Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

PvP vs. PvE "Compromise"

1192022242534

Comments

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by azarhal
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by cheyane
    I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .

    They shouldn't. I actively don't WANT the "nonpvp" crowd in any game I play. 

    BTW, don't lump everybody into either pvp or pve. I enjoy pvp, and I also enjoy pve. It's very silly to say "pvp players want pve players in their game."

    PvP and PvE are used with two different meaning in this thread. They are used as both content and game types.

    Content wise PvP mean player-vs-player be it duel, FFA, battlegrounds, RvR, etc. While PvE mean player vs environment like raids, quests, etc. 

    Game wise, PvP game type is where the player has limited to no control on where, who and when the PvP activities happens. While PvE game type has no or really few PvP activities and when they exist the player control where, who and when they happen.

    A PvP game can have PvE content, but the players are still PvP players because that activity cannot be avoided.

    A PvE game can have PvP content, the majority of players are PvE-only, some will be PvP-only (and on the wrong server/game) and some will do both content.

    A FFA PvP game will never have PvE player (as in game type), but they can have people who like PvE content., but these people are still PvP players, because that content is "always on".

    If that's how the person I was responding to meant it, then they're just wrong. Pvp players don't necessarily want pve players to play their games.

  • AlleinAllein San Diego, CAPosts: 1,664Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by mos0811
    Originally posted by cheyane
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
    Originally posted by cheyane
    I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .

     

    I don't really see anyone saying PvE players should be made to play with PvP players.

    I see a lot of us saying we would like for them to play with us though.  If you do not want to do so i'll never hold it against you.

    Also, you have to bear in mind, there is a very large portion of the MMORPG gaming community that are PVE/PVP players and not just one type of player.

    Large portion is PvE/PvP  you say but is that because they can choose to play it when they want to. How many would be if there was no choice ? Wouldn't only PvP MMORPG games be more popular then like Darkfall ?

    Games like Darkfall are more action oriented games with full loot.  Looting rights/drops are a big issue as I've read and talked with players over the years.  A game that can limit what drops, by leaving equipped items alone would do better than full loot games.  Also the combat mechanics in DF are manual aim, where I personally like tab targeting.  For players that like tab-targeting there is no fantasy open world PvP game on the market.  The last one I knew of was Shadowbane.  Actually SB spoiled me to all other games; it had no questing and was based on city conquest.  One of the greatest games I've ever played.  EvE is a close second, only because it's based in space.

    PvP games are even more niche that mmoRPG games, so yeah they are a very small part of the market.  It's one of the reasons that so far only indie companies have tried to do an open world PvP game.

    Not necessarily. DAoC, a PvP MMO, was the second most popular MMO of its time. Eve, FFA PVP MMO, is the second most popular western MMO of today.

    There's a huge market for PvP, else LoL wouldn't be the most played game in the world.

     

    Problem is, making a good MMO is hard, making a good MMO with PvE and PvP is even harder. It takes talent and good design, something most studios lack, and just clone WoW instead.

    FFA PVP failed sadly in DAoC. It became obvious that people couldn't handle PVE and PVP at the same time. While the end game was RvR/PVP, getting there was a different story. Very similar to WoW or any other game, just instead of 2v2, 40vs40 battlegrounds, we had a huge map to fight over when we made it there.

    EVE works due to the game/world design. Norrath isn't exactly the same thing and would be harder to mirror, but would be interesting.

    There is a huge market for PVP (I know I love it), but when given the chance/choice, most people don't want FFA PVP or PVP not on their terms.

    I agree making an MMO with a good balance of PVE and PVP is one of the hardest things a dev can do and is why so many have failed or went with the PVE/PVP server route. A real open world, sandbox type game that is also successful has to have a lot of great foundation and systems in place to keep the world moving. Much like real life. Laws can suck, but without them, life would suck even more. Laws are also a slippery slope when it comes to this whole "sandbox" ideal as well.

    Aug 2nd....come quicker!

     

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    Originally posted by Allein
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by mos0811
    Originally posted by cheyane
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
    Originally posted by cheyane
    I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .

     

    I don't really see anyone saying PvE players should be made to play with PvP players.

    I see a lot of us saying we would like for them to play with us though.  If you do not want to do so i'll never hold it against you.

    Also, you have to bear in mind, there is a very large portion of the MMORPG gaming community that are PVE/PVP players and not just one type of player.

    Large portion is PvE/PvP  you say but is that because they can choose to play it when they want to. How many would be if there was no choice ? Wouldn't only PvP MMORPG games be more popular then like Darkfall ?

    Games like Darkfall are more action oriented games with full loot.  Looting rights/drops are a big issue as I've read and talked with players over the years.  A game that can limit what drops, by leaving equipped items alone would do better than full loot games.  Also the combat mechanics in DF are manual aim, where I personally like tab targeting.  For players that like tab-targeting there is no fantasy open world PvP game on the market.  The last one I knew of was Shadowbane.  Actually SB spoiled me to all other games; it had no questing and was based on city conquest.  One of the greatest games I've ever played.  EvE is a close second, only because it's based in space.

    PvP games are even more niche that mmoRPG games, so yeah they are a very small part of the market.  It's one of the reasons that so far only indie companies have tried to do an open world PvP game.

    Not necessarily. DAoC, a PvP MMO, was the second most popular MMO of its time. Eve, FFA PVP MMO, is the second most popular western MMO of today.

    There's a huge market for PvP, else LoL wouldn't be the most played game in the world.

     

    Problem is, making a good MMO is hard, making a good MMO with PvE and PvP is even harder. It takes talent and good design, something most studios lack, and just clone WoW instead.

    FFA PVP failed sadly in DAoC. It became obvious that people couldn't handle PVE and PVP at the same time. While the end game was RvR/PVP, getting there was a different story. Very similar to WoW or any other game, just instead of 2v2, 40vs40 battlegrounds, we had a huge map to fight over when we made it there.

     

    Okay, first thing

    No one was talking about FFA in DAoC.

    Second, DAoC was not built around FFA PvP, hence why it was just an ignored subset.

    Third, DAoC's PvP was almost nothing like WoW's. DAoC's PvP was built into the core of the game and had many aspects of the game revolve around it and be influenced by it. WoW's PvP is a side show that if it suddenly went away, it would make no difference to the game.

    Fourth, you missed the point of what I said. That PvP is popular.

  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    Originally posted by fyerwall
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by Mendel
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by Mendel
    Originally posted by Holophonist

    My concern isn't really with how harsh the anti-griefing system is, but just how it's executed. If it's like the PS2 anti-griefing system, that'll be a huge turn off for me. As far as I know, in PS2 if you shoot teammates too often, your gun gets locked down.... not very interesting.

    Something else that's not been tried, a cash shop-type approach.

    If one player kills another player without consent (a flag), the game automatically charges the killer's credit card for $50 and credits the victim for $45.   If you want to kill someone, go right ahead.  The consequences are resolved between the killer and Mr. Visa.   There's no other consequence in-game that will work as consistently or as effectively.  If that somehow doesn't stop Mr. Gates from slaughtering PvE players, simply have an escalating cost.

    Novel, unique, and no one's going to kill someone without a consent flag.  (Just because it hasn't been tried doesn't mean it would be acceptable to the players).

    That's a horrible idea. As you said, nobody's ever going to kill anybody without a "consent flag." How is that a good system? If you wanted a system that dropped PKing down to 0, then you'd just make it so nobody could attack anybody else unless they were flagged. The point of bounty hunting (and similar) systems is that it mitigates crimes, but doesn't outright get rid of them. That's the point of having risk/reward.

    Dropping PKing to 0 is exactly what the PvE player wants.   When they want to be safe, they are safe from other players.  Anywhere.   They still have to deal with the environment (factions, mobs, etc).   If I'm willing to indulge in PvP, I simply turn the PvP flag on.   Otherwise, you will pay the consequences.

    It isn't a horrible system, especially if the PvP flag can be toggled only very infrequently.   An hour since the last PvP action could keep the killer from escaping to 'safety', and you can still enact bounties.   (Bounty hunting, like all other in-game consequences, doesn't work -- every PvP player is busy doing their own thing when there's a criminal to punish).

    And note, I never said anything about not being able to kill a player who isn't currently PvP flagged; doing so just has a consequence that you find objectionable.   This system does not prohibit the bad behavior or put any kind of restrictions on it.

    Please note:  This system requires a subscription, or at least a valid credit card to create / operate an account.   To me, that's the worst part of this mechanism.

    Yes... I know that's what the pve player wants. I'm saying it's dumb because it's not different than just turning off non-consensual pvp.

     

    What does this ridiculous system accomplish that simply turning off non-consensual pvp wouldn't? It's another one of these "compromises" that simply gives you what you want and not what we want. There's 0 reason to have it, so it's a bad idea.

    So why is it a bad idea to give those who want to be able to flag pvp off the ability to do so?

    How does it impact those who will have pvp flagged on?

    Point of fact is it does NOTHING to impact pvp playstyle aside from the fact pvpers cannot kill those who do not wish to pvp. It removes the option for people to gank others, simple as that. I have not heard one reason why its a bad idea other than "Because it ruins my fun" and its somehow a valid reason for pvpers. Yet when some states they want the flag because pvp ruins their fun, the reason is no longer valid.

    Basically most of the pro-pvper seem to be of the 'hooray for me and the hell with you" mind set. The reason for this is because PvPers know, that when given the option, a lot of people will choose to play pvp flagged off, limiting their potential pool of targets. And pvpers do not like this idea.

    As for your last statement, there is a reason to have the flag system - some people just don't like to pvp when they don't want to.

    That would destroy the economy in the game I'm hoping for. A game built around risk v.s. reward where people who don't want the risk can just turn it off and get all the rewards anyway.

     

    Originally posted by cheyane
    I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .

    You misunderstand. I don't care if they play. I just want a triple-A MMO built from the ground up with PVP and PVE as integral parts of the game. I don't need people who don't want that to play. I just need the game to exist so I can have fun playing it.

     

    Before someone throws the "so let's have separate servers" argument at me again, re-read the bold yellow text above. Rinse and repeat until you get it.

     

    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by MoonBeans

    just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.

     

    People who have never ever played a proper PvP game need to stop chiming in with their uneducated "fixes".

    Good PvP needs to be baked in from the start, as a core part of the game. If its just a toggle you can turn on and off with no other changes, it's not PvP worth playing. This is probably the 90th time someone in this thread has said this so please, stop parading around this moronic "solution".

     

    And the "PvE crowd" needs to stop acting holier than thou, you just come across as closed minded, incomprehensive elitists who don't understand game design or the wants of others.

     

    Seriously people, do some MMO homework if you don't think the two can exist in the same game. And if done right, the two greatly benefit one another.

     

    And when people ask for PvP, we're NOT ALL ASKING FOR AN OPEN RANGE TO GANK WHOEVER! So STOP USING IT AS A STRAW MAN.

    Bravo! This is a nice summary of how I feel.

  • MoonBeansMoonBeans ParisPosts: 173Member
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
    Originally posted by MoonBeans

    just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.

     

    i find it funny how so many, pvpers get upset when pvers  state that they rather have their own server .  no matter how hard and how loud or vocal you get.   people that don't care about forced pvp, won't share your playing style.   so is very unlikely they will buy the game wich such system.

    some of the pvpers envision this perfect sandbox world,  filled with easy pray pvers victims,  (crafters or cookie makers) that they can gank at ease every 4 steps.  that's why they get frustrated when they see , pvers rather play something else.  it is hard to adknowledge that the world isen't about what we want only.

     

    a pver isen't only the typical squeeshy fearful crafter or the traditional barkeeper that hides behind the desk,  that's a stereotype some people seem to have when they think of pvers,  or carebears as some others like to use.   you have a whole lot of different playing styles when you say pve, the sameway pvp isen't only about grief and pking.

     

    casual players , raiders, explorers, crafters, socialisers, roleplayers. people who enjoys pvp and pve whenever they want, and not when little bob wants them to.

     

    if a mmo wants to be financially very succesful  and not just do ok, devs should consider them all.  instead of going the ,  Eve online niche path only.

     

    You really should read the thread.

    There is a lot of good discussion on these topics you seem to have missed.

    As for the pvpers getting upset that you want your own server, or wanting a sandbox world filled with PVE people just so they can gank them.   Those people, if they exist, aren't really active within this thread.

    Mostly though, I see you throwing some stereotypes at PVP enthusiasts (saying we look down on you or think you somehow inferior) and accusing us of stereotyping you.  I do not think you are in any way inferior to me because of how you like to play your games and I really wish you would try to be more undestanding of us.  We aren't here to try to ruin gaming for you or anyone who likes the things you like.  

    Most of us want you to be happy and have games that you enjoy.  We just want you to understand that we also want that and we don't think this can be achieved with a game that has separate PVE and PVP servers any more than some of our friends here think they can have fun on a PVP server when they disdain all PVP.

    been playing MMO since ultima online days .  EQ1 played on the  pvp servers.  then, daoc, then lineage 2  etc, etc.    been there already done that to death.   

    nowadays if i want to truly pvp, i rather buy me a shooter.   PVP in MMO don't work too well at least is a Daoc 2.

     

    i think it is time for devs to come up with something different. we are now in 2013 and so far all we keep gettingt  are the very samething since Ultima online days.

     

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MoonBeans
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
    Originally posted by MoonBeans

    just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.

     

    i find it funny how so many, pvpers get upset when pvers  state that they rather have their own server .  no matter how hard and how loud or vocal you get.   people that don't care about forced pvp, won't share your playing style.   so is very unlikely they will buy the game wich such system.

    some of the pvpers envision this perfect sandbox world,  filled with easy pray pvers victims,  (crafters or cookie makers) that they can gank at ease every 4 steps.  that's why they get frustrated when they see , pvers rather play something else.  it is hard to adknowledge that the world isen't about what we want only.

     

    a pver isen't only the typical squeeshy fearful crafter or the traditional barkeeper that hides behind the desk,  that's a stereotype some people seem to have when they think of pvers,  or carebears as some others like to use.   you have a whole lot of different playing styles when you say pve, the sameway pvp isen't only about grief and pking.

     

    casual players , raiders, explorers, crafters, socialisers, roleplayers. people who enjoys pvp and pve whenever they want, and not when little bob wants them to.

     

    if a mmo wants to be financially very succesful  and not just do ok, devs should consider them all.  instead of going the ,  Eve online niche path only.

     

    You really should read the thread.

    There is a lot of good discussion on these topics you seem to have missed.

    As for the pvpers getting upset that you want your own server, or wanting a sandbox world filled with PVE people just so they can gank them.   Those people, if they exist, aren't really active within this thread.

    Mostly though, I see you throwing some stereotypes at PVP enthusiasts (saying we look down on you or think you somehow inferior) and accusing us of stereotyping you.  I do not think you are in any way inferior to me because of how you like to play your games and I really wish you would try to be more undestanding of us.  We aren't here to try to ruin gaming for you or anyone who likes the things you like.  

    Most of us want you to be happy and have games that you enjoy.  We just want you to understand that we also want that and we don't think this can be achieved with a game that has separate PVE and PVP servers any more than some of our friends here think they can have fun on a PVP server when they disdain all PVP.

    been playing MMO since ultima online days .  EQ1 played on the  pvp servers.  then, daoc, then lineage 2  etc, etc.    been there already done that to death.   

    nowadays if i want to truly pvp, i rather buy me a shooter.   PVP in MMO don't work too well at least is a Daoc 2.

     

    i think it is time for devs to come up with something different. we are now in 2013 and so far all we keep gettingt  are the very samething since Ultima online days.

     

    You talk about pvp sandboxes being tried over and over (which isn't true), yet you advocate separate pvp/pve servers. This silly idea has already been debunked more than a few times in this very thread.

  • Lord.BachusLord.Bachus Den HelderPosts: 9,065Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    EVE style with hi sec for the people who don't like PVP. You're welcome.

    or perhaps the usual way, PvP servers and PvE servers and no confining the 70% PvE player base into 30% or less of the world.

    You got those numbers out of your head somewhere?

     

    Most typical PvE players also love to PvP from time to time, for the majorrity of PvE players having split PvE and PvP only servers is a really bad idea...

     

    there is only one solution, having PvE and PvP seperated on the same server... make the PvP areas huge enough, and make it worthwile for everyone to travel there from time to time...

     

    think about a central PvP hub connecting the PvE areas.. much like EvE i suppose,  so to get to another main part of the world, you would allways have to cross the PvP part..  Afraid of traveling alone trough the evil wicked PvP world, join a caravan...

    Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)

  • Nitan66Nitan66 Georgia, GAPosts: 16Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    EVE style with hi sec for the people who don't like PVP. You're welcome.

    or perhaps the usual way, PvP servers and PvE servers and no confining the 70% PvE player base into 30% or less of the world.

    You got those numbers out of your head somewhere?

     

    Most typical PvE players also love to PvP from time to time, for the majorrity of PvE players having split PvE and PvP only servers is a really bad idea...

     

    there is only one solution, having PvE and PvP seperated on the same server... make the PvP areas huge enough, and make it worthwile for everyone to travel there from time to time...

     

    think about a central PvP hub connecting the PvE areas.. much like EvE i suppose,  so to get to another main part of the world, you would allways have to cross the PvP part..  Afraid of traveling alone trough the evil wicked PvP world, join a caravan...

    Basically what I was trying to suggest in the OP. But added on that the PvP areas should be mobile, giving even the pure PvE enthusiast a chance to explore unhindered at some point.

  • NagelRitterNagelRitter fewefw, CTPosts: 607Member
    Originally posted by Holophonist

    You talk about pvp sandboxes being tried over and over (which isn't true), yet you advocate separate pvp/pve servers. This silly idea has already been debunked more than a few times in this very thread.

    I don't know how you can debunk something that generally works OK. It may not be great for PvPers but they shouldn't be playing MMORPG's anyway.

    Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
    Currently playing: GW2, EVE
    Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by NagelRitter

    Originally posted by Holophonist
    You talk about pvp sandboxes being tried over and over (which isn't true), yet you advocate separate pvp/pve servers. This silly idea has already been debunked more than a few times in this very thread.

    I don't know how you can debunk something that generally works OK. It may not be great for PvPers but they shouldn't be playing MMORPG's anyway.

     


    What's been debunked over and over is that a pvp and nonpvp server setup is an acceptable "compromise." It's been explained time and time again how a game that can separate out pvp and still be a functioning game isn't a game that had pvp built into it naturally. If you can just turn it off, then it's clearly not that important to the game as a whole.




    You say it's been working pretty well so far.... YEAH FOR YOU.




    Also, what exactly do you mean pvpers shouldn't be playing mmorpgs??
  • AlleinAllein San Diego, CAPosts: 1,664Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by Allein
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by mos0811
    Originally posted by cheyane
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
    Originally posted by cheyane
    I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .

     

    I don't really see anyone saying PvE players should be made to play with PvP players.

    I see a lot of us saying we would like for them to play with us though.  If you do not want to do so i'll never hold it against you.

    Also, you have to bear in mind, there is a very large portion of the MMORPG gaming community that are PVE/PVP players and not just one type of player.

    Large portion is PvE/PvP  you say but is that because they can choose to play it when they want to. How many would be if there was no choice ? Wouldn't only PvP MMORPG games be more popular then like Darkfall ?

    Games like Darkfall are more action oriented games with full loot.  Looting rights/drops are a big issue as I've read and talked with players over the years.  A game that can limit what drops, by leaving equipped items alone would do better than full loot games.  Also the combat mechanics in DF are manual aim, where I personally like tab targeting.  For players that like tab-targeting there is no fantasy open world PvP game on the market.  The last one I knew of was Shadowbane.  Actually SB spoiled me to all other games; it had no questing and was based on city conquest.  One of the greatest games I've ever played.  EvE is a close second, only because it's based in space.

    PvP games are even more niche that mmoRPG games, so yeah they are a very small part of the market.  It's one of the reasons that so far only indie companies have tried to do an open world PvP game.

    Not necessarily. DAoC, a PvP MMO, was the second most popular MMO of its time. Eve, FFA PVP MMO, is the second most popular western MMO of today.

    There's a huge market for PvP, else LoL wouldn't be the most played game in the world.

     

    Problem is, making a good MMO is hard, making a good MMO with PvE and PvP is even harder. It takes talent and good design, something most studios lack, and just clone WoW instead.

    FFA PVP failed sadly in DAoC. It became obvious that people couldn't handle PVE and PVP at the same time. While the end game was RvR/PVP, getting there was a different story. Very similar to WoW or any other game, just instead of 2v2, 40vs40 battlegrounds, we had a huge map to fight over when we made it there.

     

    Okay, first thing

    No one was talking about FFA in DAoC.

    Second, DAoC was not built around FFA PvP, hence why it was just an ignored subset.

    Third, DAoC's PvP was almost nothing like WoW's. DAoC's PvP was built into the core of the game and had many aspects of the game revolve around it and be influenced by it. WoW's PvP is a side show that if it suddenly went away, it would make no difference to the game.

    Fourth, you missed the point of what I said. That PvP is popular.

    You weren't talking about DAoC FFA in particular, but regular servers were pretty much PVE servers. So I was trying to relate the game to this thread.

    At release, they had to open a 2nd FFA server because you couldn't get on the 1st. Both had a waitlist for a while. So they weren't ignored. They were very popular and had many of the player run systems that people want in a sandbox. Alliances, politics, backstabbing, good/bad guilds, player policing etc. If actually worked well and was some of the best online gaming I've ever had.

    DAoC PVP was very much like WoW's. Beyond Darkness Falls (how I miss it!) and Relics effect on PVE, you could level and gear up all the way to the end in safety. Then build a house, craft, and loot grind in TOA (which killed the game btw).

    The year leading up to WoW, many had left RvR to focus on the mindless grind for gear in TOA, very much like WoW.

    I agree you could take PVP out of WoW and nothing would happen, but same goes for DAoC. Yes, RVR/PVP was the point of the end game, but you could easily avoid it and weren't forced into it at all. Why you would play a PVP game and not PVP, is beyond me, but people did.

    PVP is popular, no doubt at all. But people want to PVP on their time. Games that take that control from players don't do so well. LoL, Dota, FPS's aren't mmorpgs and can't be compared.

    EVE is unique and took a long time to get where it is (10 years) and even in EVE you can avoid PVP (in a FFA game no less), it just takes a lot of effort and defeats the purpose of the game in my eyes. The same rules wouldn't copy well into a fantasy based mmo, but I can see a lot of it working as well.

    This thread is about compromise and many are listing their want of a game built with PVP as the central focus with PVE supporting it or whatever this back and forth is about.

    I hope PVP is a part of the main design and not an afterthought. At the same time, I don't want to fight players that don't want to fight back. They should be able to enjoy their experience.

    Hopefully, SOE has thought long and hard into this and will find that magical compromise that will engage all players and be a long lasting gaming experience. Doing so without forcing PVE or PVP players to spend time on segregated parts of the map or servers.

    I think the idea of what a sandbox can/should be and what will actually work in the long run are far apart. I know some don't mind a niche or smaller game population, but I'd assume SOE isn't shooting for that and will make the game accessible to are larger audience in some way. Or they may go the EVE route and go for the long game, who knows. I just want in.

  • TheocritusTheocritus Gary, INPosts: 3,758Member Uncommon
    I never liked having PVP as a part of EQ.....IMO they should just concentrate on PVE only.....Factions that hate each other with a hard AI is good enough for me....I dont need to kill or be killed by other players.
  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    Originally posted by Allein
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by Allein
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by mos0811
    Originally posted by cheyane
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
    Originally posted by cheyane
    I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .

     

    I don't really see anyone saying PvE players should be made to play with PvP players.

    I see a lot of us saying we would like for them to play with us though.  If you do not want to do so i'll never hold it against you.

    Also, you have to bear in mind, there is a very large portion of the MMORPG gaming community that are PVE/PVP players and not just one type of player.

    Large portion is PvE/PvP  you say but is that because they can choose to play it when they want to. How many would be if there was no choice ? Wouldn't only PvP MMORPG games be more popular then like Darkfall ?

    Games like Darkfall are more action oriented games with full loot.  Looting rights/drops are a big issue as I've read and talked with players over the years.  A game that can limit what drops, by leaving equipped items alone would do better than full loot games.  Also the combat mechanics in DF are manual aim, where I personally like tab targeting.  For players that like tab-targeting there is no fantasy open world PvP game on the market.  The last one I knew of was Shadowbane.  Actually SB spoiled me to all other games; it had no questing and was based on city conquest.  One of the greatest games I've ever played.  EvE is a close second, only because it's based in space.

    PvP games are even more niche that mmoRPG games, so yeah they are a very small part of the market.  It's one of the reasons that so far only indie companies have tried to do an open world PvP game.

    Not necessarily. DAoC, a PvP MMO, was the second most popular MMO of its time. Eve, FFA PVP MMO, is the second most popular western MMO of today.

    There's a huge market for PvP, else LoL wouldn't be the most played game in the world.

     

    Problem is, making a good MMO is hard, making a good MMO with PvE and PvP is even harder. It takes talent and good design, something most studios lack, and just clone WoW instead.

    FFA PVP failed sadly in DAoC. It became obvious that people couldn't handle PVE and PVP at the same time. While the end game was RvR/PVP, getting there was a different story. Very similar to WoW or any other game, just instead of 2v2, 40vs40 battlegrounds, we had a huge map to fight over when we made it there.

     

    Okay, first thing

    No one was talking about FFA in DAoC.

    Second, DAoC was not built around FFA PvP, hence why it was just an ignored subset.

    Third, DAoC's PvP was almost nothing like WoW's. DAoC's PvP was built into the core of the game and had many aspects of the game revolve around it and be influenced by it. WoW's PvP is a side show that if it suddenly went away, it would make no difference to the game.

    Fourth, you missed the point of what I said. That PvP is popular.

    You weren't talking about DAoC FFA in particular, but regular servers were pretty much PVE servers. So I was trying to relate the game to this thread. No... they weren't. The PvE servers were pretty much the PvE servers. The RVR servers were focused on PvP.

    DAoC PVP was very much like WoW's. Beyond Darkness Falls (how I miss it!) and Relics effect on PVE, you could level and gear up all the way to the end in safety. Then build a house, craft, and loot grind in TOA (which killed the game btw). Being able to level in safety does not make a game's PvP like WoW's PvP. You're implying something you don't mean.

    The year leading up to WoW, many had left RvR to focus on the mindless grind for gear in TOA, very much like WoW. Except unlike WoW, they didn't like it, and it's what caused the game to die. And unlike WoW, the grind wasn't exactly mindless (except for scrolls) artifacts and MLs took a TON of thought and coordination to do.

    I agree you could take PVP out of WoW and nothing would happen, but same goes for DAoC. Yes, RVR/PVP was the point of the end game, but you could easily avoid it and weren't forced into it at all. Why you would play a PVP game and not PVP, is beyond me, but people did. The market would collapse as there would be no demand for specialized crafted armor. Certain bosses would become near impossible without realm abilities. Darkness Falls wouldn't exist. And development would become stagnant in the same way it does in themepark games. A lot of "whats the point". PvP did have an impact on the game.

    PVP is popular, no doubt at all. But people want to PVP on their time. Games that take that control from players don't do so well. If that was true, then DAoC wouldn't have done well. How many times were people forced to run out into RvR to defend their own frontier? That's not on their time.

    EVE is unique and took a long time to get where it is (10 years) and even in EVE you can avoid PVP (in a FFA game no less), it just takes a lot of effort and defeats the purpose of the game in my eyes. The same rules wouldn't copy well into a fantasy based mmo, but I can see a lot of it working as well.

    This thread is about compromise and many are listing their want of a game built with PVP as the central focus with PVE supporting it or whatever this back and forth is about. Well, it's much easier to have PvE tacked on than have PvP tacked on. MUCH easier.

    I hope PVP is a part of the main design and not an afterthought. At the same time, I don't want to fight players that don't want to fight back. They should be able to enjoy their experience.

    I mostly agree with what you said, just not all of it.

  • GholosGholos GenovaPosts: 209Member
    Originally posted by Theocritus
    I never liked having PVP as a part of EQ.....IMO they should just concentrate on PVE only.....Factions that hate each other with a hard AI is good enough for me....I dont need to kill or be killed by other players.

    I agree with you, when i play a MMORPG (EQ in particular) i prefer to group together with people than to KOS them.

    image


    "Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
    -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.

  • DullahanDullahan Posts: 2,059Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by NagelRitter
    Originally posted by Holophonist

    You talk about pvp sandboxes being tried over and over (which isn't true), yet you advocate separate pvp/pve servers. This silly idea has already been debunked more than a few times in this very thread.

    I don't know how you can debunk something that generally works OK. It may not be great for PvPers but they shouldn't be playing MMORPG's anyway.

     

    What's been debunked over and over is that a pvp and nonpvp server setup is an acceptable "compromise." It's been explained time and time again how a game that can separate out pvp and still be a functioning game isn't a game that had pvp built into it naturally. If you can just turn it off, then it's clearly not that important to the game as a whole.

    You say it's been working pretty well so far.... YEAH FOR YOU.

    Also, what exactly do you mean pvpers shouldn't be playing mmorpgs??

    Ya, and I think PvE players should go play single player games if they want low risk and all the rewards.  So what then?

    PvP works fine in MMOs, and it provides players with the opportunity for additional realism that doesn't exist with PvE only. PvE servers are just full of players griefing in other ways, but without any mechanism to allow you to put a stop to it.


  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by NagelRitter
    Originally posted by Holophonist

    You talk about pvp sandboxes being tried over and over (which isn't true), yet you advocate separate pvp/pve servers. This silly idea has already been debunked more than a few times in this very thread.

    I don't know how you can debunk something that generally works OK. It may not be great for PvPers but they shouldn't be playing MMORPG's anyway.

     

    What's been debunked over and over is that a pvp and nonpvp server setup is an acceptable "compromise." It's been explained time and time again how a game that can separate out pvp and still be a functioning game isn't a game that had pvp built into it naturally. If you can just turn it off, then it's clearly not that important to the game as a whole.

    You say it's been working pretty well so far.... YEAH FOR YOU.

    Also, what exactly do you mean pvpers shouldn't be playing mmorpgs??

    Ya, and I think PvE players should go play single player games if they want low risk and all the rewards.  So what then?

    Don't try to reason with them. they don't even try to understand for half a second.

  • WaterlilyWaterlily parisPosts: 2,973Member Uncommon

    PVP players who are too scared to be on an all PVP server shouldn't be playing PVP.

    Stop trying to get PVE players on your servers.

  • MoonBeansMoonBeans ParisPosts: 173Member
    Originally posted by Waterlily

    PVP players who are too scared to be on an all PVP server shouldn't be playing PVP.

    Stop trying to get PVE players on your servers.

    with a few words, you have nicely managed to sum it all up.  

  • MoonBeansMoonBeans ParisPosts: 173Member

    what's the point in killing players of your own race,  just for the sake of it?  in a world that is always at the verge of total destruction.  i would think people would have other priorities,  they would need to work together in order to survive, make alliances to defeat greater common foes.

    so free for all pking,  is retarded in the EQ world, from a lore, roleplaying perspective.  wich would be an instant inmersion breaker for many people.

    the only way this could work well,  is in a rvr context.   dark races verses light.  dark gods verses light..  anyone familiar with vallon sek pvp server from eq1?   dark races against light ones.  that could be interesting and fun.

  • GholosGholos GenovaPosts: 209Member
    Originally posted by MoonBeans

     

    the only way this could work well,  is in a rvr context.   dark races verses light.  dark gods verses light..  anyone familiar with vallon sek pvp server from eq1?   dark races against light ones.  that could be interesting and fun.

    In EQN will be some kind of faction's PvP, but is not clear how it will works (maybe good vs evil races)...the discussion is about to how this PvP have to be implemented. Some peole here want an OW FFA PvP without PvP or PvE servers, others (like me) want a more usual system with PvP zones/ battlegrounds separated from PvE zones or an OW FFA PvP only on PvP servers.

    image


    "Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
    -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MoonBeans

    what's the point in killing players of your own race,  just for the sake of it?  in a world that is always at the verge of total destruction.  i would think people would have other priorities,  they would need to work together in order to survive, make alliances to defeat greater common foes.

    so free for all pking,  is retarded in the EQ world, from a lore, roleplaying perspective.  wich would be an instant inmersion breaker for many people.

    the only way this could work well,  is in a rvr context.   dark races verses light.  dark gods verses light..  anyone familiar with vallon sek pvp server from eq1?   dark races against light ones.  that could be interesting and fun.

    you're assuming it would be free for all pking. There should be interesting rules/laws/penalties involving killing people (especially people of the same faction/clan/race/whatever), but it shouldn't be IMPOSSIBLE. You should always have the possibility of somebody being evil and betraying his own kin. How is it fun or interesting to have things be scripted and predictable?

  • NagelRitterNagelRitter fewefw, CTPosts: 607Member
    Originally posted by Holophonist

    you're assuming it would be free for all pking. There should be interesting rules/laws/penalties involving killing people (especially people of the same faction/clan/race/whatever), but it shouldn't be IMPOSSIBLE. You should always have the possibility of somebody being evil and betraying his own kin. How is it fun or interesting to have things be scripted and predictable?

    Because what you offer is more predictable, everyone will turn into an asshole. When you go into lowsec in EVE, do you assume most people are not interested in shooting you? Will most people not bother you? Completely false. Not to mention every alliance being NBSI.

    People are stupid, in MMO's they become even more stupid because it's "just a game", you need to give them some boundaries and structure so they don't go haywire.

    As for penalties, sure. Like I said in another thread. Murder? Banished from all main cities forever and KOS for all guards (well, actually, there are funkier things to do here with EQ's lore). Killed someone 3 times? Death penalty and character wipe. If you implement that, I'll be happy. Don't like it? Well, shit, murdering people kinda has consequences, you know.

    Originally posted by MoonBeans

    what's the point in killing players of your own race,  just for the sake of it?  in a world that is always at the verge of total destruction.  i would think people would have other priorities,  they would need to work together in order to survive, make alliances to defeat greater common foes.

    so free for all pking,  is retarded in the EQ world, from a lore, roleplaying perspective.  wich would be an instant inmersion breaker for many people.

    the only way this could work well,  is in a rvr context.   dark races verses light.  dark gods verses light..  anyone familiar with vallon sek pvp server from eq1?   dark races against light ones.  that could be interesting and fun.

    Personally, I would love a race/faction/deity based setup for PvP.

    Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
    Currently playing: GW2, EVE
    Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by NagelRitter
    Originally posted by Holophonist

    you're assuming it would be free for all pking. There should be interesting rules/laws/penalties involving killing people (especially people of the same faction/clan/race/whatever), but it shouldn't be IMPOSSIBLE. You should always have the possibility of somebody being evil and betraying his own kin. How is it fun or interesting to have things be scripted and predictable?

    Because what you offer is more predictable, everyone will turn into an asshole. When you go into lowsec in EVE, do you assume most people are not interested in shooting you? Will most people not bother you? Completely false. Not to mention every alliance being NBSI.

    I don't know anything about EVE. But in UO the vast majority of the people you met out in the wild were "blue" and absolutely did not attack you. There were PK's for sure, but by far the most people you ran into were law abiding citizens. So as usual from the PvE crowd, you're just assuming things about ow pvp games that simply aren't true. I'm sure SOME games are like that, but the fact that games have done it right (UO) means that it can be done again. And UO didn't even do everything it could. Like I've said before, the bounty hunter system was basically non-existent, and you STILL had guilds that specialized in hunting reds.

    People are stupid, in MMO's they become even more stupid because it's "just a game", you need to give them some boundaries and structure so they don't go haywire.

    Yes. NOBODY is saying to have no boundaries. I'm not sure why we have to say this so often. Do you guys just not read our posts? We have consistently said that there should be rules in place, just like there are in real life.

    As for penalties, sure. Like I said in another thread. Murder? Banished from all main cities forever and KOS for all guards (well, actually, there are funkier things to do here with EQ's lore). Killed someone 3 times? Death penalty and character wipe. If you implement that, I'll be happy. Don't like it? Well, shit, murdering people kinda has consequences, you know.

    This is a HORRIBLE idea. Basically what it will mean is nobody will PK ever. period. 

  • YizleYizle Atlanta, GAPosts: 517Member
    Originally posted by xxgradiusxx
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    If a pve player can be killed by a pvp player it's a pvp game. It doesn't matter what mechanic you use.

    In a sandbox game there are no PvE, nor PvP players. I don't think I've played many sandbox games, if any, that didn't allow PvP combat mechanics to take place. Even in "safe" places.

    Come to think of it, I also can not think of a single sandbox game without pvp either.

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Yizle
    Originally posted by xxgradiusxx
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    If a pve player can be killed by a pvp player it's a pvp game. It doesn't matter what mechanic you use.

    In a sandbox game there are no PvE, nor PvP players. I don't think I've played many sandbox games, if any, that didn't allow PvP combat mechanics to take place. Even in "safe" places.

    Come to think of it, I also can not think of a single sandbox game without pvp either.

    And for some reason people try to argue with me when I say that pvp is inherently a sandbox feature.

Sign In or Register to comment.