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?

1246789

Comments

  • 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: 27,771
    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: 27,771
    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: 2,187
    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.

  • dave6660dave6660 Member UncommonPosts: 2,693

    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

  • orsonstfuorsonstfu Member Posts: 203

    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.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    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.

     

  • ArtificeVenatusArtificeVenatus Member UncommonPosts: 1,236
     
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by Enbysra

    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.  
  • ArtificeVenatusArtificeVenatus Member UncommonPosts: 1,236
     
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by Enbysra
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Enbysra
     
    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.

     

  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,822

    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

  • ghorgosghorgos Member UncommonPosts: 191

    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.

  • MGPetersonMGPeterson Member UncommonPosts: 46
    Originally posted by Kiyoris

    PVE and PVP do not belong in the same game

     

    Forums usually are like this:

    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.

     

    image
  • ghorgosghorgos Member UncommonPosts: 191
    Originally posted by Octagon7711

    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.

  • ArtificeVenatusArtificeVenatus Member UncommonPosts: 1,236
     
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by Enbysra
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Enbysra
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Enbysra
     
    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.

  • ArtificeVenatusArtificeVenatus Member UncommonPosts: 1,236
     
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,687


    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.

    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.

  • ghorgosghorgos Member UncommonPosts: 191
    Originally posted by Enbysra

    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).

     

     

  • ArtificeVenatusArtificeVenatus Member UncommonPosts: 1,236
     
  • AldersAlders Member RarePosts: 2,158

    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.