I voted, but I'm skeptical that we are an unbiased sample.
My fuzzy-feeling experience is that online forums tend to skew pro-PvP because people who dislike adversarial interactions are likely to eventually tire of arguements.
I enjoy both, Though I would have like a 4th option for the poll.. Because I dont necessarily need both in the same game. Especially, if the game just has PvP because thats what all the other games have.
And there are various way of integrating both systems in a game.
Notably there are games where PvE'ers are derogatorily referred to as carebears, but where they are the workhorses of the economy and also are the long suffering prey of 1337 skillz PvP'ers that dont even care they arent gaining anything, but are happy with ruining someone elses day.
These games also have players that PvP by PvE'ing with force...
Other games are more forgiving and have an iron curtain that completly, or almost, divide the PvP part from the PvE part.
Might have been redundant to point that out. But I wanted to say that there should be enough players for all sorts of variations of the mix or pure PvP or PvE.. Well maybe not pure PvP going by the poll at this time.
it's really not that i hate pvp, it's that i hate the way it is usually implemented. i play a lot of f2p games and those almost always end up p2w, which i despise. i don't mind that players who support the game get an advantage, i do mind when the advantage is so overwhelming that there is no point for someone who spends a little/nothing to even try.
I expected this results. "True" pvp-ers are rarity. Usually no need to open new sole pvp servers and virtually and game has ratio i.e. 1/10 or 1/100 in favor for pve servers. But ... that small number of pvp-ers have been able so far do destroy many good games because they are ultra vocal to point of madness and silly compaines listen to them instead of focusing on 97% of game player base.
The word "myth" seems to be now a label for "you have got it wrong and its time to have your mind readjusted."
PvE and PvP both have their place in a MMO, balancing the two is difficult and has led to antagonism. So the issues between these groups are real. Over the years the importance of PvP in MMO's has been sidelined for many reasons. I do not see this stopping, PvP will become even more marginalised in the MMO's of the future.
Originally posted by daltanious I expected this results. "True" pvp-ers are rarity. Usually no need to open new sole pvp servers and virtually and game has ratio i.e. 1/10 or 1/100 in favor for pve servers. But ... that small number of pvp-ers have been able so far do destroy many good games because they are ultra vocal to point of madness and silly compaines listen to them instead of focusing on 97% of game player base.
I don't know I'd call them a rarity. True PVPers are only a rarity within the context of casual (MMORPG) PVP. The overall PVP crowd is pretty sizable (even though it still doesn't outnumber the singleplayer/PVE crowd.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by daltanious I expected this results. "True" pvp-ers are rarity. Usually no need to open new sole pvp servers and virtually and game has ratio i.e. 1/10 or 1/100 in favor for pve servers. But ... that small number of pvp-ers have been able so far do destroy many good games because they are ultra vocal to point of madness and silly compaines listen to them instead of focusing on 97% of game player base.
I don't know I'd call them a rarity. True PVPers are only a rarity within the context of casual (MMORPG) PVP. The overall PVP crowd is pretty sizable (even though it still doesn't outnumber the singleplayer/PVE crowd.)
The actual PvP crowd doesn't play MMOs, they play FPS, therefore building an MMO for a group of people that largely don't even play the genre is silly.
I am heavy PvE. For me, PvP isn't as much skill based in most games as it is "CC fest". It just doesn't really feel that skilled based at all. Newer games like Tera do add a little more in that field but it still has flaws. In the end classes (which i feel should NOT be sacrificed for their varied nature for balance) will leave room for imbalance.
That being said, I feel its wrong to cut out pvp completely. PvP is a form of content. It can actually be enjoyable from time to time to go about killing people. I actually enjoy BEING GANKed, least when its someone I can actually stand a chance against, to me its quite fun to turn the tables and get the ganker back.
No game I feel is well off neglecting all pvp or all pve. It only helps to give a game less to do. Sure, focus heavily on one or the other, but you should never fully neglect one. I don't think there is a single person out there that has focused on one and has not had any fun playing around with the other. We all have our own tastes and moods and sometimes a taste of something we don't usually do can be quite entertaining and fun.
I play console fighting games competitively and MMOs cooperatively.
I don't really despise one or the other
"As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days those are now the only two states youll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2
Originally posted by daltanious I expected this results. "True" pvp-ers are rarity. Usually no need to open new sole pvp servers and virtually and game has ratio i.e. 1/10 or 1/100 in favor for pve servers. But ... that small number of pvp-ers have been able so far do destroy many good games because they are ultra vocal to point of madness and silly compaines listen to them instead of focusing on 97% of game player base.
I don't know I'd call them a rarity. True PVPers are only a rarity within the context of casual (MMORPG) PVP. The overall PVP crowd is pretty sizable (even though it still doesn't outnumber the singleplayer/PVE crowd.)
The actual PvP crowd doesn't play MMOs, they play FPS, therefore building an MMO for a group of people that largely don't even play the genre is silly.
As for the first bit, that's basically what I implied yeah (although they also play other non-casual (non-MMORPG) PVP.)
For the second bit, Planetside 2 is an MMO built for PVPers (although to be fair there's just enough vertical progression to PS2 to repel serious PVPers.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by ShakyMo LizardWhat 50/50 games?Gw2, daoc, gw1 if you count it as a mmo, err.... I'm struggling to think of anymore
Not a 50/50 split in population but a 50/50 split between the PvE and PvP mechanics and loot in the game. For instance, in WoW, the PvE gear and PvP gear are balanced against each other so that it's not too easy to get one over the other. Towards that goal the skills are all balanced against each other in both PvE and PvP.
I used WoW as an example because they probably have things as balanced as they can get. Other games attempt to do the same thing and it just doesn't work. Rift immediately comes to mind for me. They initially were trying to do the same kind of balance between PvE and PvP as WoW, but it seemed like the PvE was the driving force behind the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I play console fighting games competitively and MMOs cooperatively.
I don't really despise one or the other
I can agree with this although I play competive PC PVP games to like PS2.
I really wish not every game developers felt the need to shoehorn in PVE or PVP elements into their game where they don't fit. Not every PVP game made needs PVE and not every PVE game needs PVP. It does nothing but muddles the game systems and deverts valuable attention from focusing on making a really good game that does one thing well rather than a meh game that does both medicore.
There are different types of PvE and PvP. So in my instance, I can tolerate and sometimes enjoy a modest amount of leveling, exploring, and questing especially if grouping isn't required. I very much dislike raiding, instance grinding, gold farming, template acquiring, and pretty much all end game PvE in most MMOs. I often enjoy instanced PvP arenas and I loved RvR in DAOC but not so much in other MMOs (WAR, GW 2). I have no use for FFA PvP.
I play console fighting games competitively and MMOs cooperatively.
I don't really despise one or the other
I can agree with this although I play competive PC PVP games to like PS2.
I really wish not every game developers felt the need to shoehorn in PVE or PVP elements into their game where they don't fit. Not every PVP game made needs PVE and not every PVE game needs PVP. It does nothing but muddles the game systems and deverts valuable attention from focusing on making a really good game that does one thing well rather than a meh game that does both medicore.
Have to agree, i tend to mostly play PVE, but also PVP on a very casual basis, and mostly in seperate games, for PVP i tend to play PS2, and for PVE i play SW;TOR etc, as i find the PVP in most mmorpg's to be mediocre at best, for instance the PVP in WoW and SW;TOR is very underwhelming bordering on silly. Even in Eve, i don't focus on PVP, but on a lot of other activities, and only engaging in PVP if wardec'd etc. The PvP in Eve is far from mediocre but it just isnt really possible to be a casual PVP'er with any degree of success, being in a PVP corp in Eve is not a casual undertaking, you really need to be able to devote a lot of time to it, as Eve is probably the most organised PVP game i've ever encountered, and if you do have the time, also the most rewarding, by contrast, the PVP in PS2 is intense, but, supports casual play, and dropping in for 30 mins to an hour is acceptable. Perhaps this is why i am not so impressed with ESO, as the focus on the PVP aspect seems to be very much at the expense of the PVE aspect of the game, i am probably not the target demographic of ESO though, despite my being a long time fan of the TES games.
I'm mostly a PvE player. I don't really understand the point of fighting against others in video games. Every so often I play PvP to see if anything has changed and that's about it. I'd much rather be working together to bring down something I find to be malicious than some random guy that presents a challenge to me. I don't do duels, arenas, and most often I don't support castle sieges. Coding for both PvP and PvE is a mess anyways.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift. I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough. I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
I don't really see the point in having any derision over things that can be combine. There are certainly PvP features which can handicap PvE experience, but plenty that don't, between having PvP safe zones, to open PK server segregation, there's really no logical reason not to make a game appealing to a larger diversity of interests.
As any serious MMO, both is the answer to almost every question. Solo or group, theme park or sandbox, the main thing is allowing players to fully enjoy one or the other, and in this particular concern, gameplay needs to be designed to work for PvP, than PvE opponents need to be programmed to fight under those mechanics.
I think one of the greatest hurdles with PvE and PvP are games designed for PvE which totally fail to incorporate rational behavior and than doctoring the mechanics into something else for PvP.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry, they'll be a mile away... and barefoot.
Comments
I voted, but I'm skeptical that we are an unbiased sample.
My fuzzy-feeling experience is that online forums tend to skew pro-PvP because people who dislike adversarial interactions are likely to eventually tire of arguements.
I enjoy both, Though I would have like a 4th option for the poll.. Because I dont necessarily need both in the same game. Especially, if the game just has PvP because thats what all the other games have.
And there are various way of integrating both systems in a game.
Notably there are games where PvE'ers are derogatorily referred to as carebears, but where they are the workhorses of the economy and also are the long suffering prey of 1337 skillz PvP'ers that dont even care they arent gaining anything, but are happy with ruining someone elses day.
These games also have players that PvP by PvE'ing with force...
Other games are more forgiving and have an iron curtain that completly, or almost, divide the PvP part from the PvE part.
Might have been redundant to point that out. But I wanted to say that there should be enough players for all sorts of variations of the mix or pure PvP or PvE.. Well maybe not pure PvP going by the poll at this time.
Hi Guys!
i want to play rappelz but in philippines server.
i know you guys are PROs when it comes to rappelz.
can you give me any idea on which i will choose? PVE or PVP?
which build is good?
i heard rappelz philippines is good and PVE server is a newly opened server.
i also heard that they are giving free items for new players and transfering players.
Does any of you tried playing here? http://www.rappelz.ph/index.html ?
Any reply will be appreciated. Thank you!!
I think you're getting confused with progression raiders.
The word "myth" seems to be now a label for "you have got it wrong and its time to have your mind readjusted."
PvE and PvP both have their place in a MMO, balancing the two is difficult and has led to antagonism. So the issues between these groups are real. Over the years the importance of PvP in MMO's has been sidelined for many reasons. I do not see this stopping, PvP will become even more marginalised in the MMO's of the future.
I don't know I'd call them a rarity. True PVPers are only a rarity within the context of casual (MMORPG) PVP. The overall PVP crowd is pretty sizable (even though it still doesn't outnumber the singleplayer/PVE crowd.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The actual PvP crowd doesn't play MMOs, they play FPS, therefore building an MMO for a group of people that largely don't even play the genre is silly.
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
No one plays eve or planetside 2 or darkfall or gw2
Jebus.
I am heavy PvE. For me, PvP isn't as much skill based in most games as it is "CC fest". It just doesn't really feel that skilled based at all. Newer games like Tera do add a little more in that field but it still has flaws. In the end classes (which i feel should NOT be sacrificed for their varied nature for balance) will leave room for imbalance.
That being said, I feel its wrong to cut out pvp completely. PvP is a form of content. It can actually be enjoyable from time to time to go about killing people. I actually enjoy BEING GANKed, least when its someone I can actually stand a chance against, to me its quite fun to turn the tables and get the ganker back.
No game I feel is well off neglecting all pvp or all pve. It only helps to give a game less to do. Sure, focus heavily on one or the other, but you should never fully neglect one. I don't think there is a single person out there that has focused on one and has not had any fun playing around with the other. We all have our own tastes and moods and sometimes a taste of something we don't usually do can be quite entertaining and fun.
I play console fighting games competitively and MMOs cooperatively.
I don't really despise one or the other
"As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days those are now the only two states youll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2
As for the first bit, that's basically what I implied yeah (although they also play other non-casual (non-MMORPG) PVP.)
For the second bit, Planetside 2 is an MMO built for PVPers (although to be fair there's just enough vertical progression to PS2 to repel serious PVPers.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not a 50/50 split in population but a 50/50 split between the PvE and PvP mechanics and loot in the game. For instance, in WoW, the PvE gear and PvP gear are balanced against each other so that it's not too easy to get one over the other. Towards that goal the skills are all balanced against each other in both PvE and PvP.
I used WoW as an example because they probably have things as balanced as they can get. Other games attempt to do the same thing and it just doesn't work. Rift immediately comes to mind for me. They initially were trying to do the same kind of balance between PvE and PvP as WoW, but it seemed like the PvE was the driving force behind the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I can agree with this although I play competive PC PVP games to like PS2.
I really wish not every game developers felt the need to shoehorn in PVE or PVP elements into their game where they don't fit. Not every PVP game made needs PVE and not every PVE game needs PVP. It does nothing but muddles the game systems and deverts valuable attention from focusing on making a really good game that does one thing well rather than a meh game that does both medicore.
DAOC Live (inactive): R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R6 Healer
Wow is a 90% pve game. They tacked pvp on after release. They spend a hell of lot more time making new pve content than they do pvp.
To say wow is a 50/50 game is laughable. It's a game ran by former EQ raiders for raiders.
Have to agree, i tend to mostly play PVE, but also PVP on a very casual basis, and mostly in seperate games, for PVP i tend to play PS2, and for PVE i play SW;TOR etc, as i find the PVP in most mmorpg's to be mediocre at best, for instance the PVP in WoW and SW;TOR is very underwhelming bordering on silly. Even in Eve, i don't focus on PVP, but on a lot of other activities, and only engaging in PVP if wardec'd etc. The PvP in Eve is far from mediocre but it just isnt really possible to be a casual PVP'er with any degree of success, being in a PVP corp in Eve is not a casual undertaking, you really need to be able to devote a lot of time to it, as Eve is probably the most organised PVP game i've ever encountered, and if you do have the time, also the most rewarding, by contrast, the PVP in PS2 is intense, but, supports casual play, and dropping in for 30 mins to an hour is acceptable. Perhaps this is why i am not so impressed with ESO, as the focus on the PVP aspect seems to be very much at the expense of the PVE aspect of the game, i am probably not the target demographic of ESO though, despite my being a long time fan of the TES games.
Non of that Instanced crap and the battle of hoth in something like ps2s esamir continent.
Nobody congratulated you on making a biased poll, barely seeing your agenda vote win, but then claiming victory.
So let me be the first: grats!
You've stepped into a brave new world of statistics manipulation!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm mostly a PvE player. I don't really understand the point of fighting against others in video games. Every so often I play PvP to see if anything has changed and that's about it. I'd much rather be working together to bring down something I find to be malicious than some random guy that presents a challenge to me. I don't do duels, arenas, and most often I don't support castle sieges. Coding for both PvP and PvE is a mess anyways.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift.
I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough.
I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
As any serious MMO, both is the answer to almost every question. Solo or group, theme park or sandbox, the main thing is allowing players to fully enjoy one or the other, and in this particular concern, gameplay needs to be designed to work for PvP, than PvE opponents need to be programmed to fight under those mechanics.
I think one of the greatest hurdles with PvE and PvP are games designed for PvE which totally fail to incorporate rational behavior and than doctoring the mechanics into something else for PvP.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, if they get angry, they'll be a mile away... and barefoot.
This is a very bad analogy, I love realistic games and love marvel vs capcom 2
This doenst mean I would prefer simulation version of mvc2 game. Than the original one.
Or that I would prefer a arma 2 mod on the mvc 2 setting (with simulation and etc..) than arma 2.