Although I do find it odd people say pvp is killing the RPG aspect when most of the older mmorpg games had pvp in them in some shape or form. Perhaps it is a case that having to balance pvp around instanced arenas in pvp games is what is causing the problem.
Well (a) most RPGs didn't have PVP in them, and (b) a lot of progression (ie a lot of RPG) harms PVP integrity (it makes winning PVP about non-skill factors like playtime.)
Well (a) I gather we are speaking in term of mmorpgs. I don't recall anyone complaining about the lack of rpg in Ultima Online, SWG, EQ and the likes. (b) Balance is far more of an issue in class based games in which players compete in instances looking for a fair fight. It is far less of an issue in skill based (meaning skills not classes as opposed to twitch) open world games. Oddly enough some can get over the fact that there will be some rpg aspects to their pvp in mmorpg games....
People constantly and only looking for completely fair, team based pvp in which all classes are balanced is part of what the whole 'balance issue' is about and is what is fking up the rpg aspect. If people stuck to pvp centric games for their team based instance obsession and left it to open world and open skill/not class systems in mmos and didn't cry every time they got ganked it wouldn't be a problem would it.
Balance is important in every game. Period.
Without balance, choice A vs. choice B isn't a choice at all. If choice A yields superior benefit, there's no choice: there's simply A.
This feeds directly into role-playing. In a balanced game, a role-player can choose A or B and have their own playstyle. In an unbalanced one, attempting to role play results in substantial gameplay disadvantages.
"PVP killing RP" is both an issue of the above problem (because making the right choice becomes really important in PVP) and the fact that without opt-in PVP the other players will actively infringe upon role-playing. The 'opt-in' can come in the form of server choice, but it needs to be a choice somewhere along the line.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yes, I pretty much do anyways. I rarely pvp. Its just not that fun anymore. Everyone has a excuse for why they lost or the their team lost. Its never hm i have a weakness i should work on that. Having to turn chats off just to enjoy pvp means in games with Battlegrounds you dont know really what is going on all the time and where you are needed.
The only time I ever PvP now is to fend off pkers attacking me or lower levels. While PvP can be fun, it's still just a game to me but it seems like it's life for others, I just can't get into it with the sort of idiocy/attitude that dominates it.
PvP ruins games. It ruins the game mechanics and forces developers to continuously re-hash code that works (/except/ for in a PvP arena enviroment). WoW has stated the biggest mistake they ever made was creating the Arena system.
Game developers ONLY add PvP because it brings in that crowd of playerbase. Well, I say this: f*ck that crowd of players. They're trash and only bring hate and immaturity with them. You don't need that playerbase.
Because if you had a polished, awesome game that functioned the way it was supposed to, it would only get better from there because you wouldn't need to allocate resources to a constantly exploitable mechanic such as PvP is.
Without balance, choice A vs. choice B isn't a choice at all. If choice A yields superior benefit, there's no choice: there's simply A.
Wrong.
First balance is only important for games that you want to play. That's more accurate.
And also your example is inaccurate.
Choice A and Choice B. Warrior damage vs Wizard damage.
Warrior DPS is 60.
Wizard DPS is 500.
Not balanced, but there are choices. Warrior's role is to not to deal damage while the Wizard's role is to deal damage. So, whoever wants to play the role of a Warrior will CHOOSE the warrior even though Choice B (Wizard) is superior.
The Blizzard philosophy of "balancing" classes is never... ever.. needed in a Role Playing game. Specially one that wants to add a very unique game experience to players playing different roles.
(It's funny how I completely agree with your first post and disagree with your other one)
GW2 will have PvE World completely separate from PvP Structured and PvP World. I think there will be some nice server bonus for winning PvP World but that's it. I wonder if that separation is good enough for ppl? Note: The pvp skills in structured are cut off from the rpg advancement in the pve.
I think for me it boils down to:
Themepark: Want PvE & PvP differentiated from each other but both options definitly available. Variety is the spice and huge battles of other players although messy can sometimes be memorable.
Would I play a game of strategy that challenges me and offers me something that players cannot. Something that would be meant to play against 20 players? Interesting things that make me go "Gee! How cool"?
Yes.
Would I play a game where I'm a tank and the biggest thought on my mind was how to pull a group of trash mobs with my abilities more effectively than those pesky paladins? Not again. I hate to have hype, or say something like this at all, but the upcoming Guild Wars 2 and Diablo III seem like the former games. SEEM being the main point of what I say. They could be lying or just don't know their mistakes, I'll take their promises with a grain of salt. Damn, though. At least someone said it. So long as it doesn't have the tanks using the 3 same abilities on a braindead mob that happens to sit around until you do enough damage/threat to distract it and have it beat on you and you recieve many many heals.
Not to say the "holy trinity" is bad, unfun, or unstrategic. I've enjoyed it and still appreciate it's presence. Though that whole system is what drove me to games that pit you in an arena to fight other players. (Read: Heroes of Newerth, DotA: Allstars, Bloodline Champions, etc. etc.) Because they provide you with many many many unique characters with their own unique abilities that go in groups of at least under 10, to battle eachother and test their own understanding of strategy and perception of the area around them. For me, it's the truest experience in entertainment that will ever be. Sports pit you against someone who also plays the sport actively to a competetive level because it's #1 a good way to pass time and #2 because you've always wondered if there was someone as good as you. You want to enjoy what you're doing so you have to be engaged into it. Once I've ran Scarlet Monastery for the 20th time for that day and I've probably pressed more hotkeys than actually think about my next move I think I can only wish that something more involving comes out.
I'd like to belive that PvP would better if presented in the same form as your PvE game (very good and specialized to do what it set out to do well) is because something is only as enjoyable as long as it's engaging and you are skilled at it. PvE these days requires knowledge of your role, understanding of your abilities, and good communication skills. PvP takes all of the above and then pushes it against an active opponent. Someone who's thinking just as much as you and challenges your very ability at the game.
(But god forbid I ever have to return to a game like HoN or DotA... That community is worse than anything else in the world. Sore losers who are forced to play long rounds of a game? Jesus. I've found my best internet buddies in PvE and my worst enemies were made in PvP. I think that sums up the way I'd think if it was a team-based game)
"i have a lvl 26 maplestory warrior lvl 9 asda story archer and a adventure quest mage lvl 15 and my xfire is my bro's"
Although I do find it odd people say pvp is killing the RPG aspect when most of the older mmorpg games had pvp in them in some shape or form. Perhaps it is a case that having to balance pvp around instanced arenas in pvp games is what is causing the problem.
Well (a) most RPGs didn't have PVP in them, and (b) a lot of progression (ie a lot of RPG) harms PVP integrity (it makes winning PVP about non-skill factors like playtime.)
Well (a) I gather we are speaking in term of mmorpgs. I don't recall anyone complaining about the lack of rpg in Ultima Online, SWG, EQ and the likes. (b) Balance is far more of an issue in class based games in which players compete in instances looking for a fair fight. It is far less of an issue in skill based (meaning skills not classes as opposed to twitch) open world games. Oddly enough some can get over the fact that there will be some rpg aspects to their pvp in mmorpg games....
People constantly and only looking for completely fair, team based pvp in which all classes are balanced is part of what the whole 'balance issue' is about and is what is fking up the rpg aspect. If people stuck to pvp centric games for their team based instance obsession and left it to open world and open skill/not class systems in mmos and didn't cry every time they got ganked it wouldn't be a problem would it.
Balance is important in every game. Period.
Without balance, choice A vs. choice B isn't a choice at all. If choice A yields superior benefit, there's no choice: there's simply A.
This feeds directly into role-playing. In a balanced game, a role-player can choose A or B and have their own playstyle. In an unbalanced one, attempting to role play results in substantial gameplay disadvantages.
"PVP killing RP" is both an issue of the above problem (because making the right choice becomes really important in PVP) and the fact that without opt-in PVP the other players will actively infringe upon role-playing. The 'opt-in' can come in the form of server choice, but it needs to be a choice somewhere along the line.
You are just proving my initial theory correct in all fairness...
Balance is important in an mmorpg, but not in the way you are thinking. Every player having a role within the over all mechanics of the game world is the balance that counts. Crafters being just as vital as combat players. The ability to specialize into their given niche and still be of value. The ability to be able to fairly 1v1 against another class in combat matters not a jot.
So yes 'balance' is important, just not your notion of balance. The moba/fps (games which I love) mindset of 'balance' is not vital to an mmorpg game world and a thriving social community. Pvp and open world combat though on the other hand, often is very vital indeed.
That A may be able to wtfpwn faster than B matters only to those who prize fair combat balance above roles and specialization. That you cannot see why someone would still chose B because they prefer a specific activity/style pretty clearly sums up why you don't understand the problem at hand. That it is people coming in yelling "fair pvp plox balanced instanzez rulez!" that is the problem endemic in todays mmorpg games.
The problematic notion of everything having to be balanced around comabt classes is indeed more of an issue in class based mmos with players pushing for fair and equal instanced pvp. Quite how you or anyone else can argue with that fact is incredible, 'balance' is clearly more important in those games. Now that we see a rise in the number of these kinds of games and a decline in living, breathing game worlds in which people build communities and RP, it should tell you all there is to know. Ofc you will not see that, or at least will not admit it because it flies in your face of the notion that 'fair', instanced pvp is the be all and end all.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Don't get me wrong I enjoy a good pvp match but, in my experince getting a good pvp match going is a bit like slamming your head in a wall, after a few seconds it starts to hurt.
Recently my pvp experince has come from WoW, I have heard rumors and they claim it is not so on the forums but, 99% of the Alliance pvp on Azjol-Nerb makes you wonder if ANY of the alliance has a clue. I watch these people run into a crowd of horde and die, spawn and do it again and then want to yell at everyone else for being bad players, although they tend to use much more colorful language then I will use here . One would think that any one that has a brain would think after the first few times that maybe, just maybe running into a wall of horde solo is NOT a good idea yet, every round it is the same thing.
For me this makes pvp frustrating I can hold my own IF I have a team to work with that understands that team work is a good idea.
Another thing that makes me wonder about the IQ lvl of the average player is the people that are part of a group of 20 people that gank you and that one guy will strut around acting as if he did it alone. Then his friends that helped kill you will pat him on the back as if he did it alone .......
A friend of mine ran into a guy who played a BH in SWG, this guy all these years later still does not get the simple fact that he was not a bother because HE killed you, his team was a bother because they as a group killed a lot of jedi once SOE left jedi with zero defenses for over a year. From the conversation he still operates on the delusion that he did all the killing.
I mention this just because this I feel is why people who might enjoy the competitive pvp enviroment don't bother because of the people that need the delusion to make them feel good. For other's pvp is just not there thing but, still I feel it is mostly do to people like the ones I mentioned above. No one wants to play a game or a part of a game that frustrats them and the behavior I mentioned above makes it more of a headache then it is worth.
PvP isn't killing the RPG-element. Open-world seamless worlds with PvP add to the immersion of an RPG, it's this mass instancing, narrow-minded, linear style of play that is killing them. I can't stand playing a game where there is -no- PvP. Why? People will find ways around it, to harras and kill other players.
I would because well, the pvp croud is honestly a very small percentage of all mmo players, you can especally tell this by the very low populations in games like darkfall etc. Yes Pve titles have tons more. I only consider a game having pvp if its part of the endgame like Aion, Dark Age of Camelot. I personally am sick of Pve only endgames, imo you should have to pve raid or craft. for the best gear in game then if you so choose go pvp with it, this is the formula Aion and DAoC uses. Sadly most mmo's like to copy world of warcrafts purely pve carrot-on-a-stick endgame game after game after game. Its making me sick of mmo's because none have endgame worth bothering with. Sadly my pc can't handle Aion to well, Wouldn't be able to handle the mass faction vs faction pvp. I hope SW:ToR has some kind of faction vs faction pvp with land control that gives entire faction bonuses. The game just screams for it.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Absolutely. I never pvp. To me it always seems aimless, like you're never really progressing.
I do think the OP has a valuable point. Almost every MMO has both PvE and PvP and while it's fine to balance the classes for PvP, such balance should not screw over PvE. PvE needs to have very different classes, and developers should not be trying to make them balanced for the PvE part of the game.
The only way I can see this done right is if the PvP version of a class is quite different from the PvE one; having different strengths and maybe even abilities.
City of heroes does this, the skills do diffrent things in pve and pvp, and they can individually be changed for either pve or pvp by cryptic, So pvp balance won't effect pve balance and vice versa. Dungeon Fighter Online also does this, u can see pvp stats and pve stats for skills by hitting a button. Mind you pvp in both these games has no purpose. Only game with meaningful pvp so far was Daoc, Aion, and Fallen Earth.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Absolutely. I never pvp. To me it always seems aimless, like you're never really progressing.
I do think the OP has a valuable point. Almost every MMO has both PvE and PvP and while it's fine to balance the classes for PvP, such balance should not screw over PvE. PvE needs to have very different classes, and developers should not be trying to make them balanced for the PvE part of the game.
The only way I can see this done right is if the PvP version of a class is quite different from the PvE one; having different strengths and maybe even abilities.
City of heroes does this, the skills do diffrent things in pve and pvp, and they can individually be changed for either pve or pvp by cryptic, So pvp balance won't effect pve balance and vice versa. Dungeon Fighter Online also does this, u can see pvp stats and pve stats for skills by hitting a button. Mind you pvp in both these games has no purpose. Only game with meaningful pvp so far was Daoc, Aion, and Fallen Earth.
Really, those are the only games with meaningful PvP? Wait, and Fallen Earth..? Are you on crack?
I would because well, the pvp croud is honestly a very small percentage of all mmo players, you can especally tell this by the very low populations in games like darkfall etc. Yes Pve titles have tons more. I only consider a game having pvp if its part of the endgame like Aion, Dark Age of Camelot. I personally am sick of Pve only endgames, imo you should have to pve raid or craft. for the best gear in game then if you so choose go pvp with it, this is the formula Aion and DAoC uses. Sadly most mmo's like to copy world of warcrafts purely pve carrot-on-a-stick endgame game after game after game. Its making me sick of mmo's because none have endgame worth bothering with. Sadly my pc can't handle Aion to well, Wouldn't be able to handle the mass faction vs faction pvp. I hope SW:ToR has some kind of faction vs faction pvp with land control that gives entire faction bonuses. The game just screams for it.
Yeah, you can tell in titles like Darkfall, had nothing to do with hacking, exploiting or in general the insanity of the grind.
I would because well, the pvp croud is honestly a very small percentage of all mmo players, you can especally tell this by the very low populations in games like darkfall etc. Yes Pve titles have tons more. I only consider a game having pvp if its part of the endgame like Aion, Dark Age of Camelot. I personally am sick of Pve only endgames, imo you should have to pve raid or craft. for the best gear in game then if you so choose go pvp with it, this is the formula Aion and DAoC uses. Sadly most mmo's like to copy world of warcrafts purely pve carrot-on-a-stick endgame game after game after game. Its making me sick of mmo's because none have endgame worth bothering with. Sadly my pc can't handle Aion to well, Wouldn't be able to handle the mass faction vs faction pvp. I hope SW:ToR has some kind of faction vs faction pvp with land control that gives entire faction bonuses. The game just screams for it.
That's only because the PvP-for-all approach was never really followed after WAR failed (for non-pvp reasons). If only an AAA-PvP title released without following the ridiculous dogma of death penalty, harsh world, FFA, live by the sword.
Man, PvP-MMORPGs could reign supreme. Warhammer Online had the right idea, tear PvP from the clutches of the elitist minmaxer-jerks and offer it as an integral part to absolutely anyone playing the game, guild or no guild, gear or no gear...
Well, as it is, most PvP games are still strictly bound to the "you gotta be a smarty-talky-man to survive"-doctrine... unfortunately.
M
EDIT: And yes I know I'm an EvE player, and I love EvE's PvP, its just not very "yay have fun jump in and storm some checkpoint". EvE is great because of it's complexity and reward for planning and thought. The PvP itself is actually awfully limited and hardly accessible/rewarding, especially for new players.
No. PVE is usually too static and I only do the minimum amount of PVE required at any time. What makes PVP fun is the team play, replayability, and casual friendlyness.
PVE
PVP
Solo
Quest grinding, farming
Random world pvp, battlegrounds (pug), dueling
Group
Quest grinding, farming, static instances over and over again
Random/objective-based world pvp, battlegrounds (premade), ganking, ladders
Raid
Static instances over and over again
Random/objective-based world pvp, battlegrounds (premade), ganking, sieges
General
Players are limited by the design choices of the developers. Fights are always the same.
Players create their own content, although structure is usually preferred (objectives). Fights are always different.
What I really like about PVP is the ability to start up the game, do some actual combat for 15 minutes, log off because that's all the time I had. I like doing PVE instances to some extend but they just require too much time before you've actually established a good team (and pugs almost never do well in PVE and is not very social either so that's not an option), and because it takes so long everyone wants to keep going for hours (time I usually don't have). What I mostly don't like about PVE is the gear grind cause in order to keep up with others you must sacrifice your real life for the sake of the game (stupid, so not an option). PVP is much more fun and casual friendly in that regard as long as it's designed well, which primarily means no significant power imbalance (whether it'd be gear, class, skill progression, etc) along with diversity (random world pvp alone won't do).
Without balance, choice A vs. choice B isn't a choice at all. If choice A yields superior benefit, there's no choice: there's simply A.
Wrong.
First balance is only important for games that you want to play. That's more accurate.
And also your example is inaccurate.
Choice A and Choice B. Warrior damage vs Wizard damage.
Warrior DPS is 60.
Wizard DPS is 500.
Not balanced, but there are choices. Warrior's role is to not to deal damage while the Wizard's role is to deal damage. So, whoever wants to play the role of a Warrior will CHOOSE the warrior even though Choice B (Wizard) is superior.
The Blizzard philosophy of "balancing" classes is never... ever.. needed in a Role Playing game. Specially one that wants to add a very unique game experience to players playing different roles.
(It's funny how I completely agree with your first post and disagree with your other one)
The issue is you think balance means symetrical playstyles, and that's wrong.
Wizard DPS is 500.
Warrior DPS is 60 -- and they have 440 value in defense and enemy control.
The two playstyles are balanced in value.
There is no value to having a game where warriors provide no other benefit to the group except DPS, if their DPS is crap. Meanwhile players will react very strongly (even in a tabletop game) if one class is so blatantly underpowered in value.
Balance improves things dramatically, letting players feel like their class choice hasn't permanently crippled them. And it's best if the balance doesn't come in the form of the DM manhandling the game so that the warrior's otherwise-negligible advantages can be valuable. It's best if the core game mechanics start balanced (enough imbalance is going to occur naturally.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
Balance is important in every game. Period.
Without balance, choice A vs. choice B isn't a choice at all. If choice A yields superior benefit, there's no choice: there's simply A.
This feeds directly into role-playing. In a balanced game, a role-player can choose A or B and have their own playstyle. In an unbalanced one, attempting to role play results in substantial gameplay disadvantages.
"PVP killing RP" is both an issue of the above problem (because making the right choice becomes really important in PVP) and the fact that without opt-in PVP the other players will actively infringe upon role-playing. The 'opt-in' can come in the form of server choice, but it needs to be a choice somewhere along the line.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yes, I pretty much do anyways. I rarely pvp. Its just not that fun anymore. Everyone has a excuse for why they lost or the their team lost. Its never hm i have a weakness i should work on that. Having to turn chats off just to enjoy pvp means in games with Battlegrounds you dont know really what is going on all the time and where you are needed.
What he said.
All I do is PvE as it is lol.
The only time I ever PvP now is to fend off pkers attacking me or lower levels. While PvP can be fun, it's still just a game to me but it seems like it's life for others, I just can't get into it with the sort of idiocy/attitude that dominates it.
PvP ruins games. It ruins the game mechanics and forces developers to continuously re-hash code that works (/except/ for in a PvP arena enviroment). WoW has stated the biggest mistake they ever made was creating the Arena system.
Game developers ONLY add PvP because it brings in that crowd of playerbase. Well, I say this: f*ck that crowd of players. They're trash and only bring hate and immaturity with them. You don't need that playerbase.
Because if you had a polished, awesome game that functioned the way it was supposed to, it would only get better from there because you wouldn't need to allocate resources to a constantly exploitable mechanic such as PvP is.
Get rid of it and never bring it back.
Wrong.
First balance is only important for games that you want to play. That's more accurate.
And also your example is inaccurate.
Choice A and Choice B. Warrior damage vs Wizard damage.
Warrior DPS is 60.
Wizard DPS is 500.
Not balanced, but there are choices. Warrior's role is to not to deal damage while the Wizard's role is to deal damage. So, whoever wants to play the role of a Warrior will CHOOSE the warrior even though Choice B (Wizard) is superior.
The Blizzard philosophy of "balancing" classes is never... ever.. needed in a Role Playing game. Specially one that wants to add a very unique game experience to players playing different roles.
(It's funny how I completely agree with your first post and disagree with your other one)
GW2 will have PvE World completely separate from PvP Structured and PvP World. I think there will be some nice server bonus for winning PvP World but that's it. I wonder if that separation is good enough for ppl? Note: The pvp skills in structured are cut off from the rpg advancement in the pve.
I think for me it boils down to:
Themepark: Want PvE & PvP differentiated from each other but both options definitly available. Variety is the spice and huge battles of other players although messy can sometimes be memorable.
Sandbox: Integrated PvP & PvE "somehow" eg EvE style sounds good.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
**TL;DR VERSION AT THE BOTTOM**
Would I play a game of strategy that challenges me and offers me something that players cannot. Something that would be meant to play against 20 players? Interesting things that make me go "Gee! How cool"?
Yes.
Would I play a game where I'm a tank and the biggest thought on my mind was how to pull a group of trash mobs with my abilities more effectively than those pesky paladins? Not again. I hate to have hype, or say something like this at all, but the upcoming Guild Wars 2 and Diablo III seem like the former games. SEEM being the main point of what I say. They could be lying or just don't know their mistakes, I'll take their promises with a grain of salt. Damn, though. At least someone said it. So long as it doesn't have the tanks using the 3 same abilities on a braindead mob that happens to sit around until you do enough damage/threat to distract it and have it beat on you and you recieve many many heals.
Not to say the "holy trinity" is bad, unfun, or unstrategic. I've enjoyed it and still appreciate it's presence. Though that whole system is what drove me to games that pit you in an arena to fight other players. (Read: Heroes of Newerth, DotA: Allstars, Bloodline Champions, etc. etc.) Because they provide you with many many many unique characters with their own unique abilities that go in groups of at least under 10, to battle eachother and test their own understanding of strategy and perception of the area around them. For me, it's the truest experience in entertainment that will ever be. Sports pit you against someone who also plays the sport actively to a competetive level because it's #1 a good way to pass time and #2 because you've always wondered if there was someone as good as you. You want to enjoy what you're doing so you have to be engaged into it. Once I've ran Scarlet Monastery for the 20th time for that day and I've probably pressed more hotkeys than actually think about my next move I think I can only wish that something more involving comes out.
----------------------------------------------TL;DR---------------------------------------------
I'd like to belive that PvP would better if presented in the same form as your PvE game (very good and specialized to do what it set out to do well) is because something is only as enjoyable as long as it's engaging and you are skilled at it. PvE these days requires knowledge of your role, understanding of your abilities, and good communication skills. PvP takes all of the above and then pushes it against an active opponent. Someone who's thinking just as much as you and challenges your very ability at the game.
(But god forbid I ever have to return to a game like HoN or DotA... That community is worse than anything else in the world. Sore losers who are forced to play long rounds of a game? Jesus. I've found my best internet buddies in PvE and my worst enemies were made in PvP. I think that sums up the way I'd think if it was a team-based game)
"i have a lvl 26 maplestory warrior lvl 9 asda story archer and a adventure quest mage lvl 15 and my xfire is my bro's"
I could not care less for pvp then I actually do.
You are just proving my initial theory correct in all fairness...
Balance is important in an mmorpg, but not in the way you are thinking. Every player having a role within the over all mechanics of the game world is the balance that counts. Crafters being just as vital as combat players. The ability to specialize into their given niche and still be of value. The ability to be able to fairly 1v1 against another class in combat matters not a jot.
So yes 'balance' is important, just not your notion of balance. The moba/fps (games which I love) mindset of 'balance' is not vital to an mmorpg game world and a thriving social community. Pvp and open world combat though on the other hand, often is very vital indeed.
That A may be able to wtfpwn faster than B matters only to those who prize fair combat balance above roles and specialization. That you cannot see why someone would still chose B because they prefer a specific activity/style pretty clearly sums up why you don't understand the problem at hand. That it is people coming in yelling "fair pvp plox balanced instanzez rulez!" that is the problem endemic in todays mmorpg games.
The problematic notion of everything having to be balanced around comabt classes is indeed more of an issue in class based mmos with players pushing for fair and equal instanced pvp. Quite how you or anyone else can argue with that fact is incredible, 'balance' is clearly more important in those games. Now that we see a rise in the number of these kinds of games and a decline in living, breathing game worlds in which people build communities and RP, it should tell you all there is to know. Ofc you will not see that, or at least will not admit it because it flies in your face of the notion that 'fair', instanced pvp is the be all and end all.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I would and do play games that are totally pve.
Don't get me wrong I enjoy a good pvp match but, in my experince getting a good pvp match going is a bit like slamming your head in a wall, after a few seconds it starts to hurt.
Recently my pvp experince has come from WoW, I have heard rumors and they claim it is not so on the forums but, 99% of the Alliance pvp on Azjol-Nerb makes you wonder if ANY of the alliance has a clue. I watch these people run into a crowd of horde and die, spawn and do it again and then want to yell at everyone else for being bad players, although they tend to use much more colorful language then I will use here
. One would think that any one that has a brain would think after the first few times that maybe, just maybe running into a wall of horde solo is NOT a good idea yet, every round it is the same thing.
For me this makes pvp frustrating I can hold my own IF I have a team to work with that understands that team work is a good idea.
Another thing that makes me wonder about the IQ lvl of the average player is the people that are part of a group of 20 people that gank you and that one guy will strut around acting as if he did it alone. Then his friends that helped kill you will pat him on the back as if he did it alone .......
A friend of mine ran into a guy who played a BH in SWG, this guy all these years later still does not get the simple fact that he was not a bother because HE killed you, his team was a bother because they as a group killed a lot of jedi once SOE left jedi with zero defenses for over a year. From the conversation he still operates on the delusion that he did all the killing.
I mention this just because this I feel is why people who might enjoy the competitive pvp enviroment don't bother because of the people that need the delusion to make them feel good. For other's pvp is just not there thing but, still I feel it is mostly do to people like the ones I mentioned above. No one wants to play a game or a part of a game that frustrats them and the behavior I mentioned above makes it more of a headache then it is worth.
PvP isn't killing the RPG-element. Open-world seamless worlds with PvP add to the immersion of an RPG, it's this mass instancing, narrow-minded, linear style of play that is killing them. I can't stand playing a game where there is -no- PvP. Why? People will find ways around it, to harras and kill other players.
I would because well, the pvp croud is honestly a very small percentage of all mmo players, you can especally tell this by the very low populations in games like darkfall etc. Yes Pve titles have tons more. I only consider a game having pvp if its part of the endgame like Aion, Dark Age of Camelot. I personally am sick of Pve only endgames, imo you should have to pve raid or craft. for the best gear in game then if you so choose go pvp with it, this is the formula Aion and DAoC uses. Sadly most mmo's like to copy world of warcrafts purely pve carrot-on-a-stick endgame game after game after game. Its making me sick of mmo's because none have endgame worth bothering with. Sadly my pc can't handle Aion to well, Wouldn't be able to handle the mass faction vs faction pvp. I hope SW:ToR has some kind of faction vs faction pvp with land control that gives entire faction bonuses. The game just screams for it.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!
City of heroes does this, the skills do diffrent things in pve and pvp, and they can individually be changed for either pve or pvp by cryptic, So pvp balance won't effect pve balance and vice versa. Dungeon Fighter Online also does this, u can see pvp stats and pve stats for skills by hitting a button. Mind you pvp in both these games has no purpose. Only game with meaningful pvp so far was Daoc, Aion, and Fallen Earth.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!
Really, those are the only games with meaningful PvP? Wait, and Fallen Earth..? Are you on crack?
Yeah, you can tell in titles like Darkfall, had nothing to do with hacking, exploiting or in general the insanity of the grind.
Sure, if it's done right. Been playing Vanguard and LotRO, both games are excellent at PvE...
That's only because the PvP-for-all approach was never really followed after WAR failed (for non-pvp reasons). If only an AAA-PvP title released without following the ridiculous dogma of death penalty, harsh world, FFA, live by the sword.
Man, PvP-MMORPGs could reign supreme. Warhammer Online had the right idea, tear PvP from the clutches of the elitist minmaxer-jerks and offer it as an integral part to absolutely anyone playing the game, guild or no guild, gear or no gear...
Well, as it is, most PvP games are still strictly bound to the "you gotta be a smarty-talky-man to survive"-doctrine... unfortunately.
M
EDIT: And yes I know I'm an EvE player, and I love EvE's PvP, its just not very "yay have fun jump in and storm some checkpoint". EvE is great because of it's complexity and reward for planning and thought. The PvP itself is actually awfully limited and hardly accessible/rewarding, especially for new players.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/269822/page/1
No. PVE is usually too static and I only do the minimum amount of PVE required at any time. What makes PVP fun is the team play, replayability, and casual friendlyness.
PVE
PVP
Solo
Quest grinding, farming
Random world pvp, battlegrounds (pug), dueling
Group
Quest grinding, farming, static instances over and over again
Random/objective-based world pvp, battlegrounds (premade), ganking, ladders
Raid
Static instances over and over again
Random/objective-based world pvp, battlegrounds (premade), ganking, sieges
General
Players are limited by the design choices of the developers. Fights are always the same.
Players create their own content, although structure is usually preferred (objectives). Fights are always different.
What I really like about PVP is the ability to start up the game, do some actual combat for 15 minutes, log off because that's all the time I had. I like doing PVE instances to some extend but they just require too much time before you've actually established a good team (and pugs almost never do well in PVE and is not very social either so that's not an option), and because it takes so long everyone wants to keep going for hours (time I usually don't have). What I mostly don't like about PVE is the gear grind cause in order to keep up with others you must sacrifice your real life for the sake of the game (stupid, so not an option). PVP is much more fun and casual friendly in that regard as long as it's designed well, which primarily means no significant power imbalance (whether it'd be gear, class, skill progression, etc) along with diversity (random world pvp alone won't do).
The issue is you think balance means symetrical playstyles, and that's wrong.
Wizard DPS is 500.
Warrior DPS is 60 -- and they have 440 value in defense and enemy control.
The two playstyles are balanced in value.
There is no value to having a game where warriors provide no other benefit to the group except DPS, if their DPS is crap. Meanwhile players will react very strongly (even in a tabletop game) if one class is so blatantly underpowered in value.
Balance improves things dramatically, letting players feel like their class choice hasn't permanently crippled them. And it's best if the balance doesn't come in the form of the DM manhandling the game so that the warrior's otherwise-negligible advantages can be valuable. It's best if the core game mechanics start balanced (enough imbalance is going to occur naturally.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"Would you play a pureply PvE game?"
Yep.
Each to his own and all that.
I can and frequently DO only PvE.