for "fun".
I heal, and when stupid idiotic devs nerf my heals so Mr. ePeen Ganker doesn't cry that a healer is doing their job well, heck no, those devs can stick it up their Kazoo and light it. I'm sick of my role and class nerfed/buffed/changed for some pinheaded tacked on PeeVeePee.
Want to see how BAD PvE+PvP turns a game into for not only a role a sub-class as a healer? Here...
Originally posted by Velocinox Because they are diametrically opposed systems and audiences. One game is centered on cooperation the other is centered on competition. Carebears and Crybabies weren't meant to mingle.
No those are fine together. It's progression at the root of nearly everything. Cooperation and competition are both slaves of progression.
Moba's are based on compete and cooperate. Not progression.
And I believe its just the greed (or financial necessity) of the developer pushing them together to widen their appeal.
Too many times I have seen carebears penalized because crybabies whined about nerfing a system or class that only affected PvP, when the PvE crowd was entirely happy with it and didn't care that the class wasn't balanced with the other classes.
Just as many times I have seen crybabies complain that they don't want separate PvP and PvE servers because the carebears didn't want to be prey for the crybabies while trying to play the game.
Dr. Bartle saw it first, Explorer's vs Socializers and Killers vs Achievers.
Dr. Bartle didn't say anything about outcomes of rigged games?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by Aison2 gear separation is needed. If the gear is the same and pvp gears you faster, every pve player would see himself forced to pvp. Same vice versa.
Which is what happened in WoW -- again -- when they forced PvPers to raid to get the best weapons; or PvErs to endure PvP for quest/holiday achieves (For the Children achieve is bad all around, not only because it makes PvErs cannonfodder, the message it sends [bringing virtual kids into PvP combat and being a b-a-d parent in the process]).
When the PvE and PvP lines are blurred, the devs are doing a disservice to their own server classification system, too.
A raider doesn't want to PvP he loves raiding and questing. A PvPer doesn't want to raid because he likes PvPing. It's different play styles and different means of satisfaction. When the two are mixed, no one is happy.
actually not entirely true.. alot of PvPers enjoy the occasional PvE aswell and i'm pretty sure some PvEers find some pvp entertaining at times aswell.. they both just want to focus more on 1 of the things.. not exclude it entirely
When it's instanced and totally removed OFF A PvE SERVER PvP can be a fun excursion for bored PvE players.
Not mix and match, then claim "you have a choice!", as your PvE stats nose-dive so Mr. Ganker can gank level 50 PvErs for "fun".
I heal, and when stupid idiotic devs nerf my heals so Mr. ePeen Ganker doesn't cry that a healer is doing their job well, heck no, those devs can stick it up their Kazoo and light it. I'm sick of my role and class nerfed/buffed/changed for some pinheaded tacked on PeeVeePee.
Want to see how BAD PvE+PvP turns a game into for not only a role a sub-class as a healer? Here...
Originally posted by Velocinox Because they are diametrically opposed systems and audiences. One game is centered on cooperation the other is centered on competition. PvE and PvP weren't meant to mingle.
Comments
They are indeed massive. Massive with players playing those games to the point it'll dwarf WoW, and every major MMO on the market. Just BF and CoD alone can tally up a major chunk of game play and revenues.
But those games also check griefers rather well, and nothing is better to chase them off the server than sniping or blowing their butts ups if they attempt to camp. Because in those games gear doesn't decide who wins or their level. Lost count how many level 100s in tricked out gear I either stabbed for tags or blew up. I really love the times running down passages and killing a whole squad if they think C4 exploits were funny. ^-^
Now bring THAT to MMO PvP.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
What you are saying sounds a lot like those solutions make the world more interesting for players who are interested in PvP. Which I think is true.
It doesn't answer why, in threads like these and this thread in particular, the idea of consequences, balance or other PvP rule sets are floated as a solution to get PvE players who are not interested in PvP to play PvP centric games. Now you say that the goal isn't to get PvE players who aren't interested in PvP in there, but it seems like other people are interested in this, and they think consequences, balance and anything else that isn't "choice" are the ways to do it.
If someone doesn't like something, whether it's PvP, Onions or Chocolate, different preparations of the things they don't like aren't going to change their mind unless the thing they don't like is minimized so much that they don't notice it. You can put onions in things that people who do not like onions will eat, and it will work so long as they don't notice the onions. That's just how people work. You can have PvE players play in PvP games so long as they don't have to deal with the PvP, but that breaks the whole point of a PvP game in the first place.
I don't think there is a solution. People need to stop acting like there is. Make games for PvP players, but make them interesting. Make games for PvE players, but make them interesting. If the PvE players want flagging, battle grounds, etc., then that's the PvP solution for them. If the PvP players want consequences, balance and PvE content within their PvP rule sets, then that's the solution for them. Stop trying to convince the PvP players or the PvE players that there is some magical solution where everyone can play the same game under the same rule set.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
There is still a focus. I think it comes down to a fundamental choice between games where the choice to PvP happens after a person is playing the game, or before the person is playing the game. There are people who want to choose when to PvP after they've started playing a game, and people who just want the PvP to be "always on". The people who want to choose when to PvP after they have started playing a game are PvE people, and the people who want PvP to be "always on" are the PvP people.
There are many different ways to put games together that satisfy that fundamental difference, but that fundamental difference is not something that is going to be satisfied by any game rules other than PvP being a flag of some sort and PvP being "always on, everywhere".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
These complaints are not really about "balance" so much, as they are about, "Why did you NERF my class!?!" No longer can a player 1-shot the Boss (hyperbole), not another player. The complaints tend to focus on the players actions vs. the environment, not other players, which makes sense in a PvE vs. PvP sense. PvP players are the ones I read screaming about balance vs. other players.
I mean, think about it. Why would a PvE player care about what they can, or can not do against another player? If player complains about that, they are, by default, a PvPer.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Exactly.
It is all tied to player motivations. There are (generally) vastly different intrinsic motivations for PvE only players when compared to PvP only players. Granted, many, if not most tend to fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.
But the game systems are based on rules, based on code: code is fairly black and white, 1 or 0, if/then and/or etc etc.
It is quite difficult to design systems that appeal to all of those grey areas of the spectrum.
How do you design one game system for both the player that wants always-on/no choice PvP and the one that wants choice/sometimes-on PvP? Both can't get exactly what they want in the same system can they?
BS is Spock On again!!
Lol.. i mean player playing at the same time. And 32 or 64 on a small map is not massive. Of course they are successful. I play them, too. But it is a different experience for the exact reasons i mentioned above.
@BadSpock and lizardbones: I agree. Therefore developers have to choose a audience, stick to them, and focus to what they want.. you can't please everyone with just one game. It is just not possible. The problem is much more that in the recent past most developers try to cater to almost everyone and fail with that.
And because of that specialized servers are usually not the solution. Because to do them right you have to do a almost complete different game, and have different patches for those different speciality servers. It might work for a AAA development studio with massive resources and dedication to do such a thing.. because a lot of parts can be shared, like engines, like graphic assets, like lore.. but a lot of things(content and a lot of rulesets) have to be different to really cater to different audiences.
and yet many pvp players are happily playing these games .. some of these games are even more popular than the most popular MMORPGs.
The lesson here is that "truly massive" ... is not required to be fun for many. As to many roles and tactics ... well ... no sandbox pvp mmorpgs have as many roles (heroes) as LoL, right?
And what are "real" pvp objectives? Winning an e-sport game seem to be "real enough" for many.
by that logic, nothing is required to be fun for some ppl... maybe 3d graphics are not required to be fun for someone, that doesnt mean there arent other ppl that do need em to have fun... Im sure lots of pvpers are happy with their instance FPS game but others would be even more happy if this pvp happened in a persistent open world..
As of pvp objectives, I think he means pvping over resources, or the control of a dungeon, etc. stuff that has a real impact on the game world (and economy)... Im sure winning and e sport match is real to a lot of people, but its not shared along a persistent world, its just a scoreboard
Why force one type of player to play with another when the two want different things out of the game? One wants to pick flowers and slay dragons for awesome loot. The other wants to slaughter the daisy picking dragonslayers. This is why PVE and PVP servers exist. If you want world PVP, play on a PVP server.
Most PvP players don't want to gank lower levels. It's the select few that make people think everyone is a ganker. It only takes 1 gank when some first starts playing as a low level player to think that that is all the game has to offer.
It's not hard to balance PvE and PvP in the same ruleset... the problem is most games do it incorrectly. Lineage 2 so far has had the best system for this that I've ever seen and that's only because obtaining items is so much of a freaking grind. The consequences for being a playerkiller have to be incredibly high and the incentive to NOT be a playerkiller has to be equally as high so that a non-player killer is actually lightyears better pay-off of fun. You will always have people that kill other players, but that's why these rulesets are fun as well.
Bottom line: It's a niche gameplay style and most people could care less about immersion and just want to play a shitty game than experience an interesting world. It's the same reasoning as this: "Why would a gamer want to play farmville?" Farmville is meant to be a time sink rather than an experience.
The ability to run out and kill someone and then teabag their corpse doesn't make the game immersive. People play Farmville because they find it enjoyable. People play video games to enjoy themselves. I doubt anyone is looking for a higher meaning out of it or want to be a part of a "immersive" world. If that's your thing, sweet, but stop spouting generalized nonsense.
They're both "scoreboards" one is standardized with points and rankings and the other is measured by the gain in resources/money.
Take EVE for example, lauded as one of the premier examples of pvp in a MMO. Big battles get lots of press about tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars blown up in a video game battle! But there is never a real impact. Prices may go up or down, this corp or that corp may become wealthier than another, but really what has changed? It's just a hidden scoreboard for measuring who's "winning" at any given time.
If you have a castle and my army defeats your army and takes your castle it's not fundamentally different from a competitive DotA match in which you lose points and I gain points. Then the reverse happens, you take back the castle and defeat my guild again. It's like match 2.
People get caught up in the set dressing and think that some impact has occurred, but take away the guilds/team and the game goes on like nothing matters (because it doesn't there is no actual change in the game).
It would take a game with some serious balls to come out with a system in which battles have consequences for everything and actually change how the game is played. As in, certain things cease to exist and cannot be recovered in the game world. For example, let's say there was a wizard's academy that taught a few certain spells and you assault it, the defending guild/faction fails to stop your assault and you conquer it, you learn the spells for yourself and then choose execute the wizards who teach those spells. Those spells cannot be taught to anyone else in the game permanently, or maybe they become exclusive to your guild and only members of the guild can learn and use them, if anyone leaves the guild, they lose access to those spells. That's impact, and there would be crazy outcry, but that's why it would be a ballsy game to take a risk in which content was destroyed for good.
I can't rightly say what 'most' pvp'ers will do. I can say this: in my first 6 months in WoW, I saw about 20 'world pvpers'. Not one time were they of the same level as their surroundings. Not one time were they within 10 levels of their surroundings. In fact, not one time were they within thirty levels of their surroundings. And of all of those, over half were using exploits to flag pve players. So while 'most' pvp'ers might not be interested in ganking (a belief I don't share, but am willing to consider), the fact is that it is -far more- than simply a 'select few' that are doing otherwise. And when a person points out that they are literally killing off their next generation of competition, they think its fun to laugh about it and troll about it. Now, 10 years down the road pvpers are wondering "why does everyone think we're all cheaters and exploiters just out to gank?!" You can trace the behavior back to UO, even. When griefing became a thing, something should have been done about it on the spot. But it wasn't. It never is. And now, most of your sheep simply refuse to play with you. I can't feel much sympathy, but I really am trying to (and I say that honestly, not in snark).
If the pvp community ever wants to truly share space with the pve community ever again, you will have to deal with no griefing. No camping, no continuous exploiting, no senseless murder sprees. There are a lot of us pve players who would give a game like that a shot. But what passes these days for pvp? I'd rather give myself a root canal than play with people like that.
Authors note: All instances of 'you' are used in the generic, and are not meant to be a challenge or insult to any specific poster
Sandbox does not equal PvP only, it can also mean PvE only, EQN will have different servers just like any other mmorpg out there becuae that's what works, acoording to marketing and gamers.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=f6w1BGsgLjQ
"An it harm none, do what thou wilt"
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
I don't think it is hard to get PVP with PVE to work. There are plenty of MMO's with both enjoyable PVP and PVE. In my experience most of the bitching about PVP/PVE comes down to class nerfs and whether PVP should be forced or not.
And most of the time it is just some egoistic solo pvper that wants to see the class nerf (if you pvp in a group, you are less likely victim against the same class all the time) or some antisocial players who want to enforce their playstyle on other players. The second group can be outright annoying when a MMO is obviously not designed with open world PVP in mind.
Both groups can safely be ignored by devs imo. Devs know what they want with a MMO in general terms. And they have their metrics that can show whether a class needs the nerfstick. Better info anyway then some anecdote from some solo pvper with a grudge.
No those are fine together. It's progression at the root of nearly everything. Cooperation and competition are both slaves of progression.
Moba's are based on compete and cooperate. Not progression.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
So what will it be? I heard it will be all types. Do I do a double face palm? I forget.
I don't think mmorpgs or their players have room to poke fun. A glorified skinner box will lose that battle. Unless mmorpgs show off their fancy business models so cheaters can play too.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
And I believe its just the greed (or financial necessity) of the developer pushing them together to widen their appeal.
Too many times I have seen carebears penalized because crybabies whined about nerfing a system or class that only affected PvP, when the PvE crowd was entirely happy with it and didn't care that the class wasn't balanced with the other classes.
Just as many times I have seen crybabies complain that they don't want separate PvP and PvE servers because the carebears didn't want to be prey for the crybabies while trying to play the game.
Dr. Bartle saw it first, Explorer's vs Socializers and Killers vs Achievers.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
When it's instanced and totally removed OFF A PvE SERVER PvP can be a fun excursion for bored PvE players.
Not mix and match, then claim "you have a choice!", as your PvE stats nose-dive so Mr. Ganker can gank level 50 PvErs for "fun".
I heal, and when stupid idiotic devs nerf my heals so Mr. ePeen Ganker doesn't cry that a healer is doing their job well, heck no, those devs can stick it up their Kazoo and light it. I'm sick of my role and class nerfed/buffed/changed for some pinheaded tacked on PeeVeePee.
Want to see how BAD PvE+PvP turns a game into for not only a role a sub-class as a healer? Here...
http://worldoflogs.com/rankings/players/Siege_of_Orgrimmar/hps/
Strong burst single target healers aren't found, because guess what can quickly heal strong burst single target damage?
So destroy a sub-class so PvPers can pewpewpew and brag...does not make a good game nor experience.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Dr. Bartle didn't say anything about outcomes of rigged games?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Developers nerf for expensive pve content.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I completely agree.
"An it harm none, do what thou wilt"