However, the first thing I want out of a game is that they succeed in what they set out to do.
If they want to make a great PvE centric game with very interesting content of that sort and succeed in doing that, but they do not have PvP, I wouldn't think of that as a problem...
Such a game would've succeeded in their initial goal and has conquered ground in which it performs well, so I wouldn't demand PvP in it.
I've played such games in the past and I'd do it again and look for my PvP elsewhere.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
I almost never play games online unless its an online game. That means the vast majority of games I play are completely PVE and I play a lot of games. For those games where its available some of the most fun I've had has been co-op experiences as well. I'm perfectly happy playing a PVE game because I enjoy the shared experience with other people rather than a competitive one.
Nothing I've seen in my years of playing MMOG's has shown me that the people who style themselves as PVP'ers are people I generally want to associate with, although I've met a few I've been friendly with. The maturity level is almost universally low and they're far more prone to take ANY advantage available whether its allowed or not. The same mentality that allows them to shrug off losses in pvp or be full looted is the same one that makes them have little attachment to people, the game, or their account and increases the odds they'll engage in risky or adverse behavior because of it.
I'm certainly not holding PVE'ers above PVP'ers, but as a group I've found PVE'ers to have a broader spectrum of personality, as opposed to people who consider themselves PVP'ers.
Thank God you're above being judgemental like all those PvPers huh?! Good thing you included that last part, cuz from the way it read, I could have sworn you felt a sense of superiority.
IMO, you are so far off base it's insulting. Unlike some PvEers, PvPers know the value of other players...they ARE our content. Guess how many solo PvPers there are...NONE!
Just so you understand...PvPers "shrug off losses" because we understand that the goal in PvP is to kill the other groups toons - virtual death is the ONLY outcome in any fight...you win some, you lose some. We also understand it's a game and no matter how well a developer programs an NPC, it will become predictable - a player will NEVER be predictable. Players don't have "paths" or "boundaries" and they don't do things in the exact same order every time.
To me, PvPers are people who simply want a challenge, not just to solve the same puzzle again and again - and certainly not what you've classified them as...hell...I dislike this whole PvPer vs PvEer mentality to begin with. PvPer or PvEer, just call yourself a gamer - neither style is better than the other.
Enjoy your style of gameplay, be proud of it, endorse it, encourage it...but be open minded and respectful of others who enjoy styles you don't.
I would play a only PVE game. Pvp is fun, but not my reason for gaming. All I mostly see from pvp are younger kids getting their jollies from killing/camping other players to make themselves feel better about themselves.
I agree with you completely. The sad thing is that developers spend an obscene amount of time and resources tinkering with aspects of the game that only a small fraction are really all that interested in. A good case in point is WoW's current drive to entice players into their Arena combat. It won't work, but as long as the sub numbers remain high, they'll keep readjusting the game around PvP in hopes of finding the magic combination. Look what happened to their one long-awaited Epic Class when the malcontents cried "OP!" Now there's nothing Epic about Death Knights. I usually only log in to mine when I need to collect herbs or minerals.
Death Knights were never supposed to be the epic class. They were a hero class, which merely meant that they started at level 55 and you needed to have a level 55 toon to create one. Death Knights were hideously overpowered at the beginning, I know my main is a DK made day 1 of WotLK. They were a machine of death and destruction that no one could really refute in pvp or pve.
If you actually read back, most of the Death Knight changes were made for PVE reasons. Unholy Blight which was a massive aoe spell for an unholy death knight. My DPS and overall damage output was considerably higher than any other dps within the raid because of that one spell. Blizzard nerfed Unholy Blight and made other adjustments to Unholy because it trivialized PvE. Next, was that a Dual Wield unholy death knight with fast weapons was a venerable powerhouse at a certain gear level. Again, it was so overpowering that they had to kill that spec because of PvE reasons.. Next was 2handed Frost DPS, which only used one disease, because Obilterate's overall power did not increase with the use of plague strike, but rather using Icy Touch and no plague strike allowed you to use Obliterate more which was a significant DPS gain. Again, that was killed for PvE reasons.
That is just a small example of changes that were made to one class because of an inbalance it created within PvE. Yes, there were also PvP issues, which were also addressed, but I am using this as an example that all changes to the PvE portion of a game are based solely upon the performance of PvP.
Not all whiney changes come from a PvP point of view. I'm not sure how many remember City of Heroes in the early days when a Fire Tanker with an aoe spell was able to mop the floor of multiple high level mobs. There was much whining on the forums about it, and it's power was reduced eventually. This was before the game even offered PvP.
I love PvP, but it is not the end of a game if it doesn't have it. I have played and will continue to play games without any pvp offerings. PvE group content can be immensly fun if well put together.
IMO, you are so far off base it's insulting. Unlike some PvEers, PvPers know the value of other players...they ARE our content. Guess how many solo PvPers there are...NONE!
That last sentence is so far off base it's hilarious!
So that lvl 50 hanging around on his own outside the newbie area waiting to gank lone level 5's is really part of a group is he?
I doubt I would play a pure pve mmo, but im not against it. The problem is that 99% of the pve to lvl is BORING. Even the giant raids in WoW were horribly boring. I hate quests or missions, I want to do what i want when i want.
I would yes, if the PvE was engaging. WoW PvE isnt' engaging at all. For every person out there that says they can't live without PvP there is an equal number who say they will not even play a game unless they at LEAST have the option to avoid it 100% of the time. I know several who love everything about some games, play it for months until they find out they can't avoid dealing with the PvP players, and then they quit.
I guess you could call them all kinds of names, but hey, I've already heard all those, and the ones these peope call PvPers. And trust me, carebear is a nice word compared to the ones I have heard in reverse.
(DISCLAIMER - The use of the word YOU in the above post is not directed at any one person in particular, but towards those who fall into the category itself - there is no personal attack here, neither intentional nor implied.)
I played a 100% PvE MMO and it was called Vanguard. I enjoyed playing it for 2 years compared to 100% PvP "MMOs" that would only last 3 months at best.
Nope... carebears are for PvE, it's the brawlbears that likes PvP.
So, why would I not play a game that was 100 percent pve?
Because I can already play better pve games that ARE NOT online and ARE NOT mmos.
Can you be social with other people in those games?
But I guess that you aren't interested in being social.
Besides adding loads of people to a fantasy setting where I am the adventurer only serves to break the immersion and ruin the game
Loads of people to be social with.
Take for example, Morrowind Oblivion. That was an incredible single player experience in a fantasy setting.
If that was a mmo, I would have to hear how EPEEN#1 has a bigger sword than I do, is a higher level than me, already killed and looted that boss, I will hear spoilers, people will kill steal, the biggest baddest thing in game that I finally bested respawns a few minutes later........................and thats just the start.
Usually when someone copy/pastes, they want to argue each and every point, but all you wrote was "BE SOCIAL!".
A simple reply would of sufficed.
If I am playing a pve game, a game with story and immersion, incredible art, interesting story lines, the last thing I need is "SOCIAL". All the "OMGWTFBBQ" chat can stay out of my game.
It is akin to reading a great fiction book. It is done in quiet and peace. You dont invite your AOL IM buddies to chatter in your ear while reading the book, ruining the plot or complaining about the ending of the book
You should probably stick with the first person shooters, theres absolutly no socializing going on there besides the usual trash talk and ass hattery and one more thing... no monthly fees.
But I think that people that gets their ass handed to them in the first person shooters flock to the PvP MMOs thinking that it will be easier which in some cases it is.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
You should probably stick with the first person shooters, theres absolutly no socializing going on there besides the usual trash talk and ass hattery and one more thing... no monthly fees
But I think that people that gets their ass handed to them in the first person shooters flock to the PvP MMOs thinking that it will be easier which in some cases it is.
There is a huge difference between a regular multiplay fps and say planetside. Thats like sayin you should go play diablo instead of WoW.....
There are guilds/clans in fps,i still talk to some of the people i played 10six with 10 years ago, yet i talk to 0 of the people i played wow with. So you should stick to talkin about what you know, I assume fps isnt one of them.
You should probably stick with the first person shooters, theres absolutly no socializing going on there besides the usual trash talk and ass hattery and one more thing... no monthly fees
But I think that people that gets their ass handed to them in the first person shooters flock to the PvP MMOs thinking that it will be easier which in some cases it is.
There is a huge difference between a regular multiplay fps and say planetside. Thats like sayin you should go play diablo instead of WoW.....
There are guilds/clans in fps,i still talk to some of the people i played 10six with 10 years ago, yet i talk to 0 of the people i played wow with. So you should stick to talkin about what you know, I assume fps isnt one of them.
People in this forum have a general hatred for online FPS games.
it would realyl have to make it so that groups are present at all times to be ablt to get through content. Don't make me sit in LFG for 3 hours a night and not be able to solo anyhting to pass the time, that makes my subscription very short.
This--^ I agree with some of this.
This is why PvE focused MMO fail and fall into a niche group
Sure would because my standard mode of play is pve anyway I've been playing LOTRO for about a year and a half and have only been in that monster play zone for about a half an hour and never fought anyone.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
But as you can see by this poll, it may have a wide appeal, but it is by no means essential, or even important to most.
Where is DAoC, right now? See, it may have had a good share of the market at one time(for one, because few games were IN the market at the time), but when alternatives came along, people moved on.
This and to the guy on the next page who said ToA was DaoC's downfall..
Daoc's downfall was it's age. it's what 8? 9? years old now, WoW was released around ToA (three years after DaoC's initial release) The game didn't have a content downfall, it had a fad downfall. WoW was released, people flocked like doves to it, DaoC lost population, nowadays there are so many other MMO's to play, people just don't see daoc as an option
Hell, I know until recently I (who played from release until catacombs) had thought it was just a outdated MMO, nostalgiatrip, that's it.. then I Got 10 free days from some event, went back, and.. DaoC is revolutionary, some of the shit it's got other games -still- don't. Problem? People percieve it as old, boring. outdated. It's not.
a good pve game is a good game even without pvp, although probably not going to keep people around forever since they cant kill each other. everquest one as an example, no pvp battle ground type things, just 1 on 1 duels or a special server people could fight on. tons of us still sank years into it for hte pve though.
Rather no PvP than bad PvP. I don't mind if a game only has PvE or PvP as long as it does it good. In fact I see advantages with playing one game for each, a game with just PvE can skip balancing and focusing on deliver a great experience.
Most games that tries to give both PvE and PvP players as much fun fails in one or even both aspects, it is a lot easier making one great. Make it great or not at all.
But PvP or PvE isn't better than the other and there are room for both kinds of games.
Most of the fantasy based mmo's with pvp as a *major focus* have not lived up well over time except DAOC. Yes, there are some exceptions, but mostly they have not survived well.
And I don't blame pvp, per se, I blame the levelling and upgraded gear mechanics. Shooters are successful because everyone is relatively on the same level from day one and skills are very limited. MMORPGs just aren't set up well for pvp. Too many gear and level options, too many skill options, and too much synergy between some classes. Sure, it can be fun, but generally that happens when you get team A vs team B and they are fairly evenly matched in character progression and gear. But that just doesn't seem to happen much in mmorpgs.
In the end, sure, I play a lot of 100% pve mmos. When I want good pvp, I play a shooter.
Most of the fantasy based mmo's with pvp as a *major focus* have not lived up well over time except DAOC. Yes, there are some exceptions, but mostly they have not survived well.
And I don't blame pvp, per se, I blame the levelling and upgraded gear mechanics. Shooters are successful because everyone is relatively on the same level from day one and skills are very limited. MMORPGs just aren't set up well for pvp. Too many gear and level options, too many skill options, and too much synergy between some classes. Sure, it can be fun, but generally that happens when you get team A vs team B and they are fairly evenly matched in character progression and gear. But that just doesn't seem to happen much in mmorpgs.
In the end, sure, I play a lot of 100% pve mmos. When I want good pvp, I play a shooter.
Going off on a bit of a tangent. I find it slightly amusing that people always equate shooters with having epic, highly competitive pvp. I have played them since the original DOOM days and, just as with mmos, 99% of the playerbase doesn't have a clue about what they are doing and play ing pugs which can lead to some terribad pvp.
I get the feeling that part of the reason a large amount of players who refuse to pvp in mmos but will occasionally in shooters has far less to do with the fact it takes more skill in shooters, and more to do with when they die it doesn't bother them because it's not a persistent world so they don't have to worry about getting lol'd at by their peers.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Yeah I definitely would. Co-op/PVE has always been the best thing ever in MMOs when managed right. I'll get my PVP fix in other games, you know, games that have even the possibility of being balanced. Balancing 10 classes is close to impossible, team fortress 2 is the only game I know of that's succeeded in doing that.
Yeah I definitely would. Co-op/PVE has always been the best thing ever in MMOs when managed right. I'll get my PVP fix in other games, you know, games that have even the possibility of being balanced. Balancing 10 classes is close to impossible, team fortress 2 is the only game I know of that's succeeded in doing that.
Valid for class based mmos maybe (although when there is a lack of balance pvpers tend to flock to the unbalanced profs meaning that balance is regained as everyone plays the same classes anyway).
Furthermore there are skill based mmos out there which have no class systems per say, try them maybe.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Comments
I'm a real sucker for PvP in games that have it.
However, the first thing I want out of a game is that they succeed in what they set out to do.
If they want to make a great PvE centric game with very interesting content of that sort and succeed in doing that, but they do not have PvP, I wouldn't think of that as a problem...
Such a game would've succeeded in their initial goal and has conquered ground in which it performs well, so I wouldn't demand PvP in it.
I've played such games in the past and I'd do it again and look for my PvP elsewhere.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
No, (unless the game was just insanely fun to pve) I got to be able to battle with the people I play. It's half (if not more) the fun!
Thank God you're above being judgemental like all those PvPers huh?! Good thing you included that last part, cuz from the way it read, I could have sworn you felt a sense of superiority.
IMO, you are so far off base it's insulting. Unlike some PvEers, PvPers know the value of other players...they ARE our content. Guess how many solo PvPers there are...NONE!
Just so you understand...PvPers "shrug off losses" because we understand that the goal in PvP is to kill the other groups toons - virtual death is the ONLY outcome in any fight...you win some, you lose some. We also understand it's a game and no matter how well a developer programs an NPC, it will become predictable - a player will NEVER be predictable. Players don't have "paths" or "boundaries" and they don't do things in the exact same order every time.
To me, PvPers are people who simply want a challenge, not just to solve the same puzzle again and again - and certainly not what you've classified them as...hell...I dislike this whole PvPer vs PvEer mentality to begin with. PvPer or PvEer, just call yourself a gamer - neither style is better than the other.
Enjoy your style of gameplay, be proud of it, endorse it, encourage it...but be open minded and respectful of others who enjoy styles you don't.
I would play a only PVE game. Pvp is fun, but not my reason for gaming. All I mostly see from pvp are younger kids getting their jollies from killing/camping other players to make themselves feel better about themselves.
Death Knights were never supposed to be the epic class. They were a hero class, which merely meant that they started at level 55 and you needed to have a level 55 toon to create one. Death Knights were hideously overpowered at the beginning, I know my main is a DK made day 1 of WotLK. They were a machine of death and destruction that no one could really refute in pvp or pve.
If you actually read back, most of the Death Knight changes were made for PVE reasons. Unholy Blight which was a massive aoe spell for an unholy death knight. My DPS and overall damage output was considerably higher than any other dps within the raid because of that one spell. Blizzard nerfed Unholy Blight and made other adjustments to Unholy because it trivialized PvE. Next, was that a Dual Wield unholy death knight with fast weapons was a venerable powerhouse at a certain gear level. Again, it was so overpowering that they had to kill that spec because of PvE reasons.. Next was 2handed Frost DPS, which only used one disease, because Obilterate's overall power did not increase with the use of plague strike, but rather using Icy Touch and no plague strike allowed you to use Obliterate more which was a significant DPS gain. Again, that was killed for PvE reasons.
That is just a small example of changes that were made to one class because of an inbalance it created within PvE. Yes, there were also PvP issues, which were also addressed, but I am using this as an example that all changes to the PvE portion of a game are based solely upon the performance of PvP.
Not all whiney changes come from a PvP point of view. I'm not sure how many remember City of Heroes in the early days when a Fire Tanker with an aoe spell was able to mop the floor of multiple high level mobs. There was much whining on the forums about it, and it's power was reduced eventually. This was before the game even offered PvP.
the only pvp games worth playing are the ones where you can get stuff if you kill the other guy, like runescape, you get all the guys gear if you win
I love PvP, but it is not the end of a game if it doesn't have it. I have played and will continue to play games without any pvp offerings. PvE group content can be immensly fun if well put together.
That last sentence is so far off base it's hilarious!
So that lvl 50 hanging around on his own outside the newbie area waiting to gank lone level 5's is really part of a group is he?
I doubt I would play a pure pve mmo, but im not against it. The problem is that 99% of the pve to lvl is BORING. Even the giant raids in WoW were horribly boring. I hate quests or missions, I want to do what i want when i want.
Own, Mine, Defend, Attack, 24/7
I would yes, if the PvE was engaging. WoW PvE isnt' engaging at all. For every person out there that says they can't live without PvP there is an equal number who say they will not even play a game unless they at LEAST have the option to avoid it 100% of the time. I know several who love everything about some games, play it for months until they find out they can't avoid dealing with the PvP players, and then they quit.
I guess you could call them all kinds of names, but hey, I've already heard all those, and the ones these peope call PvPers. And trust me, carebear is a nice word compared to the ones I have heard in reverse.
(DISCLAIMER - The use of the word YOU in the above post is not directed at any one person in particular, but towards those who fall into the category itself - there is no personal attack here, neither intentional nor implied.)
I would prefer it. I want my MMORPGs to be based on an epic story, adventure, exploration and questing. If I want to pwn nwbs I'll fire up Halo.
I played a 100% PvE MMO and it was called Vanguard. I enjoyed playing it for 2 years compared to 100% PvP "MMOs" that would only last 3 months at best.
You should probably stick with the first person shooters, theres absolutly no socializing going on there besides the usual trash talk and ass hattery and one more thing... no monthly fees.
But I think that people that gets their ass handed to them in the first person shooters flock to the PvP MMOs thinking that it will be easier which in some cases it is.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
There is a huge difference between a regular multiplay fps and say planetside. Thats like sayin you should go play diablo instead of WoW.....
There are guilds/clans in fps,i still talk to some of the people i played 10six with 10 years ago, yet i talk to 0 of the people i played wow with. So you should stick to talkin about what you know, I assume fps isnt one of them.
Own, Mine, Defend, Attack, 24/7
People in this forum have a general hatred for online FPS games.
March on! - Lets Invade Pekopon
This--^ I agree with some of this.
This is why PvE focused MMO fail and fall into a niche group
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Sure would because my standard mode of play is pve anyway I've been playing LOTRO for about a year and a half and have only been in that monster play zone for about a half an hour and never fought anyone.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
PvP is why I develop online characters.
a good pve game is a good game even without pvp, although probably not going to keep people around forever since they cant kill each other. everquest one as an example, no pvp battle ground type things, just 1 on 1 duels or a special server people could fight on. tons of us still sank years into it for hte pve though.
Rather no PvP than bad PvP. I don't mind if a game only has PvE or PvP as long as it does it good. In fact I see advantages with playing one game for each, a game with just PvE can skip balancing and focusing on deliver a great experience.
Most games that tries to give both PvE and PvP players as much fun fails in one or even both aspects, it is a lot easier making one great. Make it great or not at all.
But PvP or PvE isn't better than the other and there are room for both kinds of games.
Most of the fantasy based mmo's with pvp as a *major focus* have not lived up well over time except DAOC. Yes, there are some exceptions, but mostly they have not survived well.
And I don't blame pvp, per se, I blame the levelling and upgraded gear mechanics. Shooters are successful because everyone is relatively on the same level from day one and skills are very limited. MMORPGs just aren't set up well for pvp. Too many gear and level options, too many skill options, and too much synergy between some classes. Sure, it can be fun, but generally that happens when you get team A vs team B and they are fairly evenly matched in character progression and gear. But that just doesn't seem to happen much in mmorpgs.
In the end, sure, I play a lot of 100% pve mmos. When I want good pvp, I play a shooter.
Going off on a bit of a tangent. I find it slightly amusing that people always equate shooters with having epic, highly competitive pvp. I have played them since the original DOOM days and, just as with mmos, 99% of the playerbase doesn't have a clue about what they are doing and play ing pugs which can lead to some terribad pvp.
I get the feeling that part of the reason a large amount of players who refuse to pvp in mmos but will occasionally in shooters has far less to do with the fact it takes more skill in shooters, and more to do with when they die it doesn't bother them because it's not a persistent world so they don't have to worry about getting lol'd at by their peers.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Yeah I definitely would. Co-op/PVE has always been the best thing ever in MMOs when managed right. I'll get my PVP fix in other games, you know, games that have even the possibility of being balanced. Balancing 10 classes is close to impossible, team fortress 2 is the only game I know of that's succeeded in doing that.
Valid for class based mmos maybe (although when there is a lack of balance pvpers tend to flock to the unbalanced profs meaning that balance is regained as everyone plays the same classes anyway).
Furthermore there are skill based mmos out there which have no class systems per say, try them maybe.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."