What I find fascinating is that they have no issue will killing say that Horde Ogre guarding the food, but if it's a Horde player they won't do the same. I mean, you're Alliance, you are at war with the Horde... shouldn't you be killing all Horde and not just those in your way to your quest item? It's like they want to be camouflaged in their own game... yes I am Alliance, but I'm not really here unless I have a quest objective to acquire... in that case, I can kill said NPCs without threat of being attacked by other members of the faction who also happen to be Horde in the area. It's selective killing.
"You are the one..."
"I am for you, James T. Kirk"
There can be no immersion in a game where you can turn off danger merely by flipping a switch in your UI interface.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Udon: Daoc Eve Perpetuum Both gw Ac
Never played DAOC so I'll let others speak to that.
PVE is lip service in Eve. The whole point of PVE is to push you torwards lower and lower sec space to get you ready to live in PVP areas. It's a PVP tutorial more than a seperate game element. Unless you are counting low sec crafting and mining which is just as much PVP as combat IMO.
Perpetuum I have not played since launch but again PVE didn't really have much point other than to teach you how to get started for PVP since all the high end resources are on PVP controlled islands.
GW2's come closer than any other I can think of but even at that it's obvious that much of the reason they moved away from tradational classes was to make PVP/PVE balance easier. And don't think for a second that PVP balance didn't play into some of the PVE design decisions of that game.
I have not played AC.
For a game to have a good balance of PVE to PVP both systems have to work well together and not interfer with the other either by changing the challange or difficulty of the other or to trivalize the loot that the other earns. Strong PVE games make PVP a secondary activity and strong PVP games end up dumbing down PVE content in the name of "balance".
I know balance is a subjective term and people will disagree with what I am saying which is ok.
I vote both, don't get me wrong but I like pvp flaging system, if you want open world pvp just flag your-self, if you don't want pvp just stay unflaged and enjoy pve in open world.
I kinda disagree the worst games for Homogonised jack of all trades classes are heavy pve games like wow and swtor.
It comes from making your pvp all small scale encounters and entertaining the ludicrous idea that mmo pvp can be a balanced Esports in the vein of quake 3.
Take pvp out of scenarios and put it in a daoc style pvp areas of the world / pve areas if the world or put in a eve style varied security level systems and balance doesn't matter too much. It's teamwork, communication and political nounce that count.
So, in order to find out if archtypes exist, you created a poll with ONLY those archtypes?!?
You should have included, PvE with SOME PvP, PvP with SOME PvE, PvE with optional PvP anywhere via flagging with/without it being game driven, PvE with optional PvP in specified zones with/without a game focus, PvE with PvP only in instances with/without the games focus.
As is, people can only choose to be one of your archtypes.
I personally fall into the "PvE with optional PvP anywhere via flagging without it being game driven" catagory. I dont need stinking developers holding my hand and directing me to PvP, I PvP for fun, not for moronic titles, ranks, gear, or buff rewards for controlling an area. No PvP carrots on a stick for me.
I always like to play all the aspects of a game. I wonder if people who hate pvp also hate playing board games like monopoly or chess against other people, since they technically are pvp.
Originally posted by fayknaym I always like to play all the aspects of a game. I wonder if people who hate pvp also hate playing board games like monopoly or chess against other people, since they technically are pvp.
nahhhhhh offtopic but i have to yell at you! =D I hate board games with dices, because dices mean -> luck (jeah everyone got the same chance) but it´s always luck. PvP in a PvP focused game is at least not ONLY luck!
I like both aspects, PvE and PvP. The only game I've played with FFA PvP was Eve and that was fun but a tad stressful, even in high-sec. There are definitely people who like one and hate the other but I find switching does help break up the routine of doing the same thing over and over again in MMOs.
Originally posted by fayknaym I always like to play all the aspects of a game. I wonder if people who hate pvp also hate playing board games like monopoly or chess against other people, since they technically are pvp.
I like playing chess and monopoly. Well; unless the rules changed and I can get ganked by 10 opponents while playing those games.....
Originally posted by fayknaym I always like to play all the aspects of a game. I wonder if people who hate pvp also hate playing board games like monopoly or chess against other people, since they technically are pvp.
I like playing chess and monopoly. Well; unless the rules changed and I can get ganked by 10 opponents while playing those games.....
It was just a thought I had. I guess it's not really right to compare them. MMOs are on a much larger scale, much more fast paced and lack the personal human interactions you can get by playing board games.
I like the gamestyle where you have to comquer or defend something.
While the most common games have these in their Battlefield maps - own instances - there was ans is a couple games out, that deliver this kind of gaming.
In Tabula Rasa you had to get these outposts, that was fun because NPCs and players were fighting side by side, on both sides.
Face of Mankind brought this to a whole new level, by introducing crime and police and ofcause some kind of factionwide gathering of colonies. Best PvP experience i had for now.
FireFall promises similar mechanics, lets see, its still under heavy development.
Anarchy Online has also this funny Towerwars for Land Control Areas, but the level of success depends heavy on your gear.
So, yeah, PvP should be the first step to some real roleplaying ^^
Funny how the pure pvp gamers are such a small percent, yet they have way more mmo's released that are focused strictly on their play style. Pvp only mmo's abound, but how many quality pve only games do you get? seems every big Pve title has to cater somewhat to the pvp crowd.
Goes to show you how loud that small percent is doesnt it?
If you ever did a Bartle test you would see a trait called the killer. I do have friends that used to play mmo but since they mostly just wanted PvP they play games like DayZ or LoL now.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
I play both, but I prefer MMO's that are not strictly PvP to focus on PvE with PvP as a bonus.
I think the biggest myth in MMO's is open world pvp. There's really two ways it goes:
1. Little genuine pvp occurs, mostly ganking or getting ganked - typically around valuable areas (materials, instances). The common response is to go get your buddies and come back for a fight, but that's the think isn't it? No one actually wants to fight. They want to win. There's a difference. So if their group is not capable of beating your group, they just run off. Once in a while you experience decent pvp, but the rest of the time is pretty boring.
2. Certain areas become "pvp" hotspots. It's funny that people think that instanced pvp came about because developers are mean and want to ruin your fun! No, people naturally gravitated towards certain main pvp areas. You knew that when you logged on there would most likely be a mass of people punching each other in that area. The only thing instancing did was create even numbered and equal leveled sides (which gankers hate) and take the lag out of that particular region.
QFT
The natural upshot of point 1 is the "zerg" accusation. As soon as someone brings a friend the "zerg" word starts flying and both sides start accusing the other side of "not playing the game properly". "Zerging" i.e. overwhelming an enemy with sheer numbers, is a perfectly valid military tactic that is still employed to this day. The only difference is when someone gets zerged in real life they're not around to bitch about it afterwards. The Coalition zerged the living puke out of the Iraqis in both Gulf Wars. Both operations were textbook applications of massive force at places where the enemy was weakest. The rest is just words and gas. However gods forbid you do this in some random video game. SHAME! SHAME UPON THEE FOR GETTING HELP! Instead you should just take your beating and come back for another one, just like an extra in a Bruce Lee movie.
As to point 2, developers can do whatever they want, but in the end they can't control tacit agreements between "enemies".
For example in DAoC everyone fought in Emain Macha. There were four zones in each of the three frontiers, but everyone fought in Emain. Why? The terrain was generally flat with few obstructions (trees, hills, structures, mobs). It was like fighting on a golf course. No one fought in Albion where there were agro mobs everywhere and buildings, trees and elevation changes to mess you up. And Midgard? Who wanted to go blind staring at all that white on your screen straining your eyes to differentiate between roaming mobs and enemies? Nope. Buy a portal medal and get thyself to the milegate! You could pretty much run around naked in the other frontier zones for hours and not die to enemy attack unless you went flat stupid and ran up to their border fort or chanced upon an XP group.
Another example this time in one of the instances where fighting was encouraged. WoW Alterac Valley - Between the AFCavers and the unspoken agreement of the enemies to almost complete bypass one another and go kill the enemy NPCs the only PvP that went on in that battleground was when someone logged in late and wasn't in the zerg. Then they got jumped and ganked by 10 enemies as they ran to catch up to their pack of friendlies. People were actually yelled at by their own allies for fighting the enemy because it was slowing down the rate at which everyone, including the enemies, was collecting medals to buy epic armor.
In the end if a developer wants PvP in their game they almost have to lower the consequences of death to nothing, otherwise only the strongest will PvP and the rest will opt out. FFA PvP inevitably leads to survival of the fittest as most people don't want to spend their precious gaming time doing corpse runs and finding their stuff gone when they get back to their corpse and then get ganked again.
And no one really wants "No Rules" either. Fansy the Famous Bard proved that a long time ago. In the end, people want to choose when they PvP, and just like in real life, for 99.999999999% of the people that means when they can win.
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
Give planetside 2 a try. But to get the most out of the game, the first thing you should do is click the social button to see if any organised guilds have an open platoon up. It's a game where you really need to be in a group to get the mist out of it.
Originally posted by ShakyMo The "balance problem" seems to exist more in games like wow.
E.g. games that were designed as 100% pve games then they hammer and duct taped some token pvp on later. The other cause of the problem is mmos chasing the pink elephant of Esports, which is an impossible dream in a mmo where you have classes gear etc..
For pvp and pve to coexist without homogonised boring classes. 1 design pvp into your game from the start 2 don't balance for 1 vs 1, balance for group play, mmos are not and never will be esports
I agree with this but instead of balancing PvP through PVE specs why not just have a PVP spec that HAS to be used in order to PVP? This way you leave the PVE specs alone. In WOW most of the class balancing and nerfing is about balancing PvP. It's stupid to nerf PVE in order to make PVP people happy. Different specs and no one would be bothered. PVP can easily be balanced with out killing a PVE spec.
Open PvP while fun for some is a constant annoyance at best for most. Like many others time is an issue for me. I know gamers and especially "hardcore" gamers have the reputation for not having lives but I have certainly have one. When I go to play a game I make a few a friends and like to have fun. Its really not fun to get jumped while you are out just doing whatever. Sure its a military tactic to bring a group of friends to outnumber a foe but its more or less just bullying and its not so much a tactic when its in a game. It's more of an overkill. Its like hunting a unsuspecting deer with a force of 50+ armed soldiers, an armored division and air support. If a person enjoys the concept of being outnumbered on a constant basis, well, then more power to them. There is never a time when sides are equal, where both sides have a fair chance, where open PvP is fun and interesting. (i shouldnt say never.. more like 99 times out of a hundred it isnt fair or fun). This is why battlegrounds and instanced PvP was created. If you are in the mood for a fight or decent odds in winning you can do that. I love Pvp when this is the case. When I am in the mood for just sitting back and watching a movie while mindlessly grinding or chatting with friends I want to be able to do that. Most games have it right where they are PvP servers and PvE servers with a possibility of going into a battleground.
Personally, I dont like to be forced into PvP. I have done many many hours of it but it was my choice. I have played on PvP servers before and dont care for them due to the fact i could be fighting a close PvE or PvP fight and someone shows up to just finish me off. Wasting my already little time I have to play.
I think it's entirely possible that there are people who have no interest at all in PvP or PvE in MMOs, but I feel pretty certain that there are far fewer of those people than people who want both.
I'm also going to guess that there are fewer pure PvP people than PvE people on these forums and in the world, but that's just a gut feeling. I don't really have much to back it up.
Given all the free MMOs out there, why not just play a pure pve and a pure pvp if you want both? Having a totally PvE focused game is better for PvE than one that is constantly getting "balanced for PvP" and has half its budget wasted on stuff that doesn't add to PvE and the same for a pure PvP MMO. Shoving it all in one game is just as dumb as putting a MOBA, an SPRPG, and a Diablo clone all in one game.
The natural upshot of point 1 is the "zerg" accusation. As soon as someone brings a friend the "zerg" word starts flying and both sides start accusing the other side of "not playing the game properly". "Zerging" i.e. overwhelming an enemy with sheer numbers, is a perfectly valid military tactic that is still employed to this day. The only difference is when someone gets zerged in real life they're not around to bitch about it afterwards. The Coalition zerged the living puke out of the Iraqis in both Gulf Wars. Both operations were textbook applications of massive force at places where the enemy was weakest. The rest is just words and gas. However gods forbid you do this in some random video game. SHAME! SHAME UPON THEE FOR GETTING HELP! Instead you should just take your beating and come back for another one, just like an extra in a Bruce Lee movie.
While you make a valid point. This isnt Warfare. Where in the example you put up there, armies and generals have the means to correct or prevent this. When people in game arent playing it for the warfare aspects nor the competition on having the most friends to escort them around to make sure they arent ganked by a group. In most cases its like 5 pro basketball players playing against one 5-year old over who gets to play on the basketball court.
Originally posted by fayknaym I always like to play all the aspects of a game. I wonder if people who hate pvp also hate playing board games like monopoly or chess against other people, since they technically are pvp.
But they don't typically bring out the douchebags. I've seen it happen in MMOs all the time. If you lose the encounter, you can be sure that the one who won is going to be a douchebag to you, calling you a loser, bragging to his friends, etc. If you win, you can be sure that the one who lost is going to call you a cheater, try to get their friends to gank you, etc. These are not things that you have to worry about with NPCs because they don't have egos. They don't get upset. They don't badmouth you. They don't seek revenge. They don't follow you around for hours ganking you over and over.
PvP brings out the inner dick in people. No thanks.
Comments
What I find fascinating is that they have no issue will killing say that Horde Ogre guarding the food, but if it's a Horde player they won't do the same. I mean, you're Alliance, you are at war with the Horde... shouldn't you be killing all Horde and not just those in your way to your quest item? It's like they want to be camouflaged in their own game... yes I am Alliance, but I'm not really here unless I have a quest objective to acquire... in that case, I can kill said NPCs without threat of being attacked by other members of the faction who also happen to be Horde in the area. It's selective killing.
"You are the one..."
"I am for you, James T. Kirk"
There can be no immersion in a game where you can turn off danger merely by flipping a switch in your UI interface.
Never played DAOC so I'll let others speak to that.
PVE is lip service in Eve. The whole point of PVE is to push you torwards lower and lower sec space to get you ready to live in PVP areas. It's a PVP tutorial more than a seperate game element. Unless you are counting low sec crafting and mining which is just as much PVP as combat IMO.
Perpetuum I have not played since launch but again PVE didn't really have much point other than to teach you how to get started for PVP since all the high end resources are on PVP controlled islands.
GW2's come closer than any other I can think of but even at that it's obvious that much of the reason they moved away from tradational classes was to make PVP/PVE balance easier. And don't think for a second that PVP balance didn't play into some of the PVE design decisions of that game.
I have not played AC.
For a game to have a good balance of PVE to PVP both systems have to work well together and not interfer with the other either by changing the challange or difficulty of the other or to trivalize the loot that the other earns. Strong PVE games make PVP a secondary activity and strong PVP games end up dumbing down PVE content in the name of "balance".
I know balance is a subjective term and people will disagree with what I am saying which is ok.
I vote both, don't get me wrong but I like pvp flaging system, if you want open world pvp just flag your-self, if you don't want pvp just stay unflaged and enjoy pve in open world.
Say no to any types of forced pvp.
It comes from making your pvp all small scale encounters and entertaining the ludicrous idea that mmo pvp can be a balanced Esports in the vein of quake 3.
Take pvp out of scenarios and put it in a daoc style pvp areas of the world / pve areas if the world or put in a eve style varied security level systems and balance doesn't matter too much. It's teamwork, communication and political nounce that count.
So, in order to find out if archtypes exist, you created a poll with ONLY those archtypes?!?
You should have included, PvE with SOME PvP, PvP with SOME PvE, PvE with optional PvP anywhere via flagging with/without it being game driven, PvE with optional PvP in specified zones with/without a game focus, PvE with PvP only in instances with/without the games focus.
As is, people can only choose to be one of your archtypes.
I personally fall into the "PvE with optional PvP anywhere via flagging without it being game driven" catagory. I dont need stinking developers holding my hand and directing me to PvP, I PvP for fun, not for moronic titles, ranks, gear, or buff rewards for controlling an area. No PvP carrots on a stick for me.
I want PVE/PVP mmo only if its an OPEN FREE FOR ALL pvp world other wise im not interested.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
Sig Creator
nahhhhhh offtopic but i have to yell at you! =D I hate board games with dices, because dices mean -> luck (jeah everyone got the same chance) but it´s always luck. PvP in a PvP focused game is at least not ONLY luck!
I like playing chess and monopoly. Well; unless the rules changed and I can get ganked by 10 opponents while playing those games.....
Sig Creator
It was just a thought I had. I guess it's not really right to compare them. MMOs are on a much larger scale, much more fast paced and lack the personal human interactions you can get by playing board games.
I like the gamestyle where you have to comquer or defend something.
While the most common games have these in their Battlefield maps - own instances - there was ans is a couple games out, that deliver this kind of gaming.
In Tabula Rasa you had to get these outposts, that was fun because NPCs and players were fighting side by side, on both sides.
Face of Mankind brought this to a whole new level, by introducing crime and police and ofcause some kind of factionwide gathering of colonies. Best PvP experience i had for now.
FireFall promises similar mechanics, lets see, its still under heavy development.
Anarchy Online has also this funny Towerwars for Land Control Areas, but the level of success depends heavy on your gear.
So, yeah, PvP should be the first step to some real roleplaying ^^
Funny how the pure pvp gamers are such a small percent, yet they have way more mmo's released that are focused strictly on their play style. Pvp only mmo's abound, but how many quality pve only games do you get? seems every big Pve title has to cater somewhat to the pvp crowd.
Goes to show you how loud that small percent is doesnt it?
QFT
The natural upshot of point 1 is the "zerg" accusation. As soon as someone brings a friend the "zerg" word starts flying and both sides start accusing the other side of "not playing the game properly". "Zerging" i.e. overwhelming an enemy with sheer numbers, is a perfectly valid military tactic that is still employed to this day. The only difference is when someone gets zerged in real life they're not around to bitch about it afterwards. The Coalition zerged the living puke out of the Iraqis in both Gulf Wars. Both operations were textbook applications of massive force at places where the enemy was weakest. The rest is just words and gas. However gods forbid you do this in some random video game. SHAME! SHAME UPON THEE FOR GETTING HELP! Instead you should just take your beating and come back for another one, just like an extra in a Bruce Lee movie.
As to point 2, developers can do whatever they want, but in the end they can't control tacit agreements between "enemies".
For example in DAoC everyone fought in Emain Macha. There were four zones in each of the three frontiers, but everyone fought in Emain. Why? The terrain was generally flat with few obstructions (trees, hills, structures, mobs). It was like fighting on a golf course. No one fought in Albion where there were agro mobs everywhere and buildings, trees and elevation changes to mess you up. And Midgard? Who wanted to go blind staring at all that white on your screen straining your eyes to differentiate between roaming mobs and enemies? Nope. Buy a portal medal and get thyself to the milegate! You could pretty much run around naked in the other frontier zones for hours and not die to enemy attack unless you went flat stupid and ran up to their border fort or chanced upon an XP group.
Another example this time in one of the instances where fighting was encouraged. WoW Alterac Valley - Between the AFCavers and the unspoken agreement of the enemies to almost complete bypass one another and go kill the enemy NPCs the only PvP that went on in that battleground was when someone logged in late and wasn't in the zerg. Then they got jumped and ganked by 10 enemies as they ran to catch up to their pack of friendlies. People were actually yelled at by their own allies for fighting the enemy because it was slowing down the rate at which everyone, including the enemies, was collecting medals to buy epic armor.
In the end if a developer wants PvP in their game they almost have to lower the consequences of death to nothing, otherwise only the strongest will PvP and the rest will opt out. FFA PvP inevitably leads to survival of the fittest as most people don't want to spend their precious gaming time doing corpse runs and finding their stuff gone when they get back to their corpse and then get ganked again.
And no one really wants "No Rules" either. Fansy the Famous Bard proved that a long time ago. In the end, people want to choose when they PvP, and just like in real life, for 99.999999999% of the people that means when they can win.
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
Give planetside 2 a try.
But to get the most out of the game, the first thing you should do is click the social button to see if any organised guilds have an open platoon up. It's a game where you really need to be in a group to get the mist out of it.
Pure pvp mmos abound? Really?
Planetside, planetside 2, err world of tanks if you count it as a mmo, struggling to think of any more.
I agree with this but instead of balancing PvP through PVE specs why not just have a PVP spec that HAS to be used in order to PVP? This way you leave the PVE specs alone. In WOW most of the class balancing and nerfing is about balancing PvP. It's stupid to nerf PVE in order to make PVP people happy. Different specs and no one would be bothered. PVP can easily be balanced with out killing a PVE spec.
Open PvP while fun for some is a constant annoyance at best for most. Like many others time is an issue for me. I know gamers and especially "hardcore" gamers have the reputation for not having lives but I have certainly have one. When I go to play a game I make a few a friends and like to have fun. Its really not fun to get jumped while you are out just doing whatever. Sure its a military tactic to bring a group of friends to outnumber a foe but its more or less just bullying and its not so much a tactic when its in a game. It's more of an overkill. Its like hunting a unsuspecting deer with a force of 50+ armed soldiers, an armored division and air support. If a person enjoys the concept of being outnumbered on a constant basis, well, then more power to them. There is never a time when sides are equal, where both sides have a fair chance, where open PvP is fun and interesting. (i shouldnt say never.. more like 99 times out of a hundred it isnt fair or fun). This is why battlegrounds and instanced PvP was created. If you are in the mood for a fight or decent odds in winning you can do that. I love Pvp when this is the case. When I am in the mood for just sitting back and watching a movie while mindlessly grinding or chatting with friends I want to be able to do that. Most games have it right where they are PvP servers and PvE servers with a possibility of going into a battleground.
Personally, I dont like to be forced into PvP. I have done many many hours of it but it was my choice. I have played on PvP servers before and dont care for them due to the fact i could be fighting a close PvE or PvP fight and someone shows up to just finish me off. Wasting my already little time I have to play.
Given all the free MMOs out there, why not just play a pure pve and a pure pvp if you want both? Having a totally PvE focused game is better for PvE than one that is constantly getting "balanced for PvP" and has half its budget wasted on stuff that doesn't add to PvE and the same for a pure PvP MMO. Shoving it all in one game is just as dumb as putting a MOBA, an SPRPG, and a Diablo clone all in one game.
Better to have pvp that embraces what a mmo is, like eve or daoc, rather than trying to pretend mmos are like lol, Tf2 or cod.
The balance is a lie.
While you make a valid point. This isnt Warfare. Where in the example you put up there, armies and generals have the means to correct or prevent this. When people in game arent playing it for the warfare aspects nor the competition on having the most friends to escort them around to make sure they arent ganked by a group. In most cases its like 5 pro basketball players playing against one 5-year old over who gets to play on the basketball court.
It's not a myth that PVE-only players are more common.
Although it'd be nice to have a non-biased poll to correctly measure things:
In your MMORPGs, how much time do you want to spend in each activity?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But they don't typically bring out the douchebags. I've seen it happen in MMOs all the time. If you lose the encounter, you can be sure that the one who won is going to be a douchebag to you, calling you a loser, bragging to his friends, etc. If you win, you can be sure that the one who lost is going to call you a cheater, try to get their friends to gank you, etc. These are not things that you have to worry about with NPCs because they don't have egos. They don't get upset. They don't badmouth you. They don't seek revenge. They don't follow you around for hours ganking you over and over.
PvP brings out the inner dick in people. No thanks.
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