If a dev is making a MMO for PvPers and you dont like PvP go play a different game. Its insane that so many players expect games to always be in their interest. If you don't like pvp thats fine, other people do, and some developers know this and are trying to make a successful MMO with PvP core focus. Not many have done it well since they always try to appeal to the largest market possible. Sometimes you have to take a risk and make a game you think will be good and hope a core group buys it and continues to support it.
If a dev is making a MMO for PvPers and you dont like PvP go play a different game. Its insane that so many players expect games to always be in their interest.
The concept which is escaping you is called "Rational egoism (also called rational selfishness) is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest."
Ayn Rand believed "it is both irrational and immoral to act against one's self-interest."
Therefore it would be irrational for a player to not always want games to be in their interest.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Therefore it would be irrational for a player to not always want games to be in their interest.
To not always want, yes, you're right. We all want what we want. However, in the example given, the developers are making an MMO for PvPers and presumably have made this known from the outset. In this case, the PvE'er is forewarned and to pursue his desire in this game would be akin to demanding Tesla install a V8 in the Model S.
The Tesla is an electric car that does not come with an internal combustion engine. That is what it set out to be. Don't like it? Find another car. The hypothetical game is PvP. That's what it's set out to be. Don't like it? Find another game.
Disclaimer- I'm a PvE'er.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Therefore it would be irrational for a player to not always want games to be in their interest.
To not always want, yes, you're right. We all want what we want. However, in the example given, the developers are making an MMO for PvPers and presumably have made this known from the outset. In this case, the PvE'er is forewarned and to pursue his desire in this game would be akin to demanding Tesla install a V8 in the Model S.
The Tesla is an electric car that does not come with an internal combustion engine. That is what it set out to be. Don't like it? Find another car. The hypothetical game is PvP. That's what it's set out to be. Don't like it? Find another game.
Disclaimer- I'm a PvE'er.
Seems to me it's a hyrbid game yet again. Trying to get the most players possible by offering pve elements for that crowd, while also offering pvp for the other crowd.
Time and time again it never works unless they implement it properly. Guess they never learn.
Therefore it would be irrational for a player to not always want games to be in their interest.
To not always want, yes, you're right. We all want what we want. However, in the example given, the developers are making an MMO for PvPers and presumably have made this known from the outset. In this case, the PvE'er is forewarned and to pursue his desire in this game would be akin to demanding Tesla install a V8 in the Model S.
The Tesla is an electric car that does not come with an internal combustion engine. That is what it set out to be. Don't like it? Find another car. The hypothetical game is PvP. That's what it's set out to be. Don't like it? Find another game.
Disclaimer- I'm a PvE'er.
Seems to me it's a hyrbid game yet again. Trying to get the most players possible by offering pve elements for that crowd, while also offering pvp for the other crowd.
Time and time again it never works unless they implement it properly. Guess they never learn.
In the game I cited they have PvE and PvP servers. The game is designed to be moddable - to make your own ruleset. This is the main reason I'm calling "CULT"
If you have a PvE version of the game available, yet join the PvP servers and insist they allow for PvE - well, how do you categorize that?
In the game I'm currently playing we had a guy join and immediately ask, "Can I kill other players here?" and we responded, "No, that would be Server #10" and he said, "Oh, I'll go there."
That is healthy, rational behavior where everyone gets to choose and be happy.
It would be weird if he didn't join Server #10 but instead went to the forums and insisted that the developers make our PvE server more PvP friendly. In that regard, it seems to me that there are more PvE players that do that, by in large, than PvP players - that doesn't make YOU a bad person but we got some real wackos in our PvE camp.
Therefore it would be irrational for a player to not always want games to be in their interest.
To not always want, yes, you're right. We all want what we want. However, in the example given, the developers are making an MMO for PvPers and presumably have made this known from the outset. In this case, the PvE'er is forewarned and to pursue his desire in this game would be akin to demanding Tesla install a V8 in the Model S.
The Tesla is an electric car that does not come with an internal combustion engine. That is what it set out to be. Don't like it? Find another car. The hypothetical game is PvP. That's what it's set out to be. Don't like it? Find another game.
Disclaimer- I'm a PvE'er.
Seems to me it's a hyrbid game yet again. Trying to get the most players possible by offering pve elements for that crowd, while also offering pvp for the other crowd.
Time and time again it never works unless they implement it properly. Guess they never learn.
In the game I cited they have PvE and PvP servers. The game is designed to be moddable - to make your own ruleset. This is the main reason I'm calling "CULT"
If you have a PvE version of the game available, yet join the PvP servers and insist they allow for PvE - well, how do you categorize that?
In the game I'm currently playing we had a guy join and immediately ask, "Can I kill other players here?" and we responded, "No, that would be Server #10" and he said, "Oh, I'll go there."
That is healthy, rational behavior where everyone gets to choose and be happy.
It would be weird if he didn't join Server #10 but instead went to the forums and insisted that the developers make our PvE server more PvP friendly. In that regard, it seems to me that there are more PvE players that do that, by in large, than PvP players - that doesn't make YOU a bad person but we got some real wackos in our PvE camp.
I have to ask, in LoA are there official company run servers and if so, are any of the PVE only?
If not, then it explains why some PVE centric players are joining a PVP server, as Community servers are not something I ever support.
Now if there's official PVE servers then I'll agree their behavior might be irrational .
But even then, perhaps their friends are all on a PVP server, so they're got little recourse but to walk away or....bitch about it on company forums hoping for change.
As pointed out, on a few occasions Devs have caved. In fact, in the early days of MMORPGS devs routinely offered multiple rule sets.
I recall DAOC started out with only RVR, faction restricted (Blue) servers. In very short time they released not only FFA PVP (Red) servers but a cooperative realms PVE server which players requested post release.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Kyleran said: ..same for our experiences here where some of us are "masters" of forum PVP.
PROTIP: Calling people a troll or mind reading that they are something other than they claim to be is not a 'master' move. Really good forum PvP is actually engaging the issues that are raised and leaving the personal stuff behind.
You mean like using the term "PvE Cultists" and denying the same for PvP?
On Topic:
I've lost count of the times I've read through an MMOs "feature list" and I get pumped for the game, and then I read PvP... Some PvE'ers are so hard up for an MMO that they will enter a PvP centric game just to play something. But I am a PvE'er that refuses to play PvP MMOs.
When levels and gear trump actual skill, PvP doesn't belong. I've run into too many PvP'ers that will NOT engage unless they have the obvious advantage.
But your point about going into a game and then complaining about what was obviously advertised, is rather silly. Kind of like how people who did not like MMORPGs came in and complained and now we have this crapload of a genre.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Therefore it would be irrational for a player to not always want games to be in their interest.
To not always want, yes, you're right. We all want what we want. However, in the example given, the developers are making an MMO for PvPers and presumably have made this known from the outset. In this case, the PvE'er is forewarned and to pursue his desire in this game would be akin to demanding Tesla install a V8 in the Model S.
The Tesla is an electric car that does not come with an internal combustion engine. That is what it set out to be. Don't like it? Find another car. The hypothetical game is PvP. That's what it's set out to be. Don't like it? Find another game.
Disclaimer- I'm a PvE'er.
Seems to me it's a hyrbid game yet again. Trying to get the most players possible by offering pve elements for that crowd, while also offering pvp for the other crowd.
Time and time again it never works unless they implement it properly. Guess they never learn.
In the game I cited they have PvE and PvP servers. The game is designed to be moddable - to make your own ruleset. This is the main reason I'm calling "CULT"
If you have a PvE version of the game available, yet join the PvP servers and insist they allow for PvE - well, how do you categorize that?
In the game I'm currently playing we had a guy join and immediately ask, "Can I kill other players here?" and we responded, "No, that would be Server #10" and he said, "Oh, I'll go there."
That is healthy, rational behavior where everyone gets to choose and be happy.
It would be weird if he didn't join Server #10 but instead went to the forums and insisted that the developers make our PvE server more PvP friendly. In that regard, it seems to me that there are more PvE players that do that, by in large, than PvP players - that doesn't make YOU a bad person but we got some real wackos in our PvE camp.
Some "pve" players also enjoy pvp, hence your using of a cult is flawed.
Just because someone joins a pvp server doesn't mean rampant ganking or worse camping players to submission is a healthy thing in a game. There should be rulesets. If people express their distaste of some features that seemingly promote pvp, doesn't make them pve players, it just means that MAYBE there's something wrong with the current system that needs improving.
No it's just that some of us understand that the original MMO's and their Pen and Paper RPG's were all PvE and the past has shown that a PvE ONLY game can and will succeed. Drama of PvP is not something many of us want in our games. I personally feel that PvP belongs in shooters and Survival games, both of which I enjoy at times but an RPG should never include any form of PvP.
I think PvP is fine. You jut put it in things like Arenas, Battlegrounds, and PvP zones like Wintergrasp, Ashran, etc. That's what WoW did. Otherwise, people can flag themselves for PvP if they want to partake in it, and they make that choice themselves.
PvP is the only content in MMORPPGs that doesn't get stale, so without it... most MMORPGs wouldn't be worth the price of admission. In games like Pantheon, people are going to start burning out on grinding, and won't have any other avenue of entertainment in the game.... Either they feel locked in due to the time investment "thus far" or they start deactivating their subscription to take a break while they play something that offers more.
Not having an avenue of content that doesn't severely increase production requirements is both strategically and logically advantageous.
I would never play an MMORPG that only had PvE, these days... Back in the EQ Days this was fine enough... but even then, we had other choices soon after like DAoC, and EQ had PvP servers as well.
The fact and the matter is most MMORPG developers cannot deliver content faster than players can consume it. This leads to massive dead times, and something else needs to exist that does not burn players out, otherwise players will quit you game. Even temporary deactivations can have huge profit [forecast] ramifications - and not all of these companies are Blizzard.
PvP is necessary. The only red herring is "how well will it be implemented/balanced."
There are several instances where I reactivated my WoW account pretty much only to go into Battlegrounds for the PvP, as I had already burnt out on the PvP/Raiding stuff. PvP never gets boring. It's living content, because it's other players :-P
PvP can and does get pretty stale too. We like to think of some things as constants that are timelessly enjoyable, but even Counterstrike has had regular adjustments to it's gameplay and Team Fortress has evolved a lot over the years. When a game is too samey for a long period of time, players burn out.
That's true of PvE and PvP content.
PvP is not itself a solution in that regard, it's just an option for diversity in short-term. Ultimately that is the value, as you still need varying modes, ladders, events and event rotations, etc to all keep moving to keep PvP relevant at all to many people.
It also means it's not "necessary". It comes with a cost to develop and maintain alongside any other system. The more time you spend maintaining that system, the less time and resources you spend pushing out other content.
And that's where it becomes a problem. PvE has a terminus dependent on the implementation of content within a game. a "living world" is still a missing component of many persistent titles, as they tend to deliver classic storytelling narratives that have a clear terminus instead of some other approach to leverage the concept of a persistent world better. IE, something like a narrative built out of an overarching plot with flexible content in-between using dynamic generation to at least offer the sense of variety and differences in user experience within the context of a single plot. Or more-so, creating a structure to allow players to declare plot arcs rather than trying to just make them up in their heads.
PvP, if used as a buffer to PvE content, is nothing but a stop-gap user experience, and one that drains resources from kicking out "primary" content.
If it's shared value as PvE, then it competes for resources.
If it's more important than PvE, then it consumes the PvE and renders it largely irrelevant.
It is not a necessity, it is a gamble or a competitor.
OP you're not describing a PvE player, just someone who wants to have some PvP but disagrees about which situations that should be done. Those are still PvP players.
But the pvp issue manifests in a whole other way where "a certain type of pvp player" isn't playing the game for "the game" but literally enjoys screwing people over "over and over."
Yes, that type of player exists. No, it shouldn't matter at all.
Let's say I'm a PK and I try to establish a 'territory'. I do that by killing anyone who enters the area. If the same person enters the area multiple times they die multiple times. A PK may be 'forced' to do this for several reasons. Imagine if the PK only kills the same player twice and then grants immunity - then you're asking the PK to accept the following conditions:
1: The PK cannot claim the 'territory' or roleplay since other players are granted immunity. 2: The target with immunity may be a spy reporting out the PKs location/condition. 3: The moment the PK is attacked the player with immunity may join in and now the PK is outnumbered.
The point is that a PK attempting to roleplay control over an area can look very much like a griefer. There is really no way to tell what is going on behind the keyboard. I do not allow that people can read minds - and the PvE cultists like to do that a lot.
I don't like too many griefing rules. PvP is pvp. I prefer FFA open world with no level limits. I do support temporary experience/stat debt for repeated killing in short spans of time, and maybe a means to ensure you're not trapped within an area where you can be quickly and repeatedly killed. Some rules are good. But the vast majority of games have extreme restrictions which is understandable, since most players want them. Why? I've been repeatedly killed on the Chaos server in Wurm Online and I was thrilled by the challenge. IN my years playing I witnessed many people try to start characters and within about a month most of them are running scared to the PvE servers. Again, why start on the PvP server and then flee when you get PvP'd? Answer: Most of them don't know what they're getting into and aren't prepered for it. Nothing really prepares you for it. You either have the tolerance or don't, and it's hard to build it up.
Some players have very thin skins. I played original everquest when people were bind camped and items and coin could be stolen. I also played on sullon zek where there were no level limits. I played on various UO second age servers. I got used to it and liked it. Seeing later generation PvP mmorpgs, it seems like players are increasingly thin skinned. No tolerance for losing things or unfair fights. I know fair fights make sense for competitive games, but rpgs aren't the same. It's more about the experience than the fights. It's about ups and downs. Losing is just as important as winning. Things being occasionally unfair is what helps build the story. We've all read stories of unfair fights. When I play a PvP MMORPG, I expect it and want it. And sometimes you win unfair fights, or at least escape them. It's a great feeling to do what others don't expect to happen. But truth is you'll lose most of them or escape. You have to enjoy the struggle.
OP, btw that's your answer. The bolded statement above.
And I have played PvE only, sparingly. I played PvE servers in Everquest for a while. It's much more social because players aren't cautious. They don't anon, and they group with everyone. For social players, PvP in open world is probably like drinking gasoline. I think as we get older we more social, thus PvP--especially in open world--decreases.
No it's just that some of us understand that the original MMO's and their Pen and Paper RPG's were all PvE and the past has shown that a PvE ONLY game can and will succeed. Drama of PvP is not something many of us want in our games. I personally feel that PvP belongs in shooters and Survival games, both of which I enjoy at times but an RPG should never include any form of PvP.
I think PvP is fine. You jut put it in things like Arenas, Battlegrounds, and PvP zones like Wintergrasp, Ashran, etc. That's what WoW did. Otherwise, people can flag themselves for PvP if they want to partake in it, and they make that choice themselves.
PvP is the only content in MMORPPGs that doesn't get stale, so without it... most MMORPGs wouldn't be worth the price of admission. In games like Pantheon, people are going to start burning out on grinding, and won't have any other avenue of entertainment in the game.... Either they feel locked in due to the time investment "thus far" or they start deactivating their subscription to take a break while they play something that offers more.
Not having an avenue of content that doesn't severely increase production requirements is both strategically and logically advantageous.
(skip)
This is correct. Although your statement about PvP being the only content that doesn't get stale is untrue. There're other things that won't:
1) Sandbox (player-made content)
2) Community-building features
These things are beneficial for all mmorpgs to cut costs. Like you say, HOW it's done matters a lot when determining audience size.
Comments
Ayn Rand believed "it is both irrational and immoral to act against one's self-interest."
Therefore it would be irrational for a player to not always want games to be in their interest.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The Tesla is an electric car that does not come with an internal combustion engine. That is what it set out to be. Don't like it? Find another car. The hypothetical game is PvP. That's what it's set out to be. Don't like it? Find another game.
Disclaimer- I'm a PvE'er.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Time and time again it never works unless they implement it properly. Guess they never learn.
It's like you never been on the internet before.
The game is designed to be moddable - to make your own ruleset.
This is the main reason I'm calling "CULT"
If you have a PvE version of the game available, yet join the PvP servers and insist they allow for PvE - well, how do you categorize that?
In the game I'm currently playing we had a guy join and immediately ask, "Can I kill other players here?" and we responded, "No, that would be Server #10" and he said, "Oh, I'll go there."
He immediately left and joined Server #10.
That is healthy, rational behavior where everyone gets to choose and be happy.
It would be weird if he didn't join Server #10 but instead went to the forums and insisted that the developers make our PvE server more PvP friendly. In that regard, it seems to me that there are more PvE players that do that, by in large, than PvP players - that doesn't make YOU a bad person but we got some real wackos in our PvE camp.
If not, then it explains why some PVE centric players are joining a PVP server, as Community servers are not something I ever support.
Now if there's official PVE servers then I'll agree their behavior might be irrational .
But even then, perhaps their friends are all on a PVP server, so they're got little recourse but to walk away or....bitch about it on company forums hoping for change.
As pointed out, on a few occasions Devs have caved. In fact, in the early days of MMORPGS devs routinely offered multiple rule sets.
I recall DAOC started out with only RVR, faction restricted (Blue) servers. In very short time they released not only FFA PVP (Red) servers but a cooperative realms PVE server which players requested post release.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Just because someone joins a pvp server doesn't mean rampant ganking or worse camping players to submission is a healthy thing in a game. There should be rulesets. If people express their distaste of some features that seemingly promote pvp, doesn't make them pve players, it just means that MAYBE there's something wrong with the current system that needs improving.
PvP is the only content in MMORPPGs that doesn't get stale, so without it... most MMORPGs wouldn't be worth the price of admission. In games like Pantheon, people are going to start burning out on grinding, and won't have any other avenue of entertainment in the game.... Either they feel locked in due to the time investment "thus far" or they start deactivating their subscription to take a break while they play something that offers more.
Not having an avenue of content that doesn't severely increase production requirements is both strategically and logically advantageous.
I would never play an MMORPG that only had PvE, these days... Back in the EQ Days this was fine enough... but even then, we had other choices soon after like DAoC, and EQ had PvP servers as well.
The fact and the matter is most MMORPG developers cannot deliver content faster than players can consume it. This leads to massive dead times, and something else needs to exist that does not burn players out, otherwise players will quit you game. Even temporary deactivations can have huge profit [forecast] ramifications - and not all of these companies are Blizzard.
PvP is necessary. The only red herring is "how well will it be implemented/balanced."
There are several instances where I reactivated my WoW account pretty much only to go into Battlegrounds for the PvP, as I had already burnt out on the PvP/Raiding stuff. PvP never gets boring. It's living content, because it's other players :-P
That's true of PvE and PvP content.
PvP is not itself a solution in that regard, it's just an option for diversity in short-term. Ultimately that is the value, as you still need varying modes, ladders, events and event rotations, etc to all keep moving to keep PvP relevant at all to many people.
It also means it's not "necessary". It comes with a cost to develop and maintain alongside any other system. The more time you spend maintaining that system, the less time and resources you spend pushing out other content.
And that's where it becomes a problem. PvE has a terminus dependent on the implementation of content within a game. a "living world" is still a missing component of many persistent titles, as they tend to deliver classic storytelling narratives that have a clear terminus instead of some other approach to leverage the concept of a persistent world better. IE, something like a narrative built out of an overarching plot with flexible content in-between using dynamic generation to at least offer the sense of variety and differences in user experience within the context of a single plot. Or more-so, creating a structure to allow players to declare plot arcs rather than trying to just make them up in their heads.
PvP, if used as a buffer to PvE content, is nothing but a stop-gap user experience, and one that drains resources from kicking out "primary" content.
If it's shared value as PvE, then it competes for resources.
If it's more important than PvE, then it consumes the PvE and renders it largely irrelevant.
It is not a necessity, it is a gamble or a competitor.