Planetside is the only true PvP MMO. It is the only game that to get something, you must take it from another. There is NO pve in planetside.
Eve, on the other hand is primarily PVE (killing npc pirates to gain access to asteroids to mine). The only aspect of PvP that I encountered in EVE was being ganked by player-pirates for no good reason other than to be ganked; and those player pirates were obviously FAR more experienced in the game than I. So, again, we have the case of some harmful veteran players scaring off potential new players. Also, the profanity encountered in Eve was rediculous. No holds barred, tasteless, unimaginative profanity. I wouldn't let anyone under 18yrs near that game. I am very surprised to see Eve's subscription has grown (albeit at a painfully slow pace). I attribute it 100% to their neverending advertising campaign. As SOE has yet to learn, advertising pays.
Now I do have a friend who loves Eve, and he'd be mad if he read my opinions I secretly hate on the game. No disrespect to Eve players; I gotta call it like I see it.
What I DID like about Eve include (1) the cool time-based experience system and (2) the spaceship graphics were pretty cool but combat could be laggy as hell!!! and (3) the corporation system was very cool enabling you to create your own star bases.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Planetside is the only true PvP MMO. It is the only game that to get something, you must take it from another. There is NO pve in planetside. Eve, on the other hand is primarily PVE (killing npc pirates to gain access to asteroids to mine). The only aspect of PvP that I encountered in EVE was being ganked by player-pirates for no good reason other than to be ganked; and those player pirates were obviously FAR more experienced in the game than I. So, again, we have the case of some harmful veteran players scaring off potential new players. Also, the profanity encountered in Eve was rediculous. No holds barred, tasteless, unimaginative profanity. I wouldn't let anyone under 18yrs near that game. I am very surprised to see Eve's subscription has grown (albeit at a painfully slow pace). I attribute it 100% to their neverending advertising campaign. As SOE has yet to learn, advertising pays. Now I do have a friend who loves Eve, and he'd be mad if he read my opinions I secretly hate on the game. No disrespect to Eve players; I gotta call it like I see it. What I DID like about Eve include (1) the cool time-based experience system and (2) the spaceship graphics were pretty cool but combat could be laggy as hell!!! and (3) the corporation system was very cool enabling you to create your own star bases.
You didn't really experience EVE in all its glory, so its understandable that you have this skewed opinion of what EVE is and isn't. I have corp mates that never PVE, they hunt people all day.
But most of EVE's PVE activity supports the PVP and we do it to better ourselves.
But you are correct, it certainly is no Planetside, which is really just a shooter at heart.
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
Planetside is the only true PvP MMO. It is the only game that to get something, you must take it from another. There is NO pve in planetside. Eve, on the other hand is primarily PVE
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god." -- Jean Rostand
The vast majority of EVE players huddle in highsec space to play the limited PvE and avoid the PvP like the plague. As there are tons of bored gankers at the gates in lowsec, they are very smart to stay in highsec.
This is pretty simple just by looking a recent game history... Eq2 vs WoW, EQ2 first came out with no pvp system and WoW had a pvp system. WoWs numbers far greater than that of EQ2. A few months into it and EQ2 tried to hurry out a pvp system to get some players to come and try the game. LoTR said that there was no way that they were going to have a pvp system. They said it wouldnt work with the story and guess what before you knew it they put in a wierd pvp system. DDO yea pretty much a total flop also was going to be a pve only game but they also tried to throw in some weak pvp system. A game better have a pvp system from the very start if they want to have a good player base. Because the truth is most people want pvp. The big games right now have always had the pvp system in. L2, WoW, GW, DAOC, UO and SWG just to name a few. Like it or not those are the facts. When people talk about great games or topics on best game ever, everyone of those games they are talking about are games with good pvp. No pvp system = failed game. Good unigue pvp system = high populations.
There are so many false correlations in this post, don't know where to start.
Here is a fact: Games that are pure PvP do poorly. Planetside, WWIIOnline, Shadowbane, Roma Victor,... there are more, but all have low populations. UO had to change its untrammeled PvP world.
To say that a game must have PvP if they want a good player base is to give false importance to one aspect of game play. It is more correct to say that a game must have many game systems in order to appeal to a wider audience if the game wants to have a good player base. This means adding crafting, roleplaying tools, PvE content as well as PvP. It is a canard to say that PvP is the single determining factor of a games success.
Games added PvP, not because they would have been failures otherwise, but because they wanted to be even MORE successful. LOTRO was not going to have crafting, nor farming, nor housing! Turbine CEO had said as much when he spoke about players being heroes on adventures, not sitting around farming (a sentiment he had in common with Smedley). Now should we draw the same conclusion, using the same flawed logic pattern, that only successful games have farming! No.
So Yes, 20% of players participate in PvP sounds exactly right. Does that fact bother me? No. I play a pure PvP game, WWIIOnline. But then again, I don't need external validation to feel important, or to feel that something I enjoy, PvP, is somehow made less because of some statistic.
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
This is pretty simple just by looking a recent game history... Eq2 vs WoW, EQ2 first came out with no pvp system and WoW had a pvp system. WoWs numbers far greater than that of EQ2. A few months into it and EQ2 tried to hurry out a pvp system to get some players to come and try the game. LoTR said that there was no way that they were going to have a pvp system. They said it wouldnt work with the story and guess what before you knew it they put in a wierd pvp system. DDO yea pretty much a total flop also was going to be a pve only game but they also tried to throw in some weak pvp system. A game better have a pvp system from the very start if they want to have a good player base. Because the truth is most people want pvp. The big games right now have always had the pvp system in. L2, WoW, GW, DAOC, UO and SWG just to name a few. Like it or not those are the facts. When people talk about great games or topics on best game ever, everyone of those games they are talking about are games with good pvp. No pvp system = failed game. Good unigue pvp system = high populations.
There are so many false correlations in this post, don't know where to start.
Here is a fact: Games that are pure PvP do poorly. Planetside, WWIIOnline, Shadowbane, Roma Victor,... there are more, but all have low populations. UO had to change its untrammeled PvP world.
To say that a game must have PvP if they want a good player base is to give false importance to one aspect of game play. It is more correct to say that a game must have many game systems in order to appeal to a wider audience if the game wants to have a good player base. This means adding crafting, roleplaying tools, PvE content as well as PvP. It is a canard to say that PvP is the single determining factor of a games success.
Games added PvP, not because they would have been failures otherwise, but because they wanted to be even MORE successful. LOTRO was not going to have crafting, nor farming, nor housing! Turbine CEO had said as much when he spoke about players being heroes on adventures, not sitting around farming (a sentiment he had in common with Smedley). Now should we draw the same conclusion, using the same flawed logic pattern, that only successful games have farming! No.
So Yes, 20% of players participate in PvP sounds exactly right. Does that fact bother me? No. I play a pure PvP game, WWIIOnline. But then again, I don't need external validation to feel important, or to feel that something I enjoy, PvP, is somehow made less because of some statistic.
HAHA! Right you are just changing the words around. Oh so I get it they wanted a wider audience it just so happens to be a coincedence that all of them added PvP right before or right after release.
If you think a game in todays market can survive on PvE content only just go name one being made that will do well and name three games out right now that are PvE only and doing well. I think now I get why people dont see it maybe they just dont think or just twist things around to make it sound a different way. I really could careless but thats the truth. A game in todays market must have a good pvp system in place from the start to get a large population. Just take a look at the games coming out the ones that are going to do well will be pvp/rvr based you can count on that.
I just saw a test on how many people actually liked PvP as the most important part of MMO's. 20% !! What about you, how many people do you think is the real number? The test says nothing about what game it was however, but there are games like DDO that has no PvP at all.
now you know why no one ever builds PvP MMO's. I only like PVE anyhow.
This is pretty simple just by looking a recent game history... Eq2 vs WoW, EQ2 first came out with no pvp system and WoW had a pvp system. WoWs numbers far greater than that of EQ2. A few months into it and EQ2 tried to hurry out a pvp system to get some players to come and try the game. LoTR said that there was no way that they were going to have a pvp system. They said it wouldnt work with the story and guess what before you knew it they put in a wierd pvp system. DDO yea pretty much a total flop also was going to be a pve only game but they also tried to throw in some weak pvp system. A game better have a pvp system from the very start if they want to have a good player base. Because the truth is most people want pvp. The big games right now have always had the pvp system in. L2, WoW, GW, DAOC, UO and SWG just to name a few. Like it or not those are the facts. When people talk about great games or topics on best game ever, everyone of those games they are talking about are games with good pvp. No pvp system = failed game. Good unigue pvp system = high populations.
There are so many false correlations in this post, don't know where to start.
Here is a fact: Games that are pure PvP do poorly. Planetside, WWIIOnline, Shadowbane, Roma Victor,... there are more, but all have low populations. UO had to change its untrammeled PvP world.
To say that a game must have PvP if they want a good player base is to give false importance to one aspect of game play. It is more correct to say that a game must have many game systems in order to appeal to a wider audience if the game wants to have a good player base. This means adding crafting, roleplaying tools, PvE content as well as PvP. It is a canard to say that PvP is the single determining factor of a games success.
Games added PvP, not because they would have been failures otherwise, but because they wanted to be even MORE successful. LOTRO was not going to have crafting, nor farming, nor housing! Turbine CEO had said as much when he spoke about players being heroes on adventures, not sitting around farming (a sentiment he had in common with Smedley). Now should we draw the same conclusion, using the same flawed logic pattern, that only successful games have farming! No.
So Yes, 20% of players participate in PvP sounds exactly right. Does that fact bother me? No. I play a pure PvP game, WWIIOnline. But then again, I don't need external validation to feel important, or to feel that something I enjoy, PvP, is somehow made less because of some statistic.
HAHA! Right you are just changing the words around. Oh so I get it they wanted a wider audience it just so happens to be a coincedence that all of them added PvP right before or right after release.
If you think a game in todays market can survive on PvE content only just go name one being made that will do well and name three games out right now that are PvE only and doing well. I think now I get why people dont see it maybe they just dont think or just twist things around to make it sound a different way. I really could careless but thats the truth. A game in todays market must have a good pvp system in place from the start to get a large population. Just take a look at the games coming out the ones that are going to do well will be pvp/rvr based you can count on that.
And some of them added crafting before release, or right after. Varied game systems are added to make a game more successful. EVE added more PvE content to become more successful, and to diversify.
As for games that are only PvE? Why should I name three? Seems as though you thought of a few and had to create a random number to prove your point. Sorry to burst your epeen contest here, but I never said that PvE-only games are successful. I said that PvP isn't the sole determinating factor in the success of a game, which you insist it is. But here are three MMOs that are not PvP-based that are quite successful just to thwart your point anyway: Second Life is PvE-based and has users in the millions. ToonTown has over 100K (before you laugh, it has more than pure PvP games). Entropia Universe is another that has users around 500k.
Now you name 5 games that are PvP-only that are highly successful, or one game in development that is only PvP that will do well?
Reality is that the MMOs that can offer many forms of gameplay have the best chance to do well. That IS the only truism here.
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
I just saw a test on how many people actually liked PvP as the most important part of MMO's. 20% !! What about you, how many people do you think is the real number? The test says nothing about what game it was however, but there are games like DDO that has no PvP at all.
How about you ask us what WE like, instead of what we _think_ others might like?
I’m all for competition where we build/destroy towns/forts/castles/etc. It’d give us something to do.
Yeah ok this is dumb to be honest. Love the list though not making fun of you for it at all but it did make me laugh. Your list is so random that I have never heard of one of those games. If you are going to name FTP games then pvp based WWIIO, CS, CoD4, AA, 2 Moons, silk road, Fury, GW just to name a few that everyone has heard of (some FPS that are FTP but your list isnt pure MMOs either). I also never said a game should be pure pvp I said it is one of the most important parts of one, way more than 20%. I said it has to have a great pvp system in order to bring a large number of people. You can say crafting was what brought people to the game and new pve content and I can say no pvp but we both know thats going no where.
Im just saying watch which games are big in 2008 and they will be in a large part pvp centered games. It is one of the major corner stones of a game top 2 easy. To say only 20% of people want pvp is just reduclas if you look at the market of MMORPGs. If it was really that low then games like L2, GW, Eve, WoW would have much lower populations and games like DDO, LoTR would be way up there. The most active forums on here sure wouldnt be WAR and AoC either if only 20% want pvp like you believe. There sure as hell wouldnt be 500,000+ people trying to get into WAR beta. Those are going to be the big hits of 08 with what I believe WAR going to be the largest and that game is all about RvR so its major theory is just what I have said its a major part and maybe the biggest part of a modern day MMORPG. So only time will tell if WAR does come out on top these post will be far and in between.
Yeah ok this is dumb to be honest. Love the list though not making fun of you for it at all but it did make me laugh. I never said a game should be pure pvp. I said it has to have a great pvp system in order to bring a large number of people. You can say crafting was what brought people to the game and new pve content and I can say no pvp but we both know thats going no where. Im just saying watch which games are big in 2008 and they will be in a large part pvp centered games. It is one of the major corner stones of a game top 2 easy. To say only 20% of people want pvp is just reduclas if you look at the market of MMORPGs. If it was really that low then games like L2, GW, Eve, WoW would have much lower populations and games like DDO, LoTR would be way up there. The most active forums on here sure wouldnt be WAR and AoC either if only 20% want pvp like you believe.
This site, MMORPG.com, is highly biased toward PvP. Using it as a belwether for PvP interest in MMOs is bad.
Again, you base your assumptions on false correlations. Yes, WoW would have a lower population. How much lower? By about 20% I'd say. WoW is as successful because of its IP, because of its casual friendly nature, and because it is easy. GW is popular because it charges no montly sub. EVE is popular because it ADDED PvE elements. Take a look at pure PvP games if you think PvP is so important. None of them are doing gangbusters. It's the combination of many systems, none of which are more important than the other, but together can create successful games.
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Yeah I pretty much agree with you on everything but the importance of the pvp system. I think subs for WoW would drop 40%-50% to be honest but neither of us know that and will never know so doesnt matter. You can say that about any type of game with only one aspect they need a good mix and I agree. The only thing Im saying is pvp is weighted a lot more than you think and agian we will find out for sure this year.
To say that only 20% people would leave WoW if it had no PvP would totally be "false correlations because 50% of the servers are PvP servers and alot of them are high pop. servers. On top of that you can PvP on the pve servers threw BGs/Arenas/Flag so just because they are on a PvE server some of them like to pvp maybe around the 20% mark. It would be safe to assume that in reality the number that would leave would be more around 60%-70%.
Like someone else said Eq2 and WoW came out at the same time. EQ was the biggest name in MMOs. The mags. at the time had it comingout on top over WoW. it had WOW beat in every aspect PvE. crafting and raiding but one thing they did not have that WoW did was a PvP system. Like WoW or not it proved one thing and that is that a game has got to have a PvP system in place and that it is one of the most important parts of a game if not the MOST important.
To say that only 20% people would leave WoW if it had no PvP would totally be "false correlations because 50% of the servers are PvP servers and alot of them are high pop. servers. On top of that you can PvP on the pve servers threw BGs/Arenas/Flag so just because they are on a PvE server some of them like to pvp maybe around the 20% mark. It would be safe to assume that in reality the number that would leave would be more around 60%-70%. Like someone else said Eq2 and WoW came out at the same time. EQ was the biggest name in MMOs. The mags. at the time had it comingout on top over WoW. it had WOW beat in every aspect PvE. crafting and raiding but one thing they did not have that WoW did was a PvP system. Like WoW or not it proved one thing and that is that a game has got to have a PvP system in place and that it is one of the most important parts of a game if not the MOST important.
If that were the case, why isn't Shadowbane, or CoX more popular? When CoX started messing with the game mechanics to "fix" PVP, they lost at least half the user base. I remember a time when CoX was orange-red on every server, and never having a hard time finding a team; then issue 3, 4, then 5 came, and by I5, all servers were green with less than 1000 on the most populous server.
The problem isn't PvP, it's making PvP the MAIN focus. When a PvE game is made, characters are supposed to be out of whack (fighters able to tank, mages able to deal damage), but PvP changes it (mainly to people complaining)., and 9 times out of 10, the company never listens, claiming it's "for the people to enjoy."
As far as PvP IMO, I think 20%, 30% at the most, that are hardcore PvP, though there are also 30-40% hardcore PvE. The rest like both, which WoW offers.
"Of all the things wrong with today's RPGs, 2D characters on a 3D background is the worst."
I dont know Shadowbane and never even heard of CoX but for all I know they have really bad PvP systems. As far as WoW goes its a different game and if atleast 50% of the people didnt want PvP then there would only be 20%-30% PvP servers. Blizzard also would have never put BGs/arenas into pve servers if there wasnt a desire for it.
Back in EQ1 days your 20%-30% might of been right but not today and like outhers have said WAR which is a PvP/RvR MAIN focus game would not have near 600,000 people trying to get into beta.
Well I didnt know the stats of the servers on WoW but those are the facts for you. Im sure a lot of people enjoy the pvp on the pve servers they just cant deal with getting ganked at low levels (I dont blame them really). You cant really compair WoW to SB and CoX because lets be honest they arent really in the same ball park as far as updated information. SB and CoX might of had a horrible class balance and then released an even worse pvp system which drove even more people away.
All this is pointless you guys are saying that a game that is pvp/rvr centric isnt going to do well we will soon find out that your a bit out of date no offence intended. Like I said this is all pretty much pointless and with the release of WAR coming up this year we will see which game out of all that gets released this year does the best. You can count on it that it will be a pvp centric game not a raid/pve/gear/rpg game. So I guess we will see...
Well I didnt know the stats of the servers on WoW but those are the facts for you. Im sure a lot of people enjoy the pvp on the pve servers they just cant deal with getting ganked at low levels (I dont blame them really). You cant really compair WoW to SB and CoX because lets be honest they arent really in the same ball park as far as updated information. SB and CoX might of had a horrible class balance and then released an even worse pvp system which drove even more people away. All this is pointless you guys are saying that a game that is pvp/rvr centric isnt going to do well we will soon find out that your a bit out of date no offence intended. Like I said its this is all pretty much pointless and with the release of WAR coming up this year we will see which game out of all that get released this year does the best. You can count on it that it will be a pvp centric game not a raid/pve/gear/rpg game. So I guess we will see...
Ahem, I thought CoH far superior to WoW in terms of gameplay and strategy, pre I-4. Shadowbane is a PVPers dream. WoW, despite being only about, what, 5 years old, is still extremely popular? I go by many factors, including price drops (WoW finally dropped after 2-3 years, CoH, Shadowbane: at most a year).
"Of all the things wrong with today's RPGs, 2D characters on a 3D background is the worst."
I played CoV and the pvp was so random and not thought out IMO. When I think of a good system I think of L2. Dont get me wrong Im not a WoW player it has to much focus on gear collection and epics not pvp for me. I was just talking about their population and didnt know how the servers were broken down. 50% pvp servers would be a safe guess that all of them want pvp. Then on top of that if you can pvp on the pve server then there must be a need from the players to have it so say you low ball it and say 10% of those players really enjoy pvp. That is 60% of the population way more than what you guys are saying as far as the "biggest" game on the market for the last few years goes.
Like I said put all past games aside we can do this same thing all night. The question is "do players enjoy pvp" you guys have been saying a pvp centric/main focus game will not do well and that people dont want that. Point me to one game in production that will be released as a pve/gear/raid/rpg centric game. There really isnt one and there is a reason for that. Now pvp centric games you have two titles coming out real soon and Im saying they will be the hits of 08.
This is pretty simple just by looking a recent game history... Eq2 vs WoW, EQ2 first came out with no pvp system and WoW had a pvp system. WoWs numbers far greater than that of EQ2. A few months into it and EQ2 tried to hurry out a pvp system to get some players to come and try the game. LoTR said that there was no way that they were going to have a pvp system. They said it wouldnt work with the story and guess what before you knew it they put in a wierd pvp system. DDO yea pretty much a total flop also was going to be a pve only game but they also tried to throw in some weak pvp system. A game better have a pvp system from the very start if they want to have a good player base. Because the truth is most people want pvp. The big games right now have always had the pvp system in. L2, WoW, GW, DAOC, UO and SWG just to name a few. Like it or not those are the facts. When people talk about great games or topics on best game ever, everyone of those games they are talking about are games with good pvp. No pvp system = failed game. Good unigue pvp system = high populations.
This is pretty simple just by looking a recent game history... Eq2 vs WoW, EQ2 first came out with no pvp system and WoW had a pvp system. WoWs numbers far greater than that of EQ2. A few months into it and EQ2 tried to hurry out a pvp system to get some players to come and try the game. LoTR said that there was no way that they were going to have a pvp system. They said it wouldnt work with the story and guess what before you knew it they put in a wierd pvp system. DDO yea pretty much a total flop also was going to be a pve only game but they also tried to throw in some weak pvp system. A game better have a pvp system from the very start if they want to have a good player base. Because the truth is most people want pvp. The big games right now have always had the pvp system in. L2, WoW, GW, DAOC, UO and SWG just to name a few. Like it or not those are the facts. When people talk about great games or topics on best game ever, everyone of those games they are talking about are games with good pvp. No pvp system = failed game. Good unigue pvp system = high populations.
What he said.
Hmmm...If memory serves...WoW did not have a full good unique PvP system at launch. Sure you could flag but that was it. They didn't put that whole PvP system they have now in for about 6 months. Unless all the drugs I did in the 80's are taking effect here, I'm pretty sure that was the case.
I don't remember if you could flag or duel in EQ2 at launch but WoW certainly did not have a full complete PvP system for a long while after launch.
We all gathered at the crossroads and killed each other in those days or that other town right outside of alliance areas, I forget the name. Thats was totally community driven and had nothing to do with Blizzard doing anything and frankly it was a LOT more fun then those lame capture the flag battlegrounds they put in.
Yeah WoW didnt have a unique pvp system at the start but it did have pvp where as its counter EQ2 the releases of the games just 6 months apart had no pvp system to start with. Once SOE saw how big WoW was getting they pushed out a pvp system right away but it was really to late at that point. WoW pretty much proved what everyone wanted and the market has continued to show this game after game. The people working on games now all have ideas for pvp systems AoC with sieges, guild wars, open pvp, rank and WAR with RvR. Yet not one game in the works like DDO, EQ2 and LoTR that are starting out with no pvp system thinking the game doesnt need it.
If you are going to make a NEW game it had better have all that stuff I said before. No doubt it needs a good balance but it better have a pvp system in place. The companies that are making them know this for sure. Lessons learned from EQ2, DDO, and LoTR all who started out with no pvp system but with in a short amount of time had one in place.
Yeah WoW didnt have a unique pvp system at the start but it did have pvp where as its counter EQ2 the releases of the games just 6 months apart had no pvp system to start with. Once SOE saw how big WoW was getting they pushed out a pvp system right away but it was really to late at that point. If you are going to make a NEW game it had better have all that stuff I said before. No doubt it needs a good balance but it better have a pvp system in place. The companies that are making them know this for sure. Lessons learned from EQ2, DDO, and LoTR all who started out with no pvp system but with in a short amount of time had one in place.
LotR had Monster play from launch which they consider PvP or PvMP.
Okay from launch but when LoTR was in the works it was not going to have pvp just like DDO. They are both made by the same guy and both were going to be pve games. DDO came out first and pretty much took a straight nosedive so they put in moster play in LoTR. For the longest time the people at LoTR said pvp does not fit into their game until they saw what happened with DDO, they changed their minds pretty quick.
The funny thing about that is I argued this same thing with all the LoTR fanbois before the release. They said that LoTR was going to be huge and they wouldnt need a good pvp system to do so. It was funny to see them put in that MP stuff right before release. They even had a post on their forums that said something along the lines of no pvp stop asking sticky posted at the top and you couldnt make topics about it.
I think a real good way to measure would be to go count the number of PvP servers on WoW to the PvE servers on WoW. And then realize that on the PvE servers, the PvP is also going hot and heavy. I think everyone likes PvE to some degree. And a whole lot of folks are getting into PvP; much more than 3 years ago. I think DAoC really launched PvP as a mainstream MMORPG activity. And WoW has sealed it. With WAR and AoC, PvP will most likely become the dominant form of MMORPG play with PvE supporting it. That is also the current WoW end-game model with BC.
World of Warcraft is a comparison to NOTHING whatsoever. That would not give us ANY kind of indication since WoW is the starter or beginner MMO for new MMO gamers. True veteran MMO gamers see it this way and are still waiting for a good MMO "hopefully WAR or AOC, or maybe some of the hidden project MMO's in Q3".
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity: Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
Comments
Planetside is the only true PvP MMO. It is the only game that to get something, you must take it from another. There is NO pve in planetside.
Eve, on the other hand is primarily PVE (killing npc pirates to gain access to asteroids to mine). The only aspect of PvP that I encountered in EVE was being ganked by player-pirates for no good reason other than to be ganked; and those player pirates were obviously FAR more experienced in the game than I. So, again, we have the case of some harmful veteran players scaring off potential new players. Also, the profanity encountered in Eve was rediculous. No holds barred, tasteless, unimaginative profanity. I wouldn't let anyone under 18yrs near that game. I am very surprised to see Eve's subscription has grown (albeit at a painfully slow pace). I attribute it 100% to their neverending advertising campaign. As SOE has yet to learn, advertising pays.
Now I do have a friend who loves Eve, and he'd be mad if he read my opinions
I secretly hate on the game. No disrespect to Eve players; I gotta call it like I see it.
What I DID like about Eve include (1) the cool time-based experience system and (2) the spaceship graphics were pretty cool but combat could be laggy as hell!!! and (3) the corporation system was very cool enabling you to create your own star bases.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
You didn't really experience EVE in all its glory, so its understandable that you have this skewed opinion of what EVE is and isn't. I have corp mates that never PVE, they hunt people all day.
But most of EVE's PVE activity supports the PVP and we do it to better ourselves.
But you are correct, it certainly is no Planetside, which is really just a shooter at heart.
"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
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."
-- Jean Rostand
Could anyone provide with a link to the survey where it points out that only 20% of the MMO players are PvP fans?
Futilez - Mature MMORPG Community
Correcting people since birth.
The vast majority of EVE players huddle in highsec space to play the limited PvE and avoid the PvP like the plague. As there are tons of bored gankers at the gates in lowsec, they are very smart to stay in highsec.
There are so many false correlations in this post, don't know where to start.
Here is a fact: Games that are pure PvP do poorly. Planetside, WWIIOnline, Shadowbane, Roma Victor,... there are more, but all have low populations. UO had to change its untrammeled PvP world.
To say that a game must have PvP if they want a good player base is to give false importance to one aspect of game play. It is more correct to say that a game must have many game systems in order to appeal to a wider audience if the game wants to have a good player base. This means adding crafting, roleplaying tools, PvE content as well as PvP. It is a canard to say that PvP is the single determining factor of a games success.
Games added PvP, not because they would have been failures otherwise, but because they wanted to be even MORE successful. LOTRO was not going to have crafting, nor farming, nor housing! Turbine CEO had said as much when he spoke about players being heroes on adventures, not sitting around farming (a sentiment he had in common with Smedley). Now should we draw the same conclusion, using the same flawed logic pattern, that only successful games have farming! No.
So Yes, 20% of players participate in PvP sounds exactly right. Does that fact bother me? No. I play a pure PvP game, WWIIOnline. But then again, I don't need external validation to feel important, or to feel that something I enjoy, PvP, is somehow made less because of some statistic.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
There are so many false correlations in this post, don't know where to start.
Here is a fact: Games that are pure PvP do poorly. Planetside, WWIIOnline, Shadowbane, Roma Victor,... there are more, but all have low populations. UO had to change its untrammeled PvP world.
To say that a game must have PvP if they want a good player base is to give false importance to one aspect of game play. It is more correct to say that a game must have many game systems in order to appeal to a wider audience if the game wants to have a good player base. This means adding crafting, roleplaying tools, PvE content as well as PvP. It is a canard to say that PvP is the single determining factor of a games success.
Games added PvP, not because they would have been failures otherwise, but because they wanted to be even MORE successful. LOTRO was not going to have crafting, nor farming, nor housing! Turbine CEO had said as much when he spoke about players being heroes on adventures, not sitting around farming (a sentiment he had in common with Smedley). Now should we draw the same conclusion, using the same flawed logic pattern, that only successful games have farming! No.
So Yes, 20% of players participate in PvP sounds exactly right. Does that fact bother me? No. I play a pure PvP game, WWIIOnline. But then again, I don't need external validation to feel important, or to feel that something I enjoy, PvP, is somehow made less because of some statistic.
HAHA! Right you are just changing the words around. Oh so I get it they wanted a wider audience it just so happens to be a coincedence that all of them added PvP right before or right after release.
If you think a game in todays market can survive on PvE content only just go name one being made that will do well and name three games out right now that are PvE only and doing well. I think now I get why people dont see it maybe they just dont think or just twist things around to make it sound a different way. I really could careless but thats the truth. A game in todays market must have a good pvp system in place from the start to get a large population. Just take a look at the games coming out the ones that are going to do well will be pvp/rvr based you can count on that.
Sig by WhiskeyJack1
now you know why no one ever builds PvP MMO's. I only like PVE anyhow.
There are so many false correlations in this post, don't know where to start.
Here is a fact: Games that are pure PvP do poorly. Planetside, WWIIOnline, Shadowbane, Roma Victor,... there are more, but all have low populations. UO had to change its untrammeled PvP world.
To say that a game must have PvP if they want a good player base is to give false importance to one aspect of game play. It is more correct to say that a game must have many game systems in order to appeal to a wider audience if the game wants to have a good player base. This means adding crafting, roleplaying tools, PvE content as well as PvP. It is a canard to say that PvP is the single determining factor of a games success.
Games added PvP, not because they would have been failures otherwise, but because they wanted to be even MORE successful. LOTRO was not going to have crafting, nor farming, nor housing! Turbine CEO had said as much when he spoke about players being heroes on adventures, not sitting around farming (a sentiment he had in common with Smedley). Now should we draw the same conclusion, using the same flawed logic pattern, that only successful games have farming! No.
So Yes, 20% of players participate in PvP sounds exactly right. Does that fact bother me? No. I play a pure PvP game, WWIIOnline. But then again, I don't need external validation to feel important, or to feel that something I enjoy, PvP, is somehow made less because of some statistic.
HAHA! Right you are just changing the words around. Oh so I get it they wanted a wider audience it just so happens to be a coincedence that all of them added PvP right before or right after release.
If you think a game in todays market can survive on PvE content only just go name one being made that will do well and name three games out right now that are PvE only and doing well. I think now I get why people dont see it maybe they just dont think or just twist things around to make it sound a different way. I really could careless but thats the truth. A game in todays market must have a good pvp system in place from the start to get a large population. Just take a look at the games coming out the ones that are going to do well will be pvp/rvr based you can count on that.
And some of them added crafting before release, or right after. Varied game systems are added to make a game more successful. EVE added more PvE content to become more successful, and to diversify.
As for games that are only PvE? Why should I name three? Seems as though you thought of a few and had to create a random number to prove your point. Sorry to burst your epeen contest here, but I never said that PvE-only games are successful. I said that PvP isn't the sole determinating factor in the success of a game, which you insist it is. But here are three MMOs that are not PvP-based that are quite successful just to thwart your point anyway: Second Life is PvE-based and has users in the millions. ToonTown has over 100K (before you laugh, it has more than pure PvP games). Entropia Universe is another that has users around 500k.
Now you name 5 games that are PvP-only that are highly successful, or one game in development that is only PvP that will do well?
Reality is that the MMOs that can offer many forms of gameplay have the best chance to do well. That IS the only truism here.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
How about you ask us what WE like, instead of what we _think_ others might like?
I’m all for competition where we build/destroy towns/forts/castles/etc. It’d give us something to do.
Yeah ok this is dumb to be honest. Love the list though not making fun of you for it at all but it did make me laugh. Your list is so random that I have never heard of one of those games. If you are going to name FTP games then pvp based WWIIO, CS, CoD4, AA, 2 Moons, silk road, Fury, GW just to name a few that everyone has heard of (some FPS that are FTP but your list isnt pure MMOs either). I also never said a game should be pure pvp I said it is one of the most important parts of one, way more than 20%. I said it has to have a great pvp system in order to bring a large number of people. You can say crafting was what brought people to the game and new pve content and I can say no pvp but we both know thats going no where.
Im just saying watch which games are big in 2008 and they will be in a large part pvp centered games. It is one of the major corner stones of a game top 2 easy. To say only 20% of people want pvp is just reduclas if you look at the market of MMORPGs. If it was really that low then games like L2, GW, Eve, WoW would have much lower populations and games like DDO, LoTR would be way up there. The most active forums on here sure wouldnt be WAR and AoC either if only 20% want pvp like you believe. There sure as hell wouldnt be 500,000+ people trying to get into WAR beta. Those are going to be the big hits of 08 with what I believe WAR going to be the largest and that game is all about RvR so its major theory is just what I have said its a major part and maybe the biggest part of a modern day MMORPG. So only time will tell if WAR does come out on top these post will be far and in between.
Sig by WhiskeyJack1
Again, you base your assumptions on false correlations. Yes, WoW would have a lower population. How much lower? By about 20% I'd say. WoW is as successful because of its IP, because of its casual friendly nature, and because it is easy. GW is popular because it charges no montly sub. EVE is popular because it ADDED PvE elements. Take a look at pure PvP games if you think PvP is so important. None of them are doing gangbusters. It's the combination of many systems, none of which are more important than the other, but together can create successful games.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
Yeah I pretty much agree with you on everything but the importance of the pvp system. I think subs for WoW would drop 40%-50% to be honest but neither of us know that and will never know so doesnt matter. You can say that about any type of game with only one aspect they need a good mix and I agree. The only thing Im saying is pvp is weighted a lot more than you think and agian we will find out for sure this year.
Sig by WhiskeyJack1
To say that only 20% people would leave WoW if it had no PvP would totally be "false correlations because 50% of the servers are PvP servers and alot of them are high pop. servers. On top of that you can PvP on the pve servers threw BGs/Arenas/Flag so just because they are on a PvE server some of them like to pvp maybe around the 20% mark. It would be safe to assume that in reality the number that would leave would be more around 60%-70%.
Like someone else said Eq2 and WoW came out at the same time. EQ was the biggest name in MMOs. The mags. at the time had it comingout on top over WoW. it had WOW beat in every aspect PvE. crafting and raiding but one thing they did not have that WoW did was a PvP system. Like WoW or not it proved one thing and that is that a game has got to have a PvP system in place and that it is one of the most important parts of a game if not the MOST important.
If that were the case, why isn't Shadowbane, or CoX more popular? When CoX started messing with the game mechanics to "fix" PVP, they lost at least half the user base. I remember a time when CoX was orange-red on every server, and never having a hard time finding a team; then issue 3, 4, then 5 came, and by I5, all servers were green with less than 1000 on the most populous server.
The problem isn't PvP, it's making PvP the MAIN focus. When a PvE game is made, characters are supposed to be out of whack (fighters able to tank, mages able to deal damage), but PvP changes it (mainly to people complaining)., and 9 times out of 10, the company never listens, claiming it's "for the people to enjoy."
As far as PvP IMO, I think 20%, 30% at the most, that are hardcore PvP, though there are also 30-40% hardcore PvE. The rest like both, which WoW offers.
"Of all the things wrong with today's RPGs, 2D characters on a 3D background is the worst."
I dont know Shadowbane and never even heard of CoX but for all I know they have really bad PvP systems. As far as WoW goes its a different game and if atleast 50% of the people didnt want PvP then there would only be 20%-30% PvP servers. Blizzard also would have never put BGs/arenas into pve servers if there wasnt a desire for it.
Back in EQ1 days your 20%-30% might of been right but not today and like outhers have said WAR which is a PvP/RvR MAIN focus game would not have near 600,000 people trying to get into beta.
Well I didnt know the stats of the servers on WoW but those are the facts for you. Im sure a lot of people enjoy the pvp on the pve servers they just cant deal with getting ganked at low levels (I dont blame them really). You cant really compair WoW to SB and CoX because lets be honest they arent really in the same ball park as far as updated information. SB and CoX might of had a horrible class balance and then released an even worse pvp system which drove even more people away.
All this is pointless you guys are saying that a game that is pvp/rvr centric isnt going to do well we will soon find out that your a bit out of date no offence intended. Like I said this is all pretty much pointless and with the release of WAR coming up this year we will see which game out of all that gets released this year does the best. You can count on it that it will be a pvp centric game not a raid/pve/gear/rpg game. So I guess we will see...
Sig by WhiskeyJack1
Ahem, I thought CoH far superior to WoW in terms of gameplay and strategy, pre I-4. Shadowbane is a PVPers dream. WoW, despite being only about, what, 5 years old, is still extremely popular? I go by many factors, including price drops (WoW finally dropped after 2-3 years, CoH, Shadowbane: at most a year).
"Of all the things wrong with today's RPGs, 2D characters on a 3D background is the worst."
I played CoV and the pvp was so random and not thought out IMO. When I think of a good system I think of L2. Dont get me wrong Im not a WoW player it has to much focus on gear collection and epics not pvp for me. I was just talking about their population and didnt know how the servers were broken down. 50% pvp servers would be a safe guess that all of them want pvp. Then on top of that if you can pvp on the pve server then there must be a need from the players to have it so say you low ball it and say 10% of those players really enjoy pvp. That is 60% of the population way more than what you guys are saying as far as the "biggest" game on the market for the last few years goes.
Like I said put all past games aside we can do this same thing all night. The question is "do players enjoy pvp" you guys have been saying a pvp centric/main focus game will not do well and that people dont want that. Point me to one game in production that will be released as a pve/gear/raid/rpg centric game. There really isnt one and there is a reason for that. Now pvp centric games you have two titles coming out real soon and Im saying they will be the hits of 08.
Sig by WhiskeyJack1
What he said.
What he said.
Hmmm...If memory serves...WoW did not have a full good unique PvP system at launch. Sure you could flag but that was it. They didn't put that whole PvP system they have now in for about 6 months. Unless all the drugs I did in the 80's are taking effect here, I'm pretty sure that was the case.
I don't remember if you could flag or duel in EQ2 at launch but WoW certainly did not have a full complete PvP system for a long while after launch.
We all gathered at the crossroads and killed each other in those days or that other town right outside of alliance areas, I forget the name. Thats was totally community driven and had nothing to do with Blizzard doing anything and frankly it was a LOT more fun then those lame capture the flag battlegrounds they put in.
Yeah WoW didnt have a unique pvp system at the start but it did have pvp where as its counter EQ2 the releases of the games just 6 months apart had no pvp system to start with. Once SOE saw how big WoW was getting they pushed out a pvp system right away but it was really to late at that point. WoW pretty much proved what everyone wanted and the market has continued to show this game after game. The people working on games now all have ideas for pvp systems AoC with sieges, guild wars, open pvp, rank and WAR with RvR. Yet not one game in the works like DDO, EQ2 and LoTR that are starting out with no pvp system thinking the game doesnt need it.
If you are going to make a NEW game it had better have all that stuff I said before. No doubt it needs a good balance but it better have a pvp system in place. The companies that are making them know this for sure. Lessons learned from EQ2, DDO, and LoTR all who started out with no pvp system but with in a short amount of time had one in place.
Sig by WhiskeyJack1
Okay from launch but when LoTR was in the works it was not going to have pvp just like DDO. They are both made by the same guy and both were going to be pve games. DDO came out first and pretty much took a straight nosedive so they put in moster play in LoTR. For the longest time the people at LoTR said pvp does not fit into their game until they saw what happened with DDO, they changed their minds pretty quick.
The funny thing about that is I argued this same thing with all the LoTR fanbois before the release. They said that LoTR was going to be huge and they wouldnt need a good pvp system to do so. It was funny to see them put in that MP stuff right before release. They even had a post on their forums that said something along the lines of no pvp stop asking sticky posted at the top and you couldnt make topics about it.
Sig by WhiskeyJack1
World of Warcraft is a comparison to NOTHING whatsoever. That would not give us ANY kind of indication since WoW is the starter or beginner MMO for new MMO gamers. True veteran MMO gamers see it this way and are still waiting for a good MMO "hopefully WAR or AOC, or maybe some of the hidden project MMO's in Q3".
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.