I'm just tired of PvP crybabies ruining PvE. They are two separate games and they shouldn't even be considered together.
Brush up on your MMO history bud. PvP and PvE are two sides of the same coin. They work together to make the most memorable games of all time. DAoC anyone?
Originally posted by Aelious From the viewpoint of a PvP fan it makes perfect sense and may sway a few on the fence. For those that don't like PvP it still closes out a portion of the world.
My hope is that there are different servers and that at certain points, like you said are natural, the two servers merge together like CRZ. That way the whole world is PvP for PvP fans and a portion (maybe 20%) is PvP for those that want it on demand.
There are some really interesting ways to implement PvP and PvE together but it's only for the benefit of PvP players because they do both.
Agreed, a system like this will work for people who play some of each but both pure PvPers and pure PvEers will probably not like it since it makes their playing area smaller.
As I see it is the really big problem with mixing PvE and PvP good the fact that you need mechanics that works perfect in both.
Trinity combat as example works fine in PvE but not in PvP unless you force the DPS players to actually lock the person tanking them and I don't think that would be fun.
Large gap in power between noobs and vet is popular with PvEers but it makes the PvP rather boring and predictable.
Looting players gear works in PvP centric game but PvEers spend all their time getting loot and they therefor hate the thought that someone can gank them and take the things they worked months to get.
And that is just some of the problems, I never seen a MMO that really have a good system for both. The original Guildwars system with DPS and healers only together with balanced gear and little gap in power is probably the existing system I would prefer but I think we actually could make something a lot better and fun.
The problem is that almost all MMOs go for either M59/EQ styled PvE mechanics or UOs skill based and neither works well for both playstyles.
I like both PvP and PvE... I believe there is a time and place for it all... I like complex raiding as well as running in group stealth trying to take out a couple targets.. But I feel there should be servers to represent every need of gamer out there... I feel the server list should goes as follows..
Paid Sub Servers -
1. PvE
2. PvP
3. RP (I think EQ started these types of servers but people do play them w/e)
F2P servers
Same as above!!!
Keep rule sets so people know what they are walking into... no PvP?? don't complain.. Just don't join...
I do believe that they should keep SUB servers so they don't have dumb down the game with restrictions or have to purchase character slots for station cash tec...
This is just my personal opinion....
PvP has a huge market and and EQ2 was a good example of that... Nagafen was a pretty populated server through out its existence.. I love the PvP loot system in EQ2, I loved fighting over (Claining) contested raid mobs, ganking people, and HUNTING BOTS!!??? how many bots in a game have you come across and was like man I wish I just could go and kill this BOT and take his cash!! this is awesome...
I just think the servers should be as above.. You don't like PvP?? Don't Join....
I have one and only one disagreement with your point of view, "PvP has a huge market" it definitely has a market, perhaps a large one but not huge one, my best guess around 20%.
The fact that the second biggest MMO in the west is Eve, which has FFA PvP, and that the biggest game in the world, LoL, is all PvP, destroys that argument.
I hope they listen to this, if one thing I have learned over the past 10 years of MMO's, it is that when you balance classes for PvP, your PvE suffers greatly. These 2 play styles just do not mix in a great game, the result of trying to mix them yields a mediocre PvP game with mediocre PvE thrown in. At least up to this point it has not worked out.
Its a shame because I think it could be a simple fix, by adding PvP and PVE only gear. Make the pvp gear worthless in a PvE situation and PvE gear worthles in a PvP situation. Just make the values on the gear null if a player is using the wrong gear in a situation. For pvp skills let the players choose what skills they want to use for PVP only, but those skills are only PvP based, would have no effect on the PvE mobs, that way you can still balance the class skills for true PvE roles.
Guildwars (1) did that.
But I think a totally new mechanic would work better, something similar to what the pen and paper game Shadowrun uses.
The gap in power there is a lot less and it doesn't have levels but on the other hand your character will slowly improve almost forever. It is not so gear focused in the same way as MMOs but you can instead own cool vehicles, drones and even corporations. And any combat involves a risk even if it is small against when an experienced player fights a noob. This is partly because your hitpoints never go up.
The fact that the second biggest MMO in the west is Eve, which has FFA PvP, and that the biggest game in the world, LoL, is all PvP, destroys that argument.
I think that GW2 actually have more active players but that really doesn't matter, PvP is surely large enough. If nothing else does games like WoT, DOTA and LOL prove that even if they aren't exactly full MMOs.
But the real problem is that no games have really made both PvE and PvP popular so far. A game can get loads of player in one or the other but no-one made a game that have about equal numbers playing one or the other.
It is surely possible but you need some out of the box thinking for it.
I believe some here are missing the middle ground approach.
The game mechanics dictate the level of danger a player character is in at any moment.
Part of the fun of games like Everquest team vs team or Ultima Online pre-expansions was the very real dangers around the corner from both players and mobs.
In UO, the concept of good and bad was introduced and it was free for all with full looting rights which made choice of armor, weapons and amount of things you carried all something to think about all the time. You couldn't really afk at the banks or anywhere except your player made house since players could steal from your pack while you stand around. It was great fun and added alot of immersion and tension in the game which is missed.
In Everquest Team vs Team I think it was 1 item loot or something when you died to another player. It's been so long I forget the penalty for death besides having to get your corpse again which led to all sorts of crazy encounters.
In World of Warcraft there were safe areas and as your character went up in level you ventured into contested territory. No real penalties for death though. Same with Rift since it was a WoW clone.
Most popular games had some element of PvP in them. It was just a question of what penalties there were for killing a player or being killed.
I prefer something between the EQ teams server and the Ultima Online rule sets regarding pvp in the game. The feeling of dread in your stomach when a large group approached that was enemy and you knew there was about to be major fire works...always fun times.
Is PvE more fun without any PvP? I would say no way. The whole EZ mode simplified level 1 to 100 with all quest paths lit up for you from quest hub to quest hub. The look of choice upon reaching level 10 or 20 with a branch of 3 directions you could take your character. The Cookie Cutter builds that worked while many many were broken adding to streamlining with an illusion of depth. SImple zones that have no varied ranges within them so you never feel like you could get wiped out by something if not paying attention. All of this needs to stop and give way to smart design, and tension being put back in the game. Certain things draw you into a game like nothing else can.
Also the game mechanics in UO may sound harsh to someone that never played it. But the gathering, crafting, and storage options meant that you could have 20 different suits of armor and weapons waiting for you in safe storage if you did get killed. However if you got careless and didn't return to storage after collecting a bunch in a dungeon, or went afk in an unsafe area, or gathered to much stuff, you could make your guy a walking target. It was always good times.
It's pretty obvious to understand EQ Next will have sometype of ffa pvp system in it. A paraphrased quote from the devs is that they want players of all types ranging from the matriarch/patriarch (guild leader type), the raid leader, the crafter, AND THE PVPER all playing in the same world. SOE believes a better game will be created if the world is crafted where multiple playstyles can find their own niche in one interconnected world.
Now I have to agree with them, personally. I think PvErs are the biggest bunch of whiny maggots to ever spawn, but having more people to play with is always a plus. Open World pvp offers a wider challenge to the world, and adds a sense of danger one cannot garner from a strictly PvE experience. I hope the people who want just PvE can learn to appreciate the danger because its a hell of a lot of fun.
Originally posted by Aelious Most of the comments so far in this section point to having a good PvP system that is on another server. This doesn't seem to be adequate to some posters though and the message seems to be that we all need to be on one server type. That only benefits the PvPers because the whole world is open to them but not PvEers. I'm not sure why the need to force things on others when a better option is right there.
Simply because the best model many of us have seen that integrates PVE and PVP well is one we believe would fall apart if either of those aspects were removed from the game.
Some of us simply want a game with PVE and PVP integrated to the point where all of the game's systems are interrelated and reliant on each of these systems and their various subsystems. This reliance would then be to such a degree that your PVE server could exist, but it would simply not work.
I admit there may be PVE solutions to all of my issues. I have simply never seen them implemented in a way I enjoy.
Edit: Removed my wall of text to a more concise point.
I'm picking up what you're putting down, that it's an ecosystem of sorts between PvPers and PvEers? In having seperate servers though wouldn't the PvP one have both PvE and PvE available? Maybe that's the point though, that if all the PvP is going on other things such as commerce and crafting wouldn't be as adequate.
I know EvE is a great example of how PvE and PvP can exist, I'm just not sure if that's possible in a fantasy MMO like EQN. I guess we'll find out soon enough. I personally hope they find a way to balance the two because I love PvP at times, I'll get sucked in for weeks, but there are other times I want to just explore and be left alone. Picky, I know heh.
EQ1 was a PvE game first and foremost, but also had 4 or 5 really fun PvP servers that became popular and worked really well much to their suprise. They didn't compromise combat and game mechanics due to PvP. To this day, still my favorite pvp mmo. Rallos zek with item loot - nothing has caused my blood to pump that hard since.
There was no need to fundamentally change all the classes to make them viable pvp threats or give them some sort of stupid pvp hybridized build. There were classes that were offensive, and classes that were defensive or support. Instead of breaking down the the role system they maintained it in EQ1 pvp, and everything worked perfectly. Sure they modified a few abilities and resists, but still every class kept its traditional role, and it made pvp much more interesting and tactical than the every-man-for-himself pvp in WoW and its clones.
EQ1 was a PvE game first and foremost, but also had 4 or 5 really fun PvP servers that became popular and worked really well much to their suprise. They didn't compromise combat and game mechanics due to PvP. To this day, still my favorite pvp mmo. Rallos zek with item loot - nothing has caused my blood to pump that hard since.
There was no need to fundamentally change all the classes to make them viable pvp threats or give them some sort of stupid pvp hybridized build. There were classes that were offensive, and classes that were defensive or support. Instead of breaking down the the role system they maintained it in EQ1 pvp, and everything worked perfectly. Sure they modified a few abilities and resists, but still every class kept its traditional role, and it made pvp much more interesting and tactical than the every-man-for-himself pvp in WoW and its clones.
Thats the way EQ Next needs to do it.
I don't think so...
I think they will need to rethink the entire thing to make it work as well for both. And that firstly means that tanking needs to go in the traditional sense unless they make mechanics for tanking players as well as mobs.
In short, fighting a mob and fighting another player must be closer to eachother. And combat should be somewhat slower so you can't kill another player in 3 seconds, and that should go for mobs as well.
Mobs will need a better AI. Levels either needs to be very different from the original EQ or removed altogether.
EQs mechanics was made for PvE mainly at that is why it had so much more PvErs than PvPers. If they keep the original mechanics the same thing will just happen again.
With the right mechanics this game really could take SOE to the top again but making a sandbox just like a 15 year old themepark is a mistake.
EQ1 was a PvE game first and foremost, but also had 4 or 5 really fun PvP servers that became popular and worked really well much to their suprise. They didn't compromise combat and game mechanics due to PvP. To this day, still my favorite pvp mmo. Rallos zek with item loot - nothing has caused my blood to pump that hard since.
There was no need to fundamentally change all the classes to make them viable pvp threats or give them some sort of stupid pvp hybridized build. There were classes that were offensive, and classes that were defensive or support. Instead of breaking down the the role system they maintained it in EQ1 pvp, and everything worked perfectly. Sure they modified a few abilities and resists, but still every class kept its traditional role, and it made pvp much more interesting and tactical than the every-man-for-himself pvp in WoW and its clones.
Thats the way EQ Next needs to do it.
Agree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
Agree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
Agree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
Yes, i like to use taunt skill even in PvP, i have tried some games that allow this mechanic and i have enjoy it (WAR, CoH/CoV)
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
Another christmas list thread, but I wanted to get some opinions on this and to have some coding knowledgeables give me a reality check.
Basically I would like to see player controlled territory, but seeing how this is the "largest sandbox mmo" by territory I mean huge amounts of space. What I believe this would do, it would create PvE zones within PvP borders. I would also like these borders to be organic, so a neighboring faction could push your border back. In addition I think having NPC's controlled by the players would help. I think that if an enemy army wishes to take your castle it should take more than one battle. They could certainly win in one battle, if the make a lengthy push to eliminate all of your players/NPCs and finally lay siege upon your stronghold, but it would be more likely for the pushes to come in spurts. I hate the idea of sieges being limited to a window time, to me that makes no sense despite being beneficial to the casual players.
This could go a far way to strengthen the bond between PvP and PvE players. PvP players are protecting the lands of the PvE from their bloodthirsty adversaries, while PvE'ers are exploring/crafting/suppressing interior NPC mobs and also helping to provide the resources to keep a healthy NPC force.
So what do you guys think?
The game won't be like this or have features like this.
"The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"
Agree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
Taunting should work in pvp, and some games have done it. I believe it worked in EQ2 where you could change other player targets and turn then to you. I dont think it should force them to continue attacking you, but when melee get on your healer, it would be great to spin them off even for a couple seconds.
Again someone wants to tell me what my subjective experience is. It is not just a game that I would not want to be immersed in, it would be a game I would be being jerked out of my immersion by jerks.
I'm really not interested in entering the world of "it's my opinion and nothing you say can change my mind." It's childish really and has no place in debate. You know you're wrong and have now resorted to sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to reason.
No I accept that other people have different preferences, you seem to be opposed to me having my preference. I am listening and responding, not sticking my fingers in my ears. Can you say the same?
Nobody is talking about preferences! We're saying that just because you don't like a game, doesn't mean it's not immersive. And game continuity is NOT subjective.
I like both PvP and PvE... I believe there is a time and place for it all... I like complex raiding as well as running in group stealth trying to take out a couple targets.. But I feel there should be servers to represent every need of gamer out there... I feel the server list should goes as follows..
Paid Sub Servers -
1. PvE
2. PvP
3. RP (I think EQ started these types of servers but people do play them w/e)
F2P servers
Same as above!!!
Keep rule sets so people know what they are walking into... no PvP?? don't complain.. Just don't join...
I do believe that they should keep SUB servers so they don't have dumb down the game with restrictions or have to purchase character slots for station cash tec...
This is just my personal opinion....
PvP has a huge market and and EQ2 was a good example of that... Nagafen was a pretty populated server through out its existence.. I love the PvP loot system in EQ2, I loved fighting over (Claining) contested raid mobs, ganking people, and HUNTING BOTS!!??? how many bots in a game have you come across and was like man I wish I just could go and kill this BOT and take his cash!! this is awesome...
I just think the servers should be as above.. You don't like PvP?? Don't Join....
The problem is that leads to PvP being simply a tacked on afterthought, and not built into the game design, and therefore NOT what we want. What you're describing is exactly the way PvP has been done for the past however many years and it's exactly what we're sick of.
Agree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
Taunting should work in pvp, and some games have done it. I believe it worked in EQ2 where you could change other player targets and turn then to you. I dont think it should force them to continue attacking you, but when melee get on your healer, it would be great to spin them off even for a couple seconds.
Yes taunt could works in PvP also like a dmg debuff that greatly decrease dmg of the enemy taunted...howether the point for me is that every traditional class should have his specific role even in PvP (same role as in PvE) without the need of a radical respec, just to have a party coordination and class interdependence even in this aspect of the game.
As a tank there are many skills in addition to taunt that i could use in PvP that fits well for a defensive melee:
stuns, disarm, armor debuff, dmg intercept (protecting another player with shield), interrupting spell cast (shield bash), reflect dmg (with shield) etc.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
.... and you are saying immersion for you is being able to kill me at any time and in any place. Round and round we go.
We aren't going round and round, I'm pretty sure you just don't know what immersion means.
lol
... does not break immersion for you :- it does for me
... "doesn't exactly break the in world continuity" for you :- it does for me.
World continuity is not a subjective thing.
If you are in a virtual world where killing other players is the norm, it does not break immersion of that game world to get killed.
Now if you've invented a fantasy out of touch with what the game you're playing is, you can't really rightly get upset if someone breaks your personal reality, founded upon nothing, can you?
I would give you more of the benefit of the doubt if you didn't cheap changing your argument.
My argument is the same my words change.
As to your latest this thread is titled "PvP versus PvE compromise", that suggests we are discussing a virtual world that would allow both styles of play. By your instance that PvP can only be "immersive" for you if it is non-consensual I guess you are conceding that no compromise is possible.
Thanks for that.
I did not argue or say ANY of that. Again you're throwing up misdirections to take attention away from the fact that you don't know what immersion is.
ROFLMAO, there are many definitions of what immersion is including being submerged in water. With reference to computer games they all refer to a subjective state of mind. That is it is what the person feels, what breaks that state of mind is going to vary by individual for some it may be a particular animation or a particular piece of geometry in a zone a broken mechanic, a sound that seems out of place just about anything.
For me being attacked by a PKer breaks my immersion, it takes me out of the virtual world and makes me feel annoyed by the real world pest doing it. I do not regard PvP as part of the game world, seeing it breaks my immersion. Deny that as you will it is a subjective state and therefore either you monitor my brain activity or you accept I know what goes on inside my head.
Oh and since you still have not stated how a compromise between a PvP versus PvE compromise could work, I accept your concession.
The question you're not asking yourself is immersion in WHAT? You say you do not regard pvp as part of the game world, but it IS part of the game world (if the game has PvP) by design. So like I said before, it's not a game that you want to be immersed in, not that the game isn't immersive. Allowing pvp is just simply NOT setting up a fake unrealistic restriction, that's it. This is completely different from a bad piece of geography or bad graphics which are unintended mistakes.
As soon as humanly possible the sociopaths come out of the woodwork with their desire to dominate other people.
There are plenty of sandbox games where you can live out your dream of schoolbully.
No need to turn EQnext into another "me too" sandbox game.
If it is, a lot of people are just going to let it pass by.
God knows why so many people think this but sandbox does not mean, FFA PVP.
Neither does it mean a simulation of real life where the game feels like a second job.
Smedley said EQnext will be all about fun it was also mentioned it would be 'worlds largest sanbox game eva!'
And the last time I checked the mass of consumers don't think of fun when sandbox games are brought up.
So I would say a very large portion of MMORPG.com are going to be left out and that is not a bad thing.
What is with you people and constantly having to resort to ad hominem attacks simply because you don't know anything about our position? I'm a sociopath because I like the idea of risk/reward? The only reason I want a game with OW pvp is because I want to dominate people? I have a dream of being a school bully? Why don't you actually read some of our posts and try to understand our position before you post something so arrogant and rude.
I don't know what exactly you mean when you say sandbox =/= ffa pvp, but pvp is a sandbox feature, especially open world pvp and especially open world pvp with loot. Sandbox features are features that limit arbitrary rules imposed by the developer. Force fields stopping you from from exploring somewhere, force fields stopping you from attacking other players.
That doesn't mean that a game can't be considered sandboxy without full loot ow pvp, but it DOES mean that those things are inherently sandbox features.
I believe some here are missing the middle ground approach.
The game mechanics dictate the level of danger a player character is in at any moment.
Part of the fun of games like Everquest team vs team or Ultima Online pre-expansions was the very real dangers around the corner from both players and mobs.
In UO, the concept of good and bad was introduced and it was free for all with full looting rights which made choice of armor, weapons and amount of things you carried all something to think about all the time. You couldn't really afk at the banks or anywhere except your player made house since players could steal from your pack while you stand around. It was great fun and added alot of immersion and tension in the game which is missed.
In Everquest Team vs Team I think it was 1 item loot or something when you died to another player. It's been so long I forget the penalty for death besides having to get your corpse again which led to all sorts of crazy encounters.
In World of Warcraft there were safe areas and as your character went up in level you ventured into contested territory. No real penalties for death though. Same with Rift since it was a WoW clone.
Most popular games had some element of PvP in them. It was just a question of what penalties there were for killing a player or being killed.
I prefer something between the EQ teams server and the Ultima Online rule sets regarding pvp in the game. The feeling of dread in your stomach when a large group approached that was enemy and you knew there was about to be major fire works...always fun times.
Is PvE more fun without any PvP? I would say no way. The whole EZ mode simplified level 1 to 100 with all quest paths lit up for you from quest hub to quest hub. The look of choice upon reaching level 10 or 20 with a branch of 3 directions you could take your character. The Cookie Cutter builds that worked while many many were broken adding to streamlining with an illusion of depth. SImple zones that have no varied ranges within them so you never feel like you could get wiped out by something if not paying attention. All of this needs to stop and give way to smart design, and tension being put back in the game. Certain things draw you into a game like nothing else can.
Also the game mechanics in UO may sound harsh to someone that never played it. But the gathering, crafting, and storage options meant that you could have 20 different suits of armor and weapons waiting for you in safe storage if you did get killed. However if you got careless and didn't return to storage after collecting a bunch in a dungeon, or went afk in an unsafe area, or gathered to much stuff, you could make your guy a walking target. It was always good times.
Be prepared to be labeled a sociopath, bind camper, waste of life, griefer, etc. The PvE crowd around here is completely unreasonable and simply will not accept that people like us exist. People that like consequences for our actions. People that like RISK so that our successes are that much more REWARDING.
Originally posted by Aelious Most of the comments so far in this section point to having a good PvP system that is on another server. This doesn't seem to be adequate to some posters though and the message seems to be that we all need to be on one server type. That only benefits the PvPers because the whole world is open to them but not PvEers. I'm not sure why the need to force things on others when a better option is right there.
Simply because the best model many of us have seen that integrates PVE and PVP well is one we believe would fall apart if either of those aspects were removed from the game.
Some of us simply want a game with PVE and PVP integrated to the point where all of the game's systems are interrelated and reliant on each of these systems and their various subsystems. This reliance would then be to such a degree that your PVE server could exist, but it would simply not work.
I admit there may be PVE solutions to all of my issues. I have simply never seen them implemented in a way I enjoy.
Edit: Removed my wall of text to a more concise point.
I'm picking up what you're putting down, that it's an ecosystem of sorts between PvPers and PvEers? In having seperate servers though wouldn't the PvP one have both PvE and PvE available? Maybe that's the point though, that if all the PvP is going on other things such as commerce and crafting wouldn't be as adequate.
I know EvE is a great example of how PvE and PvP can exist, I'm just not sure if that's possible in a fantasy MMO like EQN. I guess we'll find out soon enough. I personally hope they find a way to balance the two because I love PvP at times, I'll get sucked in for weeks, but there are other times I want to just explore and be left alone. Picky, I know heh.
The point is PvP is either a minigame-esque after thought, or it's integral to the game design. If it's a tacked on after thought, we don't want it. If it's an important aspect of the game design, then taking it out to make a "pve" server would ruin the game.
Agree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
People keep talking about PvP breaking PvE, but I don't see why. Maybe if PvP is introduced into a game where there is already complex PvE it would break it. But if the game is designed with PvP and PvE in mind, why can't the mobs be balanced accordingly?
Agree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
In my game experience the only system that works well in PvE is the HOLY TRINITY, it imply an aggro managment and a taunt skill. Without a tank with a taunt skill the traditional classes (pure healers, pure dps) cant do their job, cause if they are attacked by mobs and bosses they will probably die, without the healer the tank will be killed as well, without dps you will probably dont be able to kill your enemy (a strong boss for example).
This system is the only one that need a real coordination and interdependence between classes in a party, all classes are important and fondamental for the others due their specic skills and role.
The only alternative system i have tested in another game is the one used in GW2 and i think that is a real fail. Every classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (stay alive, heal themself and do dps) so every class in a group can be replaced by another.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
Be prepared to be labeled a sociopath, bind camper, waste of life, griefer, etc. The PvE crowd around here is completely unreasonable and simply will not accept that people like us exist. People that like consequences for our actions. People that like RISK so that our successes are that much more REWARDING.
actually from all the discussions i did read on pve vs pvp, its actually completely opposite - pvpers are the unreasonable ones.
i never saw any pveer objecting to having servers specifically for pvp, but i saw A LOT of pvpers (i would even said most of them) objecting to having servers specifically for pve.
Comments
Brush up on your MMO history bud. PvP and PvE are two sides of the same coin. They work together to make the most memorable games of all time. DAoC anyone?
Agreed, a system like this will work for people who play some of each but both pure PvPers and pure PvEers will probably not like it since it makes their playing area smaller.
As I see it is the really big problem with mixing PvE and PvP good the fact that you need mechanics that works perfect in both.
Trinity combat as example works fine in PvE but not in PvP unless you force the DPS players to actually lock the person tanking them and I don't think that would be fun.
Large gap in power between noobs and vet is popular with PvEers but it makes the PvP rather boring and predictable.
Looting players gear works in PvP centric game but PvEers spend all their time getting loot and they therefor hate the thought that someone can gank them and take the things they worked months to get.
And that is just some of the problems, I never seen a MMO that really have a good system for both. The original Guildwars system with DPS and healers only together with balanced gear and little gap in power is probably the existing system I would prefer but I think we actually could make something a lot better and fun.
The problem is that almost all MMOs go for either M59/EQ styled PvE mechanics or UOs skill based and neither works well for both playstyles.
The fact that the second biggest MMO in the west is Eve, which has FFA PvP, and that the biggest game in the world, LoL, is all PvP, destroys that argument.
Guildwars (1) did that.
But I think a totally new mechanic would work better, something similar to what the pen and paper game Shadowrun uses.
The gap in power there is a lot less and it doesn't have levels but on the other hand your character will slowly improve almost forever. It is not so gear focused in the same way as MMOs but you can instead own cool vehicles, drones and even corporations. And any combat involves a risk even if it is small against when an experienced player fights a noob. This is partly because your hitpoints never go up.
I think that GW2 actually have more active players but that really doesn't matter, PvP is surely large enough. If nothing else does games like WoT, DOTA and LOL prove that even if they aren't exactly full MMOs.
But the real problem is that no games have really made both PvE and PvP popular so far. A game can get loads of player in one or the other but no-one made a game that have about equal numbers playing one or the other.
It is surely possible but you need some out of the box thinking for it.
I believe some here are missing the middle ground approach.
The game mechanics dictate the level of danger a player character is in at any moment.
Part of the fun of games like Everquest team vs team or Ultima Online pre-expansions was the very real dangers around the corner from both players and mobs.
In UO, the concept of good and bad was introduced and it was free for all with full looting rights which made choice of armor, weapons and amount of things you carried all something to think about all the time. You couldn't really afk at the banks or anywhere except your player made house since players could steal from your pack while you stand around. It was great fun and added alot of immersion and tension in the game which is missed.
In Everquest Team vs Team I think it was 1 item loot or something when you died to another player. It's been so long I forget the penalty for death besides having to get your corpse again which led to all sorts of crazy encounters.
In World of Warcraft there were safe areas and as your character went up in level you ventured into contested territory. No real penalties for death though. Same with Rift since it was a WoW clone.
Most popular games had some element of PvP in them. It was just a question of what penalties there were for killing a player or being killed.
I prefer something between the EQ teams server and the Ultima Online rule sets regarding pvp in the game. The feeling of dread in your stomach when a large group approached that was enemy and you knew there was about to be major fire works...always fun times.
Is PvE more fun without any PvP? I would say no way. The whole EZ mode simplified level 1 to 100 with all quest paths lit up for you from quest hub to quest hub. The look of choice upon reaching level 10 or 20 with a branch of 3 directions you could take your character. The Cookie Cutter builds that worked while many many were broken adding to streamlining with an illusion of depth. SImple zones that have no varied ranges within them so you never feel like you could get wiped out by something if not paying attention. All of this needs to stop and give way to smart design, and tension being put back in the game. Certain things draw you into a game like nothing else can.
Also the game mechanics in UO may sound harsh to someone that never played it. But the gathering, crafting, and storage options meant that you could have 20 different suits of armor and weapons waiting for you in safe storage if you did get killed. However if you got careless and didn't return to storage after collecting a bunch in a dungeon, or went afk in an unsafe area, or gathered to much stuff, you could make your guy a walking target. It was always good times.
It's pretty obvious to understand EQ Next will have sometype of ffa pvp system in it. A paraphrased quote from the devs is that they want players of all types ranging from the matriarch/patriarch (guild leader type), the raid leader, the crafter, AND THE PVPER all playing in the same world. SOE believes a better game will be created if the world is crafted where multiple playstyles can find their own niche in one interconnected world.
Now I have to agree with them, personally. I think PvErs are the biggest bunch of whiny maggots to ever spawn, but having more people to play with is always a plus. Open World pvp offers a wider challenge to the world, and adds a sense of danger one cannot garner from a strictly PvE experience. I hope the people who want just PvE can learn to appreciate the danger because its a hell of a lot of fun.
I'm picking up what you're putting down, that it's an ecosystem of sorts between PvPers and PvEers? In having seperate servers though wouldn't the PvP one have both PvE and PvE available? Maybe that's the point though, that if all the PvP is going on other things such as commerce and crafting wouldn't be as adequate.
I know EvE is a great example of how PvE and PvP can exist, I'm just not sure if that's possible in a fantasy MMO like EQN. I guess we'll find out soon enough. I personally hope they find a way to balance the two because I love PvP at times, I'll get sucked in for weeks, but there are other times I want to just explore and be left alone. Picky, I know heh.
EQ1 was a PvE game first and foremost, but also had 4 or 5 really fun PvP servers that became popular and worked really well much to their suprise. They didn't compromise combat and game mechanics due to PvP. To this day, still my favorite pvp mmo. Rallos zek with item loot - nothing has caused my blood to pump that hard since.
There was no need to fundamentally change all the classes to make them viable pvp threats or give them some sort of stupid pvp hybridized build. There were classes that were offensive, and classes that were defensive or support. Instead of breaking down the the role system they maintained it in EQ1 pvp, and everything worked perfectly. Sure they modified a few abilities and resists, but still every class kept its traditional role, and it made pvp much more interesting and tactical than the every-man-for-himself pvp in WoW and its clones.
Thats the way EQ Next needs to do it.
I don't think so...
I think they will need to rethink the entire thing to make it work as well for both. And that firstly means that tanking needs to go in the traditional sense unless they make mechanics for tanking players as well as mobs.
In short, fighting a mob and fighting another player must be closer to eachother. And combat should be somewhat slower so you can't kill another player in 3 seconds, and that should go for mobs as well.
Mobs will need a better AI. Levels either needs to be very different from the original EQ or removed altogether.
EQs mechanics was made for PvE mainly at that is why it had so much more PvErs than PvPers. If they keep the original mechanics the same thing will just happen again.
With the right mechanics this game really could take SOE to the top again but making a sandbox just like a 15 year old themepark is a mistake.
Agree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
Yes, i like to use taunt skill even in PvP, i have tried some games that allow this mechanic and i have enjoy it (WAR, CoH/CoV)
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
The game won't be like this or have features like this.
Taunting should work in pvp, and some games have done it. I believe it worked in EQ2 where you could change other player targets and turn then to you. I dont think it should force them to continue attacking you, but when melee get on your healer, it would be great to spin them off even for a couple seconds.
Nobody is talking about preferences! We're saying that just because you don't like a game, doesn't mean it's not immersive. And game continuity is NOT subjective.
The problem is that leads to PvP being simply a tacked on afterthought, and not built into the game design, and therefore NOT what we want. What you're describing is exactly the way PvP has been done for the past however many years and it's exactly what we're sick of.Yes taunt could works in PvP also like a dmg debuff that greatly decrease dmg of the enemy taunted...howether the point for me is that every traditional class should have his specific role even in PvP (same role as in PvE) without the need of a radical respec, just to have a party coordination and class interdependence even in this aspect of the game.
As a tank there are many skills in addition to taunt that i could use in PvP that fits well for a defensive melee:
stuns, disarm, armor debuff, dmg intercept (protecting another player with shield), interrupting spell cast (shield bash), reflect dmg (with shield) etc.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
The question you're not asking yourself is immersion in WHAT? You say you do not regard pvp as part of the game world, but it IS part of the game world (if the game has PvP) by design. So like I said before, it's not a game that you want to be immersed in, not that the game isn't immersive. Allowing pvp is just simply NOT setting up a fake unrealistic restriction, that's it. This is completely different from a bad piece of geography or bad graphics which are unintended mistakes.
What is with you people and constantly having to resort to ad hominem attacks simply because you don't know anything about our position? I'm a sociopath because I like the idea of risk/reward? The only reason I want a game with OW pvp is because I want to dominate people? I have a dream of being a school bully? Why don't you actually read some of our posts and try to understand our position before you post something so arrogant and rude.
I don't know what exactly you mean when you say sandbox =/= ffa pvp, but pvp is a sandbox feature, especially open world pvp and especially open world pvp with loot. Sandbox features are features that limit arbitrary rules imposed by the developer. Force fields stopping you from from exploring somewhere, force fields stopping you from attacking other players.
That doesn't mean that a game can't be considered sandboxy without full loot ow pvp, but it DOES mean that those things are inherently sandbox features.
Be prepared to be labeled a sociopath, bind camper, waste of life, griefer, etc. The PvE crowd around here is completely unreasonable and simply will not accept that people like us exist. People that like consequences for our actions. People that like RISK so that our successes are that much more REWARDING.
The point is PvP is either a minigame-esque after thought, or it's integral to the game design. If it's a tacked on after thought, we don't want it. If it's an important aspect of the game design, then taking it out to make a "pve" server would ruin the game.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
People keep talking about PvP breaking PvE, but I don't see why. Maybe if PvP is introduced into a game where there is already complex PvE it would break it. But if the game is designed with PvP and PvE in mind, why can't the mobs be balanced accordingly?
In my game experience the only system that works well in PvE is the HOLY TRINITY, it imply an aggro managment and a taunt skill. Without a tank with a taunt skill the traditional classes (pure healers, pure dps) cant do their job, cause if they are attacked by mobs and bosses they will probably die, without the healer the tank will be killed as well, without dps you will probably dont be able to kill your enemy (a strong boss for example).
This system is the only one that need a real coordination and interdependence between classes in a party, all classes are important and fondamental for the others due their specic skills and role.
The only alternative system i have tested in another game is the one used in GW2 and i think that is a real fail. Every classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (stay alive, heal themself and do dps) so every class in a group can be replaced by another.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
actually from all the discussions i did read on pve vs pvp, its actually completely opposite - pvpers are the unreasonable ones.
i never saw any pveer objecting to having servers specifically for pvp, but i saw A LOT of pvpers (i would even said most of them) objecting to having servers specifically for pve.