If having Open World PvP zones in a game where you can also stick to safe areas is offensive to you, then you can always go play that game with no Open World PvP zones and gear loss where the crafting economy matters. Like... Oh wait. There isn't one. Because instanced raids and PvP arenas as end game content don't drive economies like wars and gear loss do.
Sure they do, GW2 uses a combination of Time gated components for top gear items which drives people to buy items when they don't want to wait a week to have to make it themselves, which keeps the crafting profitable, as well as heavy material sinks for both guild upgrades and legendary items, which makes harvesting profitable.
Not to mention consumables, that are used for encounters,
Truth is, as long as the game is growing, GW2, has a great set up for crafting, as there will always be tat next person that wants a legendary,.
You only need things like decaying gear (or gear loss) in a game that has become stagnant, or in decline, to keep the market up.
I have yet to play a Themepark where I did not have to produce massive quantities of items at a loss to get to the point where I could produce items people would actually buy and use for more than the cost of the resources I used. I call that a crap crafting economy.
That's because I have played games like Darkfall where there is a constant churn of items through all tiers of play.
Crafters shouldn't just be gatherers. Crafters should be crafters. If resources are not cheaper than crafted items at all levels of play then there is a major failure going on within the crafting economy of the game. The only games I've seen where this isn't the case is Wurm, Darkfall, and EVE. All of which have Open World areas with loot drop and gear destruction or decay more significant than what is found in themeparks.
OP, there are NO remotely successful pve only mmorpgs. It maybe that developers recognizing and are looking for ways to appease care bears while remaining financially viable.
Ummm, EQ, which pretty much established MMO's as we know them today, was PvE.
Another Widely Successful MMO, that pretty much started the Trend of F2P games, was Dungeons and Dragons Online, which is also a PvE MMO.
Where other games marginalize it, like Lord of the Ring Online, Trove, both successful.
Anyway my point is. Games don't need to require people who absolutely hate non-consensual PvP to go to PvP areas. But there are three components that are a necessity of a great crafting economy:
1. Gear loss and destruction / meaningful decay rates 2. Massive item drains that cause more loss than gains people are actually willing to participate in (PvP/Wars) 3. Significant time investment into the crafting process itself (AKA after resources are required)
Without all of those components working together the economy is greatly stunted with significant barrier to entry being a requirement to any kind of real profits down the road. Infact most players will never reach the point of turning significant profits from crafting.
So yeah. PvE players can whine that they can't access every area of the game in games where there are areas with Open World PvP and loot drop.
Or they can be content to still have free run of a lot of areas and an economy far better than they would ever see outside such a title.
I do agree that such areas are too small, and that there is not enough focus on the safe areas of the game in existing PvP titles. But I can't see people who are super upset about the inclusion of any true PvP areas into their games as anything but short sighted. Unless all you care about is instanced raiding and arenas there are massive benefits to real wars with meaningful losses being waged within your game world whether you directly participate in them or not.
Can someone list the successful open world free pvp with full loot games?
I would like to see that list myself. I can't really think of any that have come out recently to be honest that have a player base over 500k which is the lowest I consider to be somewhat successful as an MMO. It's more of a niche with a smaller player base than many would like to believe.
Can someone list the successful open world free pvp with full loot games?
EVE.
However it is important important to note that all of these games including EVE started with budgets comparable to themeparks suchs as ArcheLord and Knight Online.
Never heard of them? Not many people have. Open World PvP games tend to do better and attract far more devoted followings than regular theme parks made with similar budgets.
Star Citizen is going to be the first such game we see made with a similar budget to the major themeparks.
It's a bit of a silly question. This assumes that PVPers don't PVE. PVPers are just PVEers who arent scared of direct competition with other players. You also have to assume PVEers don't want to compete with other players at all. They very often do, mob stealing, price gouging etc. There are many ways to compete with other players in a PVE game. Those types of competition are generally fine with a PVEer because being a detriment or annoying to other players is fine as long as your avatar doesnt have to take a death (until they start crying that someone took their mobs or is pricing them out of a market of course, which happens all the time).
So the more obvious question is, why are PVEers scared to take a death?
And lemme just address ganking for a minute, since that seems to be a big issue when it comes to this topic. Everybody gets ganked sometimes. I don't care how good or beast or smart you might be, it's going to happen. Now personally when I get ganked, my immediate thought is how can I avoid getting ganked again, maybe Ill be more stealthy, go around them, go to a different area for awhile, get people together to beat the group, there are always a lot of choices available to solve the problem.
Now I have seen this myself hundreds of time, carebear gets ganked, doesn't even occur to them to consider all of those options I just mentioned. Nope, just runs directly in a straight line from the spawn point directly back into the area where they just got ganked by a bunch of people. And then of course they get ganked again, and they do the same thing, and so on, and so on. And eventually of course the carebear rages that they're being ganked repeatedly and how unfair it is in gen chat or the forums or whatever.
Is this how a 'PVEer' approaches a really strong mob that kicks their ass in PVE? I would hope not, or they're obviously and demonstrably stupid. You of course would adjust tactics or I dunno, maybe bring more people. But the real difference is, the PVEer doesn't handle other people the same way they would a mob in PVE. Because they know there is a real life living person back there beating them, they can't.....fucking......handle it.
They think that just by will alone, their will and wants are so important that they 'should' be able to go directly back into that area, where a dozen of their fellow players just told them 'no' because they are special, and more important than that dozen or so players. So really, I don't want to hear any arguments about how PVEers are the bigger group and PVPers should just get the point. No, the PVEer thinks they are more important and special irrespective of the situation or how many people are involved on either side. So get over it.
Because, pve players are what keep mmorpgs alive, every other pvp mmo for the most part is dead in 6 months due to lack of playerbase. If you wanna be successful you need to cater to both sides, a open pvp area for the pvp'ers and a safe pve area for the pve players. Dark Age of camelot is a good example of this, each realms leveling area's are generally pvp free, unless you go into the frontier which is the huge open pvp zone. Mind you a pure pve mmo that has no pvp will still generally be much more successful than a pvp mmo with no safe areas. Me? I only care about pvp if its beneficial to me, so most mmo's pvp is worthless in my eyes since its just pointless arena garbage. Gimme a system like Dark age of camelot realm skills, and i'll pvp all day. I think everquest 2 also has the AA system which also has a pvp side to it.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Because, pve players are what keep mmorpgs alive, every other pvp mmo for the most part is dead in 6 months due to lack of playerbase. If you wanna be successful you need to cater to both sides, a open pvp area for the pvp'ers and a safe pve area for the pve players. Dark Age of camelot is a good example of this, each realms leveling area's are generally pvp free, unless you go into the frontier which is the huge open pvp zone. Mind you a pure pve mmo that has no pvp will still generally be much more successful than a pvp mmo with no safe areas. Me? I only care about pvp if its beneficial to me, so most mmo's pvp is worthless in my eyes since its just pointless arena garbage. Gimme a system like Dark age of camelot realm skills, and i'll pvp all day. I think everquest 2 also has the AA system which also has a pvp side to it.
If people want to PvP they are spoilt for choice, so many genres do it.
If people want to play with others (with, not against) then there isn't a lot of options. Outside of MMOs, you've got single player games with co-op modes or games like Minecraft where you can set up your own servers with rules.
What is the fixation with PvP players trying to get PvE players into their MMO's or wanting every PvE focused MMO to have PvP in it?
It seems to me that anybody who enjoys PvP automatically gets classed as a PvPer, even if they enjoy both, so I expect the question is somewhat biased.
I'm the sort of player who enjoys both activities. I love endgame group PvE, primarily for the social aspect as it is a great bonding experience for guild members but dungeons and raids tend to be where you find the most challenging pve content and I love fighting "big" enemies, and raid bosses tend to be pretty cool looking.
That said, I'd never play an MMO that didn't have PvP. Outside of endgame group pve, I tend to find most PvE really dull. The leveling experience is usually terrible so I'm not the sort of guy who has many alts unless the combat system is good, so usually after 3 months my main (and only) character is fully geared up, has completed all the quests and usually any achievements I want to do, so endgame pve and pvp is all I have left.
When I was playing SW:TOR, for example, the leveling experience was so horrifically bad I couldn't level alts. My main was geared up 4 weeks after launch, then had full raid set within a month. So, 2 months after launch I literally had nothing left to do on my main except PvP and repeat the raids with my guild. The raids only took 1 night a week due to their ease, so without the PvP I would have quit (along with half my guild).
As to why I want to see PvE and PvP in all MMOs? Two reasons. The first is retention. MMOs that offer a wide breadth of gameplay choices keep peoples interests longer. You need lots of activities so that when a player gets bored of one, they can continue to play the game in a different way. Games with a narrow focus may do one or two features really well, but everyone eventually gets bored. When I was playing LotRO, for example, that game has a ton of features so even though I'd spend the majority of my gametime either in dungeons, raids or pvping, at least one night a week I just wouldn't be in the mood. Instead of logging off, I'd go off and do some crafting, or level an alt, or play some music, or mess around with the cosmetic system etc. By keeping me in game, they are increasing my attachment to it and kept me playing for longer, but I also provided value to other players, mostly just through socialising with my guild and keeping them happy and engaged, but also by chatting to newbies, selling stuff on the action house etc. Finally on this point, diverse communities are generally the most robust and pleasant. By mixing soloers, groupers, raiders, pvpers, crafters, roleplayers and everyone else in the community, the community becomes stronger and more inviting.
The second reason is just selfish. IPs tend not to get repeated within the MMO industry - there is only one star wars mmo, only one lord of the rings mmo etc. My desire to live in a fantasy world that I recognise tends to come before knowledge of features. I love star wars, so really want a good star wars MMO, so naturally I am going to push for the MMO to include features that I want to play. Its not like RPGs where I have a few options, or action games where there are loads of star wars games, or shooters or RTS's - MMOs only get one. If the game sucks, as I believe SW:TOR does, then its tough luck for me. Its also not as if I just have to wait 6 months or a year for the next game to come out, I'll likely have to wait a minimum of 5 years but chances are another one won't release for 10-15 years.
What is the fixation with PvP players trying to get PvE players into their MMO's or wanting every PvE focused MMO to have PvP in it?
It seems to me that anybody who enjoys PvP automatically gets classed as a PvPer, even if they enjoy both, so I expect the question is somewhat biased.
I'm the sort of player who enjoys both activities. I love endgame group PvE, primarily for the social aspect as it is a great bonding experience for guild members but dungeons and raids tend to be where you find the most challenging pve content and I love fighting "big" enemies, and raid bosses tend to be pretty cool looking.
That said, I'd never play an MMO that didn't have PvP. Outside of endgame group pve, I tend to find most PvE really dull. The leveling experience is usually terrible so I'm not the sort of guy who has many alts unless the combat system is good, so usually after 3 months my main (and only) character is fully geared up, has completed all the quests and usually any achievements I want to do, so endgame pve and pvp is all I have left.
When I was playing SW:TOR, for example, the leveling experience was so horrifically bad I couldn't level alts. My main was geared up 4 weeks after launch, then had full raid set within a month. So, 2 months after launch I literally had nothing left to do on my main except PvP and repeat the raids with my guild. The raids only took 1 night a week due to their ease, so without the PvP I would have quit (along with half my guild).
As to why I want to see PvE and PvP in all MMOs? Two reasons. The first is retention. MMOs that offer a wide breadth of gameplay choices keep peoples interests longer. You need lots of activities so that when a player gets bored of one, they can continue to play the game in a different way. Games with a narrow focus may do one or two features really well, but everyone eventually gets bored. When I was playing LotRO, for example, that game has a ton of features so even though I'd spend the majority of my gametime either in dungeons, raids or pvping, at least one night a week I just wouldn't be in the mood. Instead of logging off, I'd go off and do some crafting, or level an alt, or play some music, or mess around with the cosmetic system etc. By keeping me in game, they are increasing my attachment to it and kept me playing for longer, but I also provided value to other players, mostly just through socialising with my guild and keeping them happy and engaged, but also by chatting to newbies, selling stuff on the action house etc. Finally on this point, diverse communities are generally the most robust and pleasant. By mixing soloers, groupers, raiders, pvpers, crafters, roleplayers and everyone else in the community, the community becomes stronger and more inviting.
The second reason is just selfish. IPs tend not to get repeated within the MMO industry - there is only one star wars mmo, only one lord of the rings mmo etc. My desire to live in a fantasy world that I recognise tends to come before knowledge of features. I love star wars, so really want a good star wars MMO, so naturally I am going to push for the MMO to include features that I want to play. Its not like RPGs where I have a few options, or action games where there are loads of star wars games, or shooters or RTS's - MMOs only get one. If the game sucks, as I believe SW:TOR does, then its tough luck for me. Its also not as if I just have to wait 6 months or a year for the next game to come out, I'll likely have to wait a minimum of 5 years but chances are another one won't release for 10-15 years.
You do see pvp and PVE in most mmo's so what's the problem.
I think as the title suggests, and how the OP makes the assumption that the main focus of a game is pve, and its not designed as a pvp game. therefore the pve part is a standalone, and pvp interferes
for example lets say you have a pvp instance, that has pve elements to make the instance more fun/dynamic, is that pve players with pvp players?
So while i can agree there are some designs that support the argument the OP is making, but in general as a point of debate it doesnt have to be the case
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
What is the fixation with PvP players trying to get PvE players into their MMO's or wanting every PvE focused MMO to have PvP in it?
It seems to me that anybody who enjoys PvP automatically gets classed as a PvPer, even if they enjoy both, so I expect the question is somewhat biased.
I'm the sort of player who enjoys both activities. I love endgame group PvE, primarily for the social aspect as it is a great bonding experience for guild members but dungeons and raids tend to be where you find the most challenging pve content and I love fighting "big" enemies, and raid bosses tend to be pretty cool looking.
That said, I'd never play an MMO that didn't have PvP. Outside of endgame group pve, I tend to find most PvE really dull. The leveling experience is usually terrible so I'm not the sort of guy who has many alts unless the combat system is good, so usually after 3 months my main (and only) character is fully geared up, has completed all the quests and usually any achievements I want to do, so endgame pve and pvp is all I have left.
When I was playing SW:TOR, for example, the leveling experience was so horrifically bad I couldn't level alts. My main was geared up 4 weeks after launch, then had full raid set within a month. So, 2 months after launch I literally had nothing left to do on my main except PvP and repeat the raids with my guild. The raids only took 1 night a week due to their ease, so without the PvP I would have quit (along with half my guild).
As to why I want to see PvE and PvP in all MMOs? Two reasons. The first is retention. MMOs that offer a wide breadth of gameplay choices keep peoples interests longer. You need lots of activities so that when a player gets bored of one, they can continue to play the game in a different way. Games with a narrow focus may do one or two features really well, but everyone eventually gets bored. When I was playing LotRO, for example, that game has a ton of features so even though I'd spend the majority of my gametime either in dungeons, raids or pvping, at least one night a week I just wouldn't be in the mood. Instead of logging off, I'd go off and do some crafting, or level an alt, or play some music, or mess around with the cosmetic system etc. By keeping me in game, they are increasing my attachment to it and kept me playing for longer, but I also provided value to other players, mostly just through socialising with my guild and keeping them happy and engaged, but also by chatting to newbies, selling stuff on the action house etc. Finally on this point, diverse communities are generally the most robust and pleasant. By mixing soloers, groupers, raiders, pvpers, crafters, roleplayers and everyone else in the community, the community becomes stronger and more inviting.
The second reason is just selfish. IPs tend not to get repeated within the MMO industry - there is only one star wars mmo, only one lord of the rings mmo etc. My desire to live in a fantasy world that I recognise tends to come before knowledge of features. I love star wars, so really want a good star wars MMO, so naturally I am going to push for the MMO to include features that I want to play. Its not like RPGs where I have a few options, or action games where there are loads of star wars games, or shooters or RTS's - MMOs only get one. If the game sucks, as I believe SW:TOR does, then its tough luck for me. Its also not as if I just have to wait 6 months or a year for the next game to come out, I'll likely have to wait a minimum of 5 years but chances are another one won't release for 10-15 years.
You do see pvp and PVE in most mmo's so what's the problem.
PvP servers and PVE servers, problem solved.
Firstly, separate servers doesn't solve anything except in games that allow non-consensual open world pvp, but those are few and far between.
Secondly, I don't have a problem mixing pvp and pve as my post states. The OP asked for reasons why anybody would want the two communities mixed, so I gave my reasons. Kind of how a conversation works....
Can someone list the successful open world free pvp with full loot games?
You have to define successful. I define successful as a game that is sustainable, therefore having the development budget and game maintenance being able to be sustained by the playerbase and revenue they generate for the game. This way, you can control for niche games that are successful, not just chasing the games with the most players (which often can fail even with a huge playerbase due to their huge costs).
Games that fit this bill, which are then successful:
* EVE
* Gloria Victis
* Mortal Online
Heading towards success:
* DarkFall: Rise of Agon (since it was released proper May 5, already has a big playerbase and always had a dedicated community)
As a separate category, games which have high hype levels, development has progressed to a decent level, and look to be sustainable in the future:
* Crowfall
Future, likely a ridiculously big budget attempt (finally):
* New World (By Amazon, might be 5 years until release though)
I want people like me who like the things I like in the MMOs I play. For different reasons and at different times I want both PVE and PVP in my MMOs.
I don't want anyone in them who is a zealot about one of the two and wants to do away with the other type. They're toxic.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Can someone list the successful open world free pvp with full loot games?
You have to define successful. I define successful as a game that is sustainable, therefore having the development budget and game maintenance being able to be sustained by the playerbase and revenue they generate for the game. This way, you can control for niche games that are successful, not just chasing the games with the most players (which often can fail even with a huge playerbase due to their huge costs).
Games that fit this bill, which are then successful:
* EVE
* Gloria Victis
* Mortal Online
Heading towards success:
* DarkFall: Rise of Agon (since it was released proper May 5, already has a big playerbase and always had a dedicated community)
As a separate category, games which have high hype levels, development has progressed to a decent level, and look to be sustainable in the future:
* Crowfall
Future, likely a ridiculously big budget attempt (finally):
* New World (By Amazon, might be 5 years until release though)
You should add to this Vendetta Online; it fits your criteria and I've been steadily playing since 2003. Not many games, AAA or otherwise, can claim that kind of longevity.
I can also think of one PvE only MMO that may not be doing so well: Ascent the Space Game.
At any rate, as I implied in my earlier post, I find the PvP / PvE debate somewhat endless and unproductive; game designers ought to focus on presenting a believable world; focusing on presenting tropes is how genres will sometimes become stuck in a rut, unless you are straight up going for satire.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Can someone list the successful open world free pvp with full loot games?
You have to define successful. I define successful as a game that is sustainable, therefore having the development budget and game maintenance being able to be sustained by the playerbase and revenue they generate for the game. This way, you can control for niche games that are successful, not just chasing the games with the most players (which often can fail even with a huge playerbase due to their huge costs).
Games that fit this bill, which are then successful:
* EVE
* Gloria Victis
* Mortal Online
Heading towards success:
* DarkFall: Rise of Agon (since it was released proper May 5, already has a big playerbase and always had a dedicated community)
As a separate category, games which have high hype levels, development has progressed to a decent level, and look to be sustainable in the future:
* Crowfall
Future, likely a ridiculously big budget attempt (finally):
* New World (By Amazon, might be 5 years until release though)
You should add to this Vendetta Online; it fits your criteria and I've been steadily playing since 2003. Not many games, AAA or otherwise, can claim that kind of longevity.
I can also think of one PvE only MMO that may not be doing so well: Ascent the Space Game.
At any rate, as I implied in my earlier post, I find the PvP / PvE debate somewhat endless and unproductive; game designers ought to focus on presenting a believable world; focusing on presenting tropes is how genres will sometimes become stuck in a rut, unless you are straight up going for satire.
The original post I was replying to specified full loot. Vendetta online does not have this?
Can someone list the successful open world free pvp with full loot games?
You have to define successful. I define successful as a game that is sustainable, therefore having the development budget and game maintenance being able to be sustained by the playerbase and revenue they generate for the game. This way, you can control for niche games that are successful, not just chasing the games with the most players (which often can fail even with a huge playerbase due to their huge costs).
Games that fit this bill, which are then successful:
* EVE
* Gloria Victis
* Mortal Online
Heading towards success:
* DarkFall: Rise of Agon (since it was released proper May 5, already has a big playerbase and always had a dedicated community)
As a separate category, games which have high hype levels, development has progressed to a decent level, and look to be sustainable in the future:
* Crowfall
Future, likely a ridiculously big budget attempt (finally):
* New World (By Amazon, might be 5 years until release though)
You should add to this Vendetta Online; it fits your criteria and I've been steadily playing since 2003. Not many games, AAA or otherwise, can claim that kind of longevity.
I can also think of one PvE only MMO that may not be doing so well: Ascent the Space Game.
At any rate, as I implied in my earlier post, I find the PvP / PvE debate somewhat endless and unproductive; game designers ought to focus on presenting a believable world; focusing on presenting tropes is how genres will sometimes become stuck in a rut, unless you are straight up going for satire.
The original post I was replying to specified full loot. Vendetta online does not have this?
Equipped items will usually be destroyed when the ship goes, but not always. Cargo survives in space for up to 15 minutes.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Can someone list the successful open world free pvp with full loot games?
You have to define successful. I define successful as a game that is sustainable, therefore having the development budget and game maintenance being able to be sustained by the playerbase and revenue they generate for the game. This way, you can control for niche games that are successful, not just chasing the games with the most players (which often can fail even with a huge playerbase due to their huge costs).
Games that fit this bill, which are then successful:
* EVE
* Gloria Victis
* Mortal Online
Heading towards success:
* DarkFall: Rise of Agon (since it was released proper May 5, already has a big playerbase and always had a dedicated community)
As a separate category, games which have high hype levels, development has progressed to a decent level, and look to be sustainable in the future:
* Crowfall
Future, likely a ridiculously big budget attempt (finally):
* New World (By Amazon, might be 5 years until release though)
You should add to this Vendetta Online; it fits your criteria and I've been steadily playing since 2003. Not many games, AAA or otherwise, can claim that kind of longevity.
I can also think of one PvE only MMO that may not be doing so well: Ascent the Space Game.
At any rate, as I implied in my earlier post, I find the PvP / PvE debate somewhat endless and unproductive; game designers ought to focus on presenting a believable world; focusing on presenting tropes is how genres will sometimes become stuck in a rut, unless you are straight up going for satire.
The original post I was replying to specified full loot. Vendetta online does not have this?
Can someone list the successful open world free pvp with full loot games?
I would like to see that list myself. I can't really think of any that have come out recently to be honest that have a player base over 500k which is the lowest I consider to be somewhat successful as an MMO. It's more of a niche with a smaller player base than many would like to believe.
Truth is, the only MMO that is what would be considered "successful" would be EVE. It has both solid numbers and longevity.
It has a lot to do with EVE being trendsetter game, so when it came out, it took that market share, and owned it hard. Wile other MMO's have came out, they simply don't have the market pull, and while they may recoup their production costs, (Which could classify them as a success) they remain surprisingly niche, and for some reason simply don't seem to have the the ability to retain their player base.
I'm gonna respectfully disagree with you, as a player, I am looking to play a game, not apply for college, I should not need to do 'research', I should be able to look at their opening page, and have a solid idea what this game is about and offers. The game developers should make it super clear exactly what it is about.
If it's about PvP, it should not try to pander off that it has things for PvE players, as that is just duping them into a what is, essentially, a PvP game.
Which, makes me wonder.. why do PvP players think that is acceptable?
I'm not sure what in life doesn't require some research "unless of course you are an easy going sort who enjoys being surprised".
Here's the thing, many times when I see a complaint it's because someone didn't bother finding out what they were getting into.
And you have to sort of pick your level of involvement. If "no pvp" is your thing then spend the x amount of minutes required to find that out.
Otherwise what you are saying is "well, I see things I like there couldn't POSSIBLY be anything that I dislike ... WHAT?!?!?! PVP?!?!?!? I've been tricked!
And that's just ridiculous when all one had to do was figure a few things out beforehand. Being informed is not applying for college. It's about being a responsible and informed consumer.
And as far as your last paragrah, pvp players aren't black and white in their likes and dislikes all the time. I love pvp and I also enjoy pve and fishing for some reason. Why should I have to settle for a game that just has pvp?
No, sorry, I followed Black Desert and in no way shape or form do I think people were being tricked. It was just too obvious for people who spent a small amount of time so that they were clear about what they were buying. So again, if you or anyone is buying something without figuring out what is involved then who is really responsible? Be an informed consumer and you will have less nasty surprises and more positive ones.
No, what I mean is, f your game is about PvP, not putting that out, an saying right on the opening page, you know, where you tell me all the fun features of your "Vast Open Worlds" "No Classes" "Skill based Combat" "Mounts!" "Gliding!" "Fishing!" "Build your own farm" 'Tame horses!".. all that fun stuff that they want to tell you, I don't think it's asking too much, that in the middle of all that hype, you should mention if there are things I should know about, like.. oh "Other players killing you and looting your corpse" for example...
I mean, would you like it if a game was all hype and forgot to mention little things, like "OH yah, if you so much as cuss in this game we will ban you"
If you're gonna make a PvP game, own up to that, say 'Hey this is PVP!" don't try to down play that, or conveniently forget to mention that on the opening page, otherwise, it's exactly as I said.. "Why you trying to sucker PvE players into your PvP games?"
If it's PvP.. make that very clear from the start, so everyone that does not feel the itch to be ganked, can move on something else.. is that really asking too much?
Can you actually show an example because I've never seen a game that had pvp that didn't say that it existed. Not a one.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I think as the title suggests, and how the OP makes the assumption that the main focus of a game is pve, and its not designed as a pvp game. therefore the pve part is a standalone, and pvp interferes
for example lets say you have a pvp instance, that has pve elements to make the instance more fun/dynamic, is that pve players with pvp players?
So while i can agree there are some designs that support the argument the OP is making, but in general as a point of debate it doesnt have to be the case
No. That is not what I am saying at all, what I am saying is, a game should own up to what it is.
If it's a game that ends with PvP, they should own up to that, if players can't opt out of the PvP, they should make that very clear from the start, that this is not a PvE game, that it is a PvP game with some PvE in it.
Not to mention, you see soo many people that for a game to be, it needs Open world PvP, then, they need to grasp that PvE players won't be playing that game, and then they fuss "but any game to be real needs to have PvP" thus, in their mind, Every game needs to have PvP.
There is no truth to this. They will hem and haw that PvP is good for PvE, and there is no truth to this either, look at games like GW2, and WoW, where they divide the communities, the PvE players like it that way, the Pvp players don't... now why is that?
Comments
I have yet to play a Themepark where I did not have to produce massive quantities of items at a loss to get to the point where I could produce items people would actually buy and use for more than the cost of the resources I used. I call that a crap crafting economy.
That's because I have played games like Darkfall where there is a constant churn of items through all tiers of play.
Crafters shouldn't just be gatherers. Crafters should be crafters. If resources are not cheaper than crafted items at all levels of play then there is a major failure going on within the crafting economy of the game. The only games I've seen where this isn't the case is Wurm, Darkfall, and EVE. All of which have Open World areas with loot drop and gear destruction or decay more significant than what is found in themeparks.
Ummm, EQ, which pretty much established MMO's as we know them today, was PvE.
Another Widely Successful MMO, that pretty much started the Trend of F2P games, was Dungeons and Dragons Online, which is also a PvE MMO.
Where other games marginalize it, like Lord of the Ring Online, Trove, both successful.
1. Gear loss and destruction / meaningful decay rates
2. Massive item drains that cause more loss than gains people are actually willing to participate in (PvP/Wars)
3. Significant time investment into the crafting process itself (AKA after resources are required)
Without all of those components working together the economy is greatly stunted with significant barrier to entry being a requirement to any kind of real profits down the road. Infact most players will never reach the point of turning significant profits from crafting.
So yeah. PvE players can whine that they can't access every area of the game in games where there are areas with Open World PvP and loot drop.
Or they can be content to still have free run of a lot of areas and an economy far better than they would ever see outside such a title.
I do agree that such areas are too small, and that there is not enough focus on the safe areas of the game in existing PvP titles. But I can't see people who are super upset about the inclusion of any true PvP areas into their games as anything but short sighted. Unless all you care about is instanced raiding and arenas there are massive benefits to real wars with meaningful losses being waged within your game world whether you directly participate in them or not.
I would like to see that list myself. I can't really think of any that have come out recently to be honest that have a player base over 500k which is the lowest I consider to be somewhat successful as an MMO. It's more of a niche with a smaller player base than many would like to believe.
EVE.
However it is important important to note that all of these games including EVE started with budgets comparable to themeparks suchs as ArcheLord and Knight Online.
Never heard of them? Not many people have. Open World PvP games tend to do better and attract far more devoted followings than regular theme parks made with similar budgets.
Star Citizen is going to be the first such game we see made with a similar budget to the major themeparks.
So the more obvious question is, why are PVEers scared to take a death?
And lemme just address ganking for a minute, since that seems to be a big issue when it comes to this topic. Everybody gets ganked sometimes. I don't care how good or beast or smart you might be, it's going to happen. Now personally when I get ganked, my immediate thought is how can I avoid getting ganked again, maybe Ill be more stealthy, go around them, go to a different area for awhile, get people together to beat the group, there are always a lot of choices available to solve the problem.
Now I have seen this myself hundreds of time, carebear gets ganked, doesn't even occur to them to consider all of those options I just mentioned. Nope, just runs directly in a straight line from the spawn point directly back into the area where they just got ganked by a bunch of people. And then of course they get ganked again, and they do the same thing, and so on, and so on. And eventually of course the carebear rages that they're being ganked repeatedly and how unfair it is in gen chat or the forums or whatever.
Is this how a 'PVEer' approaches a really strong mob that kicks their ass in PVE? I would hope not, or they're obviously and demonstrably stupid. You of course would adjust tactics or I dunno, maybe bring more people. But the real difference is, the PVEer doesn't handle other people the same way they would a mob in PVE. Because they know there is a real life living person back there beating them, they can't.....fucking......handle it.
They think that just by will alone, their will and wants are so important that they 'should' be able to go directly back into that area, where a dozen of their fellow players just told them 'no' because they are special, and more important than that dozen or so players. So really, I don't want to hear any arguments about how PVEers are the bigger group and PVPers should just get the point. No, the PVEer thinks they are more important and special irrespective of the situation or how many people are involved on either side. So get over it.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!
If people want to play with others (with, not against) then there isn't a lot of options. Outside of MMOs, you've got single player games with co-op modes or games like Minecraft where you can set up your own servers with rules.
I agree PvE is an MMORPG's biggest strength.
The answer is simple.
For PvP to work, you need Wolves, and you need Sheep.
PvP'ers are supposed to be the Wolves, PvE'ers are supposed to be the Sheep.
If no PvE'ers play the game, then some PvP'ers need to be Sheep instead of Wolves, and PvP'ers do not want or like to be Sheep.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
It seems to me that anybody who enjoys PvP automatically gets classed as a PvPer, even if they enjoy both, so I expect the question is somewhat biased.
I'm the sort of player who enjoys both activities. I love endgame group PvE, primarily for the social aspect as it is a great bonding experience for guild members but dungeons and raids tend to be where you find the most challenging pve content and I love fighting "big" enemies, and raid bosses tend to be pretty cool looking.
That said, I'd never play an MMO that didn't have PvP. Outside of endgame group pve, I tend to find most PvE really dull. The leveling experience is usually terrible so I'm not the sort of guy who has many alts unless the combat system is good, so usually after 3 months my main (and only) character is fully geared up, has completed all the quests and usually any achievements I want to do, so endgame pve and pvp is all I have left.
When I was playing SW:TOR, for example, the leveling experience was so horrifically bad I couldn't level alts. My main was geared up 4 weeks after launch, then had full raid set within a month. So, 2 months after launch I literally had nothing left to do on my main except PvP and repeat the raids with my guild. The raids only took 1 night a week due to their ease, so without the PvP I would have quit (along with half my guild).
As to why I want to see PvE and PvP in all MMOs? Two reasons. The first is retention. MMOs that offer a wide breadth of gameplay choices keep peoples interests longer. You need lots of activities so that when a player gets bored of one, they can continue to play the game in a different way. Games with a narrow focus may do one or two features really well, but everyone eventually gets bored. When I was playing LotRO, for example, that game has a ton of features so even though I'd spend the majority of my gametime either in dungeons, raids or pvping, at least one night a week I just wouldn't be in the mood. Instead of logging off, I'd go off and do some crafting, or level an alt, or play some music, or mess around with the cosmetic system etc. By keeping me in game, they are increasing my attachment to it and kept me playing for longer, but I also provided value to other players, mostly just through socialising with my guild and keeping them happy and engaged, but also by chatting to newbies, selling stuff on the action house etc. Finally on this point, diverse communities are generally the most robust and pleasant. By mixing soloers, groupers, raiders, pvpers, crafters, roleplayers and everyone else in the community, the community becomes stronger and more inviting.
The second reason is just selfish. IPs tend not to get repeated within the MMO industry - there is only one star wars mmo, only one lord of the rings mmo etc. My desire to live in a fantasy world that I recognise tends to come before knowledge of features. I love star wars, so really want a good star wars MMO, so naturally I am going to push for the MMO to include features that I want to play. Its not like RPGs where I have a few options, or action games where there are loads of star wars games, or shooters or RTS's - MMOs only get one. If the game sucks, as I believe SW:TOR does, then its tough luck for me. Its also not as if I just have to wait 6 months or a year for the next game to come out, I'll likely have to wait a minimum of 5 years but chances are another one won't release for 10-15 years.
MAGA
They hate separate servers because they still want to have a full feeling world. It's not PVE's asking for shared servers it's always pvps.
You do see pvp and PVE in most mmo's so what's the problem.
PvP servers and PVE servers, problem solved.
for example lets say you have a pvp instance, that has pve elements to make the instance more fun/dynamic, is that pve players with pvp players?
So while i can agree there are some designs that support the argument the OP is making, but in general as a point of debate it doesnt have to be the case
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Firstly, separate servers doesn't solve anything except in games that allow non-consensual open world pvp, but those are few and far between.
Secondly, I don't have a problem mixing pvp and pve as my post states. The OP asked for reasons why anybody would want the two communities mixed, so I gave my reasons. Kind of how a conversation works....
Follow my Blog at: http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/123bentilador
You have to define successful. I define successful as a game that is sustainable, therefore having the development budget and game maintenance being able to be sustained by the playerbase and revenue they generate for the game. This way, you can control for niche games that are successful, not just chasing the games with the most players (which often can fail even with a huge playerbase due to their huge costs).
Games that fit this bill, which are then successful:
* EVE
* Gloria Victis
* Mortal Online
Heading towards success:
* DarkFall: Rise of Agon (since it was released proper May 5, already has a big playerbase and always had a dedicated community)
As a separate category, games which have high hype levels, development has progressed to a decent level, and look to be sustainable in the future:
* Crowfall
Future, likely a ridiculously big budget attempt (finally):
* New World (By Amazon, might be 5 years until release though)
I don't want anyone in them who is a zealot about one of the two and wants to do away with the other type. They're toxic.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
You should add to this Vendetta Online; it fits your criteria and I've been steadily playing since 2003. Not many games, AAA or otherwise, can claim that kind of longevity.
I can also think of one PvE only MMO that may not be doing so well: Ascent the Space Game.
At any rate, as I implied in my earlier post, I find the PvP / PvE debate somewhat endless and unproductive; game designers ought to focus on presenting a believable world; focusing on presenting tropes is how genres will sometimes become stuck in a rut, unless you are straight up going for satire.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
The original post I was replying to specified full loot. Vendetta online does not have this?
It does.
If I am careless, a pirate could destroy my Behemoth XC carrying a 200 megawatt toroidal hyperplasma reactor and claim it for herself.
Equipped items will usually be destroyed when the ship goes, but not always. Cargo survives in space for up to 15 minutes.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Cool. Thanks for the data point.
Truth is, the only MMO that is what would be considered "successful" would be EVE. It has both solid numbers and longevity.
It has a lot to do with EVE being trendsetter game, so when it came out, it took that market share, and owned it hard. Wile other MMO's have came out, they simply don't have the market pull, and while they may recoup their production costs, (Which could classify them as a success) they remain surprisingly niche, and for some reason simply don't seem to have the the ability to retain their player base.
Can you actually show an example because I've never seen a game that had pvp that didn't say that it existed. Not a one.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
No. That is not what I am saying at all, what I am saying is, a game should own up to what it is.
If it's a game that ends with PvP, they should own up to that, if players can't opt out of the PvP, they should make that very clear from the start, that this is not a PvE game, that it is a PvP game with some PvE in it.
Not to mention, you see soo many people that for a game to be, it needs Open world PvP, then, they need to grasp that PvE players won't be playing that game, and then they fuss "but any game to be real needs to have PvP" thus, in their mind, Every game needs to have PvP.
There is no truth to this. They will hem and haw that PvP is good for PvE, and there is no truth to this either, look at games like GW2, and WoW, where they divide the communities, the PvE players like it that way, the Pvp players don't... now why is that?