Howdy, Stranger!

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

Can PVE and PVP players co-exist in a Sandbox?

135678

Comments

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    I haven't seen good open world PvP in a MMORPG yet.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 23,133
    Originally posted by DMKano
    Originally posted by Scot
    You have two groups of players who want to play the same game different ways. You give them their own areas in the same game, its not that hard to do.

     

    You still have skills that need to be balanced for PvP and PvE - it IS hard to do.

    In the end you realize that you are designing two different games (different areas for PvE and PvP and skill balance for PvP and PvE) - might as well make a PvP game and  PvE game and avoid the headache all together.

    Your right about the blance between skills. Which is why I have suggested before there are two sets of skills. One you use in PvE and one you use in PvP. If the PvP skills are class based they would give no more than a nod to your PvE skills. You are a  PvE Healer? OK you can do that in PvP as well, but don't expect to do as much healing or even in the same way.

    You can designate a huge PvE area with cities and so on within a lawless PvP continent. Job done.

  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by DMKano
    Originally posted by Scot
    You have two groups of players who want to play the same game different ways. You give them their own areas in the same game, its not that hard to do.

     

    You still have skills that need to be balanced for PvP and PvE - it IS hard to do.

    In the end you realize that you are designing two different games (different areas for PvE and PvP and skill balance for PvP and PvE) - might as well make a PvP game and  PvE game and avoid the headache all together.

    Your right about the blance between skills. Which is why I have suggested before there are two sets of skills. One you use in PvE and one you use in PvP. If the PvP skills are class based they would give no more than a nod to your PvE skills. You are a  PvE Healer? OK you can do that in PvP as well, but don't expect to do as much healing or even in the same way.

    You can designate a huge PvE area with cities and so on within a lawless PvP continent. Job done.

         Which you might think sounds good, but in the end, it just can't be done without actually designing 2 separate games..  Take EQ for example..  The Druid.. The skills and spells of the druid would make it very OP against most other classes.. A melee class would never stand a chance being kited to death by the druid.. What are you doing to do then?  Nerf the druid so that snare and roots don't work in PvP..  OK.. but I still have heals, so I'm good.. Wait, we need to nerf the heals too as you suggested above.. By the time you get done nerfing everything about a class, it is no longer that class anymore.. The reason why a druid's defense and dps is low is vs a warrior or wizard is because of those other skills you are nerfing.. So if you take away a druids snare and heals, are you going to increase his dps to compensate so he's as powerful as a wizzard and are you going to increase the wizards defense so he can take a beating like a warrior.?  

         PvP and PvE just don't LIVE well together.. period..

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Originally posted by DMKano
    Originally posted by Scot
    You have two groups of players who want to play the same game different ways. You give them their own areas in the same game, its not that hard to do.

     

    You still have skills that need to be balanced for PvP and PvE - it IS hard to do.

    In the end you realize that you are designing two different games (different areas for PvE and PvP and skill balance for PvP and PvE) - might as well make a PvP game and  PvE game and avoid the headache all together.

     

    It should never be about Balancing skills. It should be about counteracting them and knowing how to (yes there is a difference), that's what really promotes team play and importance to roles. Yet as the producer for SWG once said.."reading is hard"...paraphrased.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 23,133
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by DMKano
    Originally posted by Scot
    You have two groups of players who want to play the same game different ways. You give them their own areas in the same game, its not that hard to do.

     

    You still have skills that need to be balanced for PvP and PvE - it IS hard to do.

    In the end you realize that you are designing two different games (different areas for PvE and PvP and skill balance for PvP and PvE) - might as well make a PvP game and  PvE game and avoid the headache all together.

    Your right about the blance between skills. Which is why I have suggested before there are two sets of skills. One you use in PvE and one you use in PvP. If the PvP skills are class based they would give no more than a nod to your PvE skills. You are a  PvE Healer? OK you can do that in PvP as well, but don't expect to do as much healing or even in the same way.

    You can designate a huge PvE area with cities and so on within a lawless PvP continent. Job done.

         Which you might think sounds good, but in the end, it just can't be done without actually designing 2 separate games..  Take EQ for example..  The Druid.. The skills and spells of the druid would make it very OP against most other classes.. A melee class would never stand a chance being kited to death by the druid.. What are you doing to do then?  Nerf the druid so that snare and roots don't work in PvP..  OK.. but I still have heals, so I'm good.. Wait, we need to nerf the heals too as you suggested above.. By the time you get done nerfing everything about a class, it is no longer that class anymore.. The reason why a druid's defense and dps is low is vs a warrior or wizard is because of those other skills you are nerfing.. So if you take away a druids snare and heals, are you going to increase his dps to compensate so he's as powerful as a wizzard and are you going to increase the wizards defense so he can take a beating like a warrior.?  

         PvP and PvE just don't LIVE well together.. period..

    Once again, I am not saying if you have an ability in PvE it even exists in PvP. To ensure you get what I am talking about I will exaggerate, your PvE is WoW skills, your PvP is Planetside guns. It is trying to maintain the balance of the same skills in PvE and PvP that is an issue. Totally new set of skills with a nod to your PvE class, if the game has classes.

  • BoneserinoBoneserino Member UncommonPosts: 1,768
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    I haven't seen good open world PvP in a MMORPG yet.

    Because you never will.

    FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!

  • OriousOrious Member UncommonPosts: 548
    Originally posted by Boneserino
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    I haven't seen good open world PvP in a MMORPG yet.

    Because you never will.

    Like many have pointed out SWG did it well... Have PvP factions that are always flagged as PvP-ready. They don't necessarily get more perks, but they do have different perks. These factions are NPC factions though, so PvErs need only consider if they want to make war with this NPC faction or not.

    Lineage 2 also did open pvp very well by introducing very painful disincentives instead of appealing incentives. It was so hard to get gear legitimately in that game. If you went red, your chance of dropping a piece was very high. Very few players went red and that's as it should be. Most PvP was with wars declared between other guilds.

    image

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Robokapp

    I'll give you a hint: Consensual and Open-World do not match. If both parties agree to Pvp why does it have to be in open world and not in an arena that they both willingly enter?

     

    Exactly. That is why instanced pvp is so popular. Few wants to be forced to pvp in the open world, and they vote with their feet.

     

  • OriousOrious Member UncommonPosts: 548
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Robokapp

    I'll give you a hint: Consensual and Open-World do not match. If both parties agree to Pvp why does it have to be in open world and not in an arena that they both willingly enter?

     

    Exactly. That is why instanced pvp is so popular. Few wants to be forced to pvp in the open world, and they vote with their feet.

     

    It's mainly about immersion and a different style of gaming. MMORPGs are becoming so similar to typical console games now. They're adding esports features. If I want an arena, I'll go play LOL or a long time ago Rakion or similar. When I play an MMORPG I don't want to play an arena, I want to play in a virtual world that absorbs you. I'd rather have the freedom to play an arena-centered game if I want or a game where you have a completely different experience. In a virtual world PvE and PvP players coexist because the game doesn't try to lump them into those categories. The devs make systems that make sense and not systems that try to segregate players into specific gaming "Modules" that make up one complete game.

    Besides the newness of MMORPGS in the late 90s/early 2000s, this idea of a virtual world was the allure for players. It's why I found Lineage 1 interesting and why I found L2 and SWG interesting. At the time I did not find WoW interesting, but now looking at it it does have way more old-school gameplay than current MMORPGs. This is also the same reason why so many companies are trying to create the next big "Virtual World". It's difficult because the market is oversaturated by the WoW business model. Not a bad thing, but the depthness for other player-bases are no longer present. 

    image

  • shinkanshinkan Member UncommonPosts: 241

    Offcourse it is possible, regardles of some of the responses above. I have played both Eve Online and Star Wars Galaxy (pre NGE) and both managed it pretty good, and I would say that the pvp and pve are dependant on each other in these games. But for that to be possible you need a system in place to care for it, item loss or item decay for example. Eve has item loss when killed, SWG had item decay and also pve classes providing buffs.

    But again it will not cater to the majority of pve player, but if done well can have a decent pvp and pve player base. The game need to create a symbiosis between the to player groups or it wont work.

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Originally posted by Orious
    Originally posted by Boneserino
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    I haven't seen good open world PvP in a MMORPG yet.

    Because you never will.

    Like many have pointed out SWG did it well... Have PvP factions that are always flagged as PvP-ready. They don't necessarily get more perks, but they do have different perks. These factions are NPC factions though, so PvErs need only consider if they want to make war with this NPC faction or not.

    Lineage 2 also did open pvp very well by introducing very painful disincentives instead of appealing incentives. It was so hard to get gear legitimately in that game. If you went red, your chance of dropping a piece was very high. Very few players went red and that's as it should be. Most PvP was with wars declared between other guilds.

    To me SWG's system was the ideal PVP flagging system. It had multiple forms of PVP flagging. Be it group level, guild level or faction level. It also had bounty hunting, as well as space PVP that used the same overall flagging system. You could be as FFA as you wanted or as non-combatant oriented as you wanted, you could customize your PVP experience in a sense on both group levels as well as guild levels. It had a neutral faction that could lend aid to either side or stay neutral. It had any kind of PVP you could want, from 100's vs 100's to 1 on 1.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • CazrielCazriel Member RarePosts: 419

    Co-exist?  No.  Primarily because that is antithetical to what most PvPers want.  They don't want co-existence, they want annihilation.  If you doubt that, look at the language PvPers use when describing PvEers:  sheep, carebears, prey.  No where do PvPers say, hey, let's go easy on PvE players so they won't leave.  Nope.  What you read is:  if you don't like it, leave.   PvP generates a toxic, hostile, whiney community.   PvPers are a lot like greedy leeches, they bleed the community dry and then can't figure out why no one wants to play with them. 

    I'm very sorry to see that many players believe that sandbox = PvP and the more OW or nonconsensual the PvP, then the more sandboxy a game is.  This is just a bad turn for sandboxes to take and guarantees that they will remain niche games.   

    SotA may be able to maintain a healthy community.  I was very tempted to put some cash on the line with Kickstarter, but I've decided to wait until the game is released to see how the PvP shakes out.  If PvP remains the dominant factor in game design, including constant skill rebalancing , then I will probably give it a pass.  

  • MaquiameMaquiame Member UncommonPosts: 1,073

    Yes, I've actually written posts about how it should work several times. You have to make a faction game that plays more like Risk. Conquering areas, resources, etc. Make the pvp players of a nation the army of said nation that has to depend on the civilians (PVErs) for resources. You don't have to be a crafter. You could be a total pve player who is about killing monsters and you will help out your nation. 

     

    Here is how it works.

     

    HUGE worlds, more than one perhaps (maybe the game is sci fi)

     

    3 nations, lots of land to conquer - regions, like a rts. 

     

    1. PVE and PVP players choose what they want to do at character creation. - You're locked into a main role. Can you do the other role? Sure you can just understand that those who picked one over the other will always be better than you if you chose the other role in their "specialist role".  The roles are of course PVE and PVP. Those that are part of one always get a +15 percent stat boost in their skills. PVP players are always better at pvp skills, pve players are always better at pve skills.

    2. PVP are the military, their job is to conquer territories and keep the PVErs safe against invaders

    3. PVE are the resource makers, the explorers, the city builders, etc. Their job is to keep the nation and war machine running. They are basically in affect -indirect pvpers- 

    4. PVE players cannot be attacked by PVP players of the same faction -UNLESS- the pvers trigger a morale negative score due to not helping the pvpers because they are not helping the war machine of their nation. Work together not apart.

    5. System is skill based, not level based. There are pvp skills and pve skills. Since neither are directly fighting each other players don't have to worry about nerfs. The only time PVErs are attacked by PVPers is when they are of a different faction.

    6. One side of the faction does not do their job properly? The other side can leave and join an enemy faction. True consequences. I'm looking at the PVE player who dares to not help the war machine and the PVP player who dares to gank their own citizens. System is based on a point morale system based on players actions. Cause too much negative morale and you cause the other side to have the option to leave. PVP side loses their crafters, weaponsmiths, rangers, mapmakersm miners and citybuilders. PVE players lose their army opening them up to attack by enemy nations, they can lose any conquered territories due to not being able to protect them, they can also be attacked by their own army under such conditions due to not helping them with resources to keep the country protected and expanding. Don't want the pvp players to gank you? Then keep the country morale score high by assisting your country's military with the resources and products that they need. The only time you can get ganked is if the military morale sinks under a certain level.

     

    PVE and PVP are supposed to co exist, its stupid developers who always put in systems that make both sides more liable to work apart than together and in these types of situations you only attract pvpers who are not there for legitimate challenge but only their to gank. The system I mention above would attract a better class of pvper overall. Sure would you still have gankers? Yes, but imagine the look of the gankers when one nation who has a pvp army who ganks or does not protect its own citizens have their pve players leave mass exodus due to the idiot gankers causing the country they are part of to have too much negative morale. And better yet that same nation of now citizen less pvpers getting invaded by an enemy nation who just had its resource score bolstered by its new pve refugees.

    The word I have is Priceless.

     

    In the end the key is interdependability. This game would work, unfortunately (and fortunately) it would not appeal to the more common selfish solo themepark crowd who could care less about working with anyone and just wants to -beat- the game.

    image

    Any mmo worth its salt should be like a good prostitute when it comes to its game world- One hell of a faker, and a damn good shaker!

  • AnirethAnireth Member UncommonPosts: 940

    Yes.

    They did and do in UO, EVE and some other games. So yes.

    The problem is how to restrict PvP so that it isn't basically non-existent, but doesn't have a too big impact on PvE players.

    The key is to make it more favourable to go after other PvP players instead of the PvE crowd. Hard mechanics like toggling PvP, PvP zones etc. don't work that well. The players have to govern themselves.

    You kill too many/the wrong guy and you find yourself the hunted, not the hunter. That would make people at least think twice about killing someone random.

    Throw in being able to fully loot people that are flagged as PK, while "regular" people lose nothing or only a small collection, maybe introduce item decay, as in, combat damages equipmen (which would also do wonders to the economy), but PvP does it even faster..

    If the guilds actually work together, both internally and with other guilds it would lead to a situation where when someone kills a random guy he gets hunted down and fully looted. Probably several times by different groups, whether on purpose or just because they didn't hear that justice was served already. If he kills a "legimate" target, the other side would either just drop him when they happen to run across, simply write it off as "comes with the job" or declare full scale war on the other side.

    Usually, "full scale" should still exclude known non-PvPers, or better, only include known PvPers, as otherwise, even more people have reason to go after you. If you don't shy away from killing those non-PvPers, whats to keep you from killing others? And if the economy is player run or at least features a huge involvement by players, people might get angry that you looted their goods.

    Would especially be relevant if there is some sort of transport service, also run by players. I don't think any MMO, not even UO or so really features something like that. But imagine if you buy a new armor, you pay the smith in advance so he can buy the ore, and the courier with your armor gets robbed. Or the armor gets robbed on it's way to you. Or to anger even more people, while the blacksmith gets the first shipment of ore, he promises to pay the miner once his customer paid him. And then the money gets stolen between customer and smith.

    So the guy ordering a armor has no money and no armor, the smith has no money and not enough ore to complete the armor, the miner has no money and no ore, and the courier got robbed making him look bad. Thats easily four private guilds and three professional organizations.

    Now the customer happens to be a high up both in a PvP guild as well as in some sort of armed forces of the city/kingdom or whatever.

    In the end, several hundred people would have a lot of reasons to be angry at the guy killing the courier. Still a good idea to kill him?

    The problem is, this never happens in todays MMOs.

    There is no courier, at best the customer and the smith meet up directly, usually it's send via mail in some sort of cash on delivery, so you can't take out the goods without paying. There are no player run armed forces, only guilds. Crafting is basically non-existent, good items are drops from raids. In the end, even if someone gets killed and looted, at best his own guild will get involved. As guilds are often just to do raids, it's not unlikely that nobody is interested in helping the victim, instead he'll get kicked because without armor he hardly can participate in the mandatory raid happening every other day.

    To make PvE and PvP coexist, you need to carefully balance a lot of things, instead of just making it toggable or even worse, simply allow full PvP everywhere withotu any restrictions.

    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

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Orious
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Robokapp

    I'll give you a hint: Consensual and Open-World do not match. If both parties agree to Pvp why does it have to be in open world and not in an arena that they both willingly enter?

     

    Exactly. That is why instanced pvp is so popular. Few wants to be forced to pvp in the open world, and they vote with their feet.

     

    It's mainly about immersion and a different style of gaming. MMORPGs are becoming so similar to typical console games now. They're adding esports features. If I want an arena, I'll go play LOL or a long time ago Rakion or similar. When I play an MMORPG I don't want to play an arena, I want to play in a virtual world that absorbs you. I'd rather have the freedom to play an arena-centered game if I want or a game where you have a completely different experience. In a virtual world PvE and PvP players coexist because the game doesn't try to lump them into those categories. The devs make systems that make sense and not systems that try to segregate players into specific gaming "Modules" that make up one complete game.

    Besides the newness of MMORPGS in the late 90s/early 2000s, this idea of a virtual world was the allure for players. It's why I found Lineage 1 interesting and why I found L2 and SWG interesting. At the time I did not find WoW interesting, but now looking at it it does have way more old-school gameplay than current MMORPGs. This is also the same reason why so many companies are trying to create the next big "Virtual World". It's difficult because the market is oversaturated by the WoW business model. Not a bad thing, but the depthness for other player-bases are no longer present. 

     

    Well, the idea of a persistent virtual world is an old, and out-of-date idea. MMORPGs are, as you say, becoming similar to console online games now.

    In fact, MMOs are increasingly divided into different play modes (instanced pvp, instanced pve, ....) to give players more convenience and flexibility. It is about choice. If i want to run a dungeon with no pvp, i can. If i want to do only pvp, i can. I think there are a lot more companies going away from the virtual world, than ones that try to get back into it.

    Note that sp games like SKYRIM does not have the same type of persistent virtual we talk about here (since it support fast travel ... and it is essentailly a huge instance with no other players in it).

     

  • TalulaRoseTalulaRose Member RarePosts: 1,247

    If you removed the pve from the sandbox all you would have left is a giant pvp arena.

     

    I thought the open world pvp'rs didn't want arena pvp.

     

    I don't think they have thought their position through.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Anireth

    In the end, several hundred people would have a lot of reasons to be angry at the guy killing the courier. Still a good idea to kill him?

    The problem is, this never happens in todays MMOs.

    That is not a problem. That is by design. Motivations and experiences are now designed and captured in instances .... much more consistent and interesting than letting the players making it happen.

     

  • TheDoveTheDove Member Posts: 91
    Originally posted by Cazriel

    Co-exist?  No.  Primarily because that is antithetical to what most PvPers want.  They don't want co-existence, they want annihilation.  If you doubt that, look at the language PvPers use when describing PvEers:  sheep, carebears, prey.  No where do PvPers say, hey, let's go easy on PvE players so they won't leave.  Nope.  What you read is:  if you don't like it, leave.   PvP generates a toxic, hostile, whiney community.   PvPers are a lot like greedy leeches, they bleed the community dry and then can't figure out why no one wants to play with them. 

    I'm very sorry to see that many players believe that sandbox = PvP and the more OW or nonconsensual the PvP, then the more sandboxy a game is.  This is just a bad turn for sandboxes to take and guarantees that they will remain niche games.   

    SotA may be able to maintain a healthy community.  I was very tempted to put some cash on the line with Kickstarter, but I've decided to wait until the game is released to see how the PvP shakes out.  If PvP remains the dominant factor in game design, including constant skill rebalancing , then I will probably give it a pass.  

    Was going to post; but this is pretty much everything i would say.

  • vadio123vadio123 Member UncommonPosts: 593

    Yes

     

    For Pvers need aceepty if joni full loot mmo 

    need be ready to get ganked , and as well griefed , and stolen

    its you chossen not do , but others player if have choice to do you cant condem this 

    (and if game allow)

     

    for Pvpers 

    Need accepty none all players like pvp and dont need shout to wind Carebears or any other word 

    its be gratefull because pvers usual big part economy mmo you play and usual economy its big wheel

    to push others things in you game 

  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906

    The link in the op doesn't bring anything new to the table.  IDK why he linked that because its not doing anything different for the pvp/pve gaming industry that hasn't already been done by all other major games.  Maybe he forgot you can flag yourself in wow,swtor,rift at any time you so desire and start fighting anyone else who is also flagged.

     

    The answer to the big question is YES.

     

    The other question is will it ever actually happen?

    The answer to this question is probably not.  Because gaming developers don't really know how to think.  We dealt with these issues back in the days of MUDS.  And the pve and pvp community got along quite well.  So the problem was solved back in the 90's but the current developers forgot about all that and are trying to reinvent the wheel of gaming.

    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by filmoret
    And the pve and pvp community got along quite well.  So the problem was solved back in the 90's but the current developers forgot about all that and are trying to reinvent the wheel of gaming.

    Only because the MUD community is a niche community, and MMOs are no longer designed for that niche ... so whatever solution then does not apply for today's audience.

  • BearKnightBearKnight Member CommonPosts: 461
    Originally posted by d_20

    After reading about the PVP proposed for Shroud of the Avatar and associated threads, I wonder if it is possible for a sandbox to keep both PVE and PVP players happy.

     

    https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/pvp-death-current-thinking-megapost.8247/

     

    Shroud of the Avatar is reputed to be the "spiritual successor" to Ultima Online. But can this way of thinking ("compromise") about PVP actually work? And when I say work, I mean, can it keep a large and diverse player base happy? 

     

    In the PVP "sandbox" games I've played (Darkfall 1, DFUW, Mortal Online) the population always started out with a lot of PVE hopefuls (explorers, crafters, people who actually liked the pve in Darkfall, etc.) and eventually they left the game as the "wolves" cullled all the "sheep." There was no niche for pve players to thrive and contribute to the activities of the pvp players, it seems.

     

    During the process of the PVE player exodus, the forums erupted with this schism between "griefers" and "carebears." There was no happy ending -- unless you think the departure of the "carebears" was the happy ending and that Darkfall  and Mortal Online are doing well now without them. The community just tears itself apart and eventually, there are a few all powerful guilds/clans and a niche game for pvpers. Is this the way all sandboxes must go?

     

    However, some of the old UO fans (I never played) say pvp is the essence of the sandbox. Is it really? It's an honest question. I understand that it has to do with freedom. To that extent, I agree. But is it the only way? I honestly don't know.

     

    What do you think? Can a sandbox actually work where pve and pvp players can both be happy? If so, is there any game where this actually happened, or is it only in theory?

     

    Yes, DAOC, and is the single most reason DAOC was one of the best MMOs in the past 15 years. Literally, PVE and PVP players worked together to benefit each other.

     

    The only thing you have to realize is that the developers can't be completely nitwits by including both in the same rulesets when it comes to powers/dmg/etc. When you engage in pvp vs another player spells/skills/etc behave DIFFERENTLY than if you were fighting an NPC. 

     

    Example:

    PVE: Spell does 100% dmg etc

    PVP: Spell does 25% dmg vs player

     

    This would mean that time to kill of a similar hp/defense mob in PVE could be 5 seconds, where as in pvp it would be 20 for the TTK for a player. 

     

    These "split" rulesets have worked for MANY popular games, but all of the unpopular/dead/pay-to-win games do not do this, and suffer from it.

     

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441

    It is very hard to get both PvP only and PvE only players to enjoy the same game... Most PvEers don't get too upset if they are killed once and again but if they constantly get killed and robbed they wont like the game.

    This is particularly bad in a FFA game where you aren't safe just because someone is from the same place as you.

    With 2 or 3 sides it is a little easier since players from your own side will try to keep enemies off from your sides land opening up relatively safety in many places and that is the way to go if you are trying to get both types of players.

    Still, a game like that needs totally awesome PvE to pull it off together with fun PvP. And it also needs to have the PvPers actually having a point to defend their own PvEers, preferably both to have them relying on the PvEers crafted gear as well as it being bad for each faction when people from the side gets killed.

    It is surely possible, Eve succeeds at least to some point here (and so did SWG) and you should be able to do an even better job than that but it is far from easy. Most PvP sandboxes tend to let the PvEers just be targets for the PvPers without much other points and after a while they consist mostly if not only of PvP players.

    The most important thing is that all players must have fun when they play or they will play something else.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Loke666

    The most important thing is that all players must have fun when they play or they will play something else.

    That is the point .. there is so much entertainment out there that someone looking to be entertained does not have to play a particular game, heck .. not even a MMO.

    If there is not enough people who like non-consensual pvp embedded in a pve game, devs really have little choice but to separate the two.

     

  • GinazGinaz Member RarePosts: 2,482
    I would say no. All the real pvp players, the ones who crave competition over all else, are playing MOBAs. It lets them get in and fight without having to deal with the MMORPG bullshit of having to level and gear your character. Players who are more into pve won't play a full loot pvp game anymore. The sheep got tired of being preyed on by griefers and asshats and took their business elsewhere. We will never have another griefers paradise become anything more than a niche within a niche made by underfunded indie companies.

    Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?

    Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.

Sign In or Register to comment.