Games or servers that force me to PvP to get the good rewards don't get my subscription money thats how I make my statement. As game designers, if you want me to invest my time and money in your game then you need to provide me the PvE non-group oriented content I'm looking for fail to do that and then you simply don't get my money. Some of you are going to flame and say then go play a stand alone or some such nonsense, thats not the point. People like to be around people, that doesn't equate to wanting to getting 40 of them to do the same thing you want to do. What it means is that even though we might not be working toward the same goal we are at least there and by being there we can open a door for someone, lend a hand if needed and then go about our business. Cooperative game play and a sense of community thats what I look for in a game, to bad there really aren't any out there anymore.
I'm not trying to flame you, but moreso trying to understand you. You want to play an MMO where you don't group with other people and you don't PvP?
I just don't understand this concept. You want to pay 19.99 per month or whatever, just so you can play a single player game with other people doing the same thing around you? Where is the sense of community in that? What goals are there to achieve other than to look cool? At what point do you feel as if you accomplished something or done something to effect the game and other players? These are all essential to an MMO.
You're actually the first person I've ever heard say that, so please enlighten me
I understand where he is coming from. I tend to be an introverted MMO player (sounds like an oxy-moron). I solo most of the time, rarely have I joined a guild and typically group only when necessary. I do however like having the option to do all of the above. I like seeing other people running around.....I also like chatting with other players. I just don't want to be obligated in any way shape or form......I want to do my own thing. I actually enjoy helping out other players pretty much any way I can......it doesn't mean I want to join their club or even spend time playing with them afterwards.
PvP, I like it. I just don't like being forced to group or join a guild to get a fair shake. PotBS is an excellent example. Initially I was able to PvP quite effectively. Taking on higher level players or multiple opponents was a blast.....even when I got my ass whipped. Soon after release it was impossible to find a remotely fair fight due to the grouping. Meh.....I'm not bellyaching.....I know this is how MMO PvP seems to be. I just miss the SWG bounty hunter profession......was some of the best PvP for the soloist I've ever experienced.
Originally posted by sonicsix ...the many PvP games out there flounder since they obviously don't have the one feature YOU want. It could be amazing except for [insert your special pvp rule here] so you won't play that one. ...in games that offer both PvE and PvP, PvE population GREATLY outnumbers PvP population. Then you end up trying to balance PvP and end up ruining PvE. ...in Games like Cabal Online where you have 3 PvE servers and 14 or so PvP servers, you can hardly get on a PvE server due to it being full, the PvP servers are sparsely populated and the FFA PvP server is a ghost town. It just seems odd that many people don't realize that PvP is a horrible idea when trying to appeal to the masses. You can make the absolute best game in the world with every feature anyone could dream of and then you add PvP and you kill it. PvE'ers (those that pay the bills) simply won't give the game a second look. Why is this so hard to understand?
People like you just don't realize that PvP needs to be handled right and done right for people to flock to it. If it's just one big giant stupid gankfest then it will not draw that many people. Please understand that people want a sane and solid PvP system. Games like EVE and DAOC are a good examples of what solid PvP games should play like.
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
Look at Eve Online. It is such a well made game, with lots of critical acclaim. However, it is PvP-centric and while it is making money, it has no where close to the success of WOW, or even Guild Wars. I believe its PvP-centric-ness is a factor. If it has a PvE centric component, it probably will be at least 10x more successful.
Just to point out eve is the only game made pre-2004 that is still growing in population... kind of throws a kink in your argument.
Look at Eve Online. It is such a well made game, with lots of critical acclaim. However, it is PvP-centric and while it is making money, it has no where close to the success of WOW, or even Guild Wars. I believe its PvP-centric-ness is a factor. If it has a PvE centric component, it probably will be at least 10x more successful.
Just to point out eve is the only game made pre-2004 that is still growing in population... kind of throws a kink in your argument.
Its a pvp game... thats growing....
Sure it is growing. But growing != successful in the market place. It can grow at 10 new players a day for the 10 years and it won't make it into the big leagues.
Growing is great only when it is growing at a rate that it can capture a substantial part of the market. It has been out for how long and how many players does it have? 200k? 300k?
While i am sure it is making money, that is no where close to the numbers of bigger MMOs (not even LOTR).
Games or servers that force me to PvP to get the good rewards don't get my subscription money thats how I make my statement. As game designers, if you want me to invest my time and money in your game then you need to provide me the PvE non-group oriented content I'm looking for fail to do that and then you simply don't get my money. Some of you are going to flame and say then go play a stand alone or some such nonsense, thats not the point. People like to be around people, that doesn't equate to wanting to getting 40 of them to do the same thing you want to do. What it means is that even though we might not be working toward the same goal we are at least there and by being there we can open a door for someone, lend a hand if needed and then go about our business. Cooperative game play and a sense of community thats what I look for in a game, to bad there really aren't any out there anymore.
I'm not trying to flame you, but moreso trying to understand you. You want to play an MMO where you don't group with other people and you don't PvP?
I just don't understand this concept. You want to pay 19.99 per month or whatever, just so you can play a single player game with other people doing the same thing around you? Where is the sense of community in that? What goals are there to achieve other than to look cool? At what point do you feel as if you accomplished something or done something to effect the game and other players? These are all essential to an MMO.
You're actually the first person I've ever heard say that, so please enlighten me
Then you should look around and read the different forums more often. He is not the first to feel this way. There are alot of us who don't need our e-peens stroked to have fun in an mmo. Contrary to what you may believe, PvE is there for more than just a way for you to level your toon so you can PvP. Some of us don't need to be in a guild or group with every person we see to contribute to the community, or to enjoy the community. The single-mindedness of your post represents one of the things that causes alot of people to just plainly not care about PvPers.
And just FYI, PvP is a BIG MARKET. Bigger than most think. We are here. We're all just waiting for something to tickle our fancy. Pre-Ren UO was built on it's PvP foundation. AC was built on it's PvP. Shadowbane was built on it's PvP foundation. Even Star Wars Galaxies was built on it's PvP foundation.
All of these games have changed vastly since they started because gaming companies are sell-outs and drool at the thought of getting a few more subscribers. PvPers are long term players. We build communities and play the game to play against other people. PvE players play the game and then have nothing left to do once they have seen it all. You reach the cap and get all your cool armor and are left wondering what to do. If a single game could capture the PvP market the way WoW has captured the PvE market, it would dominate MMOs, and probably have the most outstanding long-term player base ever. The only problem is that no game company has really figured out how to do it.
Care to back up your claim with some evidence? I don't think I will believe it just because you said so.
UO & EQ came out around the same time. EQ has a MUCH larger subscriber base than UO. What is the difference? EQ is more PvE-centric than UO. (Granted the graphics style is also different, but at least PvP is one factor).
And I will argue that these games changed (not all successfully) in response to the market. Developers don't just change things drastically. Tell me, did the UO subscription increases AFTER the change?
I haven't even pointed the most successful MMO in the history of MMOs, which is also a PvE centric game.
Look at Eve Online. It is such a well made game, with lots of critical acclaim. However, it is PvP-centric and while it is making money, it has no where close to the success of WOW, or even Guild Wars. I believe its PvP-centric-ness is a factor. If it has a PvE centric component, it probably will be at least 10x more successful.
I love it when people say crap like this, when the whole premise (PVE > PVP) has no evidence to back it up either.
It's really a stretch to call WoW a "PVE-centric" game, when half the servers are open PVP, and most people spend a significant amount of time PVPing.
____________________________________________ im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
What a pointless, beaten to death arguement this topic is. I think I see one of these flame threads weekly. Who is better the PvP or PvE? What is better the Mac or the PC? Wendys or McDs? Baked or deep fried?
PvE-centricism is NOT the reason successful games are successful. It has much more to do with accessibility, usability, mechanics, and marketing.
Now use those four qualities to compare EVE to WoW. WoW is easily the most accessible and usable MMO out there with a massive marketing budget from a developer with huge positive public perception.
An MMORPG's success (or lack of) doesn't boil down to a single component. To say so is completely absurd. Marketing alone is the most telling requisite of a successful game. Much more influencial than a PVE vs. PVP decision.
If you want some true hardcore PvP, make it yourself by improvising with games that wouldn't normally have hardcore PvP. Remember playing hardcore mode on diablo 2? PvPing got your adrenaline flowing like no other because you knew if your character died, it would stay that way. Some people do this on any game.
Keeping a positive score on Counter-Strike with knife only is probably my favorite hardcore PvP. People will see how much fun you are having they will start copying you. Don't forget about all those SMG's nobody uses like the TMP and MAC-10. Start raping faces with any weapon, class, skill, etc. that people don't normally use and watch how many people do the same.
Edit: I thought I was replying to someone who said eve online had hardcore PvP (Yes, the game with awesome content and gameplay that cures insomnia.) in the "Runescape PvP the best?" thread. It's almost relevant so I'm leaving it here. I can't locate the delete button anyways. I'll write something more on board with this thread now:
There isn't really a big selection of games that are heavily PvP orientated. Other factors that make a game enjoyable are probably not satisfying these hardcore PvPers that apparently aren't playing these games. Other factors such as controlling, customization, or just general content could be making or breaking these games. I myself am guilty of hating almost all of the highest ranked free MMORPGs on the list because I am picky about character controlling. If I can't strafe circles around targets while attacking and jumping simultaneously in 3D games, I feel restricted with character controlling because I play melee classes if possible. I have no interest in games with boring combat.
Also, you should initially play PvE briefly if possible as to not make a fool of oneself in the PvP section. You know, play easy mode first? Cabal for north america did come out recently, and maybe all those people are still using the same mentality? I didn't like cabal. I don't think it had strafing and if it did, it was horrible. Cabal had WASD movement, which I like, but as soon as I moved while I was attacking it stopped attacking which is inferior to games like GW and WoW.
I like Flysis online (formerly known as Space Cowboy Online) and that has forced PvP. The shoot-em-up combat is fun. It's a MMO space shooter. It has FPS controlling that uses mouse for aiming and keyboard for strafing, brakes, boosting, and skills for combat that is level, stat, item, and skill based. It has forced PvP in the contested maps, which most of them are, and makes the factions have lots of wars.
What I notice a lot is the PvP arguments are always underscored with the person who dies losing something like items. I don't think people need to lose items when they die for people to having
fun PvPing.
You couldn't get me to play a current MMO if I had the possiblity of losing everything. To me that is not
fun.
Diablo pulled off hardcore mode because it was pretty easy to gear up a character.
The problem with most "PvP" games is it's actually a PvE game with PvP thrown in.
A good PvP game will be built for PvP from the ground up, every aspect will serve that purpose, from crafting to economy to objectives to leveling, they all have to serve the PvP God.
Having to kill dumb NPC's for 70 levels before you can be competative, or having to raid to get +5 sword of ownage before you can PvP is LAME.
In my mind Eve is THE best PvP mmo out today.
Not perfect. Lots of features I want are missing. But its the closest thing to a PvP mmo out there today.
The PvP genre has not gotten its "WoW" yet, nobody has gotten the mechanics just right.
As the market develops and game design evolves, there will be true PvP MMORPG's someday that will give us what we want and cut out everything we hate, the same way WoW did for the PVE genre.
What I notice a lot is the PvP arguments are always underscored with the person who dies losing something like items. I don't think people need to lose items when they die for people to having
fun PvPing. You couldn't get me to play a current MMO if I had the possiblity of losing everything. To me that is not
fun.
Diablo pulled off hardcore mode because it was pretty easy to gear up a character.
Well the trick is #1 not to have any "unique" items in the game that cannot be replaced. Everything should be craftable, so a person can go to his hideout, craft his armor, sword, etc, gear up, and go out to have some fun.
The reward for winning is having more spare equipment.
The penalty for losing is having to go mine/gather and get new equipment.
This way people lose stuff, but nobody ever hits unrecoverable rock-bottom.
As I said, I believe Eve is almost the perfect PvP game. When you lose your ship you get insurance (eases the loss), also stuff is easy to manufacture, lots of ppl build their own ships/gear and go out PvPing.
What I notice a lot is the PvP arguments are always underscored with the person who dies losing something like items. I don't think people need to lose items when they die for people to having
fun PvPing. You couldn't get me to play a current MMO if I had the possiblity of losing everything. To me that is not
fun.
Diablo pulled off hardcore mode because it was pretty easy to gear up a character.
This is a very WoW-centric viewpoint to full loot PvP. For a game to be even remotely successful as a fully open PvP game with full looting it couldn't be a gear centric game like most of the games out today(WoW is just one of many with this "Grind for gear" mentality). Gear would have to be basic and very easily replaceable. A game designed to incorporate this type of PvP would have to be a skill based system where player skill would be the most important aspect of the game. This would mean that there wouldn't be any "+10 Swords of Ultimate Uberness" and while still slightly annoying getting looted after loosing in PvP would only be a minor setback as nobody will be able to "Loot your skill". Runescape, Eve online and the slowly developing game Darkfall all have this aspect of PvP incorporated into them and in fact the whole game is designed around this. You are right that this type of PvP would never work in a PvE game that has had PvP grafted on to it as an afterthought as it would drive people away in droves because of the gear centric design of these games. However a game that is written to incorporate this aspect from day one can not only be enjoyable for anyone but very successful as losing all of what your carrying/wearing would be no great loss and easily replaceable.
Edit: There is a very common saying in EVE that applies to all full loot PvP games....."Only take out what you're willing to lose."
Carebears need to get over themselves. You had a solid 10 year strangle hold on the genre when you never deserved it in the first place. You were just a few hundred thousand nerds whose collective whining at the start of it all forced millions of others to endure your poor tastes as the market grew.
But guess what? It's all over now. The genre is mainstream and you can't convince everyone else that PvE is as great as you say. The dopes who buy the same Madden game every year, the socially starved folks who play all those interactive group games while tossing back a few, over a decades worth of burned out FPS gamers, and all those mischievous young children... they're all here now and they can't be convinced of carebear superiority. They're rebelling and it scares you.
Just go crawl back under your respective rocks and dust off some of those old RPGs where I guarantee no one will ever force you to play with anyone else.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
Look at Eve Online. It is such a well made game, with lots of critical acclaim. However, it is PvP-centric and while it is making money, it has no where close to the success of WOW, or even Guild Wars. I believe its PvP-centric-ness is a factor. If it has a PvE centric component, it probably will be at least 10x more successful.
Just to point out eve is the only game made pre-2004 that is still growing in population... kind of throws a kink in your argument.
Its a pvp game... thats growing....
Sure it is growing. But growing != successful in the market place. It can grow at 10 new players a day for the 10 years and it won't make it into the big leagues.
Growing is great only when it is growing at a rate that it can capture a substantial part of the market. It has been out for how long and how many players does it have? 200k? 300k?
While i am sure it is making money, that is no where close to the numbers of bigger MMOs (not even LOTR).
I liked the post by the guy who suggested two different rulesets one for PvE and one for PvP, so that the seperate elements of the game can be balanced with out disturbing each other. This mirrors my own thoughts on the subject of balancing.
PvP is a very large and popular persuit in MMO games any company that does not address this gameplay is missing a trick. If you would like evidence of the scale of players who like to PvP, all you need to realise is that 2/3 WoW servers use the PvP ruleset.
While I think WoW is desperately short of battlegrounds and could do with about ten or twenty more, (it's no use having too many and never being able to find a full one), I think they have addressed the PvP / PvE balance very well, with seperate gear sets and skillset for each.
This gives the player the opportunity to focus his development eitherway, and indeed cross over between the two on whimsy.
I myself don't get off on PvP in RPG games. I tend to play shooters, sims or RTS for PvP. Balance is something I valuje very highly for in my PvP and the RPG is fundamentally unable to provide it for me.Not to mention that none of the gameplay in current MMO's really floats my boat. It's all too simple.
Button mashers in which combat is principally decided by your statiscal data as opposed to your stealth, spacial awareness, alertness and tactical understanding. (In the end, no matter how clever you play, the level 50 guy beats the 30 consistently, the maths decides the fight).
MMO's substitute gameplay for social. So I simply play different games, instead of one big game with lots of mini games designed to cater for everyone.
That said, all my favourite PvP games have a solid single player or Co-operative experience. I quite simply can't be bothered to PvP all day and night.
Even though I don't ever PvP in MMORPG's, I do want it present in game, and if it is there I want it to be good. The reason is, lots of my friends enjoy it. I play MMO's for the social element, so in order for all my friends to remain intrested their preferences must be catered for.
An MMO simply must cater for multiple tastes to get enough players to be "Massive". The less a game caters to either prefence the less eclectic the playerbase becomes, the less likely I and all my friends are to stick with it.
There is a balance to be struck and any purely PvP game isn't going to cut it any more than any purely PvE game is.
One of my friends plays a lot of Eve. I play a little bit, but the PvE content is so sparse, that I only play intermittently and despite enjoying my social contact with him through this medium, I don't do it very often. (Becasue I complete the content and get bored).
Another of my friends plays WoW, (and PvP's incessantly), and I have a lot longer contact with him through this game. (Despite me being a space sim fan and finding fantasy quite boring). The reason? There is plenty of PvE for me in WoW. There is also plenty of soloing content for me to do when he is off raiding. It takes me months to complete all the content in WoW that appeals to me.
I need games to cater to both.
Pure PvP in an RPG is pointless. The genre is defined by it's world full of NPC's. They set the theme and the scenario in which to role play. They are a quintessential part of the formula. They define the world in which the avatars "live".
If every elf I meet is some smack talker just trying to provoke people or gloat after his victories, this isn't a world I wish to persist. This isn't even a social circle I am willing to participate in. PvE sets the framework for the persistent world. Games like City of Heroes and Warcraft with their good humored and fun orientated worlds are nice places to hang out and meet people. They attract a more light hearted crowd.
Eve on the other hand attracts more of the "I'm a hardcore gamer" types. You know the ones, the people that think being "hardcore" is cool. That want to hang out with other hardcore players and all be hard together. (Disclaimer: I know and enjoy the company of many excellent and good humoured Eve players).
That has exactly the same flaws just a different presentation. The difference is cosmetic only. In a persistent world with onging character progression, balanced PvP can not occour.
A good skill based system totally does away with this need for "class" balancing. Everyone has the opportunity to gain the same skills if they choose and any balancing is done by the player themselves. Also a "good" skill based system will have limits on the number of skills any one character can max out to do away with the "Jack of all trades" type builds. Skills are numerous but useless/redundant skills are kept to a minimum and every Skill/Action has an appropriate counter Skill/Action that can be preformed if known by any given character. This not only will limit the amount of "Uber" template cookie cutter builds but will also make the game have a large variety of different "classes" and almost no build will be totally useless or "Bad". With a system like this in place it throws the whole "Class Balancing" debate right out of the window.
In a level/class based MMO, PvP should work on a different system than PvE. In PvE, Your gear, stats, etc determine your ability to survive. PvP should be treated like a FPS, where even if you have 4600 HP in PvE, you only have 100% in PvP. Spells/damage abilities can work off the % system as well, with each taking/giving %s, not dice roll points. Would this mean that a level 20 might be able to take down a level 70? Yes.
But, that level 20 will have far less skills/spells/abilities than the level 70, making the fight a little harder. It would be like a civilian taking on a seasoned Marine with years of combat training. Even though said Marine has all the skills, the civilian can still get lucky and take him out. It would make PvP a lot more challenging and a hell of a lot more fun. There would be more skill involved in picking your battles, not the 1 sided "we have the higher levels and the gear" system we see in most all MMO PvP today. It would also allow for even larger scale PvP battles. You wouldnt limited to the level brackets and ranges.
PvE: All gear, spells, skills, abilities would be stat based. HP/Mana/Armor/etc would be based on points.
PvP: All gear, spells, skills, abilities would be based off %. HP/Mana/Armor/etc would be based on a 100% system.
A level 20 dueling a level 70 (both just using auto attack) would be a fair fight. If using skills/spells/abilities, the 70 would have a greater chance because he would know more skills, etc than the level 20.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
14% of a small number is still a small number. Quote from the article YOU linked to:
"the active player base hit 220,000 users, all co-existing in the same unsharded universe, and that's estimated to rise to 250,000 by the end of June 2008."
So 250k by summer 2008. I would not call that anything but niche. It is 1/40 (2.5%) of WOW's population .. if WOW does not grow more by then). It is not close to the numbers of any of the big names (Guild Wars, Lineage ....). While I am sure it still makes money, it is not one of the big boys.
I was playing UO when it got split and Trammel was made. All the so called hard core pvp'rs started crying that there wasn't anything to do anymore. My thought was, if there are so many "ard" pvp'rs, then why aren't they in Fellucca beating the crap outa each other? Probably because there wasn't as many pvp'rs as they'd like to claim, AND the ones that did like to pvp more likely than not preferred attacking and ganking people that really wanted nothing to do with them. Well that's your opinion, now here's mine (as a long time UO vet). Once the split happened I went to Trammel because I could farm gold AFK and never had to worry about getting attacked by someone else. I held an entire dungeon level by myself farming gold and there wasn't anything anyone could do about it. Trammel for me, was a way to make money. It also ruined the game. It made it way too easy to do everything. Then after I got done farming gold I would hop over to Felucca to kill some reds with all of my soulbound Vanquishing weapons that I bought with all of the easily acquired gold. The reason there was no one in Felucca is because it was way too easy to go back and forth between the two worlds. If it was a permanent switch (you had to choose either Fel or Tram and you could never switch back, or maybe only once a year) then I guarantee that there would have been a lot more people in Felucca. (Edit: Another reason that a lot of people migrated to Trammel is because of the abundance of available housing space. Where in Felucca housing locations had been dried up for a long time, especially for the bigger houses, Trammel was a clean slate. A lot of guilds placed their guild houses and towers in Trammel because there was no room left in Felucca, I know mine did.)
You're trying to use the circumstances of the game to make your point. My point is that the game had a pretty big player base, even before Trammel, a much better economy, and it was substantially more fun. That didn't apply to any of the asian servers I played on, hell Felluca was busy all the freakin' time, it was Trammel that was the ghost town more often than not. So then you're admitting that there is a big PvP player base on the Asian servers? After spending time in UO and finishing school, I got hired into a in game tech support position for another game company. Out of curiosity and a bet with a few other agents we decided to find out if there were as many pvp'rs as the whines on the forums claimed.
We randomly polled 1000 people- 83% of those we questioned said they didn't want anything to do with pvp. 5% of the remainder only pvp because they felt they had to in order to stay in their guild or play with their friends, the remainder said that's all they really wanted to do was to pvp. Well that doesn't really make any sense. You just told me that there was a lot of PvPers on the Asian severs. Did you poll people from Asian countries as well? 1000 people isn't a very good cross section of 10 million + players it's not even 1%. Also you polled 1000 random people.. but I'm guessing that these were people on the forums for the game you were working on... so if it wasn't a PvP-centric game then the results are going to be skewed anyways. It's like me going to Burger King and asking 1000 people if they like Burger King or McDonalds better. 83% might say that they like Burger King better, where if I went to McDonalds the results might be reversed. What I'm basically saying is your statistics mean nothing.
After spending 7.5 years in the mmo industry, those numbers stayed consistent with minor fluxes based on the type of game and expansions etc. Are these results published anywhere? Because I would love to see them. Go figure My thoughts exactly.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
Pvp can excell but noone has yet to hit the right forumla for it. DOAC was average at best , Guild Wars has had its success, probably the most successful pvp we have had in a long time but it still does not have a long lasting appeal to players. Companies who try pvp never reward pvpers good enough, there is always constant balance issues and pvp has no major depth to it. The masses simply enjoy pve alot more cause they like to adventure, build their characters and find nice gear for their characters.
I'm still waiting for a pvp (rvr) type game that effects the pve game. Quests your side can only do if you own outposts. Wow suggested this but the idea never materialized and was marginallized into BGs. Imagine if crossroads could be captured. And alliance newbs could go there and do quests for interesting, even better loots.
The O.P. has obviously never heard of games like counter strike, unreal tournament and so on. They are not MMO's by any means but they are PvP games that are hugely successfull.
NcSoft's Lineage series is a popular pvp mmo and will hopefully see a revival once it gets ported to the ps3. In WoW and Guild Wars there is possibly just as many players who play for the limmited PvP as there are those who just Role Play.
You can argue all you want that people play x amount of games for pve not for pvp but you can never deny that the PvP market is desperately seeking a quality PvP mmorpg to flock to (sadly Fury failed to live up the hype). If the day of deliverance ever comes then you can bet the farm on that game becoming just as big as WoW.
Comments
I just don't understand this concept. You want to pay 19.99 per month or whatever, just so you can play a single player game with other people doing the same thing around you? Where is the sense of community in that? What goals are there to achieve other than to look cool? At what point do you feel as if you accomplished something or done something to effect the game and other players? These are all essential to an MMO.
You're actually the first person I've ever heard say that, so please enlighten me
I understand where he is coming from. I tend to be an introverted MMO player (sounds like an oxy-moron). I solo most of the time, rarely have I joined a guild and typically group only when necessary. I do however like having the option to do all of the above. I like seeing other people running around.....I also like chatting with other players. I just don't want to be obligated in any way shape or form......I want to do my own thing. I actually enjoy helping out other players pretty much any way I can......it doesn't mean I want to join their club or even spend time playing with them afterwards.PvP, I like it. I just don't like being forced to group or join a guild to get a fair shake. PotBS is an excellent example. Initially I was able to PvP quite effectively. Taking on higher level players or multiple opponents was a blast.....even when I got my ass whipped. Soon after release it was impossible to find a remotely fair fight due to the grouping. Meh.....I'm not bellyaching.....I know this is how MMO PvP seems to be. I just miss the SWG bounty hunter profession......was some of the best PvP for the soloist I've ever experienced.
~Hairysun~
http://www.straightdope.com/
People like you just don't realize that PvP needs to be handled right and done right for people to flock to it. If it's just one big giant stupid gankfest then it will not draw that many people. Please understand that people want a sane and solid PvP system. Games like EVE and DAOC are a good examples of what solid PvP games should play like.
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
Game(s) I Am Currently Playing:
GW2 (+LoL and BF3)
Its a pvp game... thats growing....
Its a pvp game... thats growing....
Sure it is growing. But growing != successful in the market place. It can grow at 10 new players a day for the 10 years and it won't make it into the big leagues.
Growing is great only when it is growing at a rate that it can capture a substantial part of the market. It has been out for how long and how many players does it have? 200k? 300k?
While i am sure it is making money, that is no where close to the numbers of bigger MMOs (not even LOTR).
I just don't understand this concept. You want to pay 19.99 per month or whatever, just so you can play a single player game with other people doing the same thing around you? Where is the sense of community in that? What goals are there to achieve other than to look cool? At what point do you feel as if you accomplished something or done something to effect the game and other players? These are all essential to an MMO.
You're actually the first person I've ever heard say that, so please enlighten me
Then you should look around and read the different forums more often. He is not the first to feel this way. There are alot of us who don't need our e-peens stroked to have fun in an mmo. Contrary to what you may believe, PvE is there for more than just a way for you to level your toon so you can PvP. Some of us don't need to be in a guild or group with every person we see to contribute to the community, or to enjoy the community. The single-mindedness of your post represents one of the things that causes alot of people to just plainly not care about PvPers.
Care to back up your claim with some evidence? I don't think I will believe it just because you said so.
UO & EQ came out around the same time. EQ has a MUCH larger subscriber base than UO. What is the difference? EQ is more PvE-centric than UO. (Granted the graphics style is also different, but at least PvP is one factor).
And I will argue that these games changed (not all successfully) in response to the market. Developers don't just change things drastically. Tell me, did the UO subscription increases AFTER the change?
I haven't even pointed the most successful MMO in the history of MMOs, which is also a PvE centric game.
Look at Eve Online. It is such a well made game, with lots of critical acclaim. However, it is PvP-centric and while it is making money, it has no where close to the success of WOW, or even Guild Wars. I believe its PvP-centric-ness is a factor. If it has a PvE centric component, it probably will be at least 10x more successful.
I love it when people say crap like this, when the whole premise (PVE > PVP) has no evidence to back it up either.It's really a stretch to call WoW a "PVE-centric" game, when half the servers are open PVP, and most people spend a significant amount of time PVPing.
____________________________________________
im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
What a pointless, beaten to death arguement this topic is. I think I see one of these flame threads weekly. Who is better the PvP or PvE? What is better the Mac or the PC? Wendys or McDs? Baked or deep fried?
Boxers or Thongs?
Correlation doesn't imply causation.
PvE-centricism is NOT the reason successful games are successful. It has much more to do with accessibility, usability, mechanics, and marketing.
Now use those four qualities to compare EVE to WoW. WoW is easily the most accessible and usable MMO out there with a massive marketing budget from a developer with huge positive public perception.
An MMORPG's success (or lack of) doesn't boil down to a single component. To say so is completely absurd. Marketing alone is the most telling requisite of a successful game. Much more influencial than a PVE vs. PVP decision.
If you want some true hardcore PvP, make it yourself by improvising with games that wouldn't normally have hardcore PvP. Remember playing hardcore mode on diablo 2? PvPing got your adrenaline flowing like no other because you knew if your character died, it would stay that way. Some people do this on any game.
Keeping a positive score on Counter-Strike with knife only is probably my favorite hardcore PvP. People will see how much fun you are having they will start copying you. Don't forget about all those SMG's nobody uses like the TMP and MAC-10. Start raping faces with any weapon, class, skill, etc. that people don't normally use and watch how many people do the same.
Edit: I thought I was replying to someone who said eve online had hardcore PvP (Yes, the game with awesome content and gameplay that cures insomnia.) in the "Runescape PvP the best?" thread. It's almost relevant so I'm leaving it here. I can't locate the delete button anyways. I'll write something more on board with this thread now:
There isn't really a big selection of games that are heavily PvP orientated. Other factors that make a game enjoyable are probably not satisfying these hardcore PvPers that apparently aren't playing these games. Other factors such as controlling, customization, or just general content could be making or breaking these games. I myself am guilty of hating almost all of the highest ranked free MMORPGs on the list because I am picky about character controlling. If I can't strafe circles around targets while attacking and jumping simultaneously in 3D games, I feel restricted with character controlling because I play melee classes if possible. I have no interest in games with boring combat.
Also, you should initially play PvE briefly if possible as to not make a fool of oneself in the PvP section. You know, play easy mode first? Cabal for north america did come out recently, and maybe all those people are still using the same mentality? I didn't like cabal. I don't think it had strafing and if it did, it was horrible. Cabal had WASD movement, which I like, but as soon as I moved while I was attacking it stopped attacking which is inferior to games like GW and WoW.
I like Flysis online (formerly known as Space Cowboy Online) and that has forced PvP. The shoot-em-up combat is fun. It's a MMO space shooter. It has FPS controlling that uses mouse for aiming and keyboard for strafing, brakes, boosting, and skills for combat that is level, stat, item, and skill based. It has forced PvP in the contested maps, which most of them are, and makes the factions have lots of wars.
What I notice a lot is the PvP arguments are always underscored with the person who dies losing something like items. I don't think people need to lose items when they die for people to having
fun PvPing.
You couldn't get me to play a current MMO if I had the possiblity of losing everything. To me that is not
fun.
Diablo pulled off hardcore mode because it was pretty easy to gear up a character.
The problem with most "PvP" games is it's actually a PvE game with PvP thrown in.
A good PvP game will be built for PvP from the ground up, every aspect will serve that purpose, from crafting to economy to objectives to leveling, they all have to serve the PvP God.
Having to kill dumb NPC's for 70 levels before you can be competative, or having to raid to get +5 sword of ownage before you can PvP is LAME.
In my mind Eve is THE best PvP mmo out today.
Not perfect. Lots of features I want are missing. But its the closest thing to a PvP mmo out there today.
The PvP genre has not gotten its "WoW" yet, nobody has gotten the mechanics just right.
As the market develops and game design evolves, there will be true PvP MMORPG's someday that will give us what we want and cut out everything we hate, the same way WoW did for the PVE genre.
Well the trick is #1 not to have any "unique" items in the game that cannot be replaced. Everything should be craftable, so a person can go to his hideout, craft his armor, sword, etc, gear up, and go out to have some fun.
The reward for winning is having more spare equipment.
The penalty for losing is having to go mine/gather and get new equipment.
This way people lose stuff, but nobody ever hits unrecoverable rock-bottom.
As I said, I believe Eve is almost the perfect PvP game. When you lose your ship you get insurance (eases the loss), also stuff is easy to manufacture, lots of ppl build their own ships/gear and go out PvPing.
This is a very WoW-centric viewpoint to full loot PvP. For a game to be even remotely successful as a fully open PvP game with full looting it couldn't be a gear centric game like most of the games out today(WoW is just one of many with this "Grind for gear" mentality). Gear would have to be basic and very easily replaceable. A game designed to incorporate this type of PvP would have to be a skill based system where player skill would be the most important aspect of the game. This would mean that there wouldn't be any "+10 Swords of Ultimate Uberness" and while still slightly annoying getting looted after loosing in PvP would only be a minor setback as nobody will be able to "Loot your skill". Runescape, Eve online and the slowly developing game Darkfall all have this aspect of PvP incorporated into them and in fact the whole game is designed around this. You are right that this type of PvP would never work in a PvE game that has had PvP grafted on to it as an afterthought as it would drive people away in droves because of the gear centric design of these games. However a game that is written to incorporate this aspect from day one can not only be enjoyable for anyone but very successful as losing all of what your carrying/wearing would be no great loss and easily replaceable.
Edit: There is a very common saying in EVE that applies to all full loot PvP games....."Only take out what you're willing to lose."
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
Carebears need to get over themselves. You had a solid 10 year strangle hold on the genre when you never deserved it in the first place. You were just a few hundred thousand nerds whose collective whining at the start of it all forced millions of others to endure your poor tastes as the market grew.
But guess what? It's all over now. The genre is mainstream and you can't convince everyone else that PvE is as great as you say. The dopes who buy the same Madden game every year, the socially starved folks who play all those interactive group games while tossing back a few, over a decades worth of burned out FPS gamers, and all those mischievous young children... they're all here now and they can't be convinced of carebear superiority. They're rebelling and it scares you.
Just go crawl back under your respective rocks and dust off some of those old RPGs where I guarantee no one will ever force you to play with anyone else.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
Just to point out eve is the only game made pre-2004 that is still growing in population... kind of throws a kink in your argument.Its a pvp game... thats growing....
Sure it is growing. But growing != successful in the market place. It can grow at 10 new players a day for the 10 years and it won't make it into the big leagues.
Growing is great only when it is growing at a rate that it can capture a substantial part of the market. It has been out for how long and how many players does it have? 200k? 300k?
While i am sure it is making money, that is no where close to the numbers of bigger MMOs (not even LOTR).
The population has grown by 14% so far this year.
It's growing.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=33375
I liked the post by the guy who suggested two different rulesets one for PvE and one for PvP, so that the seperate elements of the game can be balanced with out disturbing each other. This mirrors my own thoughts on the subject of balancing.
PvP is a very large and popular persuit in MMO games any company that does not address this gameplay is missing a trick. If you would like evidence of the scale of players who like to PvP, all you need to realise is that 2/3 WoW servers use the PvP ruleset.
While I think WoW is desperately short of battlegrounds and could do with about ten or twenty more, (it's no use having too many and never being able to find a full one), I think they have addressed the PvP / PvE balance very well, with seperate gear sets and skillset for each.
This gives the player the opportunity to focus his development eitherway, and indeed cross over between the two on whimsy.
I myself don't get off on PvP in RPG games. I tend to play shooters, sims or RTS for PvP. Balance is something I valuje very highly for in my PvP and the RPG is fundamentally unable to provide it for me.Not to mention that none of the gameplay in current MMO's really floats my boat. It's all too simple.
Button mashers in which combat is principally decided by your statiscal data as opposed to your stealth, spacial awareness, alertness and tactical understanding. (In the end, no matter how clever you play, the level 50 guy beats the 30 consistently, the maths decides the fight).
MMO's substitute gameplay for social. So I simply play different games, instead of one big game with lots of mini games designed to cater for everyone.
That said, all my favourite PvP games have a solid single player or Co-operative experience. I quite simply can't be bothered to PvP all day and night.
Even though I don't ever PvP in MMORPG's, I do want it present in game, and if it is there I want it to be good. The reason is, lots of my friends enjoy it. I play MMO's for the social element, so in order for all my friends to remain intrested their preferences must be catered for.
An MMO simply must cater for multiple tastes to get enough players to be "Massive". The less a game caters to either prefence the less eclectic the playerbase becomes, the less likely I and all my friends are to stick with it.
There is a balance to be struck and any purely PvP game isn't going to cut it any more than any purely PvE game is.
One of my friends plays a lot of Eve. I play a little bit, but the PvE content is so sparse, that I only play intermittently and despite enjoying my social contact with him through this medium, I don't do it very often. (Becasue I complete the content and get bored).
Another of my friends plays WoW, (and PvP's incessantly), and I have a lot longer contact with him through this game. (Despite me being a space sim fan and finding fantasy quite boring). The reason? There is plenty of PvE for me in WoW. There is also plenty of soloing content for me to do when he is off raiding. It takes me months to complete all the content in WoW that appeals to me.
I need games to cater to both.
Pure PvP in an RPG is pointless. The genre is defined by it's world full of NPC's. They set the theme and the scenario in which to role play. They are a quintessential part of the formula. They define the world in which the avatars "live".
If every elf I meet is some smack talker just trying to provoke people or gloat after his victories, this isn't a world I wish to persist. This isn't even a social circle I am willing to participate in. PvE sets the framework for the persistent world. Games like City of Heroes and Warcraft with their good humored and fun orientated worlds are nice places to hang out and meet people. They attract a more light hearted crowd.
Eve on the other hand attracts more of the "I'm a hardcore gamer" types. You know the ones, the people that think being "hardcore" is cool. That want to hang out with other hardcore players and all be hard together. (Disclaimer: I know and enjoy the company of many excellent and good humoured Eve players).
A game needs PvE to set the atmosphere.
level/class based pvp is almost point less skill based is the way to go
That has exactly the same flaws just a different presentation. The difference is cosmetic only.
In a persistent world with onging character progression, balanced PvP can not occour.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
In a level/class based MMO, PvP should work on a different system than PvE. In PvE, Your gear, stats, etc determine your ability to survive. PvP should be treated like a FPS, where even if you have 4600 HP in PvE, you only have 100% in PvP. Spells/damage abilities can work off the % system as well, with each taking/giving %s, not dice roll points. Would this mean that a level 20 might be able to take down a level 70? Yes.
But, that level 20 will have far less skills/spells/abilities than the level 70, making the fight a little harder. It would be like a civilian taking on a seasoned Marine with years of combat training. Even though said Marine has all the skills, the civilian can still get lucky and take him out. It would make PvP a lot more challenging and a hell of a lot more fun. There would be more skill involved in picking your battles, not the 1 sided "we have the higher levels and the gear" system we see in most all MMO PvP today. It would also allow for even larger scale PvP battles. You wouldnt limited to the level brackets and ranges.
PvE: All gear, spells, skills, abilities would be stat based. HP/Mana/Armor/etc would be based on points.
PvP: All gear, spells, skills, abilities would be based off %. HP/Mana/Armor/etc would be based on a 100% system.
A level 20 dueling a level 70 (both just using auto attack) would be a fair fight. If using skills/spells/abilities, the 70 would have a greater chance because he would know more skills, etc than the level 20.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Most people like pvp...WHEN THEY WANT IT.......and no pvp when they don't.FFA pvp is for vocal minority Imo.
14% of a small number is still a small number. Quote from the article YOU linked to:
"the active player base hit 220,000 users, all co-existing in the same unsharded universe, and that's estimated to rise to 250,000 by the end of June 2008."
So 250k by summer 2008. I would not call that anything but niche. It is 1/40 (2.5%) of WOW's population .. if WOW does not grow more by then). It is not close to the numbers of any of the big names (Guild Wars, Lineage ....). While I am sure it still makes money, it is not one of the big boys.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
Pvp can excell but noone has yet to hit the right forumla for it. DOAC was average at best , Guild Wars has had its success, probably the most successful pvp we have had in a long time but it still does not have a long lasting appeal to players. Companies who try pvp never reward pvpers good enough, there is always constant balance issues and pvp has no major depth to it. The masses simply enjoy pve alot more cause they like to adventure, build their characters and find nice gear for their characters.
I'm still waiting for a pvp (rvr) type game that effects the pve game. Quests your side can only do if you own outposts. Wow suggested this but the idea never materialized and was marginallized into BGs. Imagine if crossroads could be captured. And alliance newbs could go there and do quests for interesting, even better loots.
The O.P. has obviously never heard of games like counter strike, unreal tournament and so on. They are not MMO's by any means but they are PvP games that are hugely successfull.
NcSoft's Lineage series is a popular pvp mmo and will hopefully see a revival once it gets ported to the ps3. In WoW and Guild Wars there is possibly just as many players who play for the limmited PvP as there are those who just Role Play.
You can argue all you want that people play x amount of games for pve not for pvp but you can never deny that the PvP market is desperately seeking a quality PvP mmorpg to flock to (sadly Fury failed to live up the hype). If the day of deliverance ever comes then you can bet the farm on that game becoming just as big as WoW.