Originally posted by Aison2 gear separation is needed. If the gear is the same and pvp gears you faster, every pve player would see himself forced to pvp. Same vice versa.
Which is what happened in WoW -- again -- when they forced PvPers to raid to get the best weapons; or PvErs to endure PvP for quest/holiday achieves (For the Children achieve is bad all around, not only because it makes PvErs cannonfodder, the message it sends [bringing virtual kids into PvP combat and being a b-a-d parent in the process]).
When the PvE and PvP lines are blurred, the devs are doing a disservice to their own server classification system, too.
A raider doesn't want to PvP he loves raiding and questing. A PvPer doesn't want to raid because he likes PvPing. It's different play styles and different means of satisfaction. When the two are mixed, no one is happy.
actually not entirely true.. alot of PvPers enjoy the occasional PvE aswell and i'm pretty sure some PvEers find some pvp entertaining at times aswell.. they both just want to focus more on 1 of the things.. not exclude it entirely
Rest assured, making PvP good is as hard as making good PvE content.
Naw, PvP players are the content, with little need for PvE content. It's why PvP is tacked on so readily in games. Easier to tweak numbers on classes, than spending millions on new art assets and mechanic designs (let alone making even more quests to do as time and lore sinks).
PvE, the content IS the game and the entertainment. Why raids and quest zones take so much development time, compared to tweaking class numbers for a sense of balance.
No, you're not reading what I wrote: "...making PvP good is as hard as making good PvE content." Enabling PvP is easy, making it good is very hard.
For example, Blizzard had a working game fairly early with Starcraft 2, but spent years perfecting it. If PvP is "tacked on" it is not very likely to be very good, is it?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by GeezerGamer It's the Trinity. Tanks have to take very hard Boss hits. Healers have to be able to heal those very hard Boss hits. And typically, there are 2-4 DPSers for every healer so healers performance scale higher and out of proportion to DPS. This ruins PVP balance.
there is and should never b a such thing as pvp balance. attempting "balance" in pvp is what ruins all mmos. a mage should b able to fry a warrior at range in a couple hits. a warrior should b able to slice a mage at melee range in a couple hits. a rogue should b able to one shot a healer from behind. its just how it should b. u start to "balance" classes and make players get different gear just for 1 damn pvp stat and everything is all dicked up. either make a pure pvp game (which we all know wont make it long or if it does its just a niche game) or learn that u can not make a "balanced" game and deal with it.
Not a PvPer, but I could not have said it better. "Balance" and "PvP" do not mix well.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by GeezerGamer It's the Trinity. Tanks have to take very hard Boss hits. Healers have to be able to heal those very hard Boss hits. And typically, there are 2-4 DPSers for every healer so healers performance scale higher and out of proportion to DPS. This ruins PVP balance.
there is and should never b a such thing as pvp balance. attempting "balance" in pvp is what ruins all mmos. a mage should b able to fry a warrior at range in a couple hits. a warrior should b able to slice a mage at melee range in a couple hits. a rogue should b able to one shot a healer from behind. its just how it should b. u start to "balance" classes and make players get different gear just for 1 damn pvp stat and everything is all dicked up. either make a pure pvp game (which we all know wont make it long or if it does its just a niche game) or learn that u can not make a "balanced" game and deal with it.
Not a PvPer, but I could not have said it better. "Balance" and "PvP" do not mix well.
I would actually agree with this. 1 to 1 balance between classes or builds never actually happens. I think "balancing" in an MMO is really just a way to shake things up so people keep trying new stuff though, so the intent is never really to balance players against each other.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Pve and PvP are essentially two different type of games. There is no need to put them together and compromise.
Tell that to people who play EVE Online.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
i'm sorry but this has gone on enough! ofc balance matters even to pve players.. have'nt you ever seen complaints about "this class does more damage than mine plz nerf!) ? it's not only a pvp thing pve players cry just as much dont kid yourselves..
Rest assured, making PvP good is as hard as making good PvE content.
Naw, PvP players are the content, with little need for PvE content. It's why PvP is tacked on so readily in games. Easier to tweak numbers on classes, than spending millions on new art assets and mechanic designs (let alone making even more quests to do as time and lore sinks).
PvE, the content IS the game and the entertainment. Why raids and quest zones take so much development time, compared to tweaking class numbers for a sense of balance.
No, you're not reading what I wrote: "...making PvP good is as hard as making good PvE content." Enabling PvP is easy, making it good is very hard.
For example, Blizzard had a working game fairly early with Starcraft 2, but spent years perfecting it. If PvP is "tacked on" it is not very likely to be very good, is it?
PvP was tacked on in WoW. Yet tacking on PvP in itself isn't the issue...it's blurring the boundaries to have one-size-fits-all content.
Sure, they might make it challenging at times and/or take certain requirements or a specific number of players etc. but PvE is designed to be "winnable" every time.
If PvE is not winnable, it is broken.
PvP, on the other hand, if all things were balanced and all other factors equal, win rate would be 50%.
Like in PvE, player skill, numbers, gear etc. can up your chance of winning greatly, but fundamentally it is an entirely different objective.
Sure, they might make it challenging at times and/or take certain requirements or a specific number of players etc. but PvE is designed to be "winnable" every time.
If PvE is not winnable, it is broken.
PvP, on the other hand, if all things were balanced and all other factors equal, win rate would be 50%.
Like in PvE, player skill, numbers, gear etc. can up your chance of winning greatly, but fundamentally it is an entirely different objective.
I don't see how it is related to the title of this topic.
Originally posted by hallucigenocide i'm sorry but this has gone on enough! ofc balance matters even to pve players.. have'nt you ever seen complaints about "this class does more damage than mine plz nerf!) ? it's not only a pvp thing pve players cry just as much dont kid yourselves..
I have to admit that I have never seen this. What I hear from PvE players is more long the lines of "You built your character wrong. You could be doing more damage of you did *this* build for them."
I do not think I have ever heard a PvE player complain about balance.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Its a consistent topic you can pretty much see in every dedicated wow forum - lack of balance ruins pve, it's that critical hence the constant blue posts and patches.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Pve and PvP are essentially two different type of games. There is no need to put them together and compromise.
Tell that to people who play EVE Online.
Eve is PvP with a little PvE mixed in - NOT THE SAME AT ALL.
Very little. Virtually none. Just because you can mine some asteroids and fight a couple of AI pirates, that's not a PvE game.
He didn't say it was a PVE game. It's a game with both PvP and PvE, the latter being the most common.
IMO, the most engaging PvP MMOs are the ones where only about a third or less of the playerbase is engaging in the PvP part. The rest is PvE and social content that provides the economy, points of conflict, gathering hub, and world environment that the PvPers vie for control of.
Some examples would be
UO
EVE
Puzzle Pirates
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Pve and PvP are essentially two different type of games. There is no need to put them together and compromise.
Tell that to people who play EVE Online.
Eve is PvP with a little PvE mixed in - NOT THE SAME AT ALL.
Very little. Virtually none. Just because you can mine some asteroids and fight a couple of AI pirates, that's not a PvE game.
He didn't say it was a PVE game. It's a game with both PvP and PvE, the latter being the most common.
IMO, the most engaging PvP MMOs are the ones where only about a third or less of the playerbase is engaging in the PvP part. The rest is PvE and social content that provides the economy, points of conflict, gathering hub, and world environment that the PvPers vie for control of.
Some examples would be
UO
EVE
Puzzle Pirates
I honestly dont' mind UO, EvE, Puzzle pirates and what not. But that's exactly why I dont' think it work.
For example I also enjoy raids, instanced dungeon etc. I honestly dont' want to be in the middle of some it and hola, some pvp players run in and start ganking me.
Honestly just keep it seperate. I remember wanting to do dungeons with friends, but simply can't because of pvp reasons when I play warhammer online.
I just liked the way Anarchy Online did it: Optional but within the world, with zones that 100% suppression gas, so noone could PvP, 75% where you could flag yourself (that's why many people were fighting in shops in Borealis), 50% playfileds where you could attack the other factions and 0% where it was FFA, most areas were 75% though. So you could watch them fight (Ok, RPG wise it is rather... Let's say I'd expect guards to step in) and join, or just keep your way. There were tower fileds for PvP fights that were open every X hours to conquer and in the end an arena PvP orbital station.
Main problem is there are two things that exclude each other, so there is no way to compromise. You can only have one FFA ecludes the option to opt out of PvP and pure PvE excludes the option to attack everyone everywhere. So none of the two extremes will ever be happy. All in between is a matter of preferences. I myself like the choice if to attend to PvP, or not. if it is in an open world, or an arena... Nevermind. I jsut want to have fun and at least somewhat a feeling of contributing and not onyl being sheep for slaughter.
Still I can't see why the Full PvP crowd is obsessed to have PvEers for slaughter that do not offer a fight anyway and are not interested.
Originally posted by hallucigenocide i'm sorry but this has gone on enough! ofc balance matters even to pve players.. have'nt you ever seen complaints about "this class does more damage than mine plz nerf!) ? it's not only a pvp thing pve players cry just as much dont kid yourselves..
I have to admit that I have never seen this. What I hear from PvE players is more long the lines of "You built your character wrong. You could be doing more damage of you did *this* build for them."
I do not think I have ever heard a PvE player complain about balance.
:-)
It's not the balance they are complaining about, it's the fact that their characters are no longer top on the DPS charts that they complain about. Hunters did not complain when their Beastmaster spec'd toons were the top of the charts, but when the great BM Nerf happened, hoo boy did they get loud. Most complaints from other players about hunters centered around PvP. Mostly rogues. Heh. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Sure, they might make it challenging at times and/or take certain requirements or a specific number of players etc. but PvE is designed to be "winnable" every time.
If PvE is not winnable, it is broken.
PvP, on the other hand, if all things were balanced and all other factors equal, win rate would be 50%.
Like in PvE, player skill, numbers, gear etc. can up your chance of winning greatly, but fundamentally it is an entirely different objective.
I don't see how it is related to the title of this topic.
It highlights some of the different goals between designing for PvE and PvP. It highlights some of the different player expectations between PvE and PvP. PvE and PvP players are two different markets.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Pve and PvP are essentially two different type of games. There is no need to put them together and compromise.
Tell that to people who play EVE Online.
Eve is PvP with a little PvE mixed in - NOT THE SAME AT ALL.
Very little. Virtually none. Just because you can mine some asteroids and fight a couple of AI pirates, that's not a PvE game.
It really depends what you call pve. Trading and Crafting is Big in EvE. But yeah.. you could call that PvP. On the other hand there are a lot of Missions in EvE nowadays even Raidlike Missions. So it isn't as bad as it may look at first glance.
But yeah.. the focus of EvE is of course Player Interaction.. and most of it is based around Player vs. Player Interaction.
@Loko: You are right.. but thats somewhat the point that a lot of pve activities are part of the meta PvP game.. like Trading and Crafting.. and the same was true for UO. There are not a lot of Raid like activities in those kind of games.. but i think those activities are best placed in PvE only games anyways, because of the problematic gear grind and withit the balance issues for player vs. player.
And that is one core problem. There a few activities which just don'T work well together. Big Raiding and big gear progression is just not good for any pvp. On the other side without big gear progression you don't have any incentive for raiding.
Crafting and Trading on the other hand is better placed in a more pvp focused game. You can't make crafting and trading the most important source of gear in a gear grinding game with raids.. although Crafting and Trading is usally more of a PvE activity.
There are other examples which don't work well together. And therefore game designers have to focus on what they want, be it PvE(only), PvP(only), PvP and PvE mixed, more of a virtual world, more of a lobby experience, or whatever.. not every feature can be realized to their fullest potential with other conflicting features.
I'm sure the answer is because it's hard to balance, or people either like one or the other in their MMO.
But, one thing I dislike the most in most modern MMO's is the separation of PvP from PvE. I hate instanced PvP because it feels like I'm play a separate game which to me voids the whole point of an MMO world. Games like UO, AC1 (DT) and even SWG to an extant had open world PvP with no separation of the two, and these game gave me the most fun.
I just wish more MMO's would do this, and from what I'm hearing EQN will be , or at least I hope so.
/endrant
Mostly because most players have a low tolerance for getting ganked over and over again while they try to leave the starter zone to get some questing done.
And in turn the ones doing the ganking/griefing get horribly bored if they get stuck with their own kind and they can't get any good crying from their victims.
And besides, most MMO's have PvP servers for those that truly want a full PvP experience - which of course doesn't make some happy either when they just want to gank/grief those that they know wouldn't be happy with it.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
Sure, they might make it challenging at times and/or take certain requirements or a specific number of players etc. but PvE is designed to be "winnable" every time.
If PvE is not winnable, it is broken.
PvP, on the other hand, if all things were balanced and all other factors equal, win rate would be 50%.
Like in PvE, player skill, numbers, gear etc. can up your chance of winning greatly, but fundamentally it is an entirely different objective.
I don't see how it is related to the title of this topic.
It highlights some of the different goals between designing for PvE and PvP. It highlights some of the different player expectations between PvE and PvP. PvE and PvP players are two different markets.
In all honestly there are more than just two different markets. PvE is not PvE and the same is true for PvP. There are so many flavours in PvE and in PvP.. some work together other don't. Some will even profit from each other, some not. It is really much to simple to seperate just PvP and PvE.. especially as some PvP gameplay elements profit from some PvE elements, exactly as some PvE elements profit from some PvP elements.. crafting and trading would be most probably the prime examples.
There is only one logical reason why PvPers can't accept seperate rule-set servers. They want the ability to kill people, especially those that would rather not PvP.
Roleplayers don't try to force their play style on other players. No they go and play on their own rule-set server.
Typical pve player response. PvP players can't accept seperate rule set servers, because in most cases the developer don't care to make any pvp content for those ruleset servers.
It would be exactly the same if a pvp only game exist and you would make up a new server just with the pvp flag off. But no whatsoever pve content. No raiding, no quests, no nothing.. i guess that would suck for pve players, too? So please don't be as simple minded.
I really await the first game where a seperate pvp rule set server actually does have real pvp content and is worth called a pvp mmo.. didn't happen up to now.
Originally posted by RaSungod The best system I've seen that makes everyone happy is opt in / opt out PvP with TEF flags. That, in my opinion, is the best way to open PvP up to the whole server, while letting people who want to play PvE do so without being bothered. It allowed me to PvP when I was in the mood, or PvE / non-combat play, when I wasn't.
No this sucks, it does NOT make the PvPer happy... it might make some pver who likes to pvp once in a while happy, but it completely fucks up the open world pvp experience
I'm not referring to a pure pvp game, obviously. I'm referring to games where PvE players are inevitable and some want nothing to do with PvP, while others only want PvP sometimes. You need a system that makes everyone happy. If you expect pure PvP, good luck with that in today's world. Super-niche at best.
There are very good PvP only games on the market already. Games like Call of Duty, Battlefield 4 ...
Yeah.. and they are really massive, right? Have a lot of different roles and tactics, right? Have real pvp objectives like a pvp influenced economy, right? I can't understandn why pvp players even complain...
I have two questions. 1) Why is it so important to the PvP players that the PvE players participate in PvP, when they just don't want to? 2) Why do the PvP players persist in thinking that it's just "balance" or "consequences" that makes PvP something PvE players do not want to participate in?
1) We don't care about PvE only players only interested in raiding and gear grind.
1a) But we do like a living breathing world, we do like that our pvp do have consequences on the world, we do like to have a ingame economy influenced be pvp, we do like to have immersion.
And that means we want to have a strong crafting system, we want to have a strong trading(between players, and optimally with local resources and local trading), we want to have some kind of pve in our games.. not because we want that some pve player(those raiding and gear grind type of pve players) come in, much more because we do like to have some activity apart from constant combat. And we actually enjoy more of a virtual world.
And that means that there is a place for some pve only player, and we do like that they enjoy their playstyle, but without affecting our playstyle.
And point 2) is the solution to get that kind of pvp mmo, a lot of pvp player enjoy, to work. To have good consequences, to have good balance, to have a good balanced risk vs. reward.. that the lessons we learned from games of the past, like UO, like EvE Online and other.
Originally posted by Aison2 gear separation is needed. If the gear is the same and pvp gears you faster, every pve player would see himself forced to pvp. Same vice versa.
Which is what happened in WoW -- again -- when they forced PvPers to raid to get the best weapons; or PvErs to endure PvP for quest/holiday achieves (For the Children achieve is bad all around, not only because it makes PvErs cannonfodder, the message it sends [bringing virtual kids into PvP combat and being a b-a-d parent in the process]).
When the PvE and PvP lines are blurred, the devs are doing a disservice to their own server classification system, too.
A raider doesn't want to PvP he loves raiding and questing. A PvPer doesn't want to raid because he likes PvPing. It's different play styles and different means of satisfaction. When the two are mixed, no one is happy.
I absolutely agree.. and WoW was always horrible as a pvp game.. maybe it would be better for everyone, if they let pvp completely out.
Comments
actually not entirely true.. alot of PvPers enjoy the occasional PvE aswell and i'm pretty sure some PvEers find some pvp entertaining at times aswell.. they both just want to focus more on 1 of the things.. not exclude it entirely
I had fun once, it was terrible.
No, you're not reading what I wrote: "...making PvP good is as hard as making good PvE content." Enabling PvP is easy, making it good is very hard.
For example, Blizzard had a working game fairly early with Starcraft 2, but spent years perfecting it. If PvP is "tacked on" it is not very likely to be very good, is it?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I would actually agree with this. 1 to 1 balance between classes or builds never actually happens. I think "balancing" in an MMO is really just a way to shake things up so people keep trying new stuff though, so the intent is never really to balance players against each other.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Tell that to people who play EVE Online.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Eve is PvP with a little PvE mixed in - NOT THE SAME AT ALL.
I had fun once, it was terrible.
PvP was tacked on in WoW. Yet tacking on PvP in itself isn't the issue...it's blurring the boundaries to have one-size-fits-all content.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
PvE the player is designed to win. Every time.
Sure, they might make it challenging at times and/or take certain requirements or a specific number of players etc. but PvE is designed to be "winnable" every time.
If PvE is not winnable, it is broken.
PvP, on the other hand, if all things were balanced and all other factors equal, win rate would be 50%.
Like in PvE, player skill, numbers, gear etc. can up your chance of winning greatly, but fundamentally it is an entirely different objective.
Very little. Virtually none. Just because you can mine some asteroids and fight a couple of AI pirates, that's not a PvE game.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I don't see how it is related to the title of this topic.
I do not think I have ever heard a PvE player complain about balance.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
He didn't say it was a PVE game. It's a game with both PvP and PvE, the latter being the most common.
IMO, the most engaging PvP MMOs are the ones where only about a third or less of the playerbase is engaging in the PvP part. The rest is PvE and social content that provides the economy, points of conflict, gathering hub, and world environment that the PvPers vie for control of.
Some examples would be
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I honestly dont' mind UO, EvE, Puzzle pirates and what not. But that's exactly why I dont' think it work.
For example I also enjoy raids, instanced dungeon etc. I honestly dont' want to be in the middle of some it and hola, some pvp players run in and start ganking me.
Honestly just keep it seperate. I remember wanting to do dungeons with friends, but simply can't because of pvp reasons when I play warhammer online.
I just liked the way Anarchy Online did it: Optional but within the world, with zones that 100% suppression gas, so noone could PvP, 75% where you could flag yourself (that's why many people were fighting in shops in Borealis), 50% playfileds where you could attack the other factions and 0% where it was FFA, most areas were 75% though. So you could watch them fight (Ok, RPG wise it is rather... Let's say I'd expect guards to step in) and join, or just keep your way. There were tower fileds for PvP fights that were open every X hours to conquer and in the end an arena PvP orbital station.
Main problem is there are two things that exclude each other, so there is no way to compromise. You can only have one FFA ecludes the option to opt out of PvP and pure PvE excludes the option to attack everyone everywhere. So none of the two extremes will ever be happy. All in between is a matter of preferences. I myself like the choice if to attend to PvP, or not. if it is in an open world, or an arena... Nevermind. I jsut want to have fun and at least somewhat a feeling of contributing and not onyl being sheep for slaughter.
Still I can't see why the Full PvP crowd is obsessed to have PvEers for slaughter that do not offer a fight anyway and are not interested.
:-)
It's not the balance they are complaining about, it's the fact that their characters are no longer top on the DPS charts that they complain about. Hunters did not complain when their Beastmaster spec'd toons were the top of the charts, but when the great BM Nerf happened, hoo boy did they get loud. Most complaints from other players about hunters centered around PvP. Mostly rogues. Heh. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It highlights some of the different goals between designing for PvE and PvP. It highlights some of the different player expectations between PvE and PvP. PvE and PvP players are two different markets.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It really depends what you call pve. Trading and Crafting is Big in EvE. But yeah.. you could call that PvP. On the other hand there are a lot of Missions in EvE nowadays even Raidlike Missions. So it isn't as bad as it may look at first glance.
But yeah.. the focus of EvE is of course Player Interaction.. and most of it is based around Player vs. Player Interaction.
@Loko: You are right.. but thats somewhat the point that a lot of pve activities are part of the meta PvP game.. like Trading and Crafting.. and the same was true for UO. There are not a lot of Raid like activities in those kind of games.. but i think those activities are best placed in PvE only games anyways, because of the problematic gear grind and withit the balance issues for player vs. player.
And that is one core problem. There a few activities which just don'T work well together. Big Raiding and big gear progression is just not good for any pvp. On the other side without big gear progression you don't have any incentive for raiding.
Crafting and Trading on the other hand is better placed in a more pvp focused game. You can't make crafting and trading the most important source of gear in a gear grinding game with raids.. although Crafting and Trading is usally more of a PvE activity.
There are other examples which don't work well together. And therefore game designers have to focus on what they want, be it PvE(only), PvP(only), PvP and PvE mixed, more of a virtual world, more of a lobby experience, or whatever.. not every feature can be realized to their fullest potential with other conflicting features.
Mostly because most players have a low tolerance for getting ganked over and over again while they try to leave the starter zone to get some questing done.
And in turn the ones doing the ganking/griefing get horribly bored if they get stuck with their own kind and they can't get any good crying from their victims.
And besides, most MMO's have PvP servers for those that truly want a full PvP experience - which of course doesn't make some happy either when they just want to gank/grief those that they know wouldn't be happy with it.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
In all honestly there are more than just two different markets. PvE is not PvE and the same is true for PvP. There are so many flavours in PvE and in PvP.. some work together other don't. Some will even profit from each other, some not. It is really much to simple to seperate just PvP and PvE.. especially as some PvP gameplay elements profit from some PvE elements, exactly as some PvE elements profit from some PvP elements.. crafting and trading would be most probably the prime examples.
Typical pve player response. PvP players can't accept seperate rule set servers, because in most cases the developer don't care to make any pvp content for those ruleset servers.
It would be exactly the same if a pvp only game exist and you would make up a new server just with the pvp flag off. But no whatsoever pve content. No raiding, no quests, no nothing.. i guess that would suck for pve players, too? So please don't be as simple minded.
I really await the first game where a seperate pvp rule set server actually does have real pvp content and is worth called a pvp mmo.. didn't happen up to now.
Yeah.. and they are really massive, right? Have a lot of different roles and tactics, right? Have real pvp objectives like a pvp influenced economy, right? I can't understandn why pvp players even complain...
OMFG.
1) We don't care about PvE only players only interested in raiding and gear grind.
1a) But we do like a living breathing world, we do like that our pvp do have consequences on the world, we do like to have a ingame economy influenced be pvp, we do like to have immersion.
And that means we want to have a strong crafting system, we want to have a strong trading(between players, and optimally with local resources and local trading), we want to have some kind of pve in our games.. not because we want that some pve player(those raiding and gear grind type of pve players) come in, much more because we do like to have some activity apart from constant combat. And we actually enjoy more of a virtual world.
And that means that there is a place for some pve only player, and we do like that they enjoy their playstyle, but without affecting our playstyle.
And point 2) is the solution to get that kind of pvp mmo, a lot of pvp player enjoy, to work. To have good consequences, to have good balance, to have a good balanced risk vs. reward.. that the lessons we learned from games of the past, like UO, like EvE Online and other.
I absolutely agree.. and WoW was always horrible as a pvp game.. maybe it would be better for everyone, if they let pvp completely out.