There are certain types of games that really rely on the existance of certain key mechanics in order for the game to work and provide the type of experience the players were interested in.
For example, how would you make Planetside 2 with players being able to Flag/Unflag as they chose?
Our conversation is about having a game with separate PvE and PvP servers, not turn on and turn off while playing. The conversation is why do FFA PvP players want everyone playing the game to be forced into PvP as opposed to having PvE and PvP servers which are separate so people can play how they wish.
Why are you talking about pvp balance? I'm not saying anything about balancing.
I'm saying games are meticulously made around certain rulesets. The fact that you think "we" will be satisfied by simply TURNING ON pvp, shows how little you understand our position. If what we wanted was to just fight other people, we would be playing non-persistent pvp arena games like Q3, SC2, etc. What we want is an organic, living world that is specifically made to be such. For instance, Darkfall (with all its faults) MUST include pvp. The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists.
To illustrate my point, I'll reiterate what I said in my previous post. If you want to take a game that was built with pvp in mind and turn off pvp and play that game, go ahead. If, in your mind, there's no difference in making pvp or pve games, then you should be happy with that. And it won't be bother me one bit.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, really. IF you could make a GOOD game that fits the description of my ideal game (or at least a game I'd enjoy), while at the same time turn that game into a version of it you would enjoy, then by all means give it a try.
There is, however, another thing to consider and that's the problem of human nature. People will often tend to pick the easier option if they're given the choice. So it's very possible that people will gravitate towards the "easier" game, leaving the "harder" game less populated. You can say that's indicative of what people want and you may be right, but it also may be the case that people think they want one thing, but then would get bored with it. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the "easier" games are often the ones that flare up in popularity and then die off.
You act as if the rulesets between a PvE and PvP game are so different so let's make this easy:
Post the ACTUAL rules that are ACTUALLY different in a PvP and PvE game and also show how those same rules couldn't possibly coexist in a PvE and PvP environment. The only one you'll come up with that can't exist in both is.... killing other players. All other rules are 100% separate from PvP/PvE and can work just fine in either system.
That is what I was saying in the other post. I was trying to give a benefit of the doubt that you were indirectly referring to balance because to say that rules that have nothing to do with a player fighting another player would some how magically be different between a PvE or a PvP game is well, ridiculous.
The only example you even try for is:
"The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists."
and there is no actual reason that can't exist in a game that has PvE and PvP servers. The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc. In other words you can just as easily have a territory controlling feature in a game that has PvE and separate PvP servers. Absolutely nothing is stopping that. And since you've eluded to this before, why would you care if the city build/siege system was in fact only on the PvP servers of a game if that feature was 100% supported by the development team?
In a world where companies have unlimited resources, technically they could make a game that has everything that anybody could ever want, and then have different servers for different playstyles. They could have fantasy pvp worlds, they could have the same game except non-pvp and a post apocalyptic setting, they could have one that's entirely underwater, etc.
But in reality if a company spends the resources on game mechanics such as city sieging (which has pvp associated with it), that's resources they're not spending on non-pvp stuff. I don't know what else to tell you other than your understanding of how games are made is wrong... and so wrong that I can't believe you're trying to claim it.
Why are you talking about pvp balance? I'm not saying anything about balancing.
I'm saying games are meticulously made around certain rulesets. The fact that you think "we" will be satisfied by simply TURNING ON pvp, shows how little you understand our position. If what we wanted was to just fight other people, we would be playing non-persistent pvp arena games like Q3, SC2, etc. What we want is an organic, living world that is specifically made to be such. For instance, Darkfall (with all its faults) MUST include pvp. The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists.
To illustrate my point, I'll reiterate what I said in my previous post. If you want to take a game that was built with pvp in mind and turn off pvp and play that game, go ahead. If, in your mind, there's no difference in making pvp or pve games, then you should be happy with that. And it won't be bother me one bit.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, really. IF you could make a GOOD game that fits the description of my ideal game (or at least a game I'd enjoy), while at the same time turn that game into a version of it you would enjoy, then by all means give it a try.
There is, however, another thing to consider and that's the problem of human nature. People will often tend to pick the easier option if they're given the choice. So it's very possible that people will gravitate towards the "easier" game, leaving the "harder" game less populated. You can say that's indicative of what people want and you may be right, but it also may be the case that people think they want one thing, but then would get bored with it. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the "easier" games are often the ones that flare up in popularity and then die off.
You act as if the rulesets between a PvE and PvP game are so different so let's make this easy:
Post the ACTUAL rules that are ACTUALLY different in a PvP and PvE game and also show how those same rules couldn't possibly coexist in a PvE and PvP environment. The only one you'll come up with that can't exist in both is.... killing other players. All other rules are 100% separate from PvP/PvE and can work just fine in either system.
That is what I was saying in the other post. I was trying to give a benefit of the doubt that you were indirectly referring to balance because to say that rules that have nothing to do with a player fighting another player would some how magically be different between a PvE or a PvP game is well, ridiculous.
The only example you even try for is:
"The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists."
and there is no actual reason that can't exist in a game that has PvE and PvP servers. The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc. In other words you can just as easily have a territory controlling feature in a game that has PvE and separate PvP servers. Absolutely nothing is stopping that. And since you've eluded to this before, why would you care if the city build/siege system was in fact only on the PvP servers of a game if that feature was 100% supported by the development team?
In a world where companies have unlimited resources, technically they could make a game that has everything that anybody could ever want, and then have different servers for different playstyles. They could have fantasy pvp worlds, they could have the same game except non-pvp and a post apocalyptic setting, they could have one that's entirely underwater, etc.
But in reality if a company spends the resources on game mechanics such as city sieging (which has pvp associated with it), that's resources they're not spending on non-pvp stuff. I don't know what else to tell you other than your understanding of how games are made is wrong... and so wrong that I can't believe you're trying to claim it.
Your response did not contain a single rule outside of killing/attacking/looting other players that couldn't work in both a PvE and PvP system.
And I assure you my knowledge is better than yours so maybe actually try to argue the points instead of trying to essentially call someone else stupid. And you also ignored the lead up to that secondary question which discussed how EASY it is to have a city/land control option work in PvE.
There are certain types of games that really rely on the existance of certain key mechanics in order for the game to work and provide the type of experience the players were interested in.
For example, how would you make Planetside 2 with players being able to Flag/Unflag as they chose?
Our conversation is about having a game with separate PvE and PvP servers, not turn on and turn off while playing. The conversation is why do FFA PvP players want everyone playing the game to be forced into PvP as opposed to having PvE and PvP servers which are separate so people can play how they wish.
Yes and he's saying what would a non-pvp planetside 2 look like?
Look at minecraft. Technically that has "pvp" but if you think a game like that is going to satisfy my desire for a realistic, risky pvp centered game, you're crazy. Even though I love minecraft, the pvp in it is basically non-existent, even if it technically exists.
If our current PVE games are no good - and the current PVP games aren't doing it for people, wouldn't that indicate that what we need is a game that does PVE and PVP well?
Can't we have a game with both robust PVE and PVP?
No. It indicates we need better pve games, and better pvp games. They don't have to be in the same game.
And pvp games are doing it for the people. Look at WoT, LoL, and even PS2. You don't need pve to be successful.
Believe it or not - there are those that like both and would like it in the same game.
There is room for better pvp games. There is room for better pve games. There is room for a better game with both.
There are certain types of games that really rely on the existance of certain key mechanics in order for the game to work and provide the type of experience the players were interested in.
For example, how would you make Planetside 2 with players being able to Flag/Unflag as they chose?
Our conversation is about having a game with separate PvE and PvP servers, not turn on and turn off while playing. The conversation is why do FFA PvP players want everyone playing the game to be forced into PvP as opposed to having PvE and PvP servers which are separate so people can play how they wish.
I'd assume because the Developer would have to spend 100K+ man/hours of Development resources to essentialy make a new game where the PvE server ruleset would work and provide engaging game-play.
For example....how would you make a PlanetSide 2 or an EvE PvE server without major commitment of Development resources to account for the fact that PvP didn't exist....and still have the PvE version of the game "work" and be engaging enough that anyone would want to play it?
If I were an EvE player...I wouldn't really care if someone made a version of the game that worked on a PvE server (though it really would be an entirely different game). However, I would kinda care if that meant CCP were devoting 100K+ man/hours of Development resources to enhancing the game I was already playing. YMMV.
Why are you talking about pvp balance? I'm not saying anything about balancing.
I'm saying games are meticulously made around certain rulesets. The fact that you think "we" will be satisfied by simply TURNING ON pvp, shows how little you understand our position. If what we wanted was to just fight other people, we would be playing non-persistent pvp arena games like Q3, SC2, etc. What we want is an organic, living world that is specifically made to be such. For instance, Darkfall (with all its faults) MUST include pvp. The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists.
To illustrate my point, I'll reiterate what I said in my previous post. If you want to take a game that was built with pvp in mind and turn off pvp and play that game, go ahead. If, in your mind, there's no difference in making pvp or pve games, then you should be happy with that. And it won't be bother me one bit.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, really. IF you could make a GOOD game that fits the description of my ideal game (or at least a game I'd enjoy), while at the same time turn that game into a version of it you would enjoy, then by all means give it a try.
There is, however, another thing to consider and that's the problem of human nature. People will often tend to pick the easier option if they're given the choice. So it's very possible that people will gravitate towards the "easier" game, leaving the "harder" game less populated. You can say that's indicative of what people want and you may be right, but it also may be the case that people think they want one thing, but then would get bored with it. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the "easier" games are often the ones that flare up in popularity and then die off.
You act as if the rulesets between a PvE and PvP game are so different so let's make this easy:
Post the ACTUAL rules that are ACTUALLY different in a PvP and PvE game and also show how those same rules couldn't possibly coexist in a PvE and PvP environment. The only one you'll come up with that can't exist in both is.... killing other players. All other rules are 100% separate from PvP/PvE and can work just fine in either system.
That is what I was saying in the other post. I was trying to give a benefit of the doubt that you were indirectly referring to balance because to say that rules that have nothing to do with a player fighting another player would some how magically be different between a PvE or a PvP game is well, ridiculous.
The only example you even try for is:
"The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists."
and there is no actual reason that can't exist in a game that has PvE and PvP servers. The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc. In other words you can just as easily have a territory controlling feature in a game that has PvE and separate PvP servers. Absolutely nothing is stopping that. And since you've eluded to this before, why would you care if the city build/siege system was in fact only on the PvP servers of a game if that feature was 100% supported by the development team?
In a world where companies have unlimited resources, technically they could make a game that has everything that anybody could ever want, and then have different servers for different playstyles. They could have fantasy pvp worlds, they could have the same game except non-pvp and a post apocalyptic setting, they could have one that's entirely underwater, etc.
But in reality if a company spends the resources on game mechanics such as city sieging (which has pvp associated with it), that's resources they're not spending on non-pvp stuff. I don't know what else to tell you other than your understanding of how games are made is wrong... and so wrong that I can't believe you're trying to claim it.
Your response did not contain a single rule outside of killing/attacking/looting other players that couldn't work in both a PvE and PvP system.
And I assure you my knowledge is better than yours so maybe actually try to argue the points instead of trying to essentially call someone else stupid. And you also ignored the lead up to that secondary question which discussed how EASY it is to have a city/land control option work in PvE.
Maybe it's because I'm not your lap dog and I don't have to post several rulesets that are more/less conducive to pvp than others just because you demand that I do. I gave you one, apparently that wasn't enough for you. Another guy gave you another example of a game that wouldn't work as both a pvp and non-pvp game. Apparently that wasn't enough for you either.
Also, I didn't ignore your point about city building/sieging. Here's an exerpt of what you said:
"The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc"
I responded with the fact that companies don't have infinite resources to do everything for everybody and then simply have different servers for the different groups. It's frankly a stupid idea. But I'll explain it for you again:
Making a SEPARATE system of how cities are built/sieged is a totally different game mechanic and isn't as easy to make as you seem to think. The money they spend on developing that COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MECHANIC is money that's taken away from the pvp-oriented mechanic. So essentially what you're asserting is that game developers just have extra money laying around after their game is as good as it can be and should develop alternate version of their game to suit other people. Lol.....
If our current PVE games are no good - and the current PVP games aren't doing it for people, wouldn't that indicate that what we need is a game that does PVE and PVP well?
Can't we have a game with both robust PVE and PVP?
No. It indicates we need better pve games, and better pvp games. They don't have to be in the same game.
And pvp games are doing it for the people. Look at WoT, LoL, and even PS2. You don't need pve to be successful.
Believe it or not - there are those that like both and would like it in the same game.
There is room for better pvp games. There is room for better pve games. There is room for a better game with both.
What do you mean by both? My ideal game WOULD have both pvp and pve. But I have to ask what you mean because somebody else took the idea of having "both" as meaning pvp for those that want it and the ability to turn off pvp for the "pve" side of things.
The game I want is a deep sandbox game with in-depth crafting, fun pvm, and important pvp that affects the world around you, primarily by way of city building and clan politics.
There are certain types of games that really rely on the existance of certain key mechanics in order for the game to work and provide the type of experience the players were interested in.
For example, how would you make Planetside 2 with players being able to Flag/Unflag as they chose?
Our conversation is about having a game with separate PvE and PvP servers, not turn on and turn off while playing. The conversation is why do FFA PvP players want everyone playing the game to be forced into PvP as opposed to having PvE and PvP servers which are separate so people can play how they wish.
Because that's what FFA means...free for all to engage in PvP all the time. If they didn't want everyone involved, they would simply be pvp players. If you limit the pvp, it is no longer ffa. Therefore, you do not have a game a FFA PVP player would want.
Isn't your real question, why do people who prefer FFA PvP exist?
Why are you talking about pvp balance? I'm not saying anything about balancing.
I'm saying games are meticulously made around certain rulesets. The fact that you think "we" will be satisfied by simply TURNING ON pvp, shows how little you understand our position. If what we wanted was to just fight other people, we would be playing non-persistent pvp arena games like Q3, SC2, etc. What we want is an organic, living world that is specifically made to be such. For instance, Darkfall (with all its faults) MUST include pvp. The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists.
To illustrate my point, I'll reiterate what I said in my previous post. If you want to take a game that was built with pvp in mind and turn off pvp and play that game, go ahead. If, in your mind, there's no difference in making pvp or pve games, then you should be happy with that. And it won't be bother me one bit.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, really. IF you could make a GOOD game that fits the description of my ideal game (or at least a game I'd enjoy), while at the same time turn that game into a version of it you would enjoy, then by all means give it a try.
There is, however, another thing to consider and that's the problem of human nature. People will often tend to pick the easier option if they're given the choice. So it's very possible that people will gravitate towards the "easier" game, leaving the "harder" game less populated. You can say that's indicative of what people want and you may be right, but it also may be the case that people think they want one thing, but then would get bored with it. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the "easier" games are often the ones that flare up in popularity and then die off.
You act as if the rulesets between a PvE and PvP game are so different so let's make this easy:
Post the ACTUAL rules that are ACTUALLY different in a PvP and PvE game and also show how those same rules couldn't possibly coexist in a PvE and PvP environment. The only one you'll come up with that can't exist in both is.... killing other players. All other rules are 100% separate from PvP/PvE and can work just fine in either system.
That is what I was saying in the other post. I was trying to give a benefit of the doubt that you were indirectly referring to balance because to say that rules that have nothing to do with a player fighting another player would some how magically be different between a PvE or a PvP game is well, ridiculous.
The only example you even try for is:
"The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists."
and there is no actual reason that can't exist in a game that has PvE and PvP servers. The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc. In other words you can just as easily have a territory controlling feature in a game that has PvE and separate PvP servers. Absolutely nothing is stopping that. And since you've eluded to this before, why would you care if the city build/siege system was in fact only on the PvP servers of a game if that feature was 100% supported by the development team?
In a world where companies have unlimited resources, technically they could make a game that has everything that anybody could ever want, and then have different servers for different playstyles. They could have fantasy pvp worlds, they could have the same game except non-pvp and a post apocalyptic setting, they could have one that's entirely underwater, etc.
But in reality if a company spends the resources on game mechanics such as city sieging (which has pvp associated with it), that's resources they're not spending on non-pvp stuff. I don't know what else to tell you other than your understanding of how games are made is wrong... and so wrong that I can't believe you're trying to claim it.
Your response did not contain a single rule outside of killing/attacking/looting other players that couldn't work in both a PvE and PvP system.
And I assure you my knowledge is better than yours so maybe actually try to argue the points instead of trying to essentially call someone else stupid. And you also ignored the lead up to that secondary question which discussed how EASY it is to have a city/land control option work in PvE.
Maybe it's because I'm not your lap dog and I don't have to post several rulesets that are more/less conducive to pvp than others just because you demand that I do. I gave you one, apparently that wasn't enough for you. Another guy gave you another example of a game that wouldn't work as both a pvp and non-pvp game. Apparently that wasn't enough for you either.
Also, I didn't ignore your point about city building/sieging. Here's an exerpt of what you said:
"The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc"
I responded with the fact that companies don't have infinite resources to do everything for everybody and then simply have different servers for the different groups. It's frankly a stupid idea. But I'll explain it for you again:
Making a SEPARATE system of how cities are built/sieged is a totally different game mechanic and isn't as easy to make as you seem to think. The money they spend on developing that COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MECHANIC is money that's taken away from the pvp-oriented mechanic. So essentially what you're asserting is that game developers just have extra money laying around after their game is as good as it can be and should develop alternate version of their game to suit other people. Lol.....
So essentially we've come to this: You can't cite a single, not even 1, rule outside of harmful acts to other players that can't be developed in both a PvP and PvE system. This means all rules CAN be developed in a PvP and PvE system. This means a game can have quality PvP and PvE servers for the same game with all the same rules on both servers with the exception of the PvP server allowing PvP actions.
In other words, there is absolutely no reason a game needs all of their servers to force PvP and it is simply you wishing to force your desired gameplay on everyone else.
Well done you really proved your point LOL. We all now see that there is no reason to simply have separate servers which is why all major companies approach it that way and none of them make a player repelling open world FFA PvP only game.
Adding in a server flaggable option on in quests/tasks/collections are completed for NPCs to switch the control of land vs having the players attack siege and control is actually very little in the way of extra resources but I know you have absolutely no clue about game development. The land control system is the big time sink, the tie in is much quicker and easier to implement.
There are certain types of games that really rely on the existance of certain key mechanics in order for the game to work and provide the type of experience the players were interested in.
For example, how would you make Planetside 2 with players being able to Flag/Unflag as they chose?
Our conversation is about having a game with separate PvE and PvP servers, not turn on and turn off while playing. The conversation is why do FFA PvP players want everyone playing the game to be forced into PvP as opposed to having PvE and PvP servers which are separate so people can play how they wish.
Because that's what FFA means...free for all to engage in PvP all the time. If they didn't want everyone involved, they would simply be pvp players. If you limit the pvp, it is no longer ffa. Therefore, you do not have a game a FFA PVP player would want.
Isn't your real question, why do people who prefer FFA PvP exist?
The answer is, people have opinions.
Um.... no that isn't even close to my real question.
From the start MMOs have had options where a server has FFA PvP. Everyone on that server HAS to be involved in FFA PvP, there is no option to turn it off when playing that server. That allows FFA PvPers to get exactly what they want. And yes, by having one server like that it is still FFA PvP, everyone on the server is in fact involved. Wanting the other servers to be involved doesn't make it super duper FFA PvP.
Why are you talking about pvp balance? I'm not saying anything about balancing.
I'm saying games are meticulously made around certain rulesets. The fact that you think "we" will be satisfied by simply TURNING ON pvp, shows how little you understand our position. If what we wanted was to just fight other people, we would be playing non-persistent pvp arena games like Q3, SC2, etc. What we want is an organic, living world that is specifically made to be such. For instance, Darkfall (with all its faults) MUST include pvp. The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists.
To illustrate my point, I'll reiterate what I said in my previous post. If you want to take a game that was built with pvp in mind and turn off pvp and play that game, go ahead. If, in your mind, there's no difference in making pvp or pve games, then you should be happy with that. And it won't be bother me one bit.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, really. IF you could make a GOOD game that fits the description of my ideal game (or at least a game I'd enjoy), while at the same time turn that game into a version of it you would enjoy, then by all means give it a try.
There is, however, another thing to consider and that's the problem of human nature. People will often tend to pick the easier option if they're given the choice. So it's very possible that people will gravitate towards the "easier" game, leaving the "harder" game less populated. You can say that's indicative of what people want and you may be right, but it also may be the case that people think they want one thing, but then would get bored with it. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the "easier" games are often the ones that flare up in popularity and then die off.
You act as if the rulesets between a PvE and PvP game are so different so let's make this easy:
Post the ACTUAL rules that are ACTUALLY different in a PvP and PvE game and also show how those same rules couldn't possibly coexist in a PvE and PvP environment. The only one you'll come up with that can't exist in both is.... killing other players. All other rules are 100% separate from PvP/PvE and can work just fine in either system.
That is what I was saying in the other post. I was trying to give a benefit of the doubt that you were indirectly referring to balance because to say that rules that have nothing to do with a player fighting another player would some how magically be different between a PvE or a PvP game is well, ridiculous.
The only example you even try for is:
"The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists."
and there is no actual reason that can't exist in a game that has PvE and PvP servers. The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc. In other words you can just as easily have a territory controlling feature in a game that has PvE and separate PvP servers. Absolutely nothing is stopping that. And since you've eluded to this before, why would you care if the city build/siege system was in fact only on the PvP servers of a game if that feature was 100% supported by the development team?
In a world where companies have unlimited resources, technically they could make a game that has everything that anybody could ever want, and then have different servers for different playstyles. They could have fantasy pvp worlds, they could have the same game except non-pvp and a post apocalyptic setting, they could have one that's entirely underwater, etc.
But in reality if a company spends the resources on game mechanics such as city sieging (which has pvp associated with it), that's resources they're not spending on non-pvp stuff. I don't know what else to tell you other than your understanding of how games are made is wrong... and so wrong that I can't believe you're trying to claim it.
Your response did not contain a single rule outside of killing/attacking/looting other players that couldn't work in both a PvE and PvP system.
And I assure you my knowledge is better than yours so maybe actually try to argue the points instead of trying to essentially call someone else stupid. And you also ignored the lead up to that secondary question which discussed how EASY it is to have a city/land control option work in PvE.
Maybe it's because I'm not your lap dog and I don't have to post several rulesets that are more/less conducive to pvp than others just because you demand that I do. I gave you one, apparently that wasn't enough for you. Another guy gave you another example of a game that wouldn't work as both a pvp and non-pvp game. Apparently that wasn't enough for you either.
Also, I didn't ignore your point about city building/sieging. Here's an exerpt of what you said:
"The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc"
I responded with the fact that companies don't have infinite resources to do everything for everybody and then simply have different servers for the different groups. It's frankly a stupid idea. But I'll explain it for you again:
Making a SEPARATE system of how cities are built/sieged is a totally different game mechanic and isn't as easy to make as you seem to think. The money they spend on developing that COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MECHANIC is money that's taken away from the pvp-oriented mechanic. So essentially what you're asserting is that game developers just have extra money laying around after their game is as good as it can be and should develop alternate version of their game to suit other people. Lol.....
So essentially we've come to this: You can't cite a single, not even 1, rule outside of harmful acts to other players that can't be developed in both a PvP and PvE system. This means all rules CAN be developed in a PvP and PvE system. This means a game can have quality PvP and PvE servers for the same game with all the same rules on both servers with the exception of the PvP server allowing PvP actions.
In other words, there is absolutely no reason a game needs all of their servers to force PvP and it is simply you wishing to force your desired gameplay on everyone else.
Well done you really proved your point LOL. We all now see that there is no reason to simply have separate servers which is why all major companies approach it that way and none of them make a player repelling open world FFA PvP only game.
Adding in a server flaggable option on in quests/tasks/collections are completed for NPCs to switch the control of land vs having the players attack siege and control is actually very little in the way of extra resources but I know you have absolutely no clue about game development. The land control system is the big time sink, the tie in is much quicker and easier to implement.
Are you delusional? MONEY. Money is the reason. I've already told you this. Why do you say "there is absolutely no reason a game needs all of their servers to force pvp"? I and others have pointed out how this works.... you spend time/money on one thing, you're not spending it on another thing. How do you not understand that?
By the way, some developers will be naturally better at making the pvp aspects and some will be better at making the pve aspects. Remember, a lot of developers are gamers too. So they have their own opinions and visions about how they want their game to turn out. That's why it's better to have DIFFERENT KINDS OF GAMES.
This really isn't hard to understand, you're clearly just too egotistical to admit you're wrong.
The other problem on top of that.....even if a Developer had sufficient resources to produce (essentialy) two entirely different rulesets...one which worked for a PvP server and one which worked for a PvE server.....it would generaly be worse for them to do that then producing 2 seperate titles that achieved the same thing.
It dilutes thier marketing message about what the game is. Essentialy with a product you want to deliver a focused message to your target audience about what that product is and how it appeals to them. If they made 2 seperate versions of Planetside 2 (for example), any time they went to market it they'd be turning off half thier potential audience (PvP or PvE) with thier marketing since the audiences have very different expectations of what they want in a game. Better to make 2 actual seperate titles that they can market seperately and avoid the confusion over what sort of experience they are delivering to the player.
So I very much support your conclusion in that regard.
The other problem on top of that.....even if a Developer had sufficient resources to produce (essentialy) two entirely different rulesets...one which worked for a PvP server and one which worked for a PvE server.....it would generaly be worse for them to do that then producing 2 seperate titles that achieved the same thing.
It dilutes thier marketing message about what the game is. Essentialy with a product you want to deliver a focused message to your target audience about what that product is and how it appeals to them. If they made 2 seperate versions of Planetside 2 (for example), any time they went to market it they'd be turning off half thier potential audience (PvP or PvE) with thier marketing since the audiences have very different expectations of what they want in a game. Better to make 2 actual seperate titles that they can market seperately and avoid the confusion over what sort of experience they are delivering to the player.
So I very much support your conclusion in that regard.
Good point. There are a number of significant reasons, and probably dozens of less significant reasons we haven't even thought of. The bottom line: the industry is the way it is for a reason. It's similar to division of labor. Do what you're good at, and let somebody else do what they're good at.
PvP, PvE, I don't care what you call it. We need something different than the AAA MMOs released over the last 8 years....
I want a sandbox game that has challenges and depth, something that isn't completed / conquered in 3 months of casually playing a couple nights a week.
A game that isn't designed to be played with half my brain asleep, while following glowy arrows, sparkles on a mini map followed by rolling my face across the keyboard as my Avatar effortlessly destroys an army of evil or builds hundreds of suits of armor, potions, etc..
A game that offers player competition in more complex ways than harvesting ore before the next guy causing him to wait for the 15 minute respawn or combat centered around simple Duels or contrived Battlegrounds where everybody wins no matter the outcome.
A game where not everyone gets to be "THE Hero", where people can be individuals defined by accomplishments that aren't guaranteed to every subscriber just for showing up. Accomplishment that show you actually... accomplished something beyond that of an average ordinary player.
A game is that more like a Sym-World of interdependent systems where actions cause reactions and consequences. A place where players impact things outside of their disposable instance.
We have a genre filled with games designed to be an Adventures DayCare center, streamlined, simplified, shortened, documented, automated into a lifeless husk of a Single Player RPG centered around a shared Lobby for entitled Heros that are too lazy to put effort in something they dismiss as "just being a game"....
Adding in a server flaggable option on in quests/tasks/collections are completed for NPCs to switch the control of land vs having the players attack siege and control is actually very little in the way of extra resources but I know you have absolutely no clue about game development. The land control system is the big time sink, the tie in is much quicker and easier to implement.
Do you have any clue what you are talking about? A game may not even HAVE a quests/tasks/collections system. So you'd have to build that from the ground up. Then you'd have to build all the content to fill it.....and you'd probably want ALOT of content to fill it so the players didn't get bored grinding the same handfull of quests to do that. You'd have to build all the ART assets for that content.....and you'd have to find places in the world to locate those objects.....and figure out how to deal with people camping them so others couldn't get with them (and Develop a Customer Service response to those complaints)....or you'd have to build an instancing system for them. Then you'd have to figure out how to handle folks that would be trying to bot them. Then you'd look at balance issues for that content.
Finaly you'd have to look at every other system the seige and land control systems touched to make sure nothing else got broken or affected in an adverse way by switching those mechanics. Oh....and for kicks....you might have to build an A.I. system into your game for mobs, if it previously depended entirely on human opponents as some PvP games do.
Yes, clearly you know much more about Game Development then others here.
There are certain types of games that really rely on the existance of certain key mechanics in order for the game to work and provide the type of experience the players were interested in.
For example, how would you make Planetside 2 with players being able to Flag/Unflag as they chose?
Our conversation is about having a game with separate PvE and PvP servers, not turn on and turn off while playing. The conversation is why do FFA PvP players want everyone playing the game to be forced into PvP as opposed to having PvE and PvP servers which are separate so people can play how they wish.
Because that's what FFA means...free for all to engage in PvP all the time. If they didn't want everyone involved, they would simply be pvp players. If you limit the pvp, it is no longer ffa. Therefore, you do not have a game a FFA PVP player would want.
Isn't your real question, why do people who prefer FFA PvP exist?
The answer is, people have opinions.
Um.... no that isn't even close to my real question.
From the start MMOs have had options where a server has FFA PvP. Everyone on that server HAS to be involved in FFA PvP, there is no option to turn it off when playing that server. That allows FFA PvPers to get exactly what they want. And yes, by having one server like that it is still FFA PvP, everyone on the server is in fact involved. Wanting the other servers to be involved doesn't make it super duper FFA PvP.
Well, with that clarification, I would say, look at that history. They are probably scared their ffa pvp server would become the same ghost town the Zek servers became. They worry that the game would not focus on design for their needs but rather for the 15 servers which were not pvp ffa; as happened with EQ. They want a great game with their play style in mind, a game which would draw enough like-minded individuals to make it viable - a ffa pvp game so great, those of us who shun ffa pvp would convert and become enthralled and mesmerized by a totally new experience more fun than they have had.
If our current PVE games are no good - and the current PVP games aren't doing it for people, wouldn't that indicate that what we need is a game that does PVE and PVP well?
Can't we have a game with both robust PVE and PVP?
There's like 60 million people spending money on MMOs each month.
It is just the MMORPG.com crowd tends to be far more picky and jaded than the common user. It is like trying to talk about how good the Avengers movie was to a group of snooty film critics who want all kinds of imagery that's needs to be translated, hidden messages, and avant garde takes on movies. They would just grumble about how it was a dumbed down action flick even though it is one of the highest grossing movies of all time.
If our current PVE games are no good - and the current PVP games aren't doing it for people, wouldn't that indicate that what we need is a game that does PVE and PVP well?
Can't we have a game with both robust PVE and PVP?
There's like 60 million people spending money on MMOs each month.
It is just the MMORPG.com crowd tends to be far more picky and jaded than the common user. It is like trying to talk about how good the Avengers movie was to a group of snooty film critics who want all kinds of imagery that's needs to be translated, hidden messages, and avant garde takes on movies. They would just grumble about how it was a dumbed down action flick even though it is one of the highest grossing movies of all time.
Hmm. well your observation may not be far off the mark.
just because something makes tons of money doesn't mean it is actually "good". Heck, McDonalds is the single highest grossing restaurant in the ENTIRE WORLD but the food quality is still terrible. Just because a large amount of people buy it doesn't make it good, just popular with people who don't care about the quality of product they spend their money on...
So when you say a mutual pvp/pve game, you don't mean one that is roughly equal parts pvp and pve, you mean one that caters to both "types" of players?
If so, yeah it doesn't exist because it can't. I guess you could make 2 separate versions of the same game with different mechanics, but then it's not really the same game is it?
that's weird because I remember having tons of big open world pvp battles in swg all the time then unflagging and going and doing whatever pve stuff I wanted to do.
There were bases to fight over, control of space ports, player cities to raid..all manner of pvp that was way better than any of the lame BS that goes on now in mmos AND we never bothered anyone that was just there to pve. You didn't have to pick all one way or the other in that game.
Yeah and that doesn't cater to my playstyle. That's the playstyle you want. So you're being catered to but I'm not. I want a game where there's risk involved in almost everything you do. Farming is boring to me without the risk of losing what I've earned. It forces me to play safe by banking often, or play greedy and risk losing everything.
Why are your posts so often sarcastic and yet so often blatantly wrong?
Your play style is you want to gank pve players. You've all but said it in every post.
In a flagging system you can just flag all the time and have that risk. Flagged you can be attacked at any moment by a player. If anything there is more risk because you never know when it's coming......but that isn't what you want. It isn't the risk to you you're talking about...even though you really want to make it seem that way. It's the ability to ruin someone's day and know it. That is the only missing factor and I'm so sarcastic to you because that style of play is pathetic. It's the worst aspect of pvp and why so many people get sick of dealing with it and give up on mmo pvp.
It isn't about competition or challenging someone elses skills, it's about being a dick to other people. You and your style of play is why you can't find games that cater to what you want. No one wants to make a game called assholes online.
The truth comes out: You're delusional. You were probably traumatized so badly at one point by a griefer that you can't even fathom the idea that nice people enjoy playing in a PVP sandbox. But please don't project it on others like this - it's incredibly rude.
Which part ? the part we talked to death or the graph you found that could be interpreted however you want ? Like does the graph show EQ's population was skyrocketing at the same time and people are well known for jumping ship to the popular game...oh yeah it kind of does. Does it show a game like DAOC launching and becoming a hugely popular pvp game that many people left uo for...oh well it kind of shows that too
Or does it just show a single line that you've read too much into ?
The last part was entertaining for a while the graph is just silly and not worth anyone's time. So which did you mean ?
There are certain types of games that really rely on the existance of certain key mechanics in order for the game to work and provide the type of experience the players were interested in.
For example, how would you make Planetside 2 with players being able to Flag/Unflag as they chose?
Our conversation is about having a game with separate PvE and PvP servers, not turn on and turn off while playing. The conversation is why do FFA PvP players want everyone playing the game to be forced into PvP as opposed to having PvE and PvP servers which are separate so people can play how they wish.
You ignored the most important point made by GrumpyMel2 and left half of their quote out - perhaps on purpose because the facts are inconvenient.
The key message was that the devs waste resources catering to the people who don't want PVP instead of focusing on the full-featured sandbox they set out to.
There are certain types of games that really rely on the existance of certain key mechanics in order for the game to work and provide the type of experience the players were interested in.
For example, how would you make Planetside 2 with players being able to Flag/Unflag as they chose?
Our conversation is about having a game with separate PvE and PvP servers, not turn on and turn off while playing. The conversation is why do FFA PvP players want everyone playing the game to be forced into PvP as opposed to having PvE and PvP servers which are separate so people can play how they wish.
Because that's what FFA means...free for all to engage in PvP all the time. If they didn't want everyone involved, they would simply be pvp players. If you limit the pvp, it is no longer ffa. Therefore, you do not have a game a FFA PVP player would want.
Isn't your real question, why do people who prefer FFA PvP exist?
Comments
Our conversation is about having a game with separate PvE and PvP servers, not turn on and turn off while playing. The conversation is why do FFA PvP players want everyone playing the game to be forced into PvP as opposed to having PvE and PvP servers which are separate so people can play how they wish.
In a world where companies have unlimited resources, technically they could make a game that has everything that anybody could ever want, and then have different servers for different playstyles. They could have fantasy pvp worlds, they could have the same game except non-pvp and a post apocalyptic setting, they could have one that's entirely underwater, etc.
But in reality if a company spends the resources on game mechanics such as city sieging (which has pvp associated with it), that's resources they're not spending on non-pvp stuff. I don't know what else to tell you other than your understanding of how games are made is wrong... and so wrong that I can't believe you're trying to claim it.
Your response did not contain a single rule outside of killing/attacking/looting other players that couldn't work in both a PvE and PvP system.
And I assure you my knowledge is better than yours so maybe actually try to argue the points instead of trying to essentially call someone else stupid. And you also ignored the lead up to that secondary question which discussed how EASY it is to have a city/land control option work in PvE.
Yes and he's saying what would a non-pvp planetside 2 look like?
Look at minecraft. Technically that has "pvp" but if you think a game like that is going to satisfy my desire for a realistic, risky pvp centered game, you're crazy. Even though I love minecraft, the pvp in it is basically non-existent, even if it technically exists.
Best can be exemplified by this picture:
Believe it or not - there are those that like both and would like it in the same game.
There is room for better pvp games. There is room for better pve games. There is room for a better game with both.
I'd assume because the Developer would have to spend 100K+ man/hours of Development resources to essentialy make a new game where the PvE server ruleset would work and provide engaging game-play.
For example....how would you make a PlanetSide 2 or an EvE PvE server without major commitment of Development resources to account for the fact that PvP didn't exist....and still have the PvE version of the game "work" and be engaging enough that anyone would want to play it?
If I were an EvE player...I wouldn't really care if someone made a version of the game that worked on a PvE server (though it really would be an entirely different game). However, I would kinda care if that meant CCP were devoting 100K+ man/hours of Development resources to enhancing the game I was already playing. YMMV.
Maybe it's because I'm not your lap dog and I don't have to post several rulesets that are more/less conducive to pvp than others just because you demand that I do. I gave you one, apparently that wasn't enough for you. Another guy gave you another example of a game that wouldn't work as both a pvp and non-pvp game. Apparently that wasn't enough for you either.
Also, I didn't ignore your point about city building/sieging. Here's an exerpt of what you said:
"The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc"
I responded with the fact that companies don't have infinite resources to do everything for everybody and then simply have different servers for the different groups. It's frankly a stupid idea. But I'll explain it for you again:
Making a SEPARATE system of how cities are built/sieged is a totally different game mechanic and isn't as easy to make as you seem to think. The money they spend on developing that COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MECHANIC is money that's taken away from the pvp-oriented mechanic. So essentially what you're asserting is that game developers just have extra money laying around after their game is as good as it can be and should develop alternate version of their game to suit other people. Lol.....
What do you mean by both? My ideal game WOULD have both pvp and pve. But I have to ask what you mean because somebody else took the idea of having "both" as meaning pvp for those that want it and the ability to turn off pvp for the "pve" side of things.
The game I want is a deep sandbox game with in-depth crafting, fun pvm, and important pvp that affects the world around you, primarily by way of city building and clan politics.
Because that's what FFA means...free for all to engage in PvP all the time. If they didn't want everyone involved, they would simply be pvp players. If you limit the pvp, it is no longer ffa. Therefore, you do not have a game a FFA PVP player would want.
Isn't your real question, why do people who prefer FFA PvP exist?
The answer is, people have opinions.
So essentially we've come to this: You can't cite a single, not even 1, rule outside of harmful acts to other players that can't be developed in both a PvP and PvE system. This means all rules CAN be developed in a PvP and PvE system. This means a game can have quality PvP and PvE servers for the same game with all the same rules on both servers with the exception of the PvP server allowing PvP actions.
In other words, there is absolutely no reason a game needs all of their servers to force PvP and it is simply you wishing to force your desired gameplay on everyone else.
Well done you really proved your point LOL. We all now see that there is no reason to simply have separate servers which is why all major companies approach it that way and none of them make a player repelling open world FFA PvP only game.
Adding in a server flaggable option on in quests/tasks/collections are completed for NPCs to switch the control of land vs having the players attack siege and control is actually very little in the way of extra resources but I know you have absolutely no clue about game development. The land control system is the big time sink, the tie in is much quicker and easier to implement.
Um.... no that isn't even close to my real question.
From the start MMOs have had options where a server has FFA PvP. Everyone on that server HAS to be involved in FFA PvP, there is no option to turn it off when playing that server. That allows FFA PvPers to get exactly what they want. And yes, by having one server like that it is still FFA PvP, everyone on the server is in fact involved. Wanting the other servers to be involved doesn't make it super duper FFA PvP.
Are you delusional? MONEY. Money is the reason. I've already told you this. Why do you say "there is absolutely no reason a game needs all of their servers to force pvp"? I and others have pointed out how this works.... you spend time/money on one thing, you're not spending it on another thing. How do you not understand that?
By the way, some developers will be naturally better at making the pvp aspects and some will be better at making the pve aspects. Remember, a lot of developers are gamers too. So they have their own opinions and visions about how they want their game to turn out. That's why it's better to have DIFFERENT KINDS OF GAMES.
This really isn't hard to understand, you're clearly just too egotistical to admit you're wrong.
@Jeremy,
The other problem on top of that.....even if a Developer had sufficient resources to produce (essentialy) two entirely different rulesets...one which worked for a PvP server and one which worked for a PvE server.....it would generaly be worse for them to do that then producing 2 seperate titles that achieved the same thing.
It dilutes thier marketing message about what the game is. Essentialy with a product you want to deliver a focused message to your target audience about what that product is and how it appeals to them. If they made 2 seperate versions of Planetside 2 (for example), any time they went to market it they'd be turning off half thier potential audience (PvP or PvE) with thier marketing since the audiences have very different expectations of what they want in a game. Better to make 2 actual seperate titles that they can market seperately and avoid the confusion over what sort of experience they are delivering to the player.
So I very much support your conclusion in that regard.
Good point. There are a number of significant reasons, and probably dozens of less significant reasons we haven't even thought of. The bottom line: the industry is the way it is for a reason. It's similar to division of labor. Do what you're good at, and let somebody else do what they're good at.
PvP, PvE, I don't care what you call it. We need something different than the AAA MMOs released over the last 8 years....
I want a sandbox game that has challenges and depth, something that isn't completed / conquered in 3 months of casually playing a couple nights a week.
A game that isn't designed to be played with half my brain asleep, while following glowy arrows, sparkles on a mini map followed by rolling my face across the keyboard as my Avatar effortlessly destroys an army of evil or builds hundreds of suits of armor, potions, etc..
A game that offers player competition in more complex ways than harvesting ore before the next guy causing him to wait for the 15 minute respawn or combat centered around simple Duels or contrived Battlegrounds where everybody wins no matter the outcome.
A game where not everyone gets to be "THE Hero", where people can be individuals defined by accomplishments that aren't guaranteed to every subscriber just for showing up. Accomplishment that show you actually... accomplished something beyond that of an average ordinary player.
A game is that more like a Sym-World of interdependent systems where actions cause reactions and consequences. A place where players impact things outside of their disposable instance.
We have a genre filled with games designed to be an Adventures DayCare center, streamlined, simplified, shortened, documented, automated into a lifeless husk of a Single Player RPG centered around a shared Lobby for entitled Heros that are too lazy to put effort in something they dismiss as "just being a game"....
Do you have any clue what you are talking about? A game may not even HAVE a quests/tasks/collections system. So you'd have to build that from the ground up. Then you'd have to build all the content to fill it.....and you'd probably want ALOT of content to fill it so the players didn't get bored grinding the same handfull of quests to do that. You'd have to build all the ART assets for that content.....and you'd have to find places in the world to locate those objects.....and figure out how to deal with people camping them so others couldn't get with them (and Develop a Customer Service response to those complaints)....or you'd have to build an instancing system for them. Then you'd have to figure out how to handle folks that would be trying to bot them. Then you'd look at balance issues for that content.
Finaly you'd have to look at every other system the seige and land control systems touched to make sure nothing else got broken or affected in an adverse way by switching those mechanics. Oh....and for kicks....you might have to build an A.I. system into your game for mobs, if it previously depended entirely on human opponents as some PvP games do.
Yes, clearly you know much more about Game Development then others here.
Well, with that clarification, I would say, look at that history. They are probably scared their ffa pvp server would become the same ghost town the Zek servers became. They worry that the game would not focus on design for their needs but rather for the 15 servers which were not pvp ffa; as happened with EQ. They want a great game with their play style in mind, a game which would draw enough like-minded individuals to make it viable - a ffa pvp game so great, those of us who shun ffa pvp would convert and become enthralled and mesmerized by a totally new experience more fun than they have had.
Don't get me wrong - I think it is a pipe dream.
Yeah, I hear you on this.
Hmm. well your observation may not be far off the mark.
just because something makes tons of money doesn't mean it is actually "good". Heck, McDonalds is the single highest grossing restaurant in the ENTIRE WORLD but the food quality is still terrible. Just because a large amount of people buy it doesn't make it good, just popular with people who don't care about the quality of product they spend their money on...
The truth comes out: You're delusional. You were probably traumatized so badly at one point by a griefer that you can't even fathom the idea that nice people enjoy playing in a PVP sandbox. But please don't project it on others like this - it's incredibly rude.
Which part ? the part we talked to death or the graph you found that could be interpreted however you want ? Like does the graph show EQ's population was skyrocketing at the same time and people are well known for jumping ship to the popular game...oh yeah it kind of does. Does it show a game like DAOC launching and becoming a hugely popular pvp game that many people left uo for...oh well it kind of shows that too
Or does it just show a single line that you've read too much into ?
The last part was entertaining for a while the graph is just silly and not worth anyone's time. So which did you mean ?
You ignored the most important point made by GrumpyMel2 and left half of their quote out - perhaps on purpose because the facts are inconvenient.
The key message was that the devs waste resources catering to the people who don't want PVP instead of focusing on the full-featured sandbox they set out to.
Hahaha, this is great. I love your blunt style.