So, are you saying consensual PvP is the best of both worlds or the most obvious compromise? If you are saying it's the most obvious compromise, to gain as many subs as possible, then I agree. If you are saying it's the best of both worlds then I disagree.
They're one in the same to me. I'm not sure where else one would look except sub counts in different MMOs to try and determine the general consensus of what the market likes and what it doesn't. So yes, an obvious compromise that offers the best of both worlds.
As far as "most players" are concerned, all you need do is look at the difference of populations on PvE servers vs PvP servers to get the answer. My point is, you cannot build a great PvE group role dynamic if you are balancing classes for PvP solo-ability. I like PvP personally, but I am willing to suffer through class imbalances to achieve a better PvE experience, which a lot of people are not.
Vanguard's population has only shrunk since launch. That isn't a statement about whether it's growing now or not...just that it's far behind where it was at launch population wise. Point being, I wouldn't really use Vanguard to try and judge whether forced PvP or forced PvE is more popular. I really think both models are flawed as aforementioned.
Dark Age of Camelot for example, it had a forced PvP server and a forced PvE server, both were niche and less popular than the regular consensual PvP servers. If WoW opened a PvE only server where Night Elves could high five Thrall, that'd probably not be incredibly popular either compared to the regular consensual PvP servers.
So again, all I'm saying is Sigil built a game for two niche crowds as far as the presence or absence of PvP goes. It's no reflection on the industry which has mostly taken the consensual PvP route, which a majority of the market seems to prefer. It ain't perfect, but it is the best of both worlds.
The pvp server is totally dead because pvp sucks in VG and there is rampant hacking that goes unchecked.
The 2 US PVE servers have a fair amount of people on during prime time but it's pretty much just a bunch of bored lvl 50 people running around with nothing to do. They made the lvl curve faster so people level alts pretty fast and it's really hard to get a group at lower lvl. The population has pretty much evened out now. Anyone that is still playing is pretty much going to hang around no matter what cause either they have station pass or they are waiting for some of the new big hype mmo's to come out.
well for a couple of weeks it looked very well, but now its just sad again nobody to group with, nobody to craft for and nobody to kill for pvp. the game did take another huge leap down again ;(
Can't speak for pvp. But Seradon is in extremely good shape and is growing post merge.
The pvp server is totally dead because pvp sucks in VG and there is rampant hacking that goes unchecked. The 2 US PVE servers have a fair amount of people on during prime time but it's pretty much just a bunch of bored lvl 50 people running around with nothing to do. They made the lvl curve faster so people level alts pretty fast and it's really hard to get a group at lower lvl. The population has pretty much evened out now. Anyone that is still playing is pretty much going to hang around no matter what cause either they have station pass or they are waiting for some of the new big hype mmo's to come out.
Thats pretty much what I am doing - came back to have something to play until Age of Boobies or WAR come out.
How can vanguard sustain without pvp. There are not 200,000 players in teh industry willing to play a pve game only and someone said taht it requires 200,000 for an morpgs to stay afloat. So without pvp, how is SOE going to pull VG out o fthe water.
Where did you get the numbers on that? While a lot of people do PvP, I know a lot of people that don't require it to have a good time if there are other avenues to take.
Its pure bullshit to say it requires 200.000 subscribers for an mmorpg to stay afloat. But the rumour mill can never be stopped
How can vanguard sustain without pvp. There are not 200,000 players in teh industry willing to play a pve game only and someone said taht it requires 200,000 for an morpgs to stay afloat. So without pvp, how is SOE going to pull VG out o fthe water.
Where did you get the numbers on that? While a lot of people do PvP, I know a lot of people that don't require it to have a good time if there are other avenues to take.
Its pure bullshit to say it requires 200.000 subscribers for an mmorpg to stay afloat. But the rumour mill can never be stopped
It's not bullshit. Not completely anyway.
McQuaid said awhile ago that Vanguard needed 200k subscribers to keep Sigil a healthy company.
How can vanguard sustain without pvp. There are not 200,000 players in teh industry willing to play a pve game only and someone said taht it requires 200,000 for an morpgs to stay afloat. So without pvp, how is SOE going to pull VG out o fthe water.
Where did you get the numbers on that? While a lot of people do PvP, I know a lot of people that don't require it to have a good time if there are other avenues to take.
Its pure bullshit to say it requires 200.000 subscribers for an mmorpg to stay afloat. But the rumour mill can never be stopped
I'm sure they use a fairly simple equation to determine what's required for each game. It probably depends heavily on experience curve and how quickly they plan on having to push out content/expansions. Low subs = small dev team and less resources, probably sustainable by far less than 200k subs. Just don't hold your breath waiting for content.
Comments
They're one in the same to me. I'm not sure where else one would look except sub counts in different MMOs to try and determine the general consensus of what the market likes and what it doesn't. So yes, an obvious compromise that offers the best of both worlds.
Vanguard's population has only shrunk since launch. That isn't a statement about whether it's growing now or not...just that it's far behind where it was at launch population wise. Point being, I wouldn't really use Vanguard to try and judge whether forced PvP or forced PvE is more popular. I really think both models are flawed as aforementioned.Dark Age of Camelot for example, it had a forced PvP server and a forced PvE server, both were niche and less popular than the regular consensual PvP servers. If WoW opened a PvE only server where Night Elves could high five Thrall, that'd probably not be incredibly popular either compared to the regular consensual PvP servers.
So again, all I'm saying is Sigil built a game for two niche crowds as far as the presence or absence of PvP goes. It's no reflection on the industry which has mostly taken the consensual PvP route, which a majority of the market seems to prefer. It ain't perfect, but it is the best of both worlds.
The pvp server is totally dead because pvp sucks in VG and there is rampant hacking that goes unchecked.
The 2 US PVE servers have a fair amount of people on during prime time but it's pretty much just a bunch of bored lvl 50 people running around with nothing to do. They made the lvl curve faster so people level alts pretty fast and it's really hard to get a group at lower lvl. The population has pretty much evened out now. Anyone that is still playing is pretty much going to hang around no matter what cause either they have station pass or they are waiting for some of the new big hype mmo's to come out.
Can't speak for pvp. But Seradon is in extremely good shape and is growing post merge.
Thats pretty much what I am doing - came back to have something to play until Age of Boobies or WAR come out.
FUNCOM - putting the FUN in disFUNctional !
Everyday that I'm on I see plenty of people running around, and that isn't just during prime hours.
Seradon is doing quite well.
Where did you get the numbers on that? While a lot of people do PvP, I know a lot of people that don't require it to have a good time if there are other avenues to take.
Its pure bullshit to say it requires 200.000 subscribers for an mmorpg to stay afloat. But the rumour mill can never be stopped
Where did you get the numbers on that? While a lot of people do PvP, I know a lot of people that don't require it to have a good time if there are other avenues to take.
Its pure bullshit to say it requires 200.000 subscribers for an mmorpg to stay afloat. But the rumour mill can never be stopped
It's not bullshit. Not completely anyway.McQuaid said awhile ago that Vanguard needed 200k subscribers to keep Sigil a healthy company.
http://forums.vanguardsoh.com/showthread.php?p=1125162#post1125162
Old and irrelevant now though, Vanguard didn't get that and Sigil sank; it's development team a quarter of what it used to be, if that.
Where did you get the numbers on that? While a lot of people do PvP, I know a lot of people that don't require it to have a good time if there are other avenues to take.
Its pure bullshit to say it requires 200.000 subscribers for an mmorpg to stay afloat. But the rumour mill can never be stopped
I'm sure they use a fairly simple equation to determine what's required for each game. It probably depends heavily on experience curve and how quickly they plan on having to push out content/expansions. Low subs = small dev team and less resources, probably sustainable by far less than 200k subs. Just don't hold your breath waiting for content.