Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

The latest devblog. Forced PvP is gone.

1679111214

Comments

  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 7,109
    edited July 5
    Developers have admitted that to encourage PvP they place higher tier resources in PvP zones. 

    That guy from Albion Online said as much.

    The problem is the developers ask and encourage players who are not keen on PvP to play their games by giving them false assurances. Bless Online even gave PvE players the option to purchase immunity items from their real money shop which admittedly was a pretty scummy thing to do but something they considered and used.

    It isn't about the players who don't mind PvP, they are fine with it. It is the dishonesty that developers practice to increase the population of their games. You're mistaken because I have read interviews where developers admitted one method to ensure and encourage PvP adverse players from considering and participating in PvP was to place resources or high value dungeons in those areas. It is a known tactic.

    In Dark Age of Camelot which has a lot of areas that are only for PvE but they made a very lucrative dungeon (Darkness Falls I think it is called ) in a PvP area. Although in that game most of the PvP is actually in another zone they did it to encourage more participation from PvE players who want to try their hand at PvP. This was what they thought might ease players averse to PvP to try PvP, it is not an unknown motive and one developers have used in many games.

    They did exactly this in Aion too and it pissed a lot of the PvE players enough because those zones were constantly camped by high level players waiting to kill us and we had no chance against their levels.

    I think you aren't aware of this because you have no problem with PvP but since I do and have played in these games where the expectation and the actual reality were vastly different and participated in many discussions on the forums for those games I have a very keen memory of the reasons those resources were placed in those zones in Aion.

    Answer me this then, if it isn't to lure PvE players why did New World make the changes they did ?
    Ironside81Brainy
    Crichton: 'If he masters wormhole technology, what will he use it for?'
    Scorpius: 'Faster delivery of pizzas.'

  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 319
    edited July 5
    cheyane said:
    Developers have admitted that to encourage PvP they place higher tier resources in PvP zones. 

    That guy from Albion Online said as much.
    Encouraging PVP != trying to lure PVE-averse players into PVP areas. In a PVP game like Albion it makes sense to put these rewards there to facilitate high risk high reward PVP and competition over resources for PVP players. AO (like EVE) never hid that their target was primarily players that are fine with or are after full loot OWPVP. And it works:

    https://massivelyop.com/2020/02/11/albion-online-now-counts-350k-monthly-active-players-plans-major-alliance-changes/

    Also, AO has its own version of higher reward purely PVE content (HCE, hard core expeditions), as well as arenas (non-full loot, normalized PVP) for those that want it.
    cheyane said:

    The problem is the developers ask and encourage players who are not keen on PvP to play their games by giving them false assurances. Bless Online even gave PvE players the option to purchase immunity items from their real money shop which admittedly was a pretty scummy thing to do but something they considered and used.

    It isn't about the players who don't mind PvP, they are fine with it. It is the dishonesty that developers practice to increase the population of their games. You're mistaken because I have read interviews where developers admitted one method to ensure and encourage PvP adverse players from considering and participating in PvP was to place resources or high value dungeons in those areas. It is a known tactic.
    Bless Online is a bad example, everything about it was a scam, including this item that you mention which was just a monetization shenanigan.

    Some devs do try to mix the two crowds (Legends of Aria, Worlds Adrift come to mind) and that is naive/dishonest and has failed miserably in the past. But "PVE only" players abuse these examples and extrapolate them to all games that have PVP over resources because it fits their story - you did this for example with AO.

    To my understanding, New World tries to cater to both and keep them separately but just does not have the time and bandwidth to do that properly given their recent change of heart. If they do not give appropriate rewards for the risk, they will lose the PVP players, since OWPVP without risk/reward and high stakes is meaningless and boring - you can always get that from a MOBA or shooter. If they do not give enough separate content for the PVE players, they will correspondingly lose that audience.
    YashaX
  • HuntrezzHuntrezz Member UncommonPosts: 84
    Forced pvp is gone - Me:  Takes game out of never to play ever folder and places in wait and see folder.
    Ironside81
  • GaendricGaendric Member UncommonPosts: 623
    Trying to reach both audiences is risky business.
    OWPvP only shines if the entire game is designed for it. 

    tzervoIronside81
  • YashaXYashaX Member EpicPosts: 2,559
    SkitzoX said:
    YashaX said:
    Wizardry said:
    Isn't required pvp the same as forced?
    You are barely even playing the game and getting nowhere without pvp.Well your alternative is to join a powerful guild and be one of the few within that doesn't take part but then like i said,you will barely be playing the game at that point.
    I don't even know how their 50-50 is going to work,what if you don't have 50 players?What if your guild was fast and got a nice spot and don't want to pvp ...ever?
    The only term i have seen is the term "challenge"you can challenge another fort,that doesn't mean they must accept,or does it?

    Since they are steadfast on the claim there is no FORCED pvp that means your guild/fort never have to accept a challenge ever,does it not?


    When a territory is weakened it becomes vulnerable to attack. If another faction then declares war on that territory the defenders get to pick a time window for when the siege will take place, but they cannot simply ignore the challenge. An individual player or guild can of course choose not to participate in the fight for the territory.


    The funny part is if your guild spends the day running faction missions to put a specific territory into a conflicted state so you can declare war... ANY company in your faction (even 1 man alt guilds from other factions) can sign up to declare war. Every company that signs up is put into a vanguard lottery where the company that actually gets to do the war declaration and siege is chosen completely random. The system is so broke. 

    Is there any benefit to being the vanguard other than just getting to choose/recruit who fights in the War?
    ....
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,149
    So do you a full game free game or half a restricted game? 
  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 7,109
    Do a full free game and cater to the players that originally wanted it. They are halfassing it and it does no good to anyone.
    tzervo
    Crichton: 'If he masters wormhole technology, what will he use it for?'
    Scorpius: 'Faster delivery of pizzas.'

  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member EpicPosts: 7,038
    The last PvP focused game released was Last Oasis and guess what, players have been dropping like flies. Of course, that is probably due to the fact it was a worldwide setup and China flexed like they did in ATLAS and Life is Feudal Online.

    I'm assuming NW isn't region locked? If it isn't, it will definitely be interesting.

    As much as everyone is complaining about how sieges work. You get enough people in multiple companies from one giant guild and you can pretty much control the map. Company size doesn't mean diddly squat when giant guilds just create multiple companies.

    I still don't care because I'll get my month of entertainment before that happens.
    Ironside81

  • SkitzoXSkitzoX Member UncommonPosts: 147
    edited July 5
    YashaX said:
    SkitzoX said:
    YashaX said:
    Wizardry said:
    Isn't required pvp the same as forced?
    You are barely even playing the game and getting nowhere without pvp.Well your alternative is to join a powerful guild and be one of the few within that doesn't take part but then like i said,you will barely be playing the game at that point.
    I don't even know how their 50-50 is going to work,what if you don't have 50 players?What if your guild was fast and got a nice spot and don't want to pvp ...ever?
    The only term i have seen is the term "challenge"you can challenge another fort,that doesn't mean they must accept,or does it?

    Since they are steadfast on the claim there is no FORCED pvp that means your guild/fort never have to accept a challenge ever,does it not?


    When a territory is weakened it becomes vulnerable to attack. If another faction then declares war on that territory the defenders get to pick a time window for when the siege will take place, but they cannot simply ignore the challenge. An individual player or guild can of course choose not to participate in the fight for the territory.


    The funny part is if your guild spends the day running faction missions to put a specific territory into a conflicted state so you can declare war... ANY company in your faction (even 1 man alt guilds from other factions) can sign up to declare war. Every company that signs up is put into a vanguard lottery where the company that actually gets to do the war declaration and siege is chosen completely random. The system is so broke. 

    Is there any benefit to being the vanguard other than just getting to choose/recruit who fights in the War?
    The vanguard guild has 100% control over selecting the attacking roster and if they win they gain control over the settlement. That means they would set the taxes for crafting fees, housing rent etc as well as decide on any or what upgrades to go after or to provides settlement buffs etc. 
    YashaX
  • YashaXYashaX Member EpicPosts: 2,559
    SkitzoX said:
    YashaX said:
    SkitzoX said:
    YashaX said:
    Wizardry said:
    Isn't required pvp the same as forced?
    You are barely even playing the game and getting nowhere without pvp.Well your alternative is to join a powerful guild and be one of the few within that doesn't take part but then like i said,you will barely be playing the game at that point.
    I don't even know how their 50-50 is going to work,what if you don't have 50 players?What if your guild was fast and got a nice spot and don't want to pvp ...ever?
    The only term i have seen is the term "challenge"you can challenge another fort,that doesn't mean they must accept,or does it?

    Since they are steadfast on the claim there is no FORCED pvp that means your guild/fort never have to accept a challenge ever,does it not?


    When a territory is weakened it becomes vulnerable to attack. If another faction then declares war on that territory the defenders get to pick a time window for when the siege will take place, but they cannot simply ignore the challenge. An individual player or guild can of course choose not to participate in the fight for the territory.


    The funny part is if your guild spends the day running faction missions to put a specific territory into a conflicted state so you can declare war... ANY company in your faction (even 1 man alt guilds from other factions) can sign up to declare war. Every company that signs up is put into a vanguard lottery where the company that actually gets to do the war declaration and siege is chosen completely random. The system is so broke. 

    Is there any benefit to being the vanguard other than just getting to choose/recruit who fights in the War?
    The vanguard guild has 100% control over selecting the attacking roster and if they win they gain control over the settlement. That means they would set the taxes for crafting fees, housing rent etc as well as decide on any or what upgrades to go after or to provides settlement buffs etc. 
    On the surface at least, that sounds like it would significantly reduce the motivation for guilds to work at destabilizing the enemy faction. However, now that there is no pvp outside of the sieges is there anything else for guilds to do? 
    ....
  • SkitzoXSkitzoX Member UncommonPosts: 147
    edited July 6
    YashaX said:
    SkitzoX said:
    YashaX said:
    SkitzoX said:
    YashaX said:
    Wizardry said:
    Isn't required pvp the same as forced?
    You are barely even playing the game and getting nowhere without pvp.Well your alternative is to join a powerful guild and be one of the few within that doesn't take part but then like i said,you will barely be playing the game at that point.
    I don't even know how their 50-50 is going to work,what if you don't have 50 players?What if your guild was fast and got a nice spot and don't want to pvp ...ever?
    The only term i have seen is the term "challenge"you can challenge another fort,that doesn't mean they must accept,or does it?

    Since they are steadfast on the claim there is no FORCED pvp that means your guild/fort never have to accept a challenge ever,does it not?


    When a territory is weakened it becomes vulnerable to attack. If another faction then declares war on that territory the defenders get to pick a time window for when the siege will take place, but they cannot simply ignore the challenge. An individual player or guild can of course choose not to participate in the fight for the territory.


    The funny part is if your guild spends the day running faction missions to put a specific territory into a conflicted state so you can declare war... ANY company in your faction (even 1 man alt guilds from other factions) can sign up to declare war. Every company that signs up is put into a vanguard lottery where the company that actually gets to do the war declaration and siege is chosen completely random. The system is so broke. 

    Is there any benefit to being the vanguard other than just getting to choose/recruit who fights in the War?
    The vanguard guild has 100% control over selecting the attacking roster and if they win they gain control over the settlement. That means they would set the taxes for crafting fees, housing rent etc as well as decide on any or what upgrades to go after or to provides settlement buffs etc. 
    On the surface at least, that sounds like it would significantly reduce the motivation for guilds to work at destabilizing the enemy faction. However, now that there is no pvp outside of the sieges is there anything else for guilds to do? 
    Not really no. Outside of logging in every few days for a 30m siege or invasion there’s not much else to do after your leveled. That’s if your in a guild that’s active in that front. People have alt accounts they use to block guilds through the vanguard lottery.. it’s pretty lame and been happening for a while now even in alpha. 

    And the sieges are nothing like what I’ve come to expect. It’s an instanced battleground with 4 capture points. The attacking guild has to cap the three outside points before they can try to take the point on the inside of the fort. Pretty limited on strategy etc. Pretty disappointing that these sieges and invasions are supposed to be the pillars and selling points and they are so underwhelming and attached to broken systems. 


    tzervoIronside81
  • BrainyBrainy Member UncommonPosts: 345
    Iselin said:
    Brainy said:
    The question is not about giving an extra incentive/reward.  The question is why does PVP Raiding NEED to have larger rewards than PVE.  People wont do it without the bonuses which sounds like PVP Raiding is like alot like WORK to most people.  You have to pay these people to go out to these areas.


    FTFY.

    I doubt many PVE'ers have issues with more difficult PVE content having higher rewards.  In classic WOW right now, world bosses actually have some of the best loot.  But either way its PVE.

    What I do agree with however, is that you shouldn't require PVPers to RAID PVE dungeons for PVP gear or resources.  Just like you shouldn't require PVE'ers to go to PVP zones to get their PVE gear/resources.

    If a game is going offer both play-styles then they should have two types of resources and keep the best PVP gear in PVP zones and the resources to make that gear in PVP zones.  They should also put the best PVE gear in PVE zones with the resources to make that in those zones.
    ultimateduckIronside81
  • t0nydt0nyd Member UncommonPosts: 510
    Brainy said:
    Iselin said:
    Brainy said:
    The question is not about giving an extra incentive/reward.  The question is why does PVP Raiding NEED to have larger rewards than PVE.  People wont do it without the bonuses which sounds like PVP Raiding is like alot like WORK to most people.  You have to pay these people to go out to these areas.


    FTFY.

    I doubt many PVE'ers have issues with more difficult PVE content having higher rewards.  In classic WOW right now, world bosses actually have some of the best loot.  But either way its PVE.

    What I do agree with however, is that you shouldn't require PVPers to RAID PVE dungeons for PVP gear or resources.  Just like you shouldn't require PVE'ers to go to PVP zones to get their PVE gear/resources.

    If a game is going offer both play-styles then they should have two types of resources and keep the best PVP gear in PVP zones and the resources to make that gear in PVP zones.  They should also put the best PVE gear in PVE zones with the resources to make that in those zones.
    I want an immersive world. Separating PvE and PvP leads to a split game and less immersion for me. 
    Ironside81Rhoklaw
  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 319
    edited July 6
    Brainy said:

    I doubt many PVE'ers have issues with more difficult PVE content having higher rewards.  In classic WOW right now, world bosses actually have some of the best loot.  But either way its PVE.
    There's two types of PVE'ers: those that do not want PVP because they sincerely dislike conflict, and those that don't like to see others prove to be better than them out of petty jealousy. The second group dislikes higher rewards even in hard PVE content and they are actually quite vocal: you will see them complain about elitism, splitting up the community, unfair rewards etc. In my experience the ones complaining about rewards (not content) being higher for PVP players usually belong to that second group.
    Iselinultimateduck
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,821
    tzervo said:
    <snip>
    You are still under the false assumption that this is typically done to lure PVP-averse players in PVP. Putting high value resources in PVP areas is typically a design decision that facilitates risk vs reward.

    It is a one-sided risk based on play-style/preferences.  Where is the risk for the PvP centric player?



    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 319
    edited July 6
    Mendel said:
    It is a one-sided risk based on play-style/preferences.  Where is the risk for the PvP centric player?
    In well designed PVP games it is not one-sided:

    1) He may be killed by another PVP player while hunting.

    2) The gatherer may slip off if he is good (cat and mouse game, sometimes the mouse is faster/smarter and gets away with the cheese) and the PVP centric player ends up with nothing but wasted time. A good PVP game with resource gathering provides escape mechanisms and awareness tools for skilled/knowledgeable gatherers to balance things off and make them interesting.

    3) The gatherer might be able to fight him off (I was sometimes doing this to pick fights in Albion Online, gathering in fighting gear and getting into scuffles with gankers).

    4) He may be gathering in guild territory under the protection of his guild in exchange for part of his gathered mats, which in return get used so that the guild keeps holding the territory.
    ultimateduck
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,821
    tzervo said:
    Mendel said:
    It is a one-sided risk based on play-style/preferences.  Where is the risk for the PvP centric player?
    In well designed PVP games it is not one-sided:

    1) He may be killed by another PVP player while hunting.

    2) The gatherer may slip off if he is good (cat and mouse game, sometimes the mouse is faster/smarter and gets away with the cheese) and the PVP centric player ends up with nothing but wasted time. A good PVP game with resource gathering provides escape mechanisms and awareness tools for skilled/knowledgeable gatherers to balance things off and make them interesting.

    3) The gatherer might be able to fight him off (I was sometimes doing this to pick fights in Albion Online, gathering in fighting gear and getting into scuffles with gankers).

    4) He may be gathering in guild territory under the protection of his guild in exchange for part of his gathered mats, which in return get used so that the guild keeps holding the territory.

    None of these are additional risks to what the player expects as part of that play style.  With a PvE player, this is an additional risk beyond what they would normally expect.



    bcbullyYashaX

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 319
    edited July 6
    Mendel said:

    None of these are additional risks to what the player expects as part of that play style.  With a PvE player, this is an additional risk beyond what they would normally expect.
    Why would a PVE player not expect the risk when going into the PVP area? This makes no sense.

    All I mentioned above are part of the risk vs reward design of such a gameloop for both sides:

    - the hunter is trying to get loot by killing gatherers and risks by getting killed by other hunters, more skilled gatherers or just getting back empty handed

    - the gatherer is risking their neck (and potentially their gear if full loot) for the potential of getting high value resources

    It is a PVP loop and I would expect only players that want PVP or that do not mind PVP to take part in it for both sides (hunter and gatherer). I would not expect PVP-averse players to do so.
    ultimateduck
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,829
    Mendel said: ha
    tzervo said:
    Mendel said:
    It is a one-sided risk based on play-style/preferences.  Where is the risk for the PvP centric player?
    In well designed PVP games it is not one-sided:

    1) He may be killed by another PVP player while hunting.

    2) The gatherer may slip off if he is good (cat and mouse game, sometimes the mouse is faster/smarter and gets away with the cheese) and the PVP centric player ends up with nothing but wasted time. A good PVP game with resource gathering provides escape mechanisms and awareness tools for skilled/knowledgeable gatherers to balance things off and make them interesting.

    3) The gatherer might be able to fight him off (I was sometimes doing this to pick fights in Albion Online, gathering in fighting gear and getting into scuffles with gankers).

    4) He may be gathering in guild territory under the protection of his guild in exchange for part of his gathered mats, which in return get used so that the guild keeps holding the territory.

    None of these are additional risks to what the player expects as part of that play style.  With a PvE player, this is an additional risk beyond what they would normally expect.



    If you don’t want to take those risks you have 2 options. find another way to get what you seek or don’t play the game. 
    tzervobcbullyYashaX
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • BloodaxesBloodaxes Member EpicPosts: 4,268
    Mendel said: ha
    tzervo said:
    Mendel said:
    It is a one-sided risk based on play-style/preferences.  Where is the risk for the PvP centric player?
    In well designed PVP games it is not one-sided:

    1) He may be killed by another PVP player while hunting.

    2) The gatherer may slip off if he is good (cat and mouse game, sometimes the mouse is faster/smarter and gets away with the cheese) and the PVP centric player ends up with nothing but wasted time. A good PVP game with resource gathering provides escape mechanisms and awareness tools for skilled/knowledgeable gatherers to balance things off and make them interesting.

    3) The gatherer might be able to fight him off (I was sometimes doing this to pick fights in Albion Online, gathering in fighting gear and getting into scuffles with gankers).

    4) He may be gathering in guild territory under the protection of his guild in exchange for part of his gathered mats, which in return get used so that the guild keeps holding the territory.

    None of these are additional risks to what the player expects as part of that play style.  With a PvE player, this is an additional risk beyond what they would normally expect.



    If you don’t want to take those risks you have 2 options. find another way to get what you seek or don’t play the game. 
    Or 3: Stop playing mmos altogether. Sadly, that's 99% of the newly released games nowadays. Forcing both play styles to play together. 
    Ironside81

  • Ironside81Ironside81 Member UncommonPosts: 69
    cheyane said:
    Developers have admitted that to encourage PvP they place higher tier resources in PvP zones. 
    Where is the reference for this? Post PVP changes
  • Ironside81Ironside81 Member UncommonPosts: 69
    tzervo said:
    Mendel said:

    None of these are additional risks to what the player expects as part of that play style.  With a PvE player, this is an additional risk beyond what they would normally expect.
    Why would a PVE player not expect the risk when going into the PVP area? This makes no sense.

    All I mentioned above are part of the risk vs reward design of such a gameloop for both sides:

    - the hunter is trying to get loot by killing gatherers and risks by getting killed by other hunters, more skilled gatherers or just getting back empty handed

    - the gatherer is risking their neck (and potentially their gear if full loot) for the potential of getting high value resources

    It is a PVP loop and I would expect only players that want PVP or that do not mind PVP to take part in it for both sides (hunter and gatherer). I would not expect PVP-averse players to do so.
    In reality, the gatherer is a nude alt account of a pvper. Simple as that. All the pve gathers stopped playing or were turned off by the game mechanics and never bought the game. 
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,653
    You must be flagged to pvp.
    So they added "arena's" for the pve player.These will require killing mobs until you find a special key,i think it's called a Spriggen key.

    This is basically copying Atlas's treasure bottle idea,swapping a treasure map for a key.

    Within this arena mode,i assume instanced,you will have the chance at likely the best loot in the game,so pve can sort of celebrate...or not.

    The differences is perks and gem slots which require crafting.Crafting is a main proponent of the gear system,you NEED it.

    However the yare going to give those that flag pvp rewards and more xp.Apparently the crafting system never ends,higher tiers,so i assume a never ending gear score system.
    I will assume that upgrading the defenses also involves the crafting/harvesting system,again tiers but don't quote me,i think the defense tiers may be locked at tier 3 but my memory is shotty so not certain on a locked tier or maybe defenses can be endless as well.

    50 is the maximum so no one guild can load up with 500 players but in reality they can.They can just have several divisions so The Syndicate 1 ,The Syndicate 2,The Syndicate 3 ,you get the idea,each with 50  players.

    IMO i find it very lame they are trying to incorporate Wow in to this with gear scores and gem slots,i actually consider it VERY lame.
    tzervobcbullyIronside81

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • SkitzoXSkitzoX Member UncommonPosts: 147
    edited July 6
    Wizardry said:
    You must be flagged to pvp.
    So they added "arena's" for the pve player.These will require killing mobs until you find a special key,i think it's called a Spriggen key.

    This is basically copying Atlas's treasure bottle idea,swapping a treasure map for a key.

    Within this arena mode,i assume instanced,you will have the chance at likely the best loot in the game,so pve can sort of celebrate...or not.

    The differences is perks and gem slots which require crafting.Crafting is a main proponent of the gear system,you NEED it.

    However the yare going to give those that flag pvp rewards and more xp.Apparently the crafting system never ends,higher tiers,so i assume a never ending gear score system.
    I will assume that upgrading the defenses also involves the crafting/harvesting system,again tiers but don't quote me,i think the defense tiers may be locked at tier 3 but my memory is shotty so not certain on a locked tier or maybe defenses can be endless as well.

    50 is the maximum so no one guild can load up with 500 players but in reality they can.They can just have several divisions so The Syndicate 1 ,The Syndicate 2,The Syndicate 3 ,you get the idea,each with 50  players.

    IMO i find it very lame they are trying to incorporate Wow in to this with gear scores and gem slots,i actually consider it VERY lame.
    Right now these arenas (theres 2) are a joke and can actually be soloed by good players. Definitely not worth doing as it takes a very very long time grinding the same mobs over and over trying to get the key for a couple minute fight that may get you subpar gear. I’ve never seen anything as a reward worthwhile... salvage crap. Better gear from crafting, portals or faction npc. Now they could buff the rewards but I doubt they will be on par with crafted stuff still. When we complained about the quest legendaries being too strong they nerfed them so bad there’s no point in getting them now.

    and your spot on about the guild caps which we have been telling the devs since alpha one. We have a couple companies running with similar names for that very reason.
    tzervobcbullyYashaX
  • BrainyBrainy Member UncommonPosts: 345
    PVP in MMO's will never work in OWPVP.   It relies on PVE'ers to be farmed.  In PVE the AI can die 1000's or infinite times and never complain. 

    But for PVP to have 1000 kills requires someone to be killed 1000 times.   If you look at the bell curve, where top tier hunters rarely die, that means low tier have to almost always die "Deer".  PVE'ers dont want to be farmed.  Those "Deer" will just leave.  Then you have the mid range people that are the new farmed tier, who will now have no "Deer" to shoot, and are being farmed by the top,  then the Mid range PVPers leave.  That leaves the top hunters to fight each other, and they will just quit, because they dont want to die alot.

    Top Tier PVPers dont fight eachother much in MMO's because there is not a big enough incentive for them to do so.  They want to farm people.  These MMO's rely on PVE'ers and low skill PVPers to be farmed and try to draw them into their MMO's with massive incentives in PVP areas.

    Until these MMO's figure out a way to allow all skilled ranges of players to enjoy PVP and not just top tier, they will continue to fail.
    bcbullyIronside81
Sign In or Register to comment.