Originally posted by bcbully Both if you want to play in a virtual world,, andnot some hodge podge of parts glued together. Leaving one out is even worse.
A virtual world can have rules that do not encompass PVP or PVE.
Originally posted by Asuran24 For pve and pvp balance to exit you need to have a method of balancing each independently, with out the balancing of one breaking the other. Which would mean a dual value system which each ability have one set of value for each (pve, and pvp.) that only influence that playstyle. After you can independently balance the systems for pvp an pve, you can start working on the sytems to govern the pvp in the game with risks, and rewards, and meaningful reasons for pvping, since the op/imbalance issues would not be there now. It is a matter of how well the game is balanced, and how well you re-balance it when it get out fo control. alot of the rest is just bonuses that wear off when you relise how limited an imbalanced it is.
Yes but that gives you exactly what I was implying in my OP.
We may be talking about two seperate things. In my example before responding to you I figured if you had the same amount of OWPvP regions as strictly PvE regions, both featuring a full complement of content, in one gameworld there would be no need for secondary PvP systems that are tacked on after initial development.
Those who want constant PvP while doing PvE can have it while those that want to be left in peace can stay that way. Of course there will be those of us in the middle who like to PvP but don't want to be forced into it 24/7. By creating seperate content for both in the same gameworld there would be an incentive to those PvP part timers to head into dangerous water and "join the fight" by way of PvE exploration. This in turn would create the same PvP dynamic content you were talking about.
im predominantly a pver, but i also like pvp. Im not saying that your model doesnt work, it does well for themeparks.
im far from sold on the sandbox front though. You need a reason to build a great wall and place a bunch of guards on it. Developers dont have the resources, and scripts dont quite cut it do they?
i just believe you need a bit of everything integrated for a world to exist. Not saying it has to be "full loot" or "Free for all". We know nothing chases players away faster. That dos not mean however that pvp must be 100% seperate either.
EDIT: So that I believe it can be done well in one game.
Yes but you can't deny that PVP takes a back-seat to PVE in WoW, no matter if you like it or not.
PVP is an afterthought in the design of the game, WoW is at heart a PVE game with tacked on PVP features just like EVE is a PVP game with tacked on PVE features.
Why do you think so? I do not claim you are wrong. I just play WoW on regular basis and I do not feel that PVE is so overwhelming.
You have some dungeons, raids, quests on the PVE side and BGs, arena (2v2, 3v3, 5v5), rated BGs, OWPvP, battles (e.g. Tol Barad) on the other side.
You have different type of gear for each activity. You have different spec for each activity (not necessarily, but you do have abilities/talents that have more utilization in PVE or PvP).
When you decide to do PvP, you have similar queues, so that it is not more time consuming to get involved in PvP.
You have achievements for both, PVE and PvP.
You have PVE and PvP servers.
I am just wondering what makes you think that PvP takes a back-seat.
The whole game is balanced/designed around PVE.
To do PVP you have to do PVE first (PVP doesn't give progression)
Talents/abilities are PVE centred and the Frost Mage is the single most persuasive argument for it.
Blizz tried to mitigate the problems with dual-specs and the new talent trees but it still worked out the same way it was before, a frostmage in a raid is mostly not useful, unless you need a lot of trash AOE-CC.
Then they tried to mitigate that by designing encounters/ballance with their new mantra "bring the player not the class" so they homogenized most classes.
Every time blizzard does something to PVE ballance it fucks their PVP ballance and vice versa.
etc.
How long have you been playing WoW?
Since day 1
Why would you have to do PVE first? You get exp for doing PVP, you get currency to purchase PVP gear from PVP. All you need to do is to get first several levels, so that you can PVP. Since like level 10, you can progress all the way to max level and max PVP gear solely by doing PVP.
You can also get to max level by doing only crafting, its still not Minecraft or crafting-focused.
The question is how does PVP tie into the game? It doesnt.
The PVP is segregated away, its separate, might as well be another game entirely.
I think its why Bloodline Champions and now Forge exist.
I always thought that the PvP is tied into the game lore-wise. There is this conflict between alliance and the horde.
By segregated you mean that the BGs, Arena, etc are in a separate zone? There is still the OWPvP. You are basically exploring Azeroth and suddenly, you run into enemies and can PvP them which does not necessarily seem to be another game entirely.
As I mentioned before, I do not claim you are wrong. I also do not claim it is PvP oriented game. All I am saying is that I do not see how the PVE is so much overwhelming
If you dont claim im wrong, why are you arguing with me? Certainly you think my assessment is -wrong-, you say so in your next sentence.
I'm talking about mechanics not about lore.
Afaik, vanilla didn't even have BGs or separate PVP. Over time, PVP got segregated out of the game into its own separate niche.
If the PVP was tied into the mechanics, it wouldn't need separate zones/instances, servers and flags.
The PVP would actually -do- something in relation to the PVE.
If PvP had been more considerate to PvE I would have choose both. I play archer / rogue type characters and IN EVERY GAME I HAVE EVER PLAYED I HAVE BEEN GIMPED because of the PvP contingent whining about stats. I am so sick of it I have grown to hate PvP'ers.
Plus I don't want ganked. I spent all day on that quest chain I don't want slammed back to the starter point so I can go back again to get ganked yet again. Total not fun.
The thought of equally sized but seperate PvP enabled and toggled regions was from a sandbox frame of mind as you would need to give breathing room if both are to have equal share. This would be a big, open world without reasonable physical boundaries (mountain ranges, etc.). There would be races or factions (player made or not), some opposed to others that would realistically create war zones. These would not just be open spaces to PvP. They would have the same sort of landscapes and activities as non PvP areas.
The ability to build and have guards etc. would not really be a factor. You could build in any region, war zone or not, and go from there. The idea would be worse in a themepark IMO. When I say "regions" I'm not meaning seperate areas like WoW, Rift, etc. The lines would be invisible across the terrain and just notify you if you crossed it.
I would enjoy this type of sandboxy style game anyways. It would create more dynamics which is what I like about sandbox features to begin with.
The thought of equally sized but seperate PvP enabled and toggled regions was from a sandbox frame of mind as you would need to give breathing room if both are to have equal share. This would be a big, open world without reasonable physical boundaries (mountain ranges, etc.). There would be races or factions (player made or not), some opposed to others that would realistically create war zones. These would not just be open spaces to PvP. They would have the same sort of landscapes and activities as non PvP areas.
The ability to build and have guards etc. would not really be a factor. You could build in any region, war zone or not, and go from there. The idea would be worse in a themepark IMO. When I say "regions" I'm not meaning seperate areas like WoW, Rift, etc. The lines would be invisible across the terrain and just notify you if you crossed it.
I would enjoy this type of sandboxy style game anyways. It would create more dynamics which is what I like about sandbox features to begin with.
why would i bother to build anything. It has no effect in the pve area, and the pvp area will be filed to the brim with hardcore goons which will destroy everything i build asap.
96% pve and 4% pvp. You only need 4% or so to provide endless content to the 96%. Less and is just a pve game, more makes it a gankfest.
The thought of equally sized but seperate PvP enabled and toggled regions was from a sandbox frame of mind as you would need to give breathing room if both are to have equal share. This would be a big, open world without reasonable physical boundaries (mountain ranges, etc.). There would be races or factions (player made or not), some opposed to others that would realistically create war zones. These would not just be open spaces to PvP. They would have the same sort of landscapes and activities as non PvP areas.
The ability to build and have guards etc. would not really be a factor. You could build in any region, war zone or not, and go from there. The idea would be worse in a themepark IMO. When I say "regions" I'm not meaning seperate areas like WoW, Rift, etc. The lines would be invisible across the terrain and just notify you if you crossed it.
I would enjoy this type of sandboxy style game anyways. It would create more dynamics which is what I like about sandbox features to begin with.
why would i bother to build anything. It has no effect in the pve area, and the pvp area will be filed to the brim with hardcore goons which will destroy everything i build asap.
96% pve and 4% pvp. You only need 4% or so to provide endless content to the 96%. Less and is just a pve game, more makes it a gankfest.
thats how i see it.
Yeah and that's why strictly PvP gamers don't get the quality of game they want. You need the PvEers as a buffer between the gankers and the other PvPers? So the 4% of PvPers use the 96% as their content and the 96% don't appreciate it and leave, it's not the other way around IMO. Spending time and money to be someone else's content is no go and unless you give them an equal space to do their thing, or choose to head into PvP, I don't think they will stay very long.
On the purpose of building structures in PvE it would be the same motivation as PvP IMO, just to do it. It's the same idea as PvP. You engage in PvP to fight other people. Yes, land grabs/destroying structures is an added bonus but there are plenty of games that feature structure building that don't even have an MMO combat system. Last time I checked more people were playing those than MMORPGs lol.
I'm asking the question because we have seen time and time again that games that feature both PVE and PVP rarely do both right.
It seems that whenever a MMORPG tries to do both, it ends up neglecting one or the other, which is unsurprising as the two stand in a somewhat oposite place (one is directly competitive with other players while the other is cooperative).
Thats not to say that cooperative-competitition doesn't exist (for example high level competitition in raiding), but its not the same competition that dominating other players directly ingame is.
Now i enjoy both PVP and PVE, but rarely do I enjoy it in the same game.
Do you think the remedy would be to create separate, more niche games instead of trying to be everything for everyone?
I think its pretty obvious fromn the poll so far that the average MMO gamer is not a Forced PvP fan. I myself put both but there needs to be clear lines of demarcations and PvP should never be forced.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
The thought of equally sized but seperate PvP enabled and toggled regions was from a sandbox frame of mind as you would need to give breathing room if both are to have equal share. This would be a big, open world without reasonable physical boundaries (mountain ranges, etc.). There would be races or factions (player made or not), some opposed to others that would realistically create war zones. These would not just be open spaces to PvP. They would have the same sort of landscapes and activities as non PvP areas.
The ability to build and have guards etc. would not really be a factor. You could build in any region, war zone or not, and go from there. The idea would be worse in a themepark IMO. When I say "regions" I'm not meaning seperate areas like WoW, Rift, etc. The lines would be invisible across the terrain and just notify you if you crossed it.
I would enjoy this type of sandboxy style game anyways. It would create more dynamics which is what I like about sandbox features to begin with.
why would i bother to build anything. It has no effect in the pve area, and the pvp area will be filed to the brim with hardcore goons which will destroy everything i build asap.
96% pve and 4% pvp. You only need 4% or so to provide endless content to the 96%. Less and is just a pve game, more makes it a gankfest.
thats how i see it.
Yeah and that's why strictly PvP gamers don't get the quality of game they want. You need the PvEers as a buffer between the gankers and the other PvPers? So the 4% of PvPers use the 96% as their content and the 96% don't appreciate it and leave, it's not the other way around IMO. Spending time and money to be someone else's content is no go and unless you give them an equal space to do their thing, or choose to head into PvP, I don't think they will stay very long.
On the purpose of building structures in PvE it would be the same motivation as PvP IMO, just to do it. It's the same idea as PvP. You engage in PvP to fight other people. Yes, land grabs/destroying structures is an added bonus but there are plenty of games that feature structure building that don't even have an MMO combat system. Last time I checked more people were playing those than MMORPGs lol.
i would argue the success of guild wars 2 and the adaptation of all other games wow included says that alot more people than ever before are spending time to become someone elses content.
ultimately, people need to provide the content, How exactly to accomplish it is debatable of course.
The thought of equally sized but seperate PvP enabled and toggled regions was from a sandbox frame of mind as you would need to give breathing room if both are to have equal share. This would be a big, open world without reasonable physical boundaries (mountain ranges, etc.). There would be races or factions (player made or not), some opposed to others that would realistically create war zones. These would not just be open spaces to PvP. They would have the same sort of landscapes and activities as non PvP areas.
The ability to build and have guards etc. would not really be a factor. You could build in any region, war zone or not, and go from there. The idea would be worse in a themepark IMO. When I say "regions" I'm not meaning seperate areas like WoW, Rift, etc. The lines would be invisible across the terrain and just notify you if you crossed it.
I would enjoy this type of sandboxy style game anyways. It would create more dynamics which is what I like about sandbox features to begin with.
why would i bother to build anything. It has no effect in the pve area, and the pvp area will be filed to the brim with hardcore goons which will destroy everything i build asap.
96% pve and 4% pvp. You only need 4% or so to provide endless content to the 96%. Less and is just a pve game, more makes it a gankfest.
thats how i see it.
Yeah and that's why strictly PvP gamers don't get the quality of game they want. You need the PvEers as a buffer between the gankers and the other PvPers? So the 4% of PvPers use the 96% as their content and the 96% don't appreciate it and leave, it's not the other way around IMO. Spending time and money to be someone else's content is no go and unless you give them an equal space to do their thing, or choose to head into PvP, I don't think they will stay very long.
On the purpose of building structures in PvE it would be the same motivation as PvP IMO, just to do it. It's the same idea as PvP. You engage in PvP to fight other people. Yes, land grabs/destroying structures is an added bonus but there are plenty of games that feature structure building that don't even have an MMO combat system. Last time I checked more people were playing those than MMORPGs lol.
i would argue the success of guild wars 2 and the adaptation of all other games wow included says that alot more people than ever before are spending time to become someone elses content.
ultimately, people need to provide the content, How exactly to accomplish it is debatable of course.
I agree completely and what I was envisioning was pockets of WvW from GW2 but with some regional backstory between the factions/races that were in the area. The success of WvW shows that if you give people the option of doing PvPvE a lot more will take it than forcing PvP on those who usually enjoy PvE.
One reason why balancing PvP and PvE is difficult is because the combat, content and the objectives are so different. If you can bring those closer together, you'd have easier time balancing the game. This would mean smarter AI and no threat minigames among many other changes.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Quirhid One reason why balancing PvP and PvE is difficult is because the combat, content and the objectives are so different. If you can bring those closer together, you'd have easier time balancing the game. This would mean smarter AI and no threat minigames among many other changes.
I agree, but the smartest AI is a player(theoretically), and the next best thing to that is a player who has limited abilities to direct the ai and initiate events in an unpredictable way. Thats true dynamic.
whether you like guild wars 2 or not, they have a nice event system in their game. Whats the problem with it? Its static. Do it over and over and over again.
What if, it were possible for a player on the opposing side could initiate a pve event upon pve players. We couldnt have half the server doing this, it would be chaos, but we could have a very small proportion of the players doing these kinds of things. It doesnt mean they cant happen on their own, its just a dynamic enhancement to the system.
the fact that these players could take part in the events as well would be equally as interesting.
the gameplay options are staggering, not just for pvpers but pvers as well.
people are too focused on ganking when in fact these players would be great assets to any pve game.
Originally posted by Quirhid One reason why balancing PvP and PvE is difficult is because the combat, content and the objectives are so different. If you can bring those closer together, you'd have easier time balancing the game. This would mean smarter AI and no threat minigames among many other changes.
Start with the Player, then PvP, and then PvE. Why that order? Well, it's about trying something other than starting with the PvE, then the Player, and finally PvP. Because that obviously does not work, eh?
The objectives are not really that different, imo - not in the least. Objective - kill the enemy. It's pretty much the same.
The problem arises with the initial focus on PvE creating ludicrous stats and munchkin characters which leads to mind boggling PvP. It's not a balanced focus.
If on the other hand, you focus on the Player first - you lay out the path that you want for the various classes/skills/etc - you've got a solid base for going into PvP - and - you also have that solid base for going into PvE.
It would provide us something other than the illusion of difficulty - as we're fighting level 1000 mobs that are basically just level 1 mobs with more health and more damaging attacks. In some cases, it's exactly like that...meh.
As for the mobs, I'm still waiting for somebody else to tackle it via something similar to AD&D's Challenge Rating. Something where the mobs are actually an appropriate challenge rather than just part of the ongoing crop of monster farms that we see. Even with this, there would still be room for threat - but it would have to take into consideration the intellect of the mobs. Some would be too smart for it, some would be too stupid for it, and some just would not bother with it. There would be a limit as well - in that one could not grab aggro on a million mobs.
And the more I think about all this, the more I know that it will never happen...because it's not about making a game for the single player where they can feel like a god - which I'm hard pressed not to see in most games. So it's kind of pointless to share any further thoughts on it...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
EDIT: So that I believe it can be done well in one game.
Yes but you can't deny that PVP takes a back-seat to PVE in WoW, no matter if you like it or not.
PVP is an afterthought in the design of the game, WoW is at heart a PVE game with tacked on PVP features just like EVE is a PVP game with tacked on PVE features.
Why do you think so? I do not claim you are wrong. I just play WoW on regular basis and I do not feel that PVE is so overwhelming.
You have some dungeons, raids, quests on the PVE side and BGs, arena (2v2, 3v3, 5v5), rated BGs, OWPvP, battles (e.g. Tol Barad) on the other side.
You have different type of gear for each activity. You have different spec for each activity (not necessarily, but you do have abilities/talents that have more utilization in PVE or PvP).
When you decide to do PvP, you have similar queues, so that it is not more time consuming to get involved in PvP.
You have achievements for both, PVE and PvP.
You have PVE and PvP servers.
I am just wondering what makes you think that PvP takes a back-seat.
The whole game is balanced/designed around PVE.
To do PVP you have to do PVE first (PVP doesn't give progression)
Talents/abilities are PVE centred and the Frost Mage is the single most persuasive argument for it.
Blizz tried to mitigate the problems with dual-specs and the new talent trees but it still worked out the same way it was before, a frostmage in a raid is mostly not useful, unless you need a lot of trash AOE-CC.
Then they tried to mitigate that by designing encounters/ballance with their new mantra "bring the player not the class" so they homogenized most classes.
Every time blizzard does something to PVE ballance it fucks their PVP ballance and vice versa.
etc.
How long have you been playing WoW?
Since day 1
Why would you have to do PVE first? You get exp for doing PVP, you get currency to purchase PVP gear from PVP. All you need to do is to get first several levels, so that you can PVP. Since like level 10, you can progress all the way to max level and max PVP gear solely by doing PVP.
You can also get to max level by doing only crafting, its still not Minecraft or crafting-focused.
The question is how does PVP tie into the game? It doesnt.
The PVP is segregated away, its separate, might as well be another game entirely.
I think its why Bloodline Champions and now Forge exist.
I always thought that the PvP is tied into the game lore-wise. There is this conflict between alliance and the horde.
By segregated you mean that the BGs, Arena, etc are in a separate zone? There is still the OWPvP. You are basically exploring Azeroth and suddenly, you run into enemies and can PvP them which does not necessarily seem to be another game entirely.
As I mentioned before, I do not claim you are wrong. I also do not claim it is PvP oriented game. All I am saying is that I do not see how the PVE is so much overwhelming
If you dont claim im wrong, why are you arguing with me? Certainly you think my assessment is -wrong-, you say so in your next sentence.
I'm talking about mechanics not about lore.
Afaik, vanilla didn't even have BGs or separate PVP. Over time, PVP got segregated out of the game into its own separate niche.
If the PVP was tied into the mechanics, it wouldn't need separate zones/instances, servers and flags.
The PVP would actually -do- something in relation to the PVE.
You look at the issue from a different perspective. Maybe in the context in which you speak, you are right. Maybe I am wrong, so you may be right. I am discussing, not arguing. It does not need to be a fight, does it.
GW 2 has PvP separated from the world. Is it also a PVE oriented game? I think it is generally considered to be a PvP game. The way you define PVE oriented game, it would probably fit into this category.
I'm looking from the same perspective that my OP starts with.
This isn't a fight, its a civilized argument, and you are trying to discuss a topic that I didn't raise.
I never, in any of my posts, defined a PVE oriented game (or even attempt to do so). I was directly, and specifically adressing WoW in the context I provided and you brought up.
GW2 has PVP and PVE separated, yes, and thats why now the PVE feels tacked on. People are bitching about there being no PVE endgame (i.e. what to do at lvl-cap and have no interest in pvp).
Regardless of your feelings for WoW PVP, its not a PVP-centered game.
You seem to be confused what PVE- or PVP-centered means. The mere existence of a feature doesn't make something PVE or PVP-centered.
A PVP centered game, like EVE, has all mechanics crafted around PVP. All its aspects flow into PVP.
You craft gear for PVP, you mine to support your alliance, you do PVE (ratting) to acquire resources to do PVP, you research for PVP, even if you just run the economy, you still support PVP because the economy and resources is what the PVP centers around (via PVP-death as resource-sink).
WoW PVP is mechanically separate from the game WoW PVE.
The objectives are not really that different, imo - not in the least. Objective - kill the enemy. It's pretty much the same.
I think you underestimate its effect. Often it is more than just killing the enemy and secondary objectives can have a huge effect on how you go about doing that. You'll also notice that rarely the killing is the primary objective in any PvP: It is usually holding some capture point, protecting something or someone, stealing something etc. Killing is in fact often a secondary objective or a simply a means to achieve the primary objective.
Some PvP objectives (secondary and primary) also require specialized roles. For example a flag runner has to be mobile and fast. In PvE, players pretty much specialize in killing stuff quickly and efficiently - thats about it.
Bringing PvE and PvP closer together is a simple idea, but the more you think about it the more complicated it gets and more profound changes you need.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I agree, but the smartest AI is a player(theoretically), and the next best thing to that is a player who has limited abilities to direct the ai and initiate events in an unpredictable way. Thats true dynamic.
whether you like guild wars 2 or not, they have a nice event system in their game. Whats the problem with it? Its static. Do it over and over and over again.
What if, it were possible for a player on the opposing side could initiate a pve event upon pve players. We couldnt have half the server doing this, it would be chaos, but we could have a very small proportion of the players doing these kinds of things. It doesnt mean they cant happen on their own, its just a dynamic enhancement to the system.
the fact that these players could take part in the events as well would be equally as interesting.
the gameplay options are staggering, not just for pvpers but pvers as well.
people are too focused on ganking when in fact these players would be great assets to any pve game.
Its not really fair to call them static since not all of them are that - more like cyclical in nature. The events, I think, are infinitely better than traditional quests. A comfortable start towards better "questing" atleast.
Now they just need to expand the web-like structure of the events and add more, multiple-ending events with branching event-chains.
The events already offer rudimentary objectives to PvP and I think they could and should be developed a little more. I'm not an advocate of mixing PvE and PvP tho.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
The objectives are not really that different, imo - not in the least. Objective - kill the enemy. It's pretty much the same.
I think you underestimate its effect. Often it is more than just killing the enemy and secondary objectives can have a huge effect on how you go about doing that. You'll also notice that rarely the killing is the primary objective in any PvP: It is usually holding some capture point, protecting something or someone, stealing something etc. Killing is in fact often a secondary objective or a simply a means to achieve the primary objective.
Some PvP objectives (secondary and primary) also require specialized roles. For example a flag runner has to be mobile and fast. In PvE, players pretty much specialize in killing stuff quickly and efficiently - thats about it.
Bringing PvE and PvP closer together is a simple idea, but the more you think about it the more complicated it gets and more profound changes you need.
I used the term killing to represent beating. The objective is to beat the enemy. Every PvP scenario can be a PvE scenario. Every PvE scenario can be a PvP scenario. In many games, the PvE scenarios are common FPS scenarios where you're fighting mobs instead of players.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
I hate PvP with a passion, I want nothing whatsoever to do with it, ever. That said, so long as I can entirely ignore it, I don't care if people want to go do PvP somewhere I don't have to watch the childish dickwaving.
But given a choice, I'll take pure PvE with no PvP whatsoever.
The objectives are not really that different, imo - not in the least. Objective - kill the enemy. It's pretty much the same.
I think you underestimate its effect. Often it is more than just killing the enemy and secondary objectives can have a huge effect on how you go about doing that. You'll also notice that rarely the killing is the primary objective in any PvP: It is usually holding some capture point, protecting something or someone, stealing something etc. Killing is in fact often a secondary objective or a simply a means to achieve the primary objective.
Some PvP objectives (secondary and primary) also require specialized roles. For example a flag runner has to be mobile and fast. In PvE, players pretty much specialize in killing stuff quickly and efficiently - thats about it.
Bringing PvE and PvP closer together is a simple idea, but the more you think about it the more complicated it gets and more profound changes you need.
I used the term killing to represent beating. The objective is to beat the enemy. Every PvP scenario can be a PvE scenario. Every PvE scenario can be a PvP scenario. In many games, the PvE scenarios are common FPS scenarios where you're fighting mobs instead of players.
I was wondering the same thing recently actually.
Why cant more games have human controled scenarios? It doesn't really need to be even called PVP (because that apparently has a very specific connotation).
How about a system where one part of the game is played strategically, the other from the individual perspective. What if the PVE scenario would be controlled in an RTS fashion by a DM?
I mean, thats what DMs are for in tabletop RPG, but its not considered PVP certainly.
People don't play DnD vs the DM, they play vs the world, controlled by the DM.
There seems to be a point at which players are able to disconnect from the "perception of PVP".
Imagine a raid scenario where the boss is controlled by a DM, would that be considered PVP? By most people certainly not.
I need to think more about that, but it might have to do with asymetrical ballancing and how players perceive entity-control and fairness.
I'm asking the question because we have seen time and time again that games that feature both PVE and PVP rarely do both right.
It seems that whenever a MMORPG tries to do both, it ends up neglecting one or the other, which is unsurprising as the two stand in a somewhat oposite place (one is directly competitive with other players while the other is cooperative).
Thats not to say that cooperative-competitition doesn't exist (for example high level competitition in raiding), but its not the same competition that dominating other players directly ingame is.
Now i enjoy both PVP and PVE, but rarely do I enjoy it in the same game.
Do you think the remedy would be to create separate, more niche games instead of trying to be everything for everyone?
I would first like to know what is your definition of "pve"?
Do you just mean dungeons, or does that also encompasses crafting and economy?
If so, I would say that it is possible to create a game that has both equally good, like for example SWG pre-NGE.
However if you define PvE as in raids and dungeon, than I would say I prefer pvp-centric.
Originally posted by Asuran24 For pve and pvp balance to exit you need to have a method of balancing each independently, with out the balancing of one breaking the other. Which would mean a dual value system which each ability have one set of value for each (pve, and pvp.) that only influence that playstyle. After you can independently balance the systems for pvp an pve, you can start working on the sytems to govern the pvp in the game with risks, and rewards, and meaningful reasons for pvping, since the op/imbalance issues would not be there now. It is a matter of how well the game is balanced, and how well you re-balance it when it get out fo control. alot of the rest is just bonuses that wear off when you relise how limited an imbalanced it is.
Yes but that gives you exactly what I was implying in my OP.
Two separate games.
Not completely, but merely two differnt game experince within a single game, just like a single player adventure game will have a different feel from a multi-player varient of the same game. Having two seperate games would be more like wow bgs, arenas, and such that only effect a small degree of the world, and having stats that you can stack to influence that one style of play over another like resilence. Where as making the abilities having seperate values that influence differing playstyles allows the game to be balanced better from a dev side as players can not influence these values, and allow for them to work largely in the same manner with differing degrees of power without breaking the other style playy. Though in the end pvp an pve will alway be seperate gaming experinces, from the fact a mob will always be less unpredicatable then another player will be, but not completely seperate game that can not be merged with into a singular game. You could also call it more of a game with seperate rule-ssets to govern oppossing styles of play, but the game would still be the ssame at it's heart as you would not have to make game altering change to it to keep balance, as the game from the launch wa built to be balanced seperately behind the scene/under the hood.
I'm asking the question because we have seen time and time again that games that feature both PVE and PVP rarely do both right.
It seems that whenever a MMORPG tries to do both, it ends up neglecting one or the other, which is unsurprising as the two stand in a somewhat oposite place (one is directly competitive with other players while the other is cooperative).
Thats not to say that cooperative-competitition doesn't exist (for example high level competitition in raiding), but its not the same competition that dominating other players directly ingame is.
Now i enjoy both PVP and PVE, but rarely do I enjoy it in the same game.
Do you think the remedy would be to create separate, more niche games instead of trying to be everything for everyone?
I would first like to know what is your definition of "pve"?
Do you just mean dungeons, or does that also encompasses crafting and economy?
If so, I would say that it is possible to create a game that has both equally good, like for example SWG pre-NGE.
However if you define PvE as in raids and dungeon, than I would say I prefer pvp-centric.
PVE would encompass strictly guided or nonguided combat VS AI-controlled opponents in a non-direct non-competitive way.
Originally posted by Asuran24 For pve and pvp balance to exit you need to have a method of balancing each independently, with out the balancing of one breaking the other. Which would mean a dual value system which each ability have one set of value for each (pve, and pvp.) that only influence that playstyle. After you can independently balance the systems for pvp an pve, you can start working on the sytems to govern the pvp in the game with risks, and rewards, and meaningful reasons for pvping, since the op/imbalance issues would not be there now. It is a matter of how well the game is balanced, and how well you re-balance it when it get out fo control. alot of the rest is just bonuses that wear off when you relise how limited an imbalanced it is.
Yes but that gives you exactly what I was implying in my OP.
Two separate games.
Not completely, but merely two differnt game experince within a single game, just like a single player adventure game will have a different feel from a multi-player varient of the same game. Having two seperate games would be more like wow bgs, arenas, and such that only effect a small degree of the world, and having stats that you can stack to influence that one style of play over another like resilence. Where as making the abilities having seperate values that influence differing playstyles allows the game to be balanced better from a dev side as players can not influence these values, and allow for them to work largely in the same manner with differing degrees of power without breaking the other style playy. Though in the end pvp an pve will alway be seperate gaming experinces, from the fact a mob will always be less unpredicatable then another player will be, but not completely seperate game that can not be merged with into a singular game. You could also call it more of a game with seperate rule-ssets to govern oppossing styles of play, but the game would still be the ssame at it's heart as you would not have to make game altering change to it to keep balance, as the game from the launch wa built to be balanced seperately behind the scene/under the hood.
Mechanically they would be however two separate games.
Sure, you could try and weave them together in the world, but they always be separate, like you said.
Thats why I implied that it would be better to separate them entirely.
There is more to PVP than just stats. Maps, level-design and objectives can play a big role in PVP as well.
The developer would need to dedicate resources to track both gameplay styles and cater to both audiences, which often ends in one being neglected over the other.
[EDIT] I think that most developers actually considered this system long ago but thought it not worth their effort and resources and opted instead to have separate "zones" or contained instances for PVP, simply because they are easier to control. At least in "modern" MMORPG design.
Comments
Agreed.
Yes but that gives you exactly what I was implying in my OP.
Two separate games.
im predominantly a pver, but i also like pvp. Im not saying that your model doesnt work, it does well for themeparks.
im far from sold on the sandbox front though. You need a reason to build a great wall and place a bunch of guards on it. Developers dont have the resources, and scripts dont quite cut it do they?
i just believe you need a bit of everything integrated for a world to exist. Not saying it has to be "full loot" or "Free for all". We know nothing chases players away faster. That dos not mean however that pvp must be 100% seperate either.
If you dont claim im wrong, why are you arguing with me? Certainly you think my assessment is -wrong-, you say so in your next sentence.
I'm talking about mechanics not about lore.
Afaik, vanilla didn't even have BGs or separate PVP. Over time, PVP got segregated out of the game into its own separate niche.
If the PVP was tied into the mechanics, it wouldn't need separate zones/instances, servers and flags.
The PVP would actually -do- something in relation to the PVE.
If PvP had been more considerate to PvE I would have choose both. I play archer / rogue type characters and IN EVERY GAME I HAVE EVER PLAYED I HAVE BEEN GIMPED because of the PvP contingent whining about stats. I am so sick of it I have grown to hate PvP'ers.
Plus I don't want ganked. I spent all day on that quest chain I don't want slammed back to the starter point so I can go back again to get ganked yet again. Total not fun.
The thought of equally sized but seperate PvP enabled and toggled regions was from a sandbox frame of mind as you would need to give breathing room if both are to have equal share. This would be a big, open world without reasonable physical boundaries (mountain ranges, etc.). There would be races or factions (player made or not), some opposed to others that would realistically create war zones. These would not just be open spaces to PvP. They would have the same sort of landscapes and activities as non PvP areas.
The ability to build and have guards etc. would not really be a factor. You could build in any region, war zone or not, and go from there. The idea would be worse in a themepark IMO. When I say "regions" I'm not meaning seperate areas like WoW, Rift, etc. The lines would be invisible across the terrain and just notify you if you crossed it.
I would enjoy this type of sandboxy style game anyways. It would create more dynamics which is what I like about sandbox features to begin with.
why would i bother to build anything. It has no effect in the pve area, and the pvp area will be filed to the brim with hardcore goons which will destroy everything i build asap.
96% pve and 4% pvp. You only need 4% or so to provide endless content to the 96%. Less and is just a pve game, more makes it a gankfest.
thats how i see it.
Yeah and that's why strictly PvP gamers don't get the quality of game they want. You need the PvEers as a buffer between the gankers and the other PvPers? So the 4% of PvPers use the 96% as their content and the 96% don't appreciate it and leave, it's not the other way around IMO. Spending time and money to be someone else's content is no go and unless you give them an equal space to do their thing, or choose to head into PvP, I don't think they will stay very long.
On the purpose of building structures in PvE it would be the same motivation as PvP IMO, just to do it. It's the same idea as PvP. You engage in PvP to fight other people. Yes, land grabs/destroying structures is an added bonus but there are plenty of games that feature structure building that don't even have an MMO combat system. Last time I checked more people were playing those than MMORPGs lol.
I think its pretty obvious fromn the poll so far that the average MMO gamer is not a Forced PvP fan. I myself put both but there needs to be clear lines of demarcations and PvP should never be forced.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
i would argue the success of guild wars 2 and the adaptation of all other games wow included says that alot more people than ever before are spending time to become someone elses content.
ultimately, people need to provide the content, How exactly to accomplish it is debatable of course.
I agree completely and what I was envisioning was pockets of WvW from GW2 but with some regional backstory between the factions/races that were in the area. The success of WvW shows that if you give people the option of doing PvPvE a lot more will take it than forcing PvP on those who usually enjoy PvE.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I agree, but the smartest AI is a player(theoretically), and the next best thing to that is a player who has limited abilities to direct the ai and initiate events in an unpredictable way. Thats true dynamic.
whether you like guild wars 2 or not, they have a nice event system in their game. Whats the problem with it? Its static. Do it over and over and over again.
What if, it were possible for a player on the opposing side could initiate a pve event upon pve players. We couldnt have half the server doing this, it would be chaos, but we could have a very small proportion of the players doing these kinds of things. It doesnt mean they cant happen on their own, its just a dynamic enhancement to the system.
the fact that these players could take part in the events as well would be equally as interesting.
the gameplay options are staggering, not just for pvpers but pvers as well.
people are too focused on ganking when in fact these players would be great assets to any pve game.
Start with the Player, then PvP, and then PvE. Why that order? Well, it's about trying something other than starting with the PvE, then the Player, and finally PvP. Because that obviously does not work, eh?
The objectives are not really that different, imo - not in the least. Objective - kill the enemy. It's pretty much the same.
The problem arises with the initial focus on PvE creating ludicrous stats and munchkin characters which leads to mind boggling PvP. It's not a balanced focus.
If on the other hand, you focus on the Player first - you lay out the path that you want for the various classes/skills/etc - you've got a solid base for going into PvP - and - you also have that solid base for going into PvE.
It would provide us something other than the illusion of difficulty - as we're fighting level 1000 mobs that are basically just level 1 mobs with more health and more damaging attacks. In some cases, it's exactly like that...meh.
As for the mobs, I'm still waiting for somebody else to tackle it via something similar to AD&D's Challenge Rating. Something where the mobs are actually an appropriate challenge rather than just part of the ongoing crop of monster farms that we see. Even with this, there would still be room for threat - but it would have to take into consideration the intellect of the mobs. Some would be too smart for it, some would be too stupid for it, and some just would not bother with it. There would be a limit as well - in that one could not grab aggro on a million mobs.
And the more I think about all this, the more I know that it will never happen...because it's not about making a game for the single player where they can feel like a god - which I'm hard pressed not to see in most games. So it's kind of pointless to share any further thoughts on it...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I'm looking from the same perspective that my OP starts with.
This isn't a fight, its a civilized argument, and you are trying to discuss a topic that I didn't raise.
I never, in any of my posts, defined a PVE oriented game (or even attempt to do so). I was directly, and specifically adressing WoW in the context I provided and you brought up.
GW2 has PVP and PVE separated, yes, and thats why now the PVE feels tacked on. People are bitching about there being no PVE endgame (i.e. what to do at lvl-cap and have no interest in pvp).
Regardless of your feelings for WoW PVP, its not a PVP-centered game.
You seem to be confused what PVE- or PVP-centered means. The mere existence of a feature doesn't make something PVE or PVP-centered.
A PVP centered game, like EVE, has all mechanics crafted around PVP. All its aspects flow into PVP.
You craft gear for PVP, you mine to support your alliance, you do PVE (ratting) to acquire resources to do PVP, you research for PVP, even if you just run the economy, you still support PVP because the economy and resources is what the PVP centers around (via PVP-death as resource-sink).
WoW PVP is mechanically separate from the game WoW PVE.
I think you underestimate its effect. Often it is more than just killing the enemy and secondary objectives can have a huge effect on how you go about doing that. You'll also notice that rarely the killing is the primary objective in any PvP: It is usually holding some capture point, protecting something or someone, stealing something etc. Killing is in fact often a secondary objective or a simply a means to achieve the primary objective.
Some PvP objectives (secondary and primary) also require specialized roles. For example a flag runner has to be mobile and fast. In PvE, players pretty much specialize in killing stuff quickly and efficiently - thats about it.
Bringing PvE and PvP closer together is a simple idea, but the more you think about it the more complicated it gets and more profound changes you need.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Its not really fair to call them static since not all of them are that - more like cyclical in nature. The events, I think, are infinitely better than traditional quests. A comfortable start towards better "questing" atleast.
Now they just need to expand the web-like structure of the events and add more, multiple-ending events with branching event-chains.
The events already offer rudimentary objectives to PvP and I think they could and should be developed a little more. I'm not an advocate of mixing PvE and PvP tho.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I used the term killing to represent beating. The objective is to beat the enemy. Every PvP scenario can be a PvE scenario. Every PvE scenario can be a PvP scenario. In many games, the PvE scenarios are common FPS scenarios where you're fighting mobs instead of players.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I hate PvP with a passion, I want nothing whatsoever to do with it, ever. That said, so long as I can entirely ignore it, I don't care if people want to go do PvP somewhere I don't have to watch the childish dickwaving.
But given a choice, I'll take pure PvE with no PvP whatsoever.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I was wondering the same thing recently actually.
Why cant more games have human controled scenarios? It doesn't really need to be even called PVP (because that apparently has a very specific connotation).
How about a system where one part of the game is played strategically, the other from the individual perspective. What if the PVE scenario would be controlled in an RTS fashion by a DM?
I mean, thats what DMs are for in tabletop RPG, but its not considered PVP certainly.
People don't play DnD vs the DM, they play vs the world, controlled by the DM.
There seems to be a point at which players are able to disconnect from the "perception of PVP".
Imagine a raid scenario where the boss is controlled by a DM, would that be considered PVP? By most people certainly not.
I need to think more about that, but it might have to do with asymetrical ballancing and how players perceive entity-control and fairness.
Example: The game Dungeonland
I would first like to know what is your definition of "pve"?
Do you just mean dungeons, or does that also encompasses crafting and economy?
If so, I would say that it is possible to create a game that has both equally good, like for example SWG pre-NGE.
However if you define PvE as in raids and dungeon, than I would say I prefer pvp-centric.
Not completely, but merely two differnt game experince within a single game, just like a single player adventure game will have a different feel from a multi-player varient of the same game. Having two seperate games would be more like wow bgs, arenas, and such that only effect a small degree of the world, and having stats that you can stack to influence that one style of play over another like resilence. Where as making the abilities having seperate values that influence differing playstyles allows the game to be balanced better from a dev side as players can not influence these values, and allow for them to work largely in the same manner with differing degrees of power without breaking the other style playy. Though in the end pvp an pve will alway be seperate gaming experinces, from the fact a mob will always be less unpredicatable then another player will be, but not completely seperate game that can not be merged with into a singular game. You could also call it more of a game with seperate rule-ssets to govern oppossing styles of play, but the game would still be the ssame at it's heart as you would not have to make game altering change to it to keep balance, as the game from the launch wa built to be balanced seperately behind the scene/under the hood.
PVE would encompass strictly guided or nonguided combat VS AI-controlled opponents in a non-direct non-competitive way.
Ratting in EVE is PVE content for example.
Mechanically they would be however two separate games.
Sure, you could try and weave them together in the world, but they always be separate, like you said.
Thats why I implied that it would be better to separate them entirely.
There is more to PVP than just stats. Maps, level-design and objectives can play a big role in PVP as well.
The developer would need to dedicate resources to track both gameplay styles and cater to both audiences, which often ends in one being neglected over the other.
[EDIT] I think that most developers actually considered this system long ago but thought it not worth their effort and resources and opted instead to have separate "zones" or contained instances for PVP, simply because they are easier to control. At least in "modern" MMORPG design.