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!

Would many studios be better off focusing heavily on the PVPer?

123457

Comments

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    "PvP MMORPG" doesn't have to be sandbox. An MMO can have a focus in PvP even when it is only loosely connected to the rest of the game (PvE). And it would still bring value to its players if they do it well.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by FlyinDutchman87

    a 500k sub base is a major achievement when you only spent 2.6 mil.

    Eve don't get to 500k for years, and they certainly spend a lot more than 2.6M.

    You should look at LoL. How many players it gets to, and how much money it is making. That beats Eve by a long mile. So does WoT.

     

  • Ender4Ender4 milwaukee, WIPosts: 2,253Member

    DAOC is not a PvP game, it is a RvR game. Nothing about DAOC was ever focused on PvP itself. You need to integrate the PvE and PvP but nobody is willing to do it. We either get PvP as some silly side zone or we get real PvP with complete crap for PvE. I'm not surprised because players are scared of competition. If they want to do something and somebody is allowed to get in their way they throw a fit instead of working with others to overcome it.

  • TorikTorik London, ONPosts: 2,343Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    "PvP MMORPG" doesn't have to be sandbox. An MMO can have a focus in PvP even when it is only loosely connected to the rest of the game (PvE). And it would still bring value to its players if they do it well.

    Wouldn't this type of design result in a heavily instanced battleground PvP game?  It would be the only practical way of not having the PvP interfere with the PvE.  Is this what the OP meant by 'focusing heavily on PvP'?

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by DamonVile
     

    Eve makes their numbers public.

    SWTOR does not.

    There's no way in hell it has 500k subs, or it wouldn't be continuously merging servers and laying off staff.

    Its a fail game because its collapsing. Eve is growing.

    Eve is growing, huh?

    http://eve-offline.net/

    Well, if we look at the number of concurrent players, it has stayed the same, more or less, for a very long time. And a presentation from the anniversary event this year stated the average age of the player has gone up by one year from last year. Fun fact, right?

    So where do you get that it is growing? I see it has pretty much plateaued. And do they even count out all the additional clients one player might have on at a time?

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Torik
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    "PvP MMORPG" doesn't have to be sandbox. An MMO can have a focus in PvP even when it is only loosely connected to the rest of the game (PvE). And it would still bring value to its players if they do it well.

    Wouldn't this type of design result in a heavily instanced battleground PvP game?  It would be the only practical way of not having the PvP interfere with the PvE.  Is this what the OP meant by 'focusing heavily on PvP'?

    Yes, either through separate, dedicated areas or instances, I figure.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Torik
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    "PvP MMORPG" doesn't have to be sandbox. An MMO can have a focus in PvP even when it is only loosely connected to the rest of the game (PvE). And it would still bring value to its players if they do it well.

    Wouldn't this type of design result in a heavily instanced battleground PvP game?  It would be the only practical way of not having the PvP interfere with the PvE.  Is this what the OP meant by 'focusing heavily on PvP'?

    That is pretty much what LoL and WoT do, with great success.

  • ConsequenceConsequence Lake Worth, FLPosts: 358Member
    Originally posted by BMBender
    Originally posted by OSF8759
    Your assertion is falsified by every PvP centric MMO ever made. And in fact, by making your MMO PvP centric, you've limited your title to a small minority of potential players. MMO players in general are carebear (maybe with a bit of PvP thrown in now and then just to mix things up, but most MMO players don't bother).

    EVE would disagree with that

    Well , again your own example betrays you.

     

    while EVE has PVP, as the stats have shown in the past, the VAST majority of the games population resides in safe space.

     

    PVP'ers love to claim eve as their own, but the truth is that the game is really 1 of the few examples of a game that can satisfy both ends of the spectrum

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Consequence
    Originally posted by BMBender Originally posted by OSF8759 Your assertion is falsified by every PvP centric MMO ever made. And in fact, by making your MMO PvP centric, you've limited your title to a small minority of potential players. MMO players in general are carebear (maybe with a bit of PvP thrown in now and then just to mix things up, but most MMO players don't bother). EVE would disagree with thatWell , again your own example betrays you. while EVE has PVP, as the stats have shown in the past, the VAST majority of the games population resides in safe space. PVP'ers love to claim eve as their own, but the truth is that the game is really 1 of the few examples of a game that can satisfy both ends of the spectrum

    My take on this is that it's possible to have a game that focuses on PvP, as long as you have a world that allows for a lot more than just PvP activities.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by DavisFlight

    Originally posted by daltanious

    Originally posted by Distopia I think they would. ...
    Not at all. Have ever checked how many pve and pure pvp servers any game have? Usually 99 pve servers and 1 pvp. But i believe many want to TRY and play also pvp. But I do not see any scope in neglecting pve because of pvp.
    That's because if your PvP is tacked on enough to be able to have a PvP server, its probably not worth playing.

    Dark Age of Camelot is a PvP focused game. The PvP rule set servers were closed and the "Normal" rule set is now the primary rule set.

    Eve is a PvP focused game. Half or more of Eve's players are focused on non-PvP activities, even if those activities contribute to the PvP.

    Neither DAoC nor Eve can be considered to have 'tacked on' PvP.

    You've got a lot of things wrong in this post.

    DAoC is an RvR focused game. The FFA PVP servers, which were tacked on, got closed (as did the tacked on PvE only server, so your point just got destroyed). The regular servers, the ones with PvP baked into them, are still going.

    Eve has PvP built into every aspect of the game. Even in PvE space, PvP effects everything. You cannot turn PvP off or the game would stop working. So your point is, once again, destroyed.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by lizardbones   Originally posted by DavisFlight Originally posted by daltanious Originally posted by Distopia I think they would. ...
    Not at all. Have ever checked how many pve and pure pvp servers any game have? Usually 99 pve servers and 1 pvp. But i believe many want to TRY and play also pvp. But I do not see any scope in neglecting pve because of pvp.
    That's because if your PvP is tacked on enough to be able to have a PvP server, its probably not worth playing.
    Dark Age of Camelot is a PvP focused game. The PvP rule set servers were closed and the "Normal" rule set is now the primary rule set. Eve is a PvP focused game. Half or more of Eve's players are focused on non-PvP activities, even if those activities contribute to the PvP. Neither DAoC nor Eve can be considered to have 'tacked on' PvP.
    You've got a lot of things wrong in this post.

    DAoC is an RvR focused game. The FFA PVP servers, which were tacked on, got closed (as did the tacked on PvE only server, so your point just got destroyed). The regular servers, the ones with PvP baked into them, are still going.

    Eve has PvP built into every aspect of the game. Even in PvE space, PvP effects everything. You cannot turn PvP off or the game would stop working. So your point is, once again, destroyed.




    RvR in DAoC encompasses PvP. The game is about PvP. Everything the player does under the "Normal" rule set server leads up to PvP. There's not much point in playing the game if you're not going to eventually go out into the RvR areas and kill some other players. Unless you're on the co-op server, which was added after the "Normal" rule set option.

    Eve allows half or more of the player base to run around not doing PvP. As I said, everything done contributes to PvP, but players can spend their entire Eve Career not engaging in PvP, which shouldn't be possible if the game actually worked the way you say it does.

    It's not surprising that in PvE focused games the players don't regularly choose open world PvP. What should be surprising is that in games who exist because of PvP, the majority of the players choose to do things that aren't PvP.

    PvE activities are chosen more often than PvP activities even in games based around PvP. Which means,

    PvE is the more popular option for individual activities than PvP.

    There are no examples of MMORPGs where PvP is the most popular option, and where that MMORPG is also a popular game. There are no examples in an MMORPG of players choosing more often than not to engage in PvP when players have a choice. It's been over twenty years. Let it go. PvP is not the popular option.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid hell, NJPosts: 6,787Member Uncommon

    the only way a pvp focused mmo will be successful is if the company has a vision about PvP form the beginning and keep the focus on PvP through out the development. Same applies for PvE.

     

    As soon as your company jumps to a different wagon to try and get more money with a bigger audience they fail miserably by not delivering enough quality and quantity on any fronts.

     

    THey need to focus on what they want to make for their core audience, not what random people demand. Sadly, the latter is the more popular option nowadays because everyone wants to make more money and deliver content with less effort and focus as possible, which is why we keep getting mediocre products.

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

     


    Originally posted by DavisFlight

    Originally posted by lizardbones  

    Originally posted by DavisFlight

    Originally posted by daltanious

    Originally posted by Distopia I think they would. ...
    Not at all. Have ever checked how many pve and pure pvp servers any game have? Usually 99 pve servers and 1 pvp. But i believe many want to TRY and play also pvp. But I do not see any scope in neglecting pve because of pvp.
    That's because if your PvP is tacked on enough to be able to have a PvP server, its probably not worth playing.
    Dark Age of Camelot is a PvP focused game. The PvP rule set servers were closed and the "Normal" rule set is now the primary rule set. Eve is a PvP focused game. Half or more of Eve's players are focused on non-PvP activities, even if those activities contribute to the PvP. Neither DAoC nor Eve can be considered to have 'tacked on' PvP.
    You've got a lot of things wrong in this post.

     

    DAoC is an RvR focused game. The FFA PVP servers, which were tacked on, got closed (as did the tacked on PvE only server, so your point just got destroyed). The regular servers, the ones with PvP baked into them, are still going.

    Eve has PvP built into every aspect of the game. Even in PvE space, PvP effects everything. You cannot turn PvP off or the game would stop working. So your point is, once again, destroyed.



    RvR in DAoC encompasses PvP. The game is about PvP. Everything the player does under the "Normal" rule set server leads up to PvP. There's not much point in playing the game if you're not going to eventually go out into the RvR areas and kill some other players. Unless you're on the co-op server, which was added after the "Normal" rule set option.

    Eve allows half or more of the player base to run around not doing PvP. As I said, everything done contributes to PvP, but players can spend their entire Eve Career not engaging in PvP, which shouldn't be possible if the game actually worked the way you say it does.

    It's not surprising that in PvE focused games the players don't regularly choose open world PvP. What should be surprising is that in games who exist because of PvP, the majority of the players choose to do things that aren't PvP.

    PvE activities are chosen more often than PvP activities even in games based around PvP. Which means,

    PvE is the more popular option for individual activities than PvP.

    There are no examples of MMORPGs where PvP is the most popular option, and where that MMORPG is also a popular game. There are no examples in an MMORPG of players choosing more often than not to engage in PvP when players have a choice. It's been over twenty years. Let it go. PvP is not the popular option.

    Mmmm I feel like you're just not getting the point. I don't think Davis is trying to say that pvp is a more popular option than pve. The point that (I think) he's making and the point that I and others have made in the past is that pvp that is tacked on (and thus able to have a "pvp server") isn't as good as pvp that is built into the gameplay. It's more meaningful to have pvp weaved into the mechanics/economy of the game. If I'm reading correctly, this would be the "normal ruleset" server that you're saying became the norm. That's what we want: a game that has both pvp and pve built into how the game is played.

  • DistopiaDistopia Baltimore, MDPosts: 16,916Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by rojo6934

    the only way a pvp focused mmo will be successful is if the company has a vision about PvP form the beginning and keep the focus on PvP through out the development. Same applies for PvE.

     

    As soon as your company jumps to a different wagon to try and get more money with a bigger audience they fail miserably by not delivering enough quality and quantity on any fronts.

     

    THey need to focus on what they want to make for their core audience, not what random people demand. Sadly, the latter is the more popular option nowadays because everyone wants to make more money and deliver content with less effort and focus as possible, which is why we keep getting mediocre products.

    Exactly..

    There's something else I wanted to respond to throughout this thread that I haven't yet. The idea that there's so many PVP MMORPG's out there, this just isn't the case whatsoever. There's a few, only two of which have what it takes to draw in a bigger crowd. EVE and PS2. Which PS2 isn't even an MMORPG in the truest sense, it's an MMOFPS through and through, there's little motivation to roleplay there. It's an action game.

    I'm thinking SWG with a hard-coded focus on PVP and PVP support. There's hardly anything at all out there like this. Please don't say darkfall or MO is. If progression was handled through PVP and a trader/builders craft, all balancing was geared toward PVP, it has a budget to support this design at a level of quality on par with EVE or greater, there would be little reason this would fail. It wouldn't even have to be all out full loot or FFA. It just needs lots of thought put into different forms of PVP.

    Also to the few saying PVPers don't even like the games they have available. Well no ****. How many PVERs are playing the indie PVE MMO's out there? I guess people really don't like PVE,  they're not all playing The saga of Ryzom, they wouldn't have let Spellborn fall either had this not been the case? I guess crafters don't like to craft because they're not all flocking to ATITD, hell they also let that cell-shaded crafters paradise get closed ( the name of it alludes me at present)?

     

     

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson

    It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at ones character in the face of logic and reason- Me

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,466Member Uncommon
    Not in a MMORPG because it  keeps other players from enjoying the PVE experience they want.PVP belongs in FPS's where EVERY player has the same goal,that way you are not interfering with another gamer's play style.


    Samoan Diamond

  • DistopiaDistopia Baltimore, MDPosts: 16,916Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Wizardry
    Not in a MMORPG because it  keeps other players from enjoying the PVE experience they want.PVP belongs in FPS's where EVERY player has the same goal,that way you are not interfering with another gamer's play style.

    Uh,  why would they be in an MMORPG developed around PVP?

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson

    It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at ones character in the face of logic and reason- Me

  • FlyinDutchman87FlyinDutchman87 London MIlls, ILPosts: 247Member Uncommon
    Mmmm I feel like you're just not getting the point. I don't think Davis is trying to say that pvp is a more popular option than pve. The point that (I think) he's making and the point that I and others have made in the past is that pvp that is tacked on (and thus able to have a "pvp server") isn't as good as pvp that is built into the gameplay. It's more meaningful to have pvp weaved into the mechanics/economy of the game. If I'm reading correctly, this would be the "normal ruleset" server that you're saying became the norm. That's what we want: a game that has both pvp and pve built into how the game is played.

    /Agree

     

    And there isn't a way to play EVE where you NEVER PvP.

     

    Go mine in high-sec. It'll take about 3 hours before someone comes and starts can-flipping you.

     If you haul big enough cargo someone will eventually suicide-gank you to steal it.

    And if you just hang out in Jita someone from goon will drive by and launch a bunch of bombs into the crowd just for the hell of it.

     

  • aRtFuLThinGaRtFuLThinG MelbournePosts: 1,134Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Distopia

    I think they would.

    I on the other hand, don't. Even though I mainly pvp.

     

    And that's for one simple reason - a majority of players do not have the temperament for pvp games. They usually rage, blame others, don't have the ability to follow when required and lead when needed, or really be analytical to breakdown their game and learn from their mistakes. They lack the ability to respect opponent's skill/ability, lack the ability to distinguish the difference between a contest and a personal conflict, and deal with personal confrontations.

     

    That's why there is always more pve than pvp players.

     

    A studios will be quite niche if they focus on pvp only.

     

    PvP is not for everyone.

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

     


    Originally posted by DavisFlight

    Originally posted by lizardbones  

    Originally posted by DavisFlight

    Originally posted by daltanious

    Originally posted by Distopia I think they would. ...
    Not at all. Have ever checked how many pve and pure pvp servers any game have? Usually 99 pve servers and 1 pvp. But i believe many want to TRY and play also pvp. But I do not see any scope in neglecting pve because of pvp.
    That's because if your PvP is tacked on enough to be able to have a PvP server, its probably not worth playing.
    Dark Age of Camelot is a PvP focused game. The PvP rule set servers were closed and the "Normal" rule set is now the primary rule set. Eve is a PvP focused game. Half or more of Eve's players are focused on non-PvP activities, even if those activities contribute to the PvP. Neither DAoC nor Eve can be considered to have 'tacked on' PvP.
    You've got a lot of things wrong in this post.

     

    DAoC is an RvR focused game. The FFA PVP servers, which were tacked on, got closed (as did the tacked on PvE only server, so your point just got destroyed). The regular servers, the ones with PvP baked into them, are still going.

    Eve has PvP built into every aspect of the game. Even in PvE space, PvP effects everything. You cannot turn PvP off or the game would stop working. So your point is, once again, destroyed.



    RvR in DAoC encompasses PvP. The game is about PvP. Everything the player does under the "Normal" rule set server leads up to PvP. There's not much point in playing the game if you're not going to eventually go out into the RvR areas and kill some other players. Unless you're on the co-op server, which was added after the "Normal" rule set option.

    Eve allows half or more of the player base to run around not doing PvP. As I said, everything done contributes to PvP, but players can spend their entire Eve Career not engaging in PvP, which shouldn't be possible if the game actually worked the way you say it does.

    It's not surprising that in PvE focused games the players don't regularly choose open world PvP. What should be surprising is that in games who exist because of PvP, the majority of the players choose to do things that aren't PvP.

    PvE activities are chosen more often than PvP activities even in games based around PvP. Which means,

    PvE is the more popular option for individual activities than PvP.

    There are no examples of MMORPGs where PvP is the most popular option, and where that MMORPG is also a popular game. There are no examples in an MMORPG of players choosing more often than not to engage in PvP when players have a choice. It's been over twenty years. Let it go. PvP is not the popular option.

    Mmmm I feel like you're just not getting the point. I don't think Davis is trying to say that pvp is a more popular option than pve. The point that (I think) he's making and the point that I and others have made in the past is that pvp that is tacked on (and thus able to have a "pvp server") isn't as good as pvp that is built into the gameplay. It's more meaningful to have pvp weaved into the mechanics/economy of the game. If I'm reading correctly, this would be the "normal ruleset" server that you're saying became the norm. That's what we want: a game that has both pvp and pve built into how the game is played.

    Yes, this.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    PvE activities are chosen more often than PvP activities even in games based around PvP. Which means,

    PvE is the more popular option for individual activities than PvP.

    There are no examples of MMORPGs where PvP is the most popular option, and where that MMORPG is also a popular game. There are no examples in an MMORPG of players choosing more often than not to engage in PvP when players have a choice. It's been over twenty years. Let it go. PvP is not the popular option.

     

    Yet more players choose to play LoL than WOW, and WoT beat most MMORPGs except WoW and GW2.

    So how is pve activities are chosen more often than pvp?

    Personally i don't play those pvp games, but the trend is clear. May be players don't choose pvp over pve in the same game, but they certainly overwhelming chose pvp-only games.

     

  • sethman75sethman75 the gongPosts: 212Member Uncommon

    Muha hah OP!!!!!!

    I stopped reading after the first sentence where you said PvP players are easier to please.

    PvP players are the biggest whingers in gaming full stop. It's because of PvP players that almost every MMO game out there gets nerfs and buffs.

    It's because of PvP that PvE players suffer stupid changes to their characters every patch.

    No studio in their sane mind would focus only on PvP players.

    PvP is a niche genre fir a reason, most players hate it

     

     

  • GuyClinchGuyClinch Sunnyvale, CAPosts: 485Member
    Actually I think if someone could do a good job - a pure PvE game would be pretty sweet too. Not sure what PvP guys get out of ditching PvE. But I do know that games that don't have PvP can have more class based differences - which I really ilke.
  • RollermintRollermint SingaporePosts: 43Member Uncommon

    Theres nothing wrong with games being either focused on PVP or PVE.

    The main recurring problem, imho, with most MMOs are the players themselves...basically their expectations.

    If they come into a PVP-focused game expecting stellar PVE content, they will end up disappointed. Likewise, if a PVP'er comes into a mainly PVE game and expects to be treated as a top priority, you will again end up unsatisfied. The blame lies mostly on the players themselves.

    Not to say game studios are entirely blameless, sometimes they themselves are trying too hard to please both camps while not having the experience, background or resources like Blizzard, CCP or what else have you. Even established MMO studios took YEARS to reach where they are today...and their journey were all very rough and turbulent.

    For smaller studios, I think they need to decide whether they'll be a PVP or PVE focused games. I applaud what Red 5 is doing, by ditching PVP and focusing on the strengths of their product and studio + main playerbase. Focus on your strengths first and be good at it, rather than trying to appease the always fickle always bitter MMO gamers that don't really know what they actually want. Most will end up being watered down generic versions but with different skins and your "playerbase" will simply slide off to the next new generic title.

  • TalulaRoseTalulaRose Long Island, NYPosts: 480Member Uncommon
    I've played many a game with pvp and it amazes me how many times the people that want to pvp ignore each other and go after the people who do not want to pvp.
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by lizardbones PvE activities are chosen more often than PvP activities even in games based around PvP. Which means, PvE is the more popular option for individual activities than PvP. There are no examples of MMORPGs where PvP is the most popular option, and where that MMORPG is also a popular game. There are no examples in an MMORPG of players choosing more often than not to engage in PvP when players have a choice. It's been over twenty years. Let it go. PvP is not the popular option.  
    Yet more players choose to play LoL than WOW, and WoT beat most MMORPGs except WoW and GW2.

    So how is pve activities are chosen more often than pvp?

    Personally i don't play those pvp games, but the trend is clear. May be players don't choose pvp over pve in the same game, but they certainly overwhelming chose pvp-only games.

     




    LoL, DOTA, WoT, CoD, and the other lobby or match based games aren't MMORPGs. In an earlier post I mentioned them as examples of where PvP players are playing. It's not in MMORPGs. The MMORPG PvP player is by far the minority.

    If you're talking about MMOs in general, not limited to MMORPGs, then yes, individuals by far choose PvP activities. They just don't do it in MMORPGs.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

Sign In or Register to comment.