Very interesting poll results. I dare claim that to the vast majority of MMOG subscribers PvP is of close to zero importance, and it's mainly slightly important to them because they want to make sure they don't have to participate in it.
I'd love to see a great PvP implementation myself (full PvP, full looting, but with appropriate counter-actions), but unfortunately PvP is imo not where the money lies for the investors and thus the developers.
I am really surprised with the turn the poll results have taken. I anticipated less people would care for PvP in MMORPGs, and I think that is one feature that mainstream gamers and I differ on.
My concern about PvP is that it replaces PvE as the focus for developers. I think why people play MMORPGS --(1) world immersion; (2) adventure; (3) sophisticated character customization; (4) deep Questing as opposed to "tasking-- are elements lacking in MMORPGs while PvP is becoming more prominent and important to developers.
I suppose the ultimate question is, comparatively, do you prefer PvP to PvE? I suspect most peopel will want (1) world immersion; (2) adventure; (3) sophisticated character customization; (4) deep Questing as opposed to "tasking over PvP.
Peoples on this board are not representative of the mainstream gamers. This is a PvP-focused forum. EvEngelists are everywhere here, and they are usually cool and nice.
A PvE player is far less likely to stroll boards then a PvP player, he is less competitive and less aggresive, thereby he usually focus less on getting every edges. Casuals players are also less likely to go on any forum.
Any poll taken here is seriously leaning toward EvE and DAoC. These are good games, but they are by no means addressed at the majority, and the EA staff working on WAR is kinda blind to that fact.
Humans often read what they want to read. If you want everyone to enjoy fishing and do a survey about fishing at National Geographic office, those datas won't be representative of the majority of society, they will only represent what peoples who go at the National Geographic office enjoys themselves.
Well its also important to remember that some games *cough* EQ are based on mechanics that are basically retarded. And by that I mean aggro. I say retarded, and I use that term specfically, because aggro management is effectively Anti-AI. AI is meant to cause things to act in an intelligent manner. EQ and WoW and various other MMOs are based around aggro manipulation. The whole point is to override intelligent seeming behavior and to force things to act stupid.
These games tend to have tension between between PvE and PvP. But this is an artifact of those games it is not a general rule.
Both Eve and Guild Wars have based their games only on mechanics that make sense against people.
In Guild Wars mobs will do smart things like, you know try to kill the healer first. Guild Wars therefore gives you counters to that strategy, like laying a trap at the healers feet to let them kite and apply a bleed.
In Guild Wars you counter an intelligent strategy with another intelligent strategy. In EQ-clones you counter an intelligent strategy by forcing them to no longer be able to act in an intelligent manner.
Therefore the PvE and PvP in EQ-clones is in tension because of different mechanics and even worse different philosophies.
However the PvE and PvP is games like Eve and Guild Wars is not nearly as much in tension because they work on the same principles.
It is common for many EQ-clone forumites to believe that some nerf to a class was based on PvP and think it ruins the PvE game. I believe there is one on the LOTRO forums right now.
I hope that someday the idea of aggro management is completely erradicated from MMORPGs. I doubt that it will because its the simple way and people are used to it. But you can never have any challenge until its gone. Challenge in MMOs is currently a myth in the EQ-clones when it comes to groups.
So if you are right and this forum has a sample biased, it is important to point out that the tension between PvE vs PvP is an artifact of game design. An artifact that does not really exist in EvE and therefore PvP itself looks far less problematic to them because they have seen a decent design.
Just look at the Guild War AoE AI changes from a long time ago. Back in the day AoE was not viewed as the uber PvP strat because an intelligent human gets out of the radius of the DoT before it has taken its full course also humans are smart enough to spread and out and avoid herding. In come the AI changes and many farmers are upset. But they can't even frame their discount in a way that pins the changes on PvP. Because no matter what the previous behavior was in fact stupid. No sane creature stands around in a well of fire for 10 seconds straight saying "Hmmm I think I am dying, darn". Even if this change was PvP inspired, the fact is the GW team has always attempted to create relatively intelligent mobs (with the very strict limitation of an MMO-like environment, ie. mostly scripts not complex decisions ). The people who disliked the change had no leg to even stand on to frame the conversation in terms of PvP. Because in the end they made the creatures act "smarter" and arguing against that is arguing for dumbing down the game.
There is essentially no way to effectively argue that some arbitrary change screws up PvE because of PvP, because they are based on exactly the same mechanics and PvP basically puts you against harder opponents. If something was killing players too fast, then it certainly kills PvE mobs too fast as well. And of course for things that are too strong or good, they just make a PvE only skill. The only real difference is the prevalence of some tactics and the execution. The AI mobs tend to interrupt incredibly fast, but are easy to fool. A good human interrupter can be very nasty even if they are fairly rare although not quite as fast. This is the only real source of contention for skill balance for PvE versus PvP in Guild Wars.
Whereas in EQ-clones there has often been very real conflicts for classes due to the fact they are smooshed the same class into two different designs. One against things you can force to be stupid and the other against intelligent people. These are very different situation and something is bound to break. This is why EQ2 separated on PvE and PvP stats. However that still is not enough, because they design philosophoes of PvE are aggro based and therefore are the anithesis of PvP. In PvP you counter their actions and they counter yours and its a constant game of maneuvers, in PvE you force the mobs to act how you want using what amounts to mind control and have no need to counter anything. I f you try to stick the same thing into both paradigm there will always be conflicts and is in my opinion a fundamental design flaw.
Originally posted by Dreamagram Very interesting poll results. I dare claim that to the vast majority of MMOG subscribers PvP is of close to zero importance, and it's mainly slightly important to them because they want to make sure they don't have to participate in it.
oh misread this I thnk
I just want to know what is the truth you know? What is the majority? What is a good reliable way to sample this information?
Originally posted by Dreamagram Very interesting poll results. I dare claim that to the vast majority of MMOG subscribers PvP is of close to zero importance, and it's mainly slightly important to them because they want to make sure they don't have to participate in it.
at launch World Of Warcraft PVP servers outnumbered the PVE servers. is there any good surveys that indicate one way or another (not crappy ones that sample less then 20% of mmo populace)? I know game developers target PVE audiences but every last one of them was crushed by Blizzard- which had more PVP servers at launch and yes I think Tabuala Rasa will be crushed by WoW along with LOTRO they are like fleas
I play exclusively on PvP realms myself, and even there the PvP appears to be vastly focused on Battlegrounds and Arena - i.e. consensual PvP. I believe PvP realms still outnumber PvE realms in Europe, but I'm fairly sure at least many of us Scandinavians wouldn't pick a PvE realm if our friends went on PvP for the fear of constant ridicule (which there's lot of from PvP players towards "carebears" ). For some numbers, I'd say Deadalus project is probably the only good ones. Any other sources are very welcome though. I'm a sucker for numbers. http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001466.php
Games should be built around PVP from the ground up and no not in instances. Trust me FFA and Team/Guild based pvp works..just no one has came up with the wining formula yet.
I think CoD4 was really on to something when they added "leveling" to their FPS.
How does daedalus get his data? I can accept his charts as factual it would make sense that most mmorpgers prefer PVE. I'm just a little confused because most people I meet enjoy PVP or at least a tiny bit. But then again I always prefer to choose the PVP option so that would explain why I dont understand
I'm just totally confused though I would think pure pve'ers would be a minority due to the highly repetitive natuire oof PVE. But no offense to them but now I understand why they would outnumber us because PVE is designed to reward everyone due to time investment. Thus, sooner or later they will succeed in PVE. But PVP is a bit different it factors different things into the mix
It's just good to know what the 'majority' prefers
I'd put my money on there being just as many "hardcore" PvP fans as there are "hardcore" PvE fans. The majority, I'm guessing, are some where in the middle.
Long thread so I will admit now I didn't read every post.
In an MMO I have always felt PvP was secondary to PvE. If the PvE game, which is how you typically level/gear up, sucks... it won't hold my interest. I really enjoyed DAoC's version of PvP, stealing an enemy realm's relic to give everyone of your realm, where ever they are, a buff was very motivating. Even if you broke into the keep to grab the relic, you still had to run it back to your relic keep. Plus they had battlegrounds with shorter 5-level range and siege warfare. That way you could "practice" your pvping before venturing into the Frontier.
WoW's instancing is ok, just the pvp itself is meaningless. No matter how many times horde wins AV, means nothing to the lowbie running around in barrens.
How does daedalus get his data? I can accept his charts as factual it would make sense that most mmorpgers prefer PVE. I'm just a little confused because most people I meet enjoy PVP or at least a tiny bit. But then again I always prefer to choose the PVP option so that would explain why I dont understand
The way I see it, if you go in-game or on forums and ask people you'll probably have a result leaning more towards PvP, as active players will like at least some (often a lot of) PvP. I was referring to subscribers though, which includes that vast number of people who you don't see that much due to mainly playing solo or with their like-minded friends, not playing that many hours, and not participating a lot on public forums. These pay a very significant portion of the revenue for e.g. WoW, and if who (too) many developers need to get (too) many of to keep the cash flowing.
For me any game that forces me to PvP in any aspect of the game simply won't be getting my money. Pertty much that simple, which is why games like Eve will never realise success on the scale that Blizzard has achieved.
While I of course enjoy PvE and other aspects of a MMO, PvP is my main focus. I am sorry but fighting real people is so much more exciting, I just wish more games would implement it in a way to make it rewarding and strategic.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
Completely unimportant to me, though its presence in a game won't turn me away if it can be avoided. I play these games to work with people (or on my own), not against them. I'm just don't derive any joy from conflict, whether it's in real life or in the land of make-believe.
I will use WoW as my example for what was fun in PvP to me...only because it is a recent mmorpg....
I never did the arena...an mmorpg arena is such a joke with all the latency issues and the like, if I want arena combat...I will hit up a proper FPS and win or lose based on my skill and reflexes...not now many months my ass has been sitting in front of the computer leveling a character. in case you don't know, that isn't bragging rights.
However, I did play the PvE in WoW on a PvP enabled server and missions in the contested zones were a LOT more fun then their non-pvp server counterparts (I played teh game on those servers with my wife, who's kind of new to the gaming gig). I was a druid, and I found myself sneaking about the maps quite often, trying to get the mission done without getting punked...it was great, it actually felt like I was in enemy territory.
So, with WoW specifically, PvP was simply an enhancement to the PvE side of the game. Since territories never actually changed hands...i saw no real reason to pursuit PvP as a main form of gameplay.
Now with DAoC, it was different. PvP DID affect the world and those in it, beyond simply making the PvE elements more difficult.
So I guess what I am saying is, PvP is important.Just how important depends on the game in question.
Ultimately, my favorite PvP game was UO. before Trammel, etc. Oh well, we'll see if Darkfall can revive those good times.
Frank 'Spankybus' Mignone www.spankybus.com -3d Artist & Compositor -Writer -Professional Amature
i have played games without pvp and game with pvp and games with open pvp with penalities
Personally with no pvp you run into griefers and well after playing a game with open pvp with penalities if you kill more then one other player
I found i like the open pvp with high penalities for multiple kills
with pentions taking so many hours i would not even be playing at the time they actually get answered it either have my play time ruined by someone who abuses the fact that i cant just kill them or play a game where players rarely pvp but can when needed
note i dont pvp and really avoid it when at all possible most players who do cause problems in an open pvp setting and get attacked normally just run away and stop doing what ever it was that they where doing which is just fine by me
So and open pvp system where the pvp mode has to be turned on the person with the mode can be freely attack by any other player with no penalities as long as they are not in pvp and the pvper can attack anyone but after first kill has a hugh penality lasting a couple hours this is far better then no pvp i found
I really like PvP because it is not static, unlike PvE. But if there were a game with NPCs that thought and decided to do different actions, as well as a human could, then I would play it. I don't play PvP to dominate over other people, so I don't care about that part.
Either way it has to have a point, killing for the sake of killing or leveling is pointless and boring to me, I have to be able to effect the world in some way.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
I really like PvP because it is not static, unlike PvE. But if there were a game with NPCs that thought and decided to do different actions, as well as a human could, then I would play it. I don't play PvP to dominate over other people, so I don't care about that part. Either way it has to have a point, killing for the sake of killing or leveling is pointless and boring to me, I have to be able to effect the world in some way.
I disagree i think it should be made pointless and even penalize you for doing more then once
why
because then most player will not pvp, but then whats the point of have pvp you say, well once in a while you will have players you are both in the same area and they get in each others why, this leads to gm pentions that take hours to answer and upset players who think your game customer service is slow (it is) well it one or the other can just kill each other with pvp then you also have less gms pentions or at least ones that are more easily solved
basically a pvp system with sizable penalities but still viable for a one shot small party conflict is better for players and gms as it gives an instant option for resolotion
I wonder how the community would respond to a question such as "Do you prefer environmental PvP or instance PvP?" My sense is that the community would overwhelmingly support environmental PvP.
WAR is going to have a lot of environmental PvP. Although you can level from one to max doing PvE, will a game such as WAR have too much of a PvP focus for mainstream gamers? If I were to base that question on this poll, my response would be no.
It seems that PvP is becoming increasingly important. The danger is that PvP overshadows PvE, and I think PvE is ultimately more important to gamers than PvP.
----- WoW and fast food = commercial successes. I neither play WoW nor eat fast food.
I disagree i think it should be made pointless and even penalize you for doing more then once
why because then most player will not pvp, but then whats the point of have pvp you say, well once in a while you will have players you are both in the same area and they get in each others why, this leads to gm pentions that take hours to answer and upset players who think your game customer service is slow (it is) well it one or the other can just kill each other with pvp then you also have less gms pentions or at least ones that are more easily solved basically a pvp system with sizable penalities but still viable for a one shot small party conflict is better for players and gms as it gives an instant option for resolotion
By "point" I mean PvP should have objectives to accomplish, like capture this city or tower. This would actually cut down on the ammount of greifing because the people that want to PvP are all fighting over the objective points so PvEers can play in peace (mostly).
You just have to make PvP objectives offer enough incentive.
Not like instanced PvP, I much prefer enviromental, only make the enviromental much more organized so that you have battles instead of random people killing each other.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
i wont buy a game i cant kill some one in and gloat , Faillgate london i would have not bought but with the hopes it would have a semi FFA feel to it i got it and it sucks
just bought Tabula rasa (sp?) and downloading it now hoping its fun and not a CoH/V twin
Comments
Very interesting poll results. I dare claim that to the vast majority of MMOG subscribers PvP is of close to zero importance, and it's mainly slightly important to them because they want to make sure they don't have to participate in it.
I'd love to see a great PvP implementation myself (full PvP, full looting, but with appropriate counter-actions), but unfortunately PvP is imo not where the money lies for the investors and thus the developers.
Peoples on this board are not representative of the mainstream gamers. This is a PvP-focused forum. EvEngelists are everywhere here, and they are usually cool and nice.
A PvE player is far less likely to stroll boards then a PvP player, he is less competitive and less aggresive, thereby he usually focus less on getting every edges. Casuals players are also less likely to go on any forum.
Any poll taken here is seriously leaning toward EvE and DAoC. These are good games, but they are by no means addressed at the majority, and the EA staff working on WAR is kinda blind to that fact.
Humans often read what they want to read. If you want everyone to enjoy fishing and do a survey about fishing at National Geographic office, those datas won't be representative of the majority of society, they will only represent what peoples who go at the National Geographic office enjoys themselves.
Well its also important to remember that some games *cough* EQ are based on mechanics that are basically retarded. And by that I mean aggro. I say retarded, and I use that term specfically, because aggro management is effectively Anti-AI. AI is meant to cause things to act in an intelligent manner. EQ and WoW and various other MMOs are based around aggro manipulation. The whole point is to override intelligent seeming behavior and to force things to act stupid.
These games tend to have tension between between PvE and PvP. But this is an artifact of those games it is not a general rule.
Both Eve and Guild Wars have based their games only on mechanics that make sense against people.
In Guild Wars mobs will do smart things like, you know try to kill the healer first. Guild Wars therefore gives you counters to that strategy, like laying a trap at the healers feet to let them kite and apply a bleed.
In Guild Wars you counter an intelligent strategy with another intelligent strategy. In EQ-clones you counter an intelligent strategy by forcing them to no longer be able to act in an intelligent manner.
Therefore the PvE and PvP in EQ-clones is in tension because of different mechanics and even worse different philosophies.
However the PvE and PvP is games like Eve and Guild Wars is not nearly as much in tension because they work on the same principles.
It is common for many EQ-clone forumites to believe that some nerf to a class was based on PvP and think it ruins the PvE game. I believe there is one on the LOTRO forums right now.
I hope that someday the idea of aggro management is completely erradicated from MMORPGs. I doubt that it will because its the simple way and people are used to it. But you can never have any challenge until its gone. Challenge in MMOs is currently a myth in the EQ-clones when it comes to groups.
So if you are right and this forum has a sample biased, it is important to point out that the tension between PvE vs PvP is an artifact of game design. An artifact that does not really exist in EvE and therefore PvP itself looks far less problematic to them because they have seen a decent design.
Just look at the Guild War AoE AI changes from a long time ago. Back in the day AoE was not viewed as the uber PvP strat because an intelligent human gets out of the radius of the DoT before it has taken its full course also humans are smart enough to spread and out and avoid herding. In come the AI changes and many farmers are upset. But they can't even frame their discount in a way that pins the changes on PvP. Because no matter what the previous behavior was in fact stupid. No sane creature stands around in a well of fire for 10 seconds straight saying "Hmmm I think I am dying, darn". Even if this change was PvP inspired, the fact is the GW team has always attempted to create relatively intelligent mobs (with the very strict limitation of an MMO-like environment, ie. mostly scripts not complex decisions ). The people who disliked the change had no leg to even stand on to frame the conversation in terms of PvP. Because in the end they made the creatures act "smarter" and arguing against that is arguing for dumbing down the game.
There is essentially no way to effectively argue that some arbitrary change screws up PvE because of PvP, because they are based on exactly the same mechanics and PvP basically puts you against harder opponents. If something was killing players too fast, then it certainly kills PvE mobs too fast as well. And of course for things that are too strong or good, they just make a PvE only skill. The only real difference is the prevalence of some tactics and the execution. The AI mobs tend to interrupt incredibly fast, but are easy to fool. A good human interrupter can be very nasty even if they are fairly rare although not quite as fast. This is the only real source of contention for skill balance for PvE versus PvP in Guild Wars.
Whereas in EQ-clones there has often been very real conflicts for classes due to the fact they are smooshed the same class into two different designs. One against things you can force to be stupid and the other against intelligent people. These are very different situation and something is bound to break. This is why EQ2 separated on PvE and PvP stats. However that still is not enough, because they design philosophoes of PvE are aggro based and therefore are the anithesis of PvP. In PvP you counter their actions and they counter yours and its a constant game of maneuvers, in PvE you force the mobs to act how you want using what amounts to mind control and have no need to counter anything. I f you try to stick the same thing into both paradigm there will always be conflicts and is in my opinion a fundamental design flaw.
oh misread this I thnk
I just want to know what is the truth you know? What is the majority? What is a good reliable way to sample this information?
For some numbers, I'd say Deadalus project is probably the only good ones. Any other sources are very welcome though. I'm a sucker for numbers.
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001466.php
Games should be built around PVP from the ground up and no not in instances. Trust me FFA and Team/Guild based pvp works..just no one has came up with the wining formula yet.
I think CoD4 was really on to something when they added "leveling" to their FPS.
MIMI
How does daedalus get his data? I can accept his charts as factual it would make sense that most mmorpgers prefer PVE. I'm just a little confused because most people I meet enjoy PVP or at least a tiny bit. But then again I always prefer to choose the PVP option so that would explain why I dont understand
I'm just totally confused though I would think pure pve'ers would be a minority due to the highly repetitive natuire oof PVE. But no offense to them but now I understand why they would outnumber us because PVE is designed to reward everyone due to time investment. Thus, sooner or later they will succeed in PVE. But PVP is a bit different it factors different things into the mix
It's just good to know what the 'majority' prefers
Wow, it always seemed to me that the forums were biased towards pve, but I guess that most do like pvp here.
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open.
Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
I'd put my money on there being just as many "hardcore" PvP fans as there are "hardcore" PvE fans. The majority, I'm guessing, are some where in the middle.
Yeah I was hoping that would be a poll I could trust but unfortunately I believe that one only samples a populace.
I wish it was as simple as sampling WoW's server activity but unfortunately there is pretty high PVP activity on those as well (Battlegrounds)
Long thread so I will admit now I didn't read every post.
In an MMO I have always felt PvP was secondary to PvE. If the PvE game, which is how you typically level/gear up, sucks... it won't hold my interest. I really enjoyed DAoC's version of PvP, stealing an enemy realm's relic to give everyone of your realm, where ever they are, a buff was very motivating. Even if you broke into the keep to grab the relic, you still had to run it back to your relic keep. Plus they had battlegrounds with shorter 5-level range and siege warfare. That way you could "practice" your pvping before venturing into the Frontier.
WoW's instancing is ok, just the pvp itself is meaningless. No matter how many times horde wins AV, means nothing to the lowbie running around in barrens.
The way I see it, if you go in-game or on forums and ask people you'll probably have a result leaning more towards PvP, as active players will like at least some (often a lot of) PvP. I was referring to subscribers though, which includes that vast number of people who you don't see that much due to mainly playing solo or with their like-minded friends, not playing that many hours, and not participating a lot on public forums. These pay a very significant portion of the revenue for e.g. WoW, and if who (too) many developers need to get (too) many of to keep the cash flowing.
For me any game that forces me to PvP in any aspect of the game simply won't be getting my money. Pertty much that simple, which is why games like Eve will never realise success on the scale that Blizzard has achieved.
I think it just depends on the game and if PVP is done right or wrong.
While I of course enjoy PvE and other aspects of a MMO, PvP is my main focus. I am sorry but fighting real people is so much more exciting, I just wish more games would implement it in a way to make it rewarding and strategic.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
Completely unimportant to me, though its presence in a game won't turn me away if it can be avoided. I play these games to work with people (or on my own), not against them. I'm just don't derive any joy from conflict, whether it's in real life or in the land of make-believe.
I will use WoW as my example for what was fun in PvP to me...only because it is a recent mmorpg....
I never did the arena...an mmorpg arena is such a joke with all the latency issues and the like, if I want arena combat...I will hit up a proper FPS and win or lose based on my skill and reflexes...not now many months my ass has been sitting in front of the computer leveling a character. in case you don't know, that isn't bragging rights.
However, I did play the PvE in WoW on a PvP enabled server and missions in the contested zones were a LOT more fun then their non-pvp server counterparts (I played teh game on those servers with my wife, who's kind of new to the gaming gig). I was a druid, and I found myself sneaking about the maps quite often, trying to get the mission done without getting punked...it was great, it actually felt like I was in enemy territory.
So, with WoW specifically, PvP was simply an enhancement to the PvE side of the game. Since territories never actually changed hands...i saw no real reason to pursuit PvP as a main form of gameplay.
Now with DAoC, it was different. PvP DID affect the world and those in it, beyond simply making the PvE elements more difficult.
So I guess what I am saying is, PvP is important.Just how important depends on the game in question.
Ultimately, my favorite PvP game was UO. before Trammel, etc. Oh well, we'll see if Darkfall can revive those good times.
Frank 'Spankybus' Mignone
www.spankybus.com
-3d Artist & Compositor
-Writer
-Professional Amature
We live to die, what we do with our limited time is up to us.
i have played games without pvp and game with pvp and games with open pvp with penalities
Personally with no pvp you run into griefers and well after playing a game with open pvp with penalities if you kill more then one other player
I found i like the open pvp with high penalities for multiple kills
with pentions taking so many hours i would not even be playing at the time they actually get answered it either have my play time ruined by someone who abuses the fact that i cant just kill them or play a game where players rarely pvp but can when needed
note i dont pvp and really avoid it when at all possible most players who do cause problems in an open pvp setting and get attacked normally just run away and stop doing what ever it was that they where doing which is just fine by me
So and open pvp system where the pvp mode has to be turned on the person with the mode can be freely attack by any other player with no penalities as long as they are not in pvp and the pvper can attack anyone but after first kill has a hugh penality lasting a couple hours this is far better then no pvp i found
I really like PvP because it is not static, unlike PvE. But if there were a game with NPCs that thought and decided to do different actions, as well as a human could, then I would play it. I don't play PvP to dominate over other people, so I don't care about that part.
Either way it has to have a point, killing for the sake of killing or leveling is pointless and boring to me, I have to be able to effect the world in some way.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
why
because then most player will not pvp, but then whats the point of have pvp you say, well once in a while you will have players you are both in the same area and they get in each others why, this leads to gm pentions that take hours to answer and upset players who think your game customer service is slow (it is) well it one or the other can just kill each other with pvp then you also have less gms pentions or at least ones that are more easily solved
basically a pvp system with sizable penalities but still viable for a one shot small party conflict is better for players and gms as it gives an instant option for resolotion
I wonder how the community would respond to a question such as "Do you prefer environmental PvP or instance PvP?" My sense is that the community would overwhelmingly support environmental PvP.
WAR is going to have a lot of environmental PvP. Although you can level from one to max doing PvE, will a game such as WAR have too much of a PvP focus for mainstream gamers? If I were to base that question on this poll, my response would be no.
It seems that PvP is becoming increasingly important. The danger is that PvP overshadows PvE, and I think PvE is ultimately more important to gamers than PvP.
-----
WoW and fast food = commercial successes.
I neither play WoW nor eat fast food.
You just have to make PvP objectives offer enough incentive.
Not like instanced PvP, I much prefer enviromental, only make the enviromental much more organized so that you have battles instead of random people killing each other.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
PvP is what matters to me the most.
70% PvP
20% PvE
10% Community, crafting, etc... And random fun stuff to do.
i wont buy a game i cant kill some one in and gloat , Faillgate london i would have not bought but with the hopes it would have a semi FFA feel to it i got it and it sucks
just bought Tabula rasa (sp?) and downloading it now hoping its fun and not a CoH/V twin
PvP is nice but the first thing people think of taking pointy objects and sticking them in each others guts should just be the tip of the iceberg.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.