No offense, but this is the same argument I've been hearing since 1999. No matter what developers do with PVP, all the PVP players just state it sucks, then quit.
EQ Never
- Thread starter Convo
- Start date
Convo
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 8,761
- 613
PvP players should get on darkfall and support them. At least they are semi trying lol... It doesn't seen like the pvp base votes with their wallet tho.
For the record the most fun I have ever had playing pvp in any of these games was the first pvp area in warhammer. Was it like level 1-10 or something? That was a blast.
For the record the most fun I have ever had playing pvp in any of these games was the first pvp area in warhammer. Was it like level 1-10 or something? That was a blast.
Cinge
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 7,049
- 2,116
I don't mind pvp as long it doesn't effect the pve side of things. In most cases this isnt a problem when they balance PVP around multiple groups vs multiple groups. Where I ran into issues in WoW was when things were changed because of arenas, when balancing started around 2v2, 3v3 or 5v5.
Also it would be interesting to see numbers on actual PVE vs PVP player bases, my guess would be PVE has the majority, probably in the range of 60/40 if not higher and that's counting people who just jump in Instance pvp to merely do something different for a hour or so, but would not really call themselves "pvpers"(they treat it like a mini-game).
Also it would be interesting to see numbers on actual PVE vs PVP player bases, my guess would be PVE has the majority, probably in the range of 60/40 if not higher and that's counting people who just jump in Instance pvp to merely do something different for a hour or so, but would not really call themselves "pvpers"(they treat it like a mini-game).
Grim1
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 4,867
- 6,822
When (if) Darkfall is working and if people say it is good, then I'll give them my money. I'm hoping they get it right. But I stopped giving money to games because they have potential a long time ago.
The Age of Wushu thread has me seriously considering giving them some cash. Sounds pretty cool and came out of left field.
PvP is popular. LoL, CoD, WoW arenas, etc.. prove that. But just throwing pvp into EQ half assed won't work for all the reasons already stated. And I don't think balancing for PvP then creating the PvE is a good idea either. That is how classes become bland mush. GW1 had abilities that couldn't be used in PvP. Should probably go that route. Especially with control classes like the enchanter around.
edit: If SoE throws out the old aggro model then the trinity is going to blow up anyways. That means everything will change and it may make the PvP a lot easier to do. The standard aggro model used up to this point makes balancing for PvP really hard, since every human player just ignores the tank and goes after the healer / clothies.
Agraza
Registered Hutt
- 6,890
- 521
Pretty much this.
My thing is that a lot of "leet PvPers" want easy kills, not to BE the easy kills. A lot of griefing and generally poor sportsmanship bring everything down. They're environments of wolves that drive away all the sheep then get sick of fighting other wolves. A good PvP game is going to be a much stronger PvE game to fuel the participation level needed to create interesting events. Most people suck at PvP, but you need those "most people" to keep participating in the system or the whole concept dries up. Devoting your time to designing "good PvP" to the exclusion of everything else just establishes an environment barren of participants before you even get started.
EVE has a good balance of fighting and not, but a generally dull experience. It has had lackluster PvE for some time, but fills the gap with an economic game and has the allure of being one of the few sci-fi games. I'd love to have some EVE elements in a fantasy world, but the competition in the fantasy setting is such that I doubt it would be competitive without like 10x the quality in PvE. For the low finance approach, trying to mesh elements of Farmville with Shadowbane could work.
I am not quite sure of the validity of this statement.
I still don't understand some of you that want both PVE and PVP. There are 100s of fucking games out there that do both already, and they usually are bad, why? Because there isn't FOCUS on one of the two.
My hope for EQnext is a PVE focused game. If there is any PVP it would be on PVP servers. I think basically the problem that most MMOs face is that they are trying to do EVERYTHING, and that everything is generally only mediocre, instead of focusing their energies on doing a few things exceptionally well.
Seriously though, in today's day and age wanting a game to do everything is simply the wrong stance, we have possibilities out there.
On the whole I have been really turned off to pvp lately. I guess I am lame, but I want quality over quantity.
Convo
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 8,761
- 613
Been saying the same thing. It's time to specialize in these games. The focus needs to go 100% to either PVE or pvp. IMO EQ has a tradition of being known for its PVE and should continue down that road. They need set a new standard on how a PVE game should play. Bring some seriously awesome shit to the table. Worrying about pvp only gets in the way. I'm sorry but people who want pvp have a lot more to choose from than those who want a quality PVE game.
A good 80-90% of these so called "hardcore" PVPers are fucking flakes. A vocal minority that raise hell in every new games forums. You could give these fucks everything they wanted including a hot Asian that came in the box to blow them and they would play the game for 1-2 months and then run off screaming how it sucks. The shitty part is these assholes always get shit changed and nerfed on the PVE side just so Joe free month doesnt get killed as fast because he blows. PVP in a fantasy sword and board MMO is always going to be a mixed bag unless you separate rule sets.
PVE first and let the small minority that do like to PVP full time and will actually pay a sub for longer than a couple months adapt to the imbalance. Skilled PVP players can do that and kill with any class. Let the other 90% of the fake hardcore PVP whiny ADD having cunts soak in their tears and move on to the next game because they will do that no matter what ya change or put in.
PVE first and let the small minority that do like to PVP full time and will actually pay a sub for longer than a couple months adapt to the imbalance. Skilled PVP players can do that and kill with any class. Let the other 90% of the fake hardcore PVP whiny ADD having cunts soak in their tears and move on to the next game because they will do that no matter what ya change or put in.
Pancreas
Vyemm Raider
- 1,125
- 3,818
My stance is that the segregation of pvp and pve is most of the problem right there. There is no game I can think of that has really merged the two. They have been concurrent but they have not really fed into each other at all. Eve somewhat accomplished this with the economy there heavily relying on non-pvp activity to farm up materials.
What I keep saying is that the NPC factions that players get incorporated into should be at war with one another and should be the framework through which many PvP encounters happen. Quests should really come in the form of missions that send you into enemy territory where you run the risk of confronting enemy forces.
I think there should be occasional battles with the opposing NPC elements fighting each other, while the players come in and tip the balance one way or another. There should be lots of PvE preparation and farming for these Larger PvP events.
Territory control should be important beyond some minor experience gain bonus. Fortification of territories and structure building should be used to protect against both opposing players and hostile npc's/mobs.
If you make this system deep enough with plenty of interconnection between territories, factions, missions, trades, fortifications ect... it will create a very dense game experience. Each element will get lots of use because of the ongoing nature of the Faction versus Faction conflict that drives the game.
Having 100% player versus player with no limits or goals or elements to structure the conflict around does not create very compelling gameplay. You need to create a space that has many different facets for people to participate in.
And as the last note, the space in which the conflict rages needs to be the actual game world and not some instance tacked on later in order to keep everything else "safe".
Muligan
Trakanon Raider
- 3,216
- 898
I think if two raid forces enter a zone before they can engage the raid mob a good old Mortal Kombat "Fight" should appear and the winning guild stands and get the target. Soon as the other guild is defeated or surrenders, they are removed from the zone with lock out timer and the winning guild gets full revive and all HP/Mana refreshed. hahaha.... I could think of some good times that would have made in EQ.
Xeldar
Silver Squire
- 1,546
- 133
On Vallon Zek, raiding guilds had an agreement if you died in pvp combat, or zoned to get away from a fight, you had to Loot N scoot for an hour. Furthermore, battle rezzing was a nono.
exactly this. just have pvp servers and there is no problem. people that want a pure PVE experience get what they want, and those who like to PVP get what they want. yes, it probably won't be totally balanced, but then again, name me a game that is? i just feel that trying to make a game that is geared towards both always winds up shit (see also GW2).
Ukerric
Bearded Ape
- 7,982
- 9,703
Think EVE.
EVE is a primarily PvP game. It's what drives its economy, it's what drives the drama and all those good things that make it a game you enjoy reading about even when you don't play it.
80% of the EVE players never left high sec (i.e. stay PvE). Even accounting for the fact that a disproportionate number of people maintain dual accounts and their alts probably stay there, you can safely say that the majority of EVE players never pvp. And yet, every expansion that dropped PvP and focused too much on PvE was a failure, with sub growth stalling or dropping a bit.
Ukerric
Bearded Ape
- 7,982
- 9,703
It won't be. It can't be, not if you really want to add the term "sandbox" into the game. Sandbox means players build and change the world, and as soon as you change the world, you open up the potential to grief other players. Those players must be able to stop you... and you end up with effective PvP.
What you need is what every game that does/did PvP "right": have clearly delimitated areas where PvP works, and is clearly the goal of the game, and areas where PvP is almost impossible where you can relax and goof off. The difference being that, in a good game, the PvP areas aren't instanced (cough cough Battlegrounds).
100x yes, PvE first is the best option if you want to have a decent PvE game.bocephus_sl said:
This is why I'll take the "grief" that comes along with PvP servers over non-PvP servers any day, win or lose it was always challenging and yes often frustrating. On Sullon Zek (where training was legal), you slayed the baddies, then locked down mobs/boss and the rez-boxed bard training you. There was of course an element of attrition, but this was MMORPG "dynamic content" at its best.
Mr Creed
Too old for this shit
- 2,383
- 276
I believe PvP in MMOs is a player minority. Theres always the demand for proof but where is the proof that PvP players are actually half the population let alone a majority? Most (all?) MMOs since WoW failed, its difficult to draw conclusions from those games, and WoW itself is not exactly a good PvP example, at least not in a sandbox context. EVE is as PvP as it gets where the player isneversafe from a gank, and even there the majority of players are PvE (sheep). And thats with a very boring PvE gameplay.
I find the suggestion of balancing for PvP first and then adjusting the mobs short-sighted, for the reasons listed and above and most of all, for exciting PvE you probably need abilites you would never get in PvP. I played an enchanter in EQ1, its my favorite class design to this day, but if you take the early EQ1 Enchanter spells into any current game with PvP, the forum outcry would melt the internet. Balancing for PvP replaces real class diversity with a "same damage but different colors/animation on the nuke" approach. It makes for boring PvE classes.
For EQN I hope they make good, enjoyable and different PvE classes, but have the basic game design work in a way that makes PvP not totally ridiculous, and then just have 1 PvP realm per region and 1 PvE realm per region to give players the choice (wishing/hoping they go with the EVE style of only 1 world server). On PvE there is no PvP at all, on PvP it is enabled everywhere, no immunity areas. Have guards be omnipresent and powerful in the kings castle and get weaker the more lawless the zone becomes, and (assuming a faction system like EQ1 or EVE) have players take faction hits for PvP.
I find the suggestion of balancing for PvP first and then adjusting the mobs short-sighted, for the reasons listed and above and most of all, for exciting PvE you probably need abilites you would never get in PvP. I played an enchanter in EQ1, its my favorite class design to this day, but if you take the early EQ1 Enchanter spells into any current game with PvP, the forum outcry would melt the internet. Balancing for PvP replaces real class diversity with a "same damage but different colors/animation on the nuke" approach. It makes for boring PvE classes.
For EQN I hope they make good, enjoyable and different PvE classes, but have the basic game design work in a way that makes PvP not totally ridiculous, and then just have 1 PvP realm per region and 1 PvE realm per region to give players the choice (wishing/hoping they go with the EVE style of only 1 world server). On PvE there is no PvP at all, on PvP it is enabled everywhere, no immunity areas. Have guards be omnipresent and powerful in the kings castle and get weaker the more lawless the zone becomes, and (assuming a faction system like EQ1 or EVE) have players take faction hits for PvP.
PVP in MMOs fail because there is zero motive and objective. People don't go to war just for the sake of killing each other. You need a goal and a purpose. Uninstanced contested PVE content gives a meaning to PVP. You can't just take away PVE and expect people to going around killing each other for no reason. What happens is you get bored fast of that. That's why world PVP is always more fun than instanced battlegrounds. The only instanced PVP that has any type of meaning is a competitive arena system with teams that strive for a ranking (like an actual sport). Basically you need to start with vibrant PVE content that people strive for and use PVP as a method of achieving a PVE goal.
- 1
Convo
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 8,761
- 613
I agree it wont be a true sandbox without PvP but I think I'd rather the lack of it. There are still a ton of things you can do without the world having PvP. It's just how the Dev's go about implementing it.