Ok, first, I probably low balled the % a bit, but not by much, and I probably should have said pure or non-consentual pvp, since battlegrounds aren"t quite the same as a pvp server, but even still, of those who are in battlegrounds, how many would be there if it was just for fun and not a gear grind in pretty much the same way that pve is? I would guess that were people able to do a pve grind that guaranteed them the same gear in the same amount of time, a huge number of battlegrounders would be very happily grinding away at their mobs instead.
Rezz said:
Also you have to figure into the equation the universal appeal of "the best" gear the game has to offer, which for pure effort input the PVP gear is heaps easier to attain (sans s3 shoulder/weapon comparatively) than even karazan quality gear. How many of the hardcore PVP server types are there really, and how many of those pvp servers are constantly complaining about underpopulation aside from the few meccas of pvp-dom?
Combine that with the fact that the vast majority of developed content for WoW is PVE based (re-used armor skins with different stats do not count as content) and I"d hazard to guess that the real "focus" of WoW is the PVE aspect, not the pvp.
I mean seriously, 3 arenas and 4 BGs worth of content compared to..... 2 continents and an alternate dimension or whatever outland is?
exactly
Valderen said:
Another thing to consider about PVP...is how many do it simply because it"s an easy way to get purple gear. I don"t like PVP and I put my 10 arena games a week for my epic gear.
Seeing how many afk, and the huge problems afkers are in BG...I think it also shows that people do it because it"s an easy way to get gear rather then actually wanting to do it, or enjoying it...if they were they wouldn"t afk.
also exactly
Senen said:
Thats the documentation I"d like to see specificaly in relation to WoW.
Sure, but I did mention that it might be different for wow concerning the battlegrounds since because of the above reasons. However, according to ten ton hammer"s census statistics on the raw number of characters (over lv 10), pvp and rpvp servers have about 1.7M characters compared to the total of 6.37M. That"s about 25% of raw characters, though if you were to calculate the actual hours spent per server, I bet that number would fall significantly since I suspect that a huge number of people who primarily play pve will occasionally roll a pvp character to try it out.
Ngruk said:
Ouch, that"s gonna hurt on this board. Unless you can site someone with direct access to Blizzard and subscriber information I don"t think you can come anywhere close to validating that one.
I don"t know how many servers in WoW are PvP, I hear half, if you conclude (which I don"t think you can) that every server on both sides is maxxed out population wise it would put the PvP number at 50% no?
I think 50% is high, but that is absolute speculation with no back up...
First, I didn"t say WoW specifically. I meant players in general, as in all players of online games. Also, from the above numbers, it would seem that if half of the servers are pvp, then they have a far smaller population than typical server, and from my limited pvp experience, that would seem to make sense. I would pop on and check a few servers for comparison if I had a active WoW account, but anyone who disagrees can feel free.
miber said:
So well documented that you"d have no issue providing a few sources on that, right?
yup, but first, just think back to all the games that have come and gone. How have the ones that focused heavily on pvp done? How have pvp servers done in comparison to the others (oh, those glorious Zeks!)?
Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design said:
Approximately 80% of the players chose to play in non-PvP shards. [in uo]
Koster estimates that this approach [meaning, no pvp allowed at all] will cost you up to 20% of your potential audience, those who like PvP.
Developing Online Games: An Insider"s Guide By Jessica Mulligan said:
55-60% of players in both the general population and those playing for-pay games classify themselves primarily as socializers and explorers.
For three of the five commercial games, 20% or fewer of the players rate themselves as killers, with 26% for UO and 25% for Dark Age of Camelot, two games that are attractive to the killer class of player due to the faction-based conflict inherent within their designs.
What this says is that, even if you build a game heavily weighted toward the killer classes via PvP and faction or team/guild conflict, chances are you"re going to be attractive to only 20-25% of the total player base.
Game Design said:
Games that are based on player vs. player skill have classically had problems in attracting wider audiences than games where mere persistence can help you succeed (e.g. Compare PvP RPGs vs. cooperative ones, or the number of people playing FPSs online versus playing them at home). This is because people dislike getting crushed.
oh and lawl, I"d like to see some sources for this heh:
Maxxius said:
But please make no mistake about it, it is the pvp that drew the numbers to the game NOT the pve.
