Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
PVP, the math doesn't add up...
Xaretic
Member UncommonPosts: 9
As we watch so many MMO's coming out that are PVP based I can't help wondering why they are.
I have been a gamer since the early 80's and love the MMO concept, yet every MMO I play it will have say 20 servers that are PVE and 1 or 2 that are PVP and those servers are usually on medium or low load.
So why are there so many games being developed for such a small player base?
Math doesn't lie and the numbers are what they are.
I myself like to dabble in PVP, but in know way would that be a long term game...I mean what would an expansion be, just more land area to gank each other on?
Most of the gamers I work with say Warhammer is awesome and then follow it up with but I am bored with it already because it is just player vs player...hmmm
The worst part is I have seen hundreds of posts saying Warhammer is bad because there is very little PVE :P
When the head guy for Battlefield was asked long ago do you plan on having the next battlefield a large MMO with paid subscriptions, he replied, NO because it would have to be soley player vs. player focused and you would never be able to hold long term subscriptions with that model...well at least someone used their brains!
Then on top of that I saw on the G4 channel the age grouping of MMO players, the majority is ages 20 to 37, The age grouping of PVPer's was 14 to 18....so why go after the smallest population?
I guess we will never know as we watch them fail one after another....
Comments
Have you not seen the RvR servers in WAR?
I'm not sure I agree with you about WAR. There are RvR server and Core servers. Basically, they are like PvP and PvE servers in WoW. I'm on an RvR and I do plenty of PvE stuff, as well as the PvP.
--edited too many times...
Age of Conan had a bigger population on its PvP servers.
Your aren't going to win the MMO battle going mainstream. WoW has that cornered. To succeed now in an MMO you need to go after a niche market. Right now that niche market is PvP.
Honestly no....For the last couple of days I have gone into RvR areas and then it said I was flagged for RvR but after an hour I got bored, no one else showed up...I just sat there watching some npc's gank each other....
I must be doing it wrong....there must be a way to set the RvR area up in settings to allow other people or something....
Are you on a Core server or RvR server?
I thought it was RvR, but I will check again when I get home from work....just started playing it so it is all new to me at the moment.
You'll know because if you're on an RvR server, you are flagged RvR the instant you log in to your character no matter where you are. If you have to enter RvR zones to get flagged, you are probably on a Core server.
If you are looking for PvE content without the risk of PvP unless you want to, the Core server is where you want to be. If you are looking for the PvP population in WAR, you need to be on an RvR server. That's why they are so full.
The reason so many pvp games are coming is that they are cheaper to make.
No one is going to grind through hell levels like in old Everquest anymore. So to a make primarly pve game you need a ton of content which costs lots of money. And company / investors don't want to risk lots of money without a pretty good chance for success.
We've seen a vast majority of PVE MMOs come out and fail left & right (vanguard, TR, horizons, EQ2, DDO, etc). You had your chance and kinda blew it. all the pve'ers flocked to WoW and left everything else in the dust to whittle away and die
PvP wise we have WAR / EVE Online. That's bout it. You had your chance now its our time. Your numbers are wrong- did you include the number of WoW pvp servers in your count? EVE Online's subscription numbers?
To answer your question on server loads, i'd have to say that most PvE games that have PvP specific servers just don't have the game mechanics for "decent" player vs player gameplay. If the game is designed around a PvE concept, and around PvE mahcinics, just chucking in a PvP server and telling player to have at it won't really work that well.
This would leave those who DO like PvP without a decent game to play. This is most probably why alot of games are currently trying to develop decent and well thought out PvP mechanics, since that MMO market is greatly lacking these.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
[quote] have been a gamer since the early 80's and love the MMO concept, yet every MMO I play it will have say 20 servers that are PVE and 1 or 2 that are PVP and those servers are usually on medium or low load.
So why are there so many games being developed for such a small player base?[/quote]
you just answered yourself. they aren't. PVP in every game out today is an afterthought, or a direct clone of a successful RVR vanilla game. the PVP you're seeing in those games you mention is tacked on "FFA lite" where you can kill at no risk, but not loot. every last one of them is item or stat centric. the games that you might be thinking of when you say "games being developed" are WoW-style RvR games, which in my opinion, don't draw the same crowd. RVR games draw more dabblers like you, because they aren't looking to duplicate FFA and want team based PVP
the only exception to the above is the asian karma grind games, which are exactly what they sound like: they punish player killing outright instead of creating manageable risk vs. reward, and are grindfests. i avoid them because of those two factors
chances are good that someone like you, who quotes statistics that the marketing sorcerers have reaped from G4 network, probably wouldn't make the argument that you shouldn't market to women because they're a small demographic (i would make the argument that you shouldn't market to women, because it's stupid, and the gender of gamers is irrelevant in the design of games, despite what the media bleats about)- so why would you argue that you shouldn't market to another small demographic?
Guess PVP is cheaper to do than a rich PVE environment.
Blizzard, the creators of World of Warcraft, are also the creators of Warcraft (PvC, PvP), Warcraft II (PvC, PvP), Diablo (PvE, PvP), Starcraft (PvC, PvP), Diablo II (PvE, PvP), and Warcraft III (PvC, PvE, PvP).
I assure you that PvP was not an "afterthought" in World of Warcraft.
You should link the source for that article I've been unable to find it btw
What is suspect here is that there are doing some sort of micropayment system with Battlefield Heroes already. So if they expect money for that- why not expect to make money from an MMO?
So either they had a change of heart or perhaps you misread
I'm finding WAR PvP to be occassionally fun. For the most part, it's because of the people I play with. We're organized to the point where we roll just about every scenario. Everything is fluiod.
Also, the fact that I hardly ever got into WoW means that the whole style of game hasn't worn me down yet.
But I sure as hell know this game won't last me more than a few months. Doubt I'll level up a 2nd character.
This shit can hardly be considered PvP and I eagerly await Darkfall.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Self-confessed DF fanboy. Finally a real ****ing MMO.
I deffinately think PvE can exist without PvP. It requires a bit more timesinks like EQ had, but it's doable. You just need slow and difficult progression of characters. People have to actually work together and know their roles in a group to succeed. I'm not sure if I would enjoy such a game or not anymore, but I did enjoy it at one point in time a great deal. In EQ there was always something out of reach that I never got to because the progression was so difficult.
Your first mistake is your judging PvP by PvE games that added PvP as an afterthought by adding PvP servers. These are about the worst example of PvP that you can get as it is usually totally unrestricted PvP with no rule set and it just becomes a total gank fest. Who the hell would want to play that? A true PvP game is written with PvP at the core of the game play and the rest of the game is written to support it. They also incorporate a PvP ruleset to cut down on out and out ganking/PKing. The Lineage series is staggeringly popular and is a good example of this principal. If you want to see what true MMO PvP is like try one of the many MMOs that were produced around their PvP system. Most of these games use a FFA PvP rule set so there are no "PvP" servers... there is no need as it's a core part of the game itself.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
Blizzard, the creators of World of Warcraft, are also the creators of Warcraft (PvC, PvP), Warcraft II (PvC, PvP), Diablo (PvE, PvP), Starcraft (PvC, PvP), Diablo II (PvE, PvP), and Warcraft III (PvC, PvE, PvP).
I assure you that PvP was not an "afterthought" in World of Warcraft.
Your assurances aside PvP in WoW is an epeen polishing contest that didn't even track statistics when WoW launched. The origional design didn't include PvP which is why the PvP balance has always been excreble. It's an afterthought and it shows.
I personally never felt that stat tracking was required for a PvP MMO when did this become the official mark of a pvp oriented MMO? Stat tracking means I'm getting pushed off into a portal into a first person shooter where they track how many kills I've gotten. I realize many might like that pvp but personally I liked WoW better pre-Battlegrounds
Real PVP MMO too me is really Shadowbane and EVE. I cant speak for RvR but since so many seem to like it, I suppose WAR might be casual pvp focus or something
Oh, you mean it's like their PvE show-everyone-how-good-at-grinding-I-am contest? I wouldn't know, I haven't played WoW. I did play Warcraft II and Starcraft for well over a decade though.
Some of the best PvP games I've ever played.
I don't think the player base for PvP games is that small. Yes, you have PvE players and PvP players, but both groups are two small groups at the very end of each spectrum. Most people are somewhere in the middle and enjoy both PvE and PvP.
I don't know what games you are referring to, with the PvP servers. But from what I see and think: PvP servers are mostly non-consentual PvP servers, while PvE servers do have consentual PvP. And that's the heart of the matter. The average gamer wants to do both PvE and PvP, and they want to be able to chose what and how to play, and when. Not being forced to PvP or PvE. That's one of the reasons why FFA PvP games don't do so well if you look at subscriber numbers. Full loot games don't do well either, because if you lose your stuff, you're forced to PvE to get geared up again. It's all about the word 'forced'. The large majority doesn't want to be 'forced' into doing one or the other.
On another note: games that are purely PvE and don't have PvP at all (or very limited) don't do so well either. Again, the large majority wants to be able to do both.
Most games that are being developed have PvE and consentual PvP, with a handful servers that are FFA PvP for the small player base that wants it.
------------------------------------------------
Playing: Final Fantasy Online: ARR, Destiny
Most memorable games for me: UO, GW1, LoTRO
PVP in any game still have too much to improve. Just now, none have good design on PVP. Warhammer is realm vs realm, I think it could be even worse than a simple PVP.
[quote]
I assure you that PvP was not an "afterthought" in World of Warcraft.
[/quote]
I assure you it was and still is. WoW as been PvE from the start. When exactly did they add Arenas and Battlegrounds? Also:
a] How many Battlegrounds in total are there? 4? That's 4 freaking MAPS which has not changed in YEARS. I mean come on, the best Blizzard could do was moving a bloody cave in AV....and you tell me PvP is not an afterthought?
b] World PvP has been an epic fail. Blizzard has not even TRIED doing something about it or making it actually worthwhile.
c] Look at their "content" updates in the last few years. How many PvE changes did they made vs. PvP changes? All they did for PvP is adding an Arena-set every 6 months! This is epitome of "afterthought" and simply increasing the incline on your already cracking treadmill.
That said , the worst thing coming out of all this is Blizzard seems to be hellbend on "tinkering" with class balance for PvP -and- PvE at the same time. This might be the only thing that remotely looks like like Blizzard actually cares about PvP. But it effectively pisses PvE'ers off.
Just because they created all kinds of Arena versions of their game is NOT because they suddenly feel like focusing on PvP, that's called "milking the franchise" . They know there's suckers who's gonna pay for it, so they do it.
Oh, you mean it's like their PvE show-everyone-how-good-at-grinding-I-am contest? I wouldn't know, I haven't played WoW. I did play Warcraft II and Starcraft for well over a decade though.
Some of the best PvP games I've ever played.
They are some of the best RTS games ever made which is quite different from the PvP you see in MMOs. The Diablo series would be a closer example but even there it's a PvE game at it's core with a multiplayer aspect. In most purpose built PvP games there are goals beyond seeing how many other players you can defeat.
Stat tracking isn't required but some people like it. I was using it as an example of the only goal of PvP in WoW being added after the game was released. It's the most basic form of PvP. Shadowbane and EVE are guild vs guild games and actually pretty close to RvR in finctioning. The major difference being you make your own factions and set your own goals instead of having them premade for you. They are, in my opinion, the deepest form of PvP but not suited for everyone.
It's quite possible to build a game entirerly without PvP and some of them are very, very, good games. Again though it's hard to provide enough content on a cost efficient basis and paid expansion packs limit a games life span by providing stiff cost barriers to new players. So unless you can maintain enough player base to fund free expansions from subscriptions after a few years the numberof players tends to taper off.
I agree, good post
Of course it does, but thats because most of the PvErs left when Funcom tried to pacify the vocal minority, the PvPers.
Even if you accept that this is true, which I don't, the exact inverse of this could be stated about PvE games and the absence of PvP players in them.
Really, there is no question that PvP is a very popular game style across the board in all genres of games. There is no such thing as a "PvE" game of Monopoly.
The real question is whether PvE is a truly viable gaming style at all. I'm starting to have my doubts.