PvE PEE and PEP (RP) can exist alone . PvP on the other hand has problems WAR for example . There are total PvP games Like planetside and even WoT and they work well. The problem comes when things are combined .
A game that has dedicated red servers (PvP) seems to work but only when there is regulation on levels etc. Ganking and zerging requires no skill and just makes people give up . It also means the people who keep the games going can make a choice not to do PvP .
LOTRO is a great example of when PvP fails - The PvP area gives PvE usable rewards and the enemy can just buy skills . It also has no level restriction which leads to rampant ganking , which stops players from bothering and also annoys players as the PvPers get big PvE bonuses which the PvE can't get . In general I find that PvP requires less skill its 90% down to kit and finding a "killer combo" But this is due mainly to non regulated PvP - If there isnt a level playing field there can't be competition .
When PvP is done well it is great fun and requires skill but I haven't found any MMORPG's that have managed it yet and i suspect there never will be any .
To hard to balance is part of it. Ask yourself how many times have you seen rage threads in any game with elements of both about pvp changes nerfing or buffing pve side and vice versa. Too many variables via skills, gear, items, classes, ect give way to a lot of un-intended consequences. It's why no mater how a game starts at launch within a yr it's defaulted down to the 90-10 80-20 split and caters too mostly one group or the other.
Originally posted by BMBender To hard to balance is part of it. Ask yourself how many times have you seen rage threads in any game with elements of both about pvp changes nerfing or buffing pve side and vice versa. Too many variables via skills, gear, items, classes, ect give way to a lot of un-intended consequences. It's why no mater how a game starts at launch within a yr it's defaulted down to the 90-10 80-20 split and caters too mostly one group or the other.
Most of these rants are by people who don't know what they are talking about though. Every time a skill is nerfed for legit PvE reasons it gets blamed on PvP and vice versa. Here is the thing with balance, even if they magically 100% balanced something, 90% of the players are going to complain about how their class is underpowered. It is just how games work. You either have to make everyone exactly the same or almost everyone is going to complain about balance no matter how good or bad the balance is.
But again WoW and Eve are the two most popular MMORPG and neither is a 80-20 split, they are both much closer to 50/50. PvE is content driven, PvP is balance driven. You'll see more PvE content made and more PvP balance changes made.
I disagree. Good pvp mmos don't have everyone the same.
Let's look at 4 of the best mmos for pvp. Uo - had a freeform skill based system Eve - has a freeform skill based system Daoc - has over 40 classes, and the classes are unique to faction Planetside - each side has different find and vehicles
When you make everyone the same you get boring pvp - see gw2, see how pvp went down hill in wow when both sides got shaman and paladin.
Difference fuels conflict, everyone thinks the other side is overpowered, so they get stubborn and dig in.
Originally posted by BMBender To hard to balance is part of it. Ask yourself how many times have you seen rage threads in any game with elements of both about pvp changes nerfing or buffing pve side and vice versa. Too many variables via skills, gear, items, classes, ect give way to a lot of un-intended consequences. It's why no mater how a game starts at launch within a yr it's defaulted down to the 90-10 80-20 split and caters too mostly one group or the other.
Most of these rants are by people who don't know what they are talking about though. Every time a skill is nerfed for legit PvE reasons it gets blamed on PvP and vice versa. Here is the thing with balance, even if they magically 100% balanced something, 90% of the players are going to complain about how their class is underpowered. It is just how games work. You either have to make everyone exactly the same or almost everyone is going to complain about balance no matter how good or bad the balance is.
Having done it I can promise you it is in fact a nightmare in QA time. One can easily spend the entire development cycle on those endless balance passes.
The decision on which play style gets put on the back burner isn't necessarily the fewest customers; it's the one that represents the lowest number of departures if you don't cater to em. You have to make a call at some point or never get to work on actual content. Time management vs projected loss/gain rate
Originally posted by goldtoof Ender no way is wow a 50/50 game. There is way way way more to do pve wise in wow. It's more like 90/10.50/50 would be more like daoc.
No. DAOC was a PvP game,the PvE was largely an afterthought. DAOC falls into the category of games like SB and DF that are mostly PvP driven games.
Like I said PvE is content driven. A game that is 50/50 is going to have more PvE content because without content there is absolutely nothing to do. You can play WoW without ever killing a mob in PvE. Ever single patch addresses it, every single expansion expands it, you can level and gear through it. A significant number of the servers are open PvP. That is 50/50.
GW2 would fall into the more like 70 PvE, 30 PvP split since there are no PvP servers and you completely miss the personal story arc if you just PvP.
EQ was more of the split you suggest at 90/10. They had PvP servers but they barely balanced it and put almost no effort into PvP. These other games put tons and tons of time into PvP balance and design.
LOTRO is a great example of when PvP fails - The PvP area gives PvE usable rewards and the enemy can just buy skills . It also has no level restriction which leads to rampant ganking , which stops players from bothering and also annoys players as the PvPers get big PvE bonuses which the PvE can't get
That's a new... maybe we play different versions of LotRO? There's the saying for a reason "what happens in the Moors stays in the Moors"... I'm not sure what usable PvE rewards and big PvE bonuses you're talking about.
Ettenmoors is a fully separate minigame, with close to zero effect on the PvE gameplay luckily. If freeps have the keeps, the world gets a minor buff (everybody gets it), and the pvp'ers receive a few titles and a (cosmetic) pvp mount. That's all. The creeps cannot leave the 'Moors. What bonuses?
Originally posted by goldtoof This pvpers raging for balance thing.It happens much more in pve orientated games with tacked on later pvp like wow, than it does in pvp orientated games.When your pvp Is mostly lobby based 10 vs 10 matches and what have you, differences in balance show up more.In a rvr game like daoc or planetside it matters lessIn a sandbox like eve or uo it doesn't matter at all, everyone is free to make alliances and work on their builds as they wish.
You must not have played DAOC at release. Never seen a game with more balance complaints than that one. They were well founded too, nothing like a stealthed Scout one shotting my warrior. DAOC's balance was atrocious at release.
Ender you've not played daoc obviously. It has a huge amount of pve content. It has raids that take 24 hours. It has over 50 dungeons. The pve in daoc is pretty much the same as everquest and nothing like darkfall.
Split a MMO in two part is a piece of shit IMHO, MMO need to be a virtual world to be good, both PvE and PvP are important, equally, they need to exist to complete each other.
Originally posted by goldtoof This pvpers raging for balance thing.
It happens much more in pve orientated games with tacked on later pvp like wow, than it does in pvp orientated games.
When your pvp Is mostly lobby based 10 vs 10 matches and what have you, differences in balance show up more.
In a rvr game like daoc or planetside it matters less
In a sandbox like eve or uo it doesn't matter at all, everyone is free to make alliances and work on their builds as they wish.
yup, when it's one or the other it's much easier/faster/and more pleasing to the player base finding/addressing issues thanks to being isolated. Add in another complete system and your lead time just to find the (*&(*& issue increases an order of magnitude, let alone fixing it in such a way that doesn't end up pissing everyone off..
Originally posted by goldtoof Ender you've not played daoc obviously. It has a huge amount of pve content. It has raids that take 24 hours. It has over 50 dungeons. The pve in daoc is pretty much the same as everquest and nothing like darkfall.
It did not have that in release that is for sure. It had a handful of dungeons that weren't itemized and not a single raid. The game was dying so they added PvE in the expansion. I beta tested DAOC, I was friends with people that worked on it. Their entire point was to not have a PvE based end game like EQ DAOC was the definition of a PvP focused game when it came out.
The 1st expansion started to add dungeons, the 3rd added raids. The 4th revisited RvR and the 5th added dragons. The original game PvE was almost an afterthought. They added more and more to compete with the other games out there.
Originally posted by goldtoof AlBquirkyI disagree. Good pvp mmos don't have everyone the same.Let's look at 4 of the best mmos for pvp. Uo - had a freeform skill based system Eve - has a freeform skill based system Daoc - has over 40 classes, and the classes are unique to faction Planetside - each side has different find and vehiclesWhen you make everyone the same you get boring pvp - see gw2, see how pvp went down hill in wow when both sides got shaman and paladin.Difference fuels conflict, everyone thinks the other side is overpowered, so they get stubborn and dig in.
I see what you're saying and agree that differences are good. That being said...
A few questions, if I may. UO - Could anyone choose any of those skills to work at and did PvP builds abound? EVE - Same question. DAoC - Were there better PvP classes that many players chose, or did they implement them to work well, or better, with other classes? (I do not know, never played.) Planetside - Really? That sounds odd to me Was it like differing technologies?
I agree that differences can fuel conflict, especially when a Paladin-type character meets a Necromancer-type character in the world. Game mechanic and numbers seem to get in the way of situation, though
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
One thing I've learned over the years, both from personal experience and talking to actual game designers during game shows - you focus on ONE aspect and do it well - so you either make a PvP game or PvE game essentially, doing both and expecting them both to be equally important and balanced is next to impossible.
This may be a hard pill to swallow, but thats the hard reality, each game has either PvE or PvP focus, never both, because at least you can do one well - focusing on both systems, you end up failing at both PvE and PvP.
Enough said,this is why most mmo's flat out suck. Game dev's need to decide what game they are making and stop trying to please everyone. Just waiting for a company to have the balls to do this. A PVE only mmo would be the new biggest game because it would be focused on one type of game play. A PVP only mmo would only be a niche game at best.
Originally posted by goldtoof Ender you've not played daoc obviously. It has a huge amount of pve content. It has raids that take 24 hours. It has over 50 dungeons. The pve in daoc is pretty much the same as everquest and nothing like darkfall.
Can you tell me what PvP content consists of? How do devs "develop" PvP content?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
1. Some hard core pvpers argue, that MMOs like WoW-classic that have no pvp-system at all deliver the best possible pvp-experience.
2. My biggest concern with PvP/PvE is imbalanced gameplay because of leveling and item-Progression. PvP should always be about player skill. It is pure horror, that some ego-shooters have begun to copy this stuff from MMOs.
3. I think WvWvW in GW2 really hit the nail on the head.
4. One big problem today is, that players tend to use every possible part of a game to their advantage (higher level, better weapons, outnumbering, exploits, hacks, etc.) instead of aiming at a fair and challenging pvp-experience.
5. Worst way to make it: WoW. Their System encouraged players to just stand around in their BGs. Resilence was the worst idea ever.
Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.
I'm a big fan of both PvE and PvP, and when PvP is good, generally its VERY good, except that there will always be an inherrent "I win" button be it a programming flaw, or a class imbalance, or a particular hack or item or something of the sort.
Its like the idea of taking a well geared damage tank and sticking it with its very own pocket healer (or healers depending on the game) situations like that are nearly impossible to beat for any uncoordinated team, and therein lies the key. Very basic tricks from a coordinated team really changes the landscape between enjoyable PvP and frustrating PvP.
In the same sense, you could say the same of PvE, but a little bit of a masochistic view on PvE is a good thing, because, like the olden days of gaming, levels are supposed to be hard, and then when you get past them, you actually have that sigh of relief and achievement. Then its on to the next thing. This was partially the love/hate relationship I had with the FFXIV story... they forced dungeons and boss monsters on you, and while I hated the dungeons, learning and finally beating the boss monsters (they weren't too tough on NM but still) was fun and kind of challenging.
Theres really no catch all for these two things to work together in tandem to make one game everyone will love. I want more challenging general PvE content, and also more diverse PvP content... .... ..... .... ..... and I don't want it to be expensive either.
One thing I've learned over the years, both from personal experience and talking to actual game designers during game shows - you focus on ONE aspect and do it well - so you either make a PvP game or PvE game essentially, doing both and expecting them both to be equally important and balanced is next to impossible.
This may be a hard pill to swallow, but thats the hard reality, each game has either PvE or PvP focus, never both, because at least you can do one well - focusing on both systems, you end up failing at both PvE and PvP.
My minor issue on this is that you just removed the reason why I play MMORPG. If I want a pure PVE game I love my singleplayer RPG's, if I want a pure PVP game I already love my FPS online games.
MMORPG's use to be allot for different playstyle's, but not in the sence one can be all which is the direction most current MMO's have taken. No I am talking about someone who loves PVE could do so in the old, those who loved PVP could do so, Those who loved crafting and gathering could do so. And if you wanted to enjoy other aspect of the game which you where not (ingame) trained for you use/create/engage into the community. Which brought community's also closer together.
In today's game one toon can do it all and I feel there is why this genre seems dumped down. This genre has even go so far that one toon can switch roles/classes.
Theres really no catch all for these two things to work together in tandem to make one game everyone will love. I want more challenging general PvE content, and also more diverse PvP content... .... ..... .... ..... and I don't want it to be expensive either.
Last night in an invasion on Firefall people were surprised (I for one) that they enabled PvP IN THE INVASION AREA without telling anyone. Not good Red 5.
I find that PvE and PvP are not really good things to mix in the same game. Games that are PvE only or PvP only seem to balance out the best. When you try to do both it never quite works out.
Every game can be played by both pvp and pve player base, just have to separate/part to pvp and pve servers. Usually if I want to pvp I always go back to my css which is not gear grind or level grind, just pure skill based pvp, I believe MMORPG is all about social not a contest play, it's not about looking for mindless AI, I am looking forward to smart AI not boring time kill boss fights.
Comments
I would say daoc was a 50/50 split, its got this reputation as a pvp game, but lots of people played it just for pve.
Others have attempted it too like gw2
I wouldn't call war 50/50 though, more like 70/30 in favour of pvp.
To hard to balance is part of it. Ask yourself how many times have you seen rage threads in any game with elements of both about pvp changes nerfing or buffing pve side and vice versa. Too many variables via skills, gear, items, classes, ect give way to a lot of un-intended consequences. It's why no mater how a game starts at launch within a yr it's defaulted down to the 90-10 80-20 split and caters too mostly one group or the other.
Most of these rants are by people who don't know what they are talking about though. Every time a skill is nerfed for legit PvE reasons it gets blamed on PvP and vice versa. Here is the thing with balance, even if they magically 100% balanced something, 90% of the players are going to complain about how their class is underpowered. It is just how games work. You either have to make everyone exactly the same or almost everyone is going to complain about balance no matter how good or bad the balance is.
But again WoW and Eve are the two most popular MMORPG and neither is a 80-20 split, they are both much closer to 50/50. PvE is content driven, PvP is balance driven. You'll see more PvE content made and more PvP balance changes made.
I disagree. Good pvp mmos don't have everyone the same.
Let's look at 4 of the best mmos for pvp.
Uo - had a freeform skill based system
Eve - has a freeform skill based system
Daoc - has over 40 classes, and the classes are unique to faction
Planetside - each side has different find and vehicles
When you make everyone the same you get boring pvp - see gw2, see how pvp went down hill in wow when both sides got shaman and paladin.
Difference fuels conflict, everyone thinks the other side is overpowered, so they get stubborn and dig in.
50/50 would be more like daoc.
Having done it I can promise you it is in fact a nightmare in QA time. One can easily spend the entire development cycle on those endless balance passes.
The decision on which play style gets put on the back burner isn't necessarily the fewest customers; it's the one that represents the lowest number of departures if you don't cater to em. You have to make a call at some point or never get to work on actual content. Time management vs projected loss/gain rate
No. DAOC was a PvP game,the PvE was largely an afterthought. DAOC falls into the category of games like SB and DF that are mostly PvP driven games.
Like I said PvE is content driven. A game that is 50/50 is going to have more PvE content because without content there is absolutely nothing to do. You can play WoW without ever killing a mob in PvE. Ever single patch addresses it, every single expansion expands it, you can level and gear through it. A significant number of the servers are open PvP. That is 50/50.
GW2 would fall into the more like 70 PvE, 30 PvP split since there are no PvP servers and you completely miss the personal story arc if you just PvP.
EQ was more of the split you suggest at 90/10. They had PvP servers but they barely balanced it and put almost no effort into PvP. These other games put tons and tons of time into PvP balance and design.
It happens much more in pve orientated games with tacked on later pvp like wow, than it does in pvp orientated games.
When your pvp Is mostly lobby based 10 vs 10 matches and what have you, differences in balance show up more.
In a rvr game like daoc or planetside it matters less
In a sandbox like eve or uo it doesn't matter at all, everyone is free to make alliances and work on their builds as they wish.
That's a new... maybe we play different versions of LotRO?
There's the saying for a reason "what happens in the Moors stays in the Moors"... I'm not sure what usable PvE rewards and big PvE bonuses you're talking about.
Ettenmoors is a fully separate minigame, with close to zero effect on the PvE gameplay luckily. If freeps have the keeps, the world gets a minor buff (everybody gets it), and the pvp'ers receive a few titles and a (cosmetic) pvp mount. That's all. The creeps cannot leave the 'Moors. What bonuses?
You must not have played DAOC at release. Never seen a game with more balance complaints than that one. They were well founded too, nothing like a stealthed Scout one shotting my warrior. DAOC's balance was atrocious at release.
yup, when it's one or the other it's much easier/faster/and more pleasing to the player base finding/addressing issues thanks to being isolated. Add in another complete system and your lead time just to find the (*&(*& issue increases an order of magnitude, let alone fixing it in such a way that doesn't end up pissing everyone off..
It did not have that in release that is for sure. It had a handful of dungeons that weren't itemized and not a single raid. The game was dying so they added PvE in the expansion. I beta tested DAOC, I was friends with people that worked on it. Their entire point was to not have a PvE based end game like EQ DAOC was the definition of a PvP focused game when it came out.
The 1st expansion started to add dungeons, the 3rd added raids. The 4th revisited RvR and the 5th added dragons. The original game PvE was almost an afterthought. They added more and more to compete with the other games out there.
A few questions, if I may.
Was it like differing technologies?
UO - Could anyone choose any of those skills to work at and did PvP builds abound?
EVE - Same question.
DAoC - Were there better PvP classes that many players chose, or did they implement them to work well, or better, with other classes? (I do not know, never played.)
Planetside - Really? That sounds odd to me
I agree that differences can fuel conflict, especially when a Paladin-type character meets a Necromancer-type character in the world. Game mechanic and numbers seem to get in the way of situation, though
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
1. Some hard core pvpers argue, that MMOs like WoW-classic that have no pvp-system at all deliver the best possible pvp-experience.
2. My biggest concern with PvP/PvE is imbalanced gameplay because of leveling and item-Progression. PvP should always be about player skill. It is pure horror, that some ego-shooters have begun to copy this stuff from MMOs.
3. I think WvWvW in GW2 really hit the nail on the head.
4. One big problem today is, that players tend to use every possible part of a game to their advantage (higher level, better weapons, outnumbering, exploits, hacks, etc.) instead of aiming at a fair and challenging pvp-experience.
5. Worst way to make it: WoW. Their System encouraged players to just stand around in their BGs. Resilence was the worst idea ever.
Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.
I'm a big fan of both PvE and PvP, and when PvP is good, generally its VERY good, except that there will always be an inherrent "I win" button be it a programming flaw, or a class imbalance, or a particular hack or item or something of the sort.
Its like the idea of taking a well geared damage tank and sticking it with its very own pocket healer (or healers depending on the game) situations like that are nearly impossible to beat for any uncoordinated team, and therein lies the key. Very basic tricks from a coordinated team really changes the landscape between enjoyable PvP and frustrating PvP.
In the same sense, you could say the same of PvE, but a little bit of a masochistic view on PvE is a good thing, because, like the olden days of gaming, levels are supposed to be hard, and then when you get past them, you actually have that sigh of relief and achievement. Then its on to the next thing. This was partially the love/hate relationship I had with the FFXIV story... they forced dungeons and boss monsters on you, and while I hated the dungeons, learning and finally beating the boss monsters (they weren't too tough on NM but still) was fun and kind of challenging.
Theres really no catch all for these two things to work together in tandem to make one game everyone will love. I want more challenging general PvE content, and also more diverse PvP content... .... ..... .... ..... and I don't want it to be expensive either.
My minor issue on this is that you just removed the reason why I play MMORPG. If I want a pure PVE game I love my singleplayer RPG's, if I want a pure PVP game I already love my FPS online games.
MMORPG's use to be allot for different playstyle's, but not in the sence one can be all which is the direction most current MMO's have taken. No I am talking about someone who loves PVE could do so in the old, those who loved PVP could do so, Those who loved crafting and gathering could do so. And if you wanted to enjoy other aspect of the game which you where not (ingame) trained for you use/create/engage into the community. Which brought community's also closer together.
In today's game one toon can do it all and I feel there is why this genre seems dumped down. This genre has even go so far that one toon can switch roles/classes.
You should design one then.
Last night in an invasion on Firefall people were surprised (I for one) that they enabled PvP IN THE INVASION AREA without telling anyone. Not good Red 5.
I find that PvE and PvP are not really good things to mix in the same game. Games that are PvE only or PvP only seem to balance out the best. When you try to do both it never quite works out.
Anyone else read this as "they can TRY hacks or cheating" lol?
Troll_News proudly presents the next in a series of need-to-know, totally hot completely unprecedented topics.
Today's never before debated debate: Is <insert name of former Disney star here> really a slut? Stay tuned! Now for a word from our sponsor.