Not in any way where they will be both be equal. Eve does a good job but it does favor the PvPers.
As I've gotten older I don't want a game that caters to everybody. The games I tend to play nowadays have a very specific audience in mind and build the game around them. They may not be on any top 10 charts but I'm looking to win any popularity contests.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
Darkblight touched on a great topic in his previous post; the holy grail of an MMO is balance. Everyone knows an MMO needs 'balance' to be good, and the better the 'balance', the greater the MMO. Balance, unfortunately, is one of those terms that no one ever understands in the same way. Most of the time, whatever benefits the player's interests is considered to them to be balance. For a trammelite, balance is being able to go out into the wilderness to make money without dying every minute. For a crafter, balance is the ability to create an item and have a good economy to make a profit in. And lastly, for most of us here, balance is the opportunity to pwn the previous two people and run off with their stuff.
The balance that darkblight wants to talk about, I believe, is the balance of all these types of players, which is what made Ultima Online the epitome of MMOs to date, but instead of discussing that he does what most of us thieves, murderers, griefers do (and I'm sure I may even in this article about my point), and goes on to discuss the balance which benefits only us, the minority of players who cause grief, chaos, and anger. And this is the major problem of balance in today's MMOs.
Now, I must state I've been a thief in any RPG I've played. I absolutely enjoy stealing, backstabbing, deceiving, and generally being a nuisance to everybody. If I can profit off another person's effort with minimal risk, great. But I'm also aware of the my role's position in the grand scheme of things. In order for me to enjoy this there needs to be another person for me to profit from, and in order for me to profit off of them, he needs to be able to make money with relative freedom, and this relative freedom only comes if there are a very limited amount of people like me, and you, who want to screw him over in the lich lord room after he's been there for 2 hours straight. That other player, the trammelites or anyone who loves to roleplay and decorate their virtual homes with sparkles and glitter, are needed in droves in order to run any MMO, and they need to feel as though the entire world isn't out to completely screw them over. They are the sheep to us wolves, and just like in nature, the balance lies in having less, much less predators than there are prey.
When you cater to only one of these types, the trammelite, thief, crafter, et cetera, the MMO will eventually only consist of that type. That's what makes most MMOs to date stale and boring as ever. No one wants to steal from another thief today who's just going to steal it back from them tomorrow. On the other hand, if you put everyone in a bubble, safe from all the evils of the world, even they will find themselves bored from a constant treadmill of levels and achievements. It's important to give everyone enough protection so they don't feel scammed of all their hard work all the time, but it's also important to provide some chaos, some destructive elements, in order to keep the world changing and to stay interesting. The key to balance then is to maintain the proper proportions of these elements.
Balance doesn't lie in PvP or PvE or crafting, it lies in the mixture of all these combined. MMOs are fantasy worlds where people interact with each other, thus it's more of a social balance that needs to take place in order to truly have an outstanding MMO. Given, individual aspects such as PvP, PvE, and crafting need to be balanced themselves, but the bigger picture is a diverse and dynamic world in which politics, drama, and power struggles take place. Ultima Online was laced with bugs, imbalanced mechanics, and always was down when you wanted to play it, but it was absolutely incomparable to anything else when it came to interaction and conflict with another human. It was a melting pot of roleplayers, murderers, griefers, crafters, you name it, even though it had all its flaws and imperfections. No one cared to max their character before heading out into the dungeons because there was an enormous mix of people to run in to, whether it be a newbie who wanted to just kill some mongbats with you, or a PK who was trying to In Por Ylem you to death. Even the huge changes that made a character go from a powerhouse to a gimp overnight didn't really stop us from starting to train a new skill from scratch the next day. Everyone was kept on the same playing field because we never really knew what tomorrow would bring.
I'd like to say Ultima Online had no 'end-game'; the way I played Ultima the first day, up until the very last, was to just get out of town and see what would happen. Every time I logged in I never had a goal other than to have fun. If I ran into some of my thief buddies, we'd go stealing; if I found myself needing money badly, I'd go kill monsters. There was always something to do, always somebody new to run in to, and it never was the same thing twice, and that only works when there is a diverse balance of every type of player imaginable. MMOs today always seems to have a focus on only one certain aspect of a world, whether it be PvP, PvE, or something entirely weird. The next MMO that realizes the balance between having free-for-all PvP, fully-lootable corpses, and a safe enough stable for my neon horses, I'm in.
Originally posted by Ginaz 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.
That is the beauty of a mature market .. there are choices and no one needs to tolerate games they do not like.
Ever play MMORPGs where separate PVP and PVE servers exist? After time takes it's course, the PVE servers are loaded with people in world chat crying that they want PVP action.
What are you talking about? I played wow for a few years, and i haven't seen anyone complaining about the lack of pvp on a pve server .. heck .. those who wants pvp will either a) queue up a BG/arean, or play on a pvp server.
If there is such a demand, you would think Blizz would put more open world pvp into WOW instead of taken it OUT.
No one can coexist in a newly released sandbox mmo because trolling and griefing is cool now. If people actually just played a role playing game to role play, it could work. Although all the trolls and griefers would just claim they are RPing criminals or something.
Ever play MMORPGs where separate PVP and PVE servers exist? After time takes it's course, the PVE servers are loaded with people in world chat crying that they want PVP action.
What are you talking about? I played wow for a few years, and i haven't seen anyone complaining about the lack of pvp on a pve server .. heck .. those who wants pvp will either a) queue up a BG/arean, or play on a pvp server.
If there is such a demand, you would think Blizz would put more open world pvp into WOW instead of taken it OUT.
Don't worry, even if that has not happened in WoW yet (applauds Blizzard for so far great implementations of content then), that is the eventual outcome. Just wait and watch.
Wait .. why would that be the eventual outcome? Wouldn't people who want pvp just go to a pvp server (you know, you can move toons) or just go play MOBA.
I still don't like games that nerf pve skillsets intended for pvp. I also don't like rolling nerfs when devs regularly nerf then buff classes rather then coming up with a proper balance for each class.
PVP and PVE does work when players feel forced to play a certain way without any alternatives provided in the sandbox and when there are no worthwhile incentives for both. Example: On a western land mass are wolf pets. That's the only place you can get them. So a player on the eastern land mass would have to sneak there, hiding and dodging other faction players and npc guards. The merchants sell to anyone, so I would be willing to go on such a mission just to bring back such a pet for my collection. If I got killed or ganked along the way so be it, as I would pick a time when mostly no one was around or bring a group of friends to make it easier.
"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
co-exist? yes...it doesn't mean both parties are realy 100% happy about it, just means they can live with the situation. Things like Eve work this way.
But it is impossible to create a game that is able to make pve- and pvp-players 100% happy. This is impossible for several reasons. The easiest to understand is probalby the point that the pvp-crowd wants to be able to kill every other player while the pve-player wants the abilty to avoid pvp. If there is the slightest chance of a player blocking pvp(not just hiding) its not perfect for pvp'ers and without a 100%proof ability to block pvp the pve'ers won't be happy.
PVP player "Rogues can kill people in 4 seconds!!!!! NERF!!!!"
PVE player "But you're a caster, you should not be tanking against a rogue"
PVP player "But it's unfair!..all classes should be balanced!!!"
PVE player "They are balanced, you need to learn to make friends instead of ganking people"
PVP players "I don't want to!!"
~~~~~~~~~ Developer nerfes rogues after lots of PVP whines ~~~~~~~~~
PVE players "............"
QFT... That about sums it up for any game that involves both PvE and PvP. For PvE and PvP to co-exist, PvP players need to stop whining about "balance," and start learning how to play their class by either
1. Adapting and overcoming
or
2. Knowing their limitations and avoid a fight or bring friends.
It's the anti-social, must-solo, attitude of most PvPers that brings about the "balance" whines anyway. Today's PvPer has forgotten how to play, to think, and to win with their knowledge of their class rather than developer intervention via nerfs.
I still don't like games that nerf pve skillsets intended for pvp. I also don't like rolling nerfs when devs regularly nerf then buff classes rather then coming up with a proper balance for each class.
yeah, one of the big issues for me but its solvable. I mean it is possbile to have a great combat-system that works for both at the same time but i doubt any company will take the time to realy try it instead of using the shortcut that is nerfed pve-mechanics for the sake of pvp.
Ever play MMORPGs where separate PVP and PVE servers exist? After time takes it's course, the PVE servers are loaded with people in world chat crying that they want PVP action.
What are you talking about? I played wow for a few years, and i haven't seen anyone complaining about the lack of pvp on a pve server .. heck .. those who wants pvp will either a) queue up a BG/arean, or play on a pvp server.
If there is such a demand, you would think Blizz would put more open world pvp into WOW instead of taken it OUT.
Don't worry, even if that has not happened in WoW yet (applauds Blizzard for so far great implementations of content then), that is the eventual outcome. Just wait and watch.
Wait .. why would that be the eventual outcome? Wouldn't people who want pvp just go to a pvp server (you know, you can move toons) or just go play MOBA.
Ah, finally, a point you made that I can see a real answer! There, is the reason why WoW has not had this issue then, because "you can move a built up character to a PVP server." Then it explains why WoW would not have and will not see this issue. Without that one point, even WoW would have seen this issue by now. This one point also explains why Blizzard decided as you stated, "to take open world pvp out, instead of putting more in." This is, beyond the fact that there usually are more PVE-oriented players than PVP-oriented players, hence why there are usually less PVP servers.
MMORPGs that I have seen and played do not usually allow server transfers due to economic advantages that can be gained from one server to another. And people would take advantage, and likely do, saying there are ways to do so. Although, given the "Free to Play" business model typical "Pay to Win" tactics, I now am seeing this as quite surprising I have not seen this in more MMORPGs.
But then the solution is simple .. just allow server move. In fact, a MMORPG can charge money for it, as demonstrated by Blizz.
Plus, why even bother with servers when there are cross realm functions, and megaservers. Just have two mega-servers with two rule set (one allows for pvp, one don't ... and let toons to log into any of those).
In fact, make the consensual decision to pvp more flexible, so people can play whatever their mood requires.
Originally posted by CazrielCo-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.
You have never been rejected on raid run because you "sucked"?
PVE players are as competitive or casual as are PVP players. You will find elitists and "toxic" players in both groups.
As far as megaservers go... how big can each single world server get, as far as a maximum population one could hold? Based on today's technologies and within a reasonable cost?
Whereas I still prefer both PVP and PVE, if implemented correctly, your solution most certainly looks good as well.
No specific limits. Megaservers are more like a different organisation structure for servers when it comes to poulation.
The traditional limits of players per map/region would still apply.
Different servers or that megaserver with forced distribution of players by pve/pvp would be a good step but it won't solve the conflict between pve and pvp combat mechanics(especially cc) and every time i see a discussion about pve/pvp-servers i see pvp'ers that refuse that system(some prefere victims over opponents).
They can co-exist but only if consequences are prevalent on both sides.
I always find it hilarious when PVP'ers talk about the lack of consequences for PVE'ers, yet they themselves typically lack any sort of the same. There has to be rules and they have to be strictly enforced.
You can't have everyone going around and killing anyone they want at any time without consequences. As much as PVP'ers want that to happen, it doesn't work in the long run.
In my opinion, existing together isn't the same thing as being happy.
If a PVE player doesn't have to deal with PVP, they tend to be just find and happy, so long as their quest chains or component gathering doesn't force them into pvp to complete, and no, buying something from a pvper in an auction house isn't acceptable. (Two reasons, first, you didn't do it yourself, and second, you probably have to pay stupid prices that only gold buyers can afford.) Also, requiring them to go into or through mandatory pvp areas is the same boat, unless it's someplace where no questing or crafting will take them to or through. Plenty of games have
If a PVP player can't gank someone because they are PVP, some of them will just go find other pvpers. Some will cuss up a storm and have a fit like a 5 year old denied candy, and some will try to find ways to trick or force the other person into pvp if at all possible.
(I had someone do that to me in wow. He was stealthed/invisible, snuck right up close to my back but not where he would become visible when I was using a clickable object in game and waited for me to right click it. Wow has an issue with clicking the right thing when there's possible overlap, so it thinks you've right clicked the invisible scum behind you instead of the door in front of you, decides you attempted to make an attack, flips you to pvp without asking, and you are instantly stunned and die before you recover because the creep behind you was warp clicking the attacks just waiting for it to happen. That kind of thing is an exploit and not allowed, hard to prove, and one of the reasons why there are so many people that hate griefers.)
Now if all PVP is consensual, and there are no easy exploits to circumvent that, the only ones whining about it will be the griefers. Now if you allow non-consensual pvp, few games have any kind of associated penalties and in fact reward such activities. If you get loot, xp, or rank from killing other players, it's a reward for being antisocial. As to not being able to play for a few hours to a day, they just changed to a different character and continue whatever they were doing. Those that make the character attackable by anyone for a time is also a non-issue, they already wanted to fight, and tend to avoid doing this in places where they expect to find opponents that might be able to inconvenience them or otherwise prevent them from escaping. Along those lines, penalties that are easily decayed, like just by spending time, are not effective for the same reasons. They will either space things out so they can limit the inconvenience, or switch characters.
Here's an idea I don't recall seeing to punish transgressors, and it has some historical merit as well, though in real life it is considered a horrible thing to do, Mutilation. Imagine if non-duel, non-battlegound pvp built up permanent crime points. Once they became high enough, bounties can get set on that person which get progressively higher as they commit crimes, but can only be reduced by capture and punishment. The super powerful guards in towns and the like will auto aggro on anyone with a bounty, while any bounty hunters can also freely attack them. If you have a bounty on you, you can't be a bounty hunter. (If bounty hunter requires something in game, or is just someone that hunts the bounties is another discussion.) Anytime you are defeated, you go to jail and can't escape. If it was by a valid bounty hunter, they get the bounty. Either way, your bounty is now zero, but your crime points reduce, though not entirely, maybe reduced by a third, that way your past sticks with you and repeat offenders get in trouble faster.
Now as to the jail thing, it's time online and in game with that character you are stuck in a cell with no ability to take actions other than chat with other jailbirds, all other chat channels are locked out. After the appropriate time, you are taken before a judge, where you are given your punishment and then released.
The punishments could vary, but they would all make permanent changes to the character. Lose a hand, and that equipment slot is gone, and you can forget using 2 handed items. Lose an eye, and the right third of your screen is forevermore a blank or black area and you have a penalty on all ranged attacks. Both eyes would be blindness, though you might allow things within maybe 5' be visible in a low res or the like, and obviously you wouldn't even be able to target at range. A leg being lost might reduce or eliminate the use of foot gear, and would definitely cause a reduction in movement as well as eliminate run speed. And of course, when the crime levels are high enough, the character is executed, in which case it's perma-dead and all it's stuff is gone with it. If you really wanted to make it count, have the character become undeletable from the account so they also have a lost character slot and will find it even more painful to do it again.
Now to be honest, I don't think anyone will implement something like that, though I'm sure it would reduce the number of griefers if they have to feel a small amount of the pain themselves and suffer consequences for their actions. (Especially if you can't easily get another account to abuse.) As to the non-griefers, I doubt it would be an issue for them as they tend to not engage in that kind of activity in the first place.
Like i said previus post yes possible but in actual stage
PVER like safe and safe and more safe stuffs
and PVP like more more ways to be "dick"
to me in case depend original game desing
if one player like safezone going play full loot without safe i think its he fault right?
If
One game project to be siege war and guy like gank play who is fault?
Know all rules game you play and accepty all or leave
would work if there are enough games to offer everything the players want. Doesn't work with limited amount of games and doesn't work for developers trying to get the attention of pvp and pve players. Most issues between pvp and pve players arise because other features of a game will attract them and no other game has this combination of features, both sides just want it more pvp or pve to be perfect while developers try to cater both crowds.
It depends on the power gap. Huge power gaps and FFA PvP just don't work, or aren't attractive to the average player.
If there is a slight or moderate power gap, then I think it can work... as long as the lower geared or leveled player has a fair chance of beating players all maxed out. And I mean a fair chance... not a snowballs chance in hell, like some of the current FFA games.
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.
Yes there are some things that only work for small groups of players. But there are a lot of things that work in both a small group setting and large scale pvp setting. Like I said it was solved back in the 90's and the gaming industry is just too stupid to either implement it or too young to know it was already out there. For example once a player reached lvl 10 they decided if they would be a pvp flagged character or not. This allowed for the pve and pvp community to operate in the same world without hindering either of them. Once a character was pvp flagged they could never unflag. They had to create a different character if they wanted to run pve only.
Like I said all the problems were already solved back in the 90's. The problem of full loot pvp was solved the problem of spam killing was solved. The problem of massive zerg ganks were solved. Things that were elementary for those games are impossible for today's games because they aren't smart enough to use them.
For example once a player reached lvl 10 they decided if they would be a pvp flagged character or not. This allowed for the pve and pvp community to operate in the same world without hindering either of them. Once a character was pvp flagged they could never unflag. They had to create a different character if they wanted to run pve only.
and it is implemented in WOW in a slight variation today. You join a pvp server, and you can pve and pvp at the same time. Or you pick to stay in a pve server. The only difference is that you pick at L1, not L10.
Comments
Not in any way where they will be both be equal. Eve does a good job but it does favor the PvPers.
As I've gotten older I don't want a game that caters to everybody. The games I tend to play nowadays have a very specific audience in mind and build the game around them. They may not be on any top 10 charts but I'm looking to win any popularity contests.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
As taken from a wtfman:
Darkblight touched on a great topic in his previous post; the holy grail of an MMO is balance. Everyone knows an MMO needs 'balance' to be good, and the better the 'balance', the greater the MMO. Balance, unfortunately, is one of those terms that no one ever understands in the same way. Most of the time, whatever benefits the player's interests is considered to them to be balance. For a trammelite, balance is being able to go out into the wilderness to make money without dying every minute. For a crafter, balance is the ability to create an item and have a good economy to make a profit in. And lastly, for most of us here, balance is the opportunity to pwn the previous two people and run off with their stuff.
The balance that darkblight wants to talk about, I believe, is the balance of all these types of players, which is what made Ultima Online the epitome of MMOs to date, but instead of discussing that he does what most of us thieves, murderers, griefers do (and I'm sure I may even in this article about my point), and goes on to discuss the balance which benefits only us, the minority of players who cause grief, chaos, and anger. And this is the major problem of balance in today's MMOs.
Now, I must state I've been a thief in any RPG I've played. I absolutely enjoy stealing, backstabbing, deceiving, and generally being a nuisance to everybody. If I can profit off another person's effort with minimal risk, great. But I'm also aware of the my role's position in the grand scheme of things. In order for me to enjoy this there needs to be another person for me to profit from, and in order for me to profit off of them, he needs to be able to make money with relative freedom, and this relative freedom only comes if there are a very limited amount of people like me, and you, who want to screw him over in the lich lord room after he's been there for 2 hours straight. That other player, the trammelites or anyone who loves to roleplay and decorate their virtual homes with sparkles and glitter, are needed in droves in order to run any MMO, and they need to feel as though the entire world isn't out to completely screw them over. They are the sheep to us wolves, and just like in nature, the balance lies in having less, much less predators than there are prey.
When you cater to only one of these types, the trammelite, thief, crafter, et cetera, the MMO will eventually only consist of that type. That's what makes most MMOs to date stale and boring as ever. No one wants to steal from another thief today who's just going to steal it back from them tomorrow. On the other hand, if you put everyone in a bubble, safe from all the evils of the world, even they will find themselves bored from a constant treadmill of levels and achievements. It's important to give everyone enough protection so they don't feel scammed of all their hard work all the time, but it's also important to provide some chaos, some destructive elements, in order to keep the world changing and to stay interesting. The key to balance then is to maintain the proper proportions of these elements.
Balance doesn't lie in PvP or PvE or crafting, it lies in the mixture of all these combined. MMOs are fantasy worlds where people interact with each other, thus it's more of a social balance that needs to take place in order to truly have an outstanding MMO. Given, individual aspects such as PvP, PvE, and crafting need to be balanced themselves, but the bigger picture is a diverse and dynamic world in which politics, drama, and power struggles take place. Ultima Online was laced with bugs, imbalanced mechanics, and always was down when you wanted to play it, but it was absolutely incomparable to anything else when it came to interaction and conflict with another human. It was a melting pot of roleplayers, murderers, griefers, crafters, you name it, even though it had all its flaws and imperfections. No one cared to max their character before heading out into the dungeons because there was an enormous mix of people to run in to, whether it be a newbie who wanted to just kill some mongbats with you, or a PK who was trying to In Por Ylem you to death. Even the huge changes that made a character go from a powerhouse to a gimp overnight didn't really stop us from starting to train a new skill from scratch the next day. Everyone was kept on the same playing field because we never really knew what tomorrow would bring.
I'd like to say Ultima Online had no 'end-game'; the way I played Ultima the first day, up until the very last, was to just get out of town and see what would happen. Every time I logged in I never had a goal other than to have fun. If I ran into some of my thief buddies, we'd go stealing; if I found myself needing money badly, I'd go kill monsters. There was always something to do, always somebody new to run in to, and it never was the same thing twice, and that only works when there is a diverse balance of every type of player imaginable. MMOs today always seems to have a focus on only one certain aspect of a world, whether it be PvP, PvE, or something entirely weird. The next MMO that realizes the balance between having free-for-all PvP, fully-lootable corpses, and a safe enough stable for my neon horses, I'm in.
That is the beauty of a mature market .. there are choices and no one needs to tolerate games they do not like.
Wait .. why would that be the eventual outcome? Wouldn't people who want pvp just go to a pvp server (you know, you can move toons) or just go play MOBA.
I still don't like games that nerf pve skillsets intended for pvp. I also don't like rolling nerfs when devs regularly nerf then buff classes rather then coming up with a proper balance for each class.
PVP and PVE does work when players feel forced to play a certain way without any alternatives provided in the sandbox and when there are no worthwhile incentives for both. Example: On a western land mass are wolf pets. That's the only place you can get them. So a player on the eastern land mass would have to sneak there, hiding and dodging other faction players and npc guards. The merchants sell to anyone, so I would be willing to go on such a mission just to bring back such a pet for my collection. If I got killed or ganked along the way so be it, as I would pick a time when mostly no one was around or bring a group of friends to make it easier.
"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
co-exist? yes...it doesn't mean both parties are realy 100% happy about it, just means they can live with the situation. Things like Eve work this way.
But it is impossible to create a game that is able to make pve- and pvp-players 100% happy. This is impossible for several reasons. The easiest to understand is probalby the point that the pvp-crowd wants to be able to kill every other player while the pve-player wants the abilty to avoid pvp. If there is the slightest chance of a player blocking pvp(not just hiding) its not perfect for pvp'ers and without a 100%proof ability to block pvp the pve'ers won't be happy.
QFT... That about sums it up for any game that involves both PvE and PvP. For PvE and PvP to co-exist, PvP players need to stop whining about "balance," and start learning how to play their class by either
1. Adapting and overcoming
or
2. Knowing their limitations and avoid a fight or bring friends.
It's the anti-social, must-solo, attitude of most PvPers that brings about the "balance" whines anyway. Today's PvPer has forgotten how to play, to think, and to win with their knowledge of their class rather than developer intervention via nerfs.
yeah, one of the big issues for me but its solvable. I mean it is possbile to have a great combat-system that works for both at the same time but i doubt any company will take the time to realy try it instead of using the shortcut that is nerfed pve-mechanics for the sake of pvp.
But then the solution is simple .. just allow server move. In fact, a MMORPG can charge money for it, as demonstrated by Blizz.
Plus, why even bother with servers when there are cross realm functions, and megaservers. Just have two mega-servers with two rule set (one allows for pvp, one don't ... and let toons to log into any of those).
In fact, make the consensual decision to pvp more flexible, so people can play whatever their mood requires.
You have never been rejected on raid run because you "sucked"?
PVE players are as competitive or casual as are PVP players. You will find elitists and "toxic" players in both groups.
No specific limits. Megaservers are more like a different organisation structure for servers when it comes to poulation.
The traditional limits of players per map/region would still apply.
Different servers or that megaserver with forced distribution of players by pve/pvp would be a good step but it won't solve the conflict between pve and pvp combat mechanics(especially cc) and every time i see a discussion about pve/pvp-servers i see pvp'ers that refuse that system(some prefere victims over opponents).
They can co-exist but only if consequences are prevalent on both sides.
I always find it hilarious when PVP'ers talk about the lack of consequences for PVE'ers, yet they themselves typically lack any sort of the same. There has to be rules and they have to be strictly enforced.
You can't have everyone going around and killing anyone they want at any time without consequences. As much as PVP'ers want that to happen, it doesn't work in the long run.
Like i said previus post yes possible but in actual stage
PVER like safe and safe and more safe stuffs
and PVP like more more ways to be "dick"
to me in case depend original game desing
if one player like safezone going play full loot without safe i think its he fault right?
If
One game project to be siege war and guy like gank play who is fault?
Know all rules game you play and accepty all or leave
Can PVP & PVE exist together...
In my opinion, existing together isn't the same thing as being happy.
If a PVE player doesn't have to deal with PVP, they tend to be just find and happy, so long as their quest chains or component gathering doesn't force them into pvp to complete, and no, buying something from a pvper in an auction house isn't acceptable. (Two reasons, first, you didn't do it yourself, and second, you probably have to pay stupid prices that only gold buyers can afford.) Also, requiring them to go into or through mandatory pvp areas is the same boat, unless it's someplace where no questing or crafting will take them to or through. Plenty of games have
If a PVP player can't gank someone because they are PVP, some of them will just go find other pvpers. Some will cuss up a storm and have a fit like a 5 year old denied candy, and some will try to find ways to trick or force the other person into pvp if at all possible.
(I had someone do that to me in wow. He was stealthed/invisible, snuck right up close to my back but not where he would become visible when I was using a clickable object in game and waited for me to right click it. Wow has an issue with clicking the right thing when there's possible overlap, so it thinks you've right clicked the invisible scum behind you instead of the door in front of you, decides you attempted to make an attack, flips you to pvp without asking, and you are instantly stunned and die before you recover because the creep behind you was warp clicking the attacks just waiting for it to happen. That kind of thing is an exploit and not allowed, hard to prove, and one of the reasons why there are so many people that hate griefers.)
Now if all PVP is consensual, and there are no easy exploits to circumvent that, the only ones whining about it will be the griefers. Now if you allow non-consensual pvp, few games have any kind of associated penalties and in fact reward such activities. If you get loot, xp, or rank from killing other players, it's a reward for being antisocial. As to not being able to play for a few hours to a day, they just changed to a different character and continue whatever they were doing. Those that make the character attackable by anyone for a time is also a non-issue, they already wanted to fight, and tend to avoid doing this in places where they expect to find opponents that might be able to inconvenience them or otherwise prevent them from escaping. Along those lines, penalties that are easily decayed, like just by spending time, are not effective for the same reasons. They will either space things out so they can limit the inconvenience, or switch characters.
Here's an idea I don't recall seeing to punish transgressors, and it has some historical merit as well, though in real life it is considered a horrible thing to do, Mutilation. Imagine if non-duel, non-battlegound pvp built up permanent crime points. Once they became high enough, bounties can get set on that person which get progressively higher as they commit crimes, but can only be reduced by capture and punishment. The super powerful guards in towns and the like will auto aggro on anyone with a bounty, while any bounty hunters can also freely attack them. If you have a bounty on you, you can't be a bounty hunter. (If bounty hunter requires something in game, or is just someone that hunts the bounties is another discussion.) Anytime you are defeated, you go to jail and can't escape. If it was by a valid bounty hunter, they get the bounty. Either way, your bounty is now zero, but your crime points reduce, though not entirely, maybe reduced by a third, that way your past sticks with you and repeat offenders get in trouble faster.
Now as to the jail thing, it's time online and in game with that character you are stuck in a cell with no ability to take actions other than chat with other jailbirds, all other chat channels are locked out. After the appropriate time, you are taken before a judge, where you are given your punishment and then released.
The punishments could vary, but they would all make permanent changes to the character. Lose a hand, and that equipment slot is gone, and you can forget using 2 handed items. Lose an eye, and the right third of your screen is forevermore a blank or black area and you have a penalty on all ranged attacks. Both eyes would be blindness, though you might allow things within maybe 5' be visible in a low res or the like, and obviously you wouldn't even be able to target at range. A leg being lost might reduce or eliminate the use of foot gear, and would definitely cause a reduction in movement as well as eliminate run speed. And of course, when the crime levels are high enough, the character is executed, in which case it's perma-dead and all it's stuff is gone with it. If you really wanted to make it count, have the character become undeletable from the account so they also have a lost character slot and will find it even more painful to do it again.
Now to be honest, I don't think anyone will implement something like that, though I'm sure it would reduce the number of griefers if they have to feel a small amount of the pain themselves and suffer consequences for their actions. (Especially if you can't easily get another account to abuse.) As to the non-griefers, I doubt it would be an issue for them as they tend to not engage in that kind of activity in the first place.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
would work if there are enough games to offer everything the players want. Doesn't work with limited amount of games and doesn't work for developers trying to get the attention of pvp and pve players. Most issues between pvp and pve players arise because other features of a game will attract them and no other game has this combination of features, both sides just want it more pvp or pve to be perfect while developers try to cater both crowds.
It depends on the power gap. Huge power gaps and FFA PvP just don't work, or aren't attractive to the average player.
If there is a slight or moderate power gap, then I think it can work... as long as the lower geared or leveled player has a fair chance of beating players all maxed out. And I mean a fair chance... not a snowballs chance in hell, like some of the current FFA games.
Yes there are some things that only work for small groups of players. But there are a lot of things that work in both a small group setting and large scale pvp setting. Like I said it was solved back in the 90's and the gaming industry is just too stupid to either implement it or too young to know it was already out there. For example once a player reached lvl 10 they decided if they would be a pvp flagged character or not. This allowed for the pve and pvp community to operate in the same world without hindering either of them. Once a character was pvp flagged they could never unflag. They had to create a different character if they wanted to run pve only.
Like I said all the problems were already solved back in the 90's. The problem of full loot pvp was solved the problem of spam killing was solved. The problem of massive zerg ganks were solved. Things that were elementary for those games are impossible for today's games because they aren't smart enough to use them.
and it is implemented in WOW in a slight variation today. You join a pvp server, and you can pve and pvp at the same time. Or you pick to stay in a pve server. The only difference is that you pick at L1, not L10.