Ya but here's the thing, I dont really agree with the "population ruler" being what qualifies a good game. Katy Perry and Bieber might be the most popular music, but the quality of it is shit. More people might eat McDonald's than eat Fried Calamari, etc....
Building an rpg around population can really sink the game long term, UO being just one example of it. The only people who should be using population as a ruler, are the fat cats out at Vivendi and the stock market. And that isnt you or me actually playing it.
You are right there but the problem is that almost any band can record an album, it is pretty cheap today while making a good MMO cost at least $50M.
And right now is the only "fat cat" supporting a different thinking studio I can think of Microsoft with Undead labs.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Vocal minority or not, I think Trammel killed the game for lots of people even if it did peak in subscribers around the same time.
Quick factual correction:
Subscribers peaked 3 years after trammel, not around the same time. For more reference's sake, as you can see from the charts, UO was around 3 years old when Trammel first came out (and at that point, its subscription growth rate was apparently just about to decrease to 0). Subscriber numbers wouldn't peak until 3 years later after that. Although the "peak" was actually only slightly higher than UO's "levelled out" subscription numbers. Basically, UO had practically stopped growing, then Trammel came out, UO's subscriber numbers almost doubled in a year showing a huge growth increase compared to what it was shortly before trammel, and then they stayed there for 3 years, finally increasing a little bit more at the end.
...and then WoW came out. LOL. I'm trying to remember if Age of Shadows was around that time or earlier (if AoS came later, then that'll prove nothing because... well, WoW. Come to think about it, I'm pretty sure WoW came first from my memory of that era. AoS was likely developed in reaction to it). So I guess if anything "killed" UO, it was WoW.
I think lots of MMOs would love if they had some thing they could do to double their subscribers in the span of a year and keep that retention for 3 years+ (or whenever another WoW comes along to kill it). Then again, the (perfectly valid) lesson they probably got from that was "don't even bother starting with no-alternate-option open world PvP in the first place"
Well then I guess this comes down to personal taste, because when Wrath Of the Lich King came out, I thought it was awful and ruined the game. I thought Vanilla and Burning Crusade were much better. However, it managed to rope a lot of new players thanks to how much more spoonfed the rewards were. So at this point, WoW may have peaked in playerbase, however the game for me wasnt that great.
I wish we could split the thread arguments into what makes a good game, rather than "how are the companies going to milk what's left....." There's lots of ways companies can turn up their money and population, whilst at the same time wrecking the game long term and driving off it's fanbase. Keep in mind also that players with time invested arent going to walk away from 4 years + of progression very easily so the RPG genre has a slight edge in dragging players along for another year.
I wish so many people here werent using "population" as their main ruler for a game.
Pointing out a large population in my mind doesnt mean quality gaming. Maybe I'm way out in left field on this, but I think some readers here will understand what I mean...
Games are basically just a collection of preferences. There is no global "makes a good game" feature other than "no bugs". Nearly everything else that can go into an MMORPG can be argued as good or bad by players. Well, unless you get down to really basic things like "being able to walk". That kind of thing. That's why "population" is the main rule for judging whether or not a game is good. Games have targets to meet, and if they meet the population target, they've done good. After that, it's all about retention. However, this is all relative to the goals. If a game's goal is 50K people and 100K people show up, that game did outstanding, even though compared to SWTOR the game is tiny.
Ya but here's the thing, I dont really agree with the "population ruler" being what qualifies a good game. Katy Perry and Bieber might be the most popular music, but the quality of it is shit. More people might eat McDonald's than eat Fried Calamari, etc....
Building an rpg around population can really sink the game long term, UO being just one example of it. The only people who should be using population as a ruler, are the fat cats out at Vivendi and the stock market. And that isnt you or me actually playing it.
You are still trying to make an opinion about a game (or music) a property of the game (or music). The opinions exist in the people, not in the games (or music). Games are good for the people who like them and bad for the people who do not like them. The exact same thing is true for game mechanics. They are good for the people who like them and bad for the people who don't like them.
If you have an objective measure of a game's quality that isn't currently being used, I'm very sure that many game developers, including the "Fat Cats" would love to hear about it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think the whole PvP/PKing aspect CAN be fun. If the game is built around it to facilitate meeting on even ground, and punishes you if you just behave like a dick all the time.
Latest example from my experience is ArcheAge. A game set up for PvP, but my experience was, well, horrible. 95% of all fights had me at such a disadvantage that I never even had to bother to fight back to begin with. I was fighting a mob, meanwhile some 50 guy wanders up casually and starts feathering me with arrows. I'm dead before I even can get more than 2 hits on him, at lvl 30. Then some time later I wander into a crafting area, filled with a dozen hostiles. I did not get attacked though. Even though their numbers were superior, they actually waited until I had the bank menu open before they ganked me, to provide maximum annoyance.
Basically, open pvp in AA - and apparently many other MMOs - boils down to this:
- are you underleveled, outnumbered, outgeared, or just engaged with a mob or quest giver? You get attacked.
- are you at equal level, ready to fight, and present a worthy opponent? People leave you alone.
From my experience, MMO FFA PvP advocates don't actually WANT pvp. They want easy targets, and worse yet, from the behaviour I've seen, they are so cowardly that IF you turn the tables on them? They will run like sissies. Every. Single. Time.
To sum it up, IF open PvP is to be a thing, there needs to be rulesets to discourage this kind of stuff. There needs to be level-normalizing algorhythms, mechanisms to make it more about skill - Wildstar's action combat might be one way - and honor ratings that actually punish you for beating down weak targets and reward you for taking on proper opponents - and yes, reward you for dying to them, and punish you for fleeing, at least in a small way. But that's not what people want, so the MMO pvp crowd has its mind stuck on open pvp being a legitimate form of trolling someone as much as you can.
Ya but here's the thing, I dont really agree with the "population ruler" being what qualifies a good game. Katy Perry and Bieber might be the most popular music, but the quality of it is shit. More people might eat McDonald's than eat Fried Calamari, etc....
Building an rpg around population can really sink the game long term, UO being just one example of it. The only people who should be using population as a ruler, are the fat cats out at Vivendi and the stock market. And that isnt you or me actually playing it.
If population isn't going to be used as the ruler, then... what is?
Besides that, MMORPGs are a business. And a VERY expensive one these days. Population might not be a good ruler for if a game is good or not (according to you), but it's usually a VERY good ruler for the business success of an MMO. Why should MMO companies spend so much time and money catering to your idea of what a good ruler is (whatever that is) instead of population when the latter is a good ruler for what counts not just to a business, but to keeping the game afloat in the first place?
What do you mean by "sinking" anyways? UO's population "sank" with WoW and you said population wasn't a good "ruler" anyways, so what is this ruler that sank when UO "catered to the population"? And do you have a graph showing this sinking or some other tangible source that could display exactly what "sank" when UO "built itself around population"? Because saying "the fun of the game sank" without any pie chart or graph or statistical gathering of every single person who played the game's opinion on the matter is just pulling stuff out of no where (and entirely arbitrary and based on each individual's idea of what "fun" is, anyways).
Population works as a "ruler" because it's a non-arbitrary number that's easy to measure (as long as the data is actually known, which is generally the case when dealing with publically traded companies that are legally obliged to release at least some data). What ruler do you have in mind that's objective, non-arbitrary, and easy to measure? And what data do you have to show that this "ruler" sank when UO started "building itself for population"?
I wish another game would use a combination of the Asheron's Call, or SWG PvP style.
I love when there is HARD PvP, that is totally optional. It creates a tighter knit PvP community, because you begin to learn who some of the major players are in the world.
I loved how in Asheron's Call, it was a big deal to turn PK on a non-PK server. You had to take a dangerous trip through a series of portals and mazes, to find the altar of Bael'Zharon. Then you had to pray to it, turning you PK. And in order to turn NPK, you had to find the altar of Asheron. If you had killed anyone, there was a timer on how soon you could turn NPK.
At the same time, PvP had harsh penalties. Just like any other death in the game, you dropped a certain amount of loot on death, determined by its coin value, as well as you got a 5% penalty to your skills that had to be worked off by gaining XP. This stacked several times, which meant you couldn't just jump right back into a fight if you died, because you might end up worse off than you started. This system created groups within guilds that were very PvP heavy, and became well known on their respective servers. They weren't a bother to Non-player killers, but very often they could convince NPKs to join them and turn PK, learning a whole different side of the game.
In SWG, they had the covert/overt system, where you could join a faction and be considered covert. This meant you were PvP-disabled in most places, UNLESS you decided to attack someone who was currently 'overt'. This would make you overt for a duration, and you could be attacked by anyone of an opposing faction.
Or, you could remain overt, which meant you had access to all the faction gear/items at all times, marking you as PvP-enabled wherever you went.
These systems were BRILLIANT. It allowed a community to choose whether or not to participate in PvP, and it both rewarded and punished those who did equally. I wish another game would come out with such depth put into their PvP system. The idea that PvP has to be "all or nothing" is ridiculous. While it can work in some games, PvP is more accessible and can still be harsh by allowing people the option to opt-in.
Edit: I hate the idea of PvP 'areas', where you go specifically for PvP. In AC, I loved the idea that I could be literally anywhere, and get jumped. And it was because I voluntarily enabled PvP on my character. There were groups of people known as Perma-PKs, who basically prayed at the altar, and never looked back. It was red or dead, as some often said.
I could be minding my own business in some totally random place in the world, and suddenly my heart would skip a beat as I saw another red dot appear on the radar. Sometimes, we'd fight, other times we'd emote *wave* from a distance, and go about our separate ways after a quick hello/goodbye. There then became the idea of 'honor', where once you began to get to know some of the PKers on your server, you knew which guys were nice, and which were a-holes. It was considered honorable to not loot someone if you respected them, and the favor was often paid back in kind. I remember being in groups of PKers and being told "Don't loot so-and-so" or telling my group that about someone as well. These communities didn't used to be considered toxic, even though there were a fair share of complete jerks. They were self-policed, and jerks typically got what was coming to them in the end.
So.. in closing. Optional PvP with HARSH penalties, creates a tight-knit community of players who play for the sport of it, and for the adrenaline rush. It doesn't HAVE to result in a community of a-holes. You just have to give incentive to players to not only take part in it, but to keep people from being griefed regularly. These communities will sort themselves out naturally if you just let them.
Open PvP, especially when it's not faction based, needs a deterrent that keeps people from griefing (most of the times). So for every guy who guys after new players, there has to be someone who goes after the PK. The fear of getting PKed yourself (and related punishment, be it jail time, gear drop, whatever) has to be sufficently high to make people think hard "it is really worth killing this guy? He's only level 20, has only iron armor,..rest of equip probably doesn't cost more than 20 gold. My helmet alone costs twice of that..no way i'm gonna risk getting killed myself for that kind of loot..."
So people will go for "rich" targets. Players that have similar equipment and therefore stand a chance in a fight. Players who are in a guild capable of looking after it's members. Players with friends in high places. Players who can *pay* other players, either hire them as bodyguard or hire mercenaries to go after their killer
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
I don't like PK myself, but I think an option is a good idea. More choices of play style is good when it does not take a lot of resources to implement.
I wish another game would use a combination of the Asheron's Call, or SWG PvP style.
I love when there is HARD PvP, that is totally optional. It creates a tighter knit PvP community, because you begin to learn who some of the major players are in the world.
I loved how in Asheron's Call, it was a big deal to turn PK on a non-PK server. You had to take a dangerous trip through a series of portals and mazes, to find the altar of Bael'Zharon. Then you had to pray to it, turning you PK. And in order to turn NPK, you had to find the altar of Asheron. If you had killed anyone, there was a timer on how soon you could turn NPK.
At the same time, PvP had harsh penalties. Just like any other death in the game, you dropped a certain amount of loot on death, determined by its coin value, as well as you got a 5% penalty to your skills that had to be worked off by gaining XP. This stacked several times, which meant you couldn't just jump right back into a fight if you died, because you might end up worse off than you started. This system created groups within guilds that were very PvP heavy, and became well known on their respective servers. They weren't a bother to Non-player killers, but very often they could convince NPKs to join them and turn PK, learning a whole different side of the game.
In SWG, they had the covert/overt system, where you could join a faction and be considered covert. This meant you were PvP-disabled in most places, UNLESS you decided to attack someone who was currently 'overt'. This would make you overt for a duration, and you could be attacked by anyone of an opposing faction.
Or, you could remain overt, which meant you had access to all the faction gear/items at all times, marking you as PvP-enabled wherever you went.
These systems were BRILLIANT. It allowed a community to choose whether or not to participate in PvP, and it both rewarded and punished those who did equally. I wish another game would come out with such depth put into their PvP system. The idea that PvP has to be "all or nothing" is ridiculous. While it can work in some games, PvP is more accessible and can still be harsh by allowing people the option to opt-in.
Edit: I hate the idea of PvP 'areas', where you go specifically for PvP. In AC, I loved the idea that I could be literally anywhere, and get jumped. And it was because I voluntarily enabled PvP on my character. There were groups of people known as Perma-PKs, who basically prayed at the altar, and never looked back. It was red or dead, as some often said.
I could be minding my own business in some totally random place in the world, and suddenly my heart would skip a beat as I saw another red dot appear on the radar. Sometimes, we'd fight, other times we'd emote *wave* from a distance, and go about our separate ways after a quick hello/goodbye. There then became the idea of 'honor', where once you began to get to know some of the PKers on your server, you knew which guys were nice, and which were a-holes. It was considered honorable to not loot someone if you respected them, and the favor was often paid back in kind. I remember being in groups of PKers and being told "Don't loot so-and-so" or telling my group that about someone as well. These communities didn't used to be considered toxic, even though there were a fair share of complete jerks. They were self-policed, and jerks typically got what was coming to them in the end.
So.. in closing. Optional PvP with HARSH penalties, creates a tight-knit community of players who play for the sport of it, and for the adrenaline rush. It doesn't HAVE to result in a community of a-holes. You just have to give incentive to players to not only take part in it, but to keep people from being griefed regularly. These communities will sort themselves out naturally if you just let them.
Wonder if anyone did a pole on PVP popularity. What most players prefer. Open world, flagged, server based, perma death, level based...
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Hands down the best pvp mmorpg would be Darkfall online and then Darkfall unholy wars that doesn't live up to is elder. However both games have a grind to them(else they wouldn't be a mmorpg) and some unbalanced and what not. Its full loot pvp, where people can zerg you.
Still the best mmorpg out there in my opinion(which is sad, because of all the faults) and could have been so great if they improved upon Darkfall online.
PVP is pretty much a mandatory these days, but a lot of mmorpgs are focusing too much on pvp or making pvpers have to PVE to PVP.
I think open worlds should have pvp anywhere at anytime with consequences. Or at least runescape like with a set area with consequences.
Some of you love it. A lot of you hate it. But let's be honest Pkers adds a thrilling element to any game. It also makes room for anti-pking, and the battle rages on.
Only if it's well-implemented in the game and, almost invariably, it isn't. Eve Online has the only full loot, skill-based PvP that I find worth the bother. Other games have zero penalties for defeat and zero reward for winning. Where the hell is the excitement in THAT?
Originally posted by Forgrimm MMORPG PVP often sucks because it usually falls into one of these categories: High levels ganking lower levels, roaming gank squads targeting lone players, or gear-dependent games where you stand no chance against better geared players. If you want good PVP you're much better off playing an FPS or a MOBA.
We hear this excuse too many times. Maybe its time for PVE losers to learn PVP, instead of blaming game mechanics?
Comments
You are right there but the problem is that almost any band can record an album, it is pretty cheap today while making a good MMO cost at least $50M.
And right now is the only "fat cat" supporting a different thinking studio I can think of Microsoft with Undead labs.
You are still trying to make an opinion about a game (or music) a property of the game (or music). The opinions exist in the people, not in the games (or music). Games are good for the people who like them and bad for the people who do not like them. The exact same thing is true for game mechanics. They are good for the people who like them and bad for the people who don't like them.
If you have an objective measure of a game's quality that isn't currently being used, I'm very sure that many game developers, including the "Fat Cats" would love to hear about it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think the whole PvP/PKing aspect CAN be fun. If the game is built around it to facilitate meeting on even ground, and punishes you if you just behave like a dick all the time.
Latest example from my experience is ArcheAge. A game set up for PvP, but my experience was, well, horrible. 95% of all fights had me at such a disadvantage that I never even had to bother to fight back to begin with. I was fighting a mob, meanwhile some 50 guy wanders up casually and starts feathering me with arrows. I'm dead before I even can get more than 2 hits on him, at lvl 30. Then some time later I wander into a crafting area, filled with a dozen hostiles. I did not get attacked though. Even though their numbers were superior, they actually waited until I had the bank menu open before they ganked me, to provide maximum annoyance.
Basically, open pvp in AA - and apparently many other MMOs - boils down to this:
- are you underleveled, outnumbered, outgeared, or just engaged with a mob or quest giver? You get attacked.
- are you at equal level, ready to fight, and present a worthy opponent? People leave you alone.
From my experience, MMO FFA PvP advocates don't actually WANT pvp. They want easy targets, and worse yet, from the behaviour I've seen, they are so cowardly that IF you turn the tables on them? They will run like sissies. Every. Single. Time.
To sum it up, IF open PvP is to be a thing, there needs to be rulesets to discourage this kind of stuff. There needs to be level-normalizing algorhythms, mechanisms to make it more about skill - Wildstar's action combat might be one way - and honor ratings that actually punish you for beating down weak targets and reward you for taking on proper opponents - and yes, reward you for dying to them, and punish you for fleeing, at least in a small way. But that's not what people want, so the MMO pvp crowd has its mind stuck on open pvp being a legitimate form of trolling someone as much as you can.
If population isn't going to be used as the ruler, then... what is?
Besides that, MMORPGs are a business. And a VERY expensive one these days. Population might not be a good ruler for if a game is good or not (according to you), but it's usually a VERY good ruler for the business success of an MMO. Why should MMO companies spend so much time and money catering to your idea of what a good ruler is (whatever that is) instead of population when the latter is a good ruler for what counts not just to a business, but to keeping the game afloat in the first place?
What do you mean by "sinking" anyways? UO's population "sank" with WoW and you said population wasn't a good "ruler" anyways, so what is this ruler that sank when UO "catered to the population"? And do you have a graph showing this sinking or some other tangible source that could display exactly what "sank" when UO "built itself around population"? Because saying "the fun of the game sank" without any pie chart or graph or statistical gathering of every single person who played the game's opinion on the matter is just pulling stuff out of no where (and entirely arbitrary and based on each individual's idea of what "fun" is, anyways).
Population works as a "ruler" because it's a non-arbitrary number that's easy to measure (as long as the data is actually known, which is generally the case when dealing with publically traded companies that are legally obliged to release at least some data). What ruler do you have in mind that's objective, non-arbitrary, and easy to measure? And what data do you have to show that this "ruler" sank when UO started "building itself for population"?
I wish another game would use a combination of the Asheron's Call, or SWG PvP style.
I love when there is HARD PvP, that is totally optional. It creates a tighter knit PvP community, because you begin to learn who some of the major players are in the world.
I loved how in Asheron's Call, it was a big deal to turn PK on a non-PK server. You had to take a dangerous trip through a series of portals and mazes, to find the altar of Bael'Zharon. Then you had to pray to it, turning you PK. And in order to turn NPK, you had to find the altar of Asheron. If you had killed anyone, there was a timer on how soon you could turn NPK.
At the same time, PvP had harsh penalties. Just like any other death in the game, you dropped a certain amount of loot on death, determined by its coin value, as well as you got a 5% penalty to your skills that had to be worked off by gaining XP. This stacked several times, which meant you couldn't just jump right back into a fight if you died, because you might end up worse off than you started. This system created groups within guilds that were very PvP heavy, and became well known on their respective servers. They weren't a bother to Non-player killers, but very often they could convince NPKs to join them and turn PK, learning a whole different side of the game.
In SWG, they had the covert/overt system, where you could join a faction and be considered covert. This meant you were PvP-disabled in most places, UNLESS you decided to attack someone who was currently 'overt'. This would make you overt for a duration, and you could be attacked by anyone of an opposing faction.
Or, you could remain overt, which meant you had access to all the faction gear/items at all times, marking you as PvP-enabled wherever you went.
These systems were BRILLIANT. It allowed a community to choose whether or not to participate in PvP, and it both rewarded and punished those who did equally. I wish another game would come out with such depth put into their PvP system. The idea that PvP has to be "all or nothing" is ridiculous. While it can work in some games, PvP is more accessible and can still be harsh by allowing people the option to opt-in.
Edit: I hate the idea of PvP 'areas', where you go specifically for PvP. In AC, I loved the idea that I could be literally anywhere, and get jumped. And it was because I voluntarily enabled PvP on my character. There were groups of people known as Perma-PKs, who basically prayed at the altar, and never looked back. It was red or dead, as some often said.
I could be minding my own business in some totally random place in the world, and suddenly my heart would skip a beat as I saw another red dot appear on the radar. Sometimes, we'd fight, other times we'd emote *wave* from a distance, and go about our separate ways after a quick hello/goodbye. There then became the idea of 'honor', where once you began to get to know some of the PKers on your server, you knew which guys were nice, and which were a-holes. It was considered honorable to not loot someone if you respected them, and the favor was often paid back in kind. I remember being in groups of PKers and being told "Don't loot so-and-so" or telling my group that about someone as well. These communities didn't used to be considered toxic, even though there were a fair share of complete jerks. They were self-policed, and jerks typically got what was coming to them in the end.
So.. in closing. Optional PvP with HARSH penalties, creates a tight-knit community of players who play for the sport of it, and for the adrenaline rush. It doesn't HAVE to result in a community of a-holes. You just have to give incentive to players to not only take part in it, but to keep people from being griefed regularly. These communities will sort themselves out naturally if you just let them.
Open PvP, especially when it's not faction based, needs a deterrent that keeps people from griefing (most of the times). So for every guy who guys after new players, there has to be someone who goes after the PK. The fear of getting PKed yourself (and related punishment, be it jail time, gear drop, whatever) has to be sufficently high to make people think hard "it is really worth killing this guy? He's only level 20, has only iron armor,..rest of equip probably doesn't cost more than 20 gold. My helmet alone costs twice of that..no way i'm gonna risk getting killed myself for that kind of loot..."
So people will go for "rich" targets. Players that have similar equipment and therefore stand a chance in a fight. Players who are in a guild capable of looking after it's members. Players with friends in high places. Players who can *pay* other players, either hire them as bodyguard or hire mercenaries to go after their killer
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Didn't Wow has that option too?
I don't like PK myself, but I think an option is a good idea. More choices of play style is good when it does not take a lot of resources to implement.
PKing with no Risk/Reward are pointless and meaningless
Games like Dayz with permadeath and full loot option are the prober game mechanics we need in today MMORPGS.
I endorse that idea 100%
nah ... e-sport is a big point and embraced by lots of players. And there is little "risk and reward" ... at least not in the MMO sense.
Wonder if anyone did a pole on PVP popularity. What most players prefer. Open world, flagged, server based, perma death, level based...
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Hands down the best pvp mmorpg would be Darkfall online and then Darkfall unholy wars that doesn't live up to is elder. However both games have a grind to them(else they wouldn't be a mmorpg) and some unbalanced and what not. Its full loot pvp, where people can zerg you.
Still the best mmorpg out there in my opinion(which is sad, because of all the faults) and could have been so great if they improved upon Darkfall online.
PVP is pretty much a mandatory these days, but a lot of mmorpgs are focusing too much on pvp or making pvpers have to PVE to PVP.
I think open worlds should have pvp anywhere at anytime with consequences. Or at least runescape like with a set area with consequences.
MurderHerd
Only if it's well-implemented in the game and, almost invariably, it isn't. Eve Online has the only full loot, skill-based PvP that I find worth the bother. Other games have zero penalties for defeat and zero reward for winning. Where the hell is the excitement in THAT?
Ask, and you shall receive. Sometimes.
On this very website, under "Features -> Polls" there is a poll for what's more important, PvE or PvP.
PvP - 5.6%
PvE - 14.7%
PvP focus with a little PvE - 10.3%
PvE focus with a little PvP - 35.6%
Equal Parts PvE and PvP - 33.8%
Link to Polls.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Thanks for making the PvEer's point, zzax.
Joined - July 2004