WoW has always had Wpvp. Best selling game ever. Ever stop to think that possibly why the newer games have been failing left and right is because they don't have Wpvp?
If you want to see the damage pve only guy can do, take a look at Ever Quest Next Landmark. His AAA pure pve only "sandb0x" literally has 2-4 players per server.
You may have a point. Looking at WoW's server populations,
In other words, 70% of the top 10 most populated realms are PVP.
And how many servers are there for each type? May be there are a lot fewer pvp servers so they have to be more crowded.
It is the total pop that matters, not whether a few servers that are very crowded.
WoW's population isn't very well distributed anymore. With server transfers, the majority of the NA population is gathering to those top 10 servers. The top 10 serves now account for 2.25 Mil players while the next top 10 most populated servers make up about 1 Mil. I think the sample size is works.
I only went to that link because I didn't believe what BC said. What I found actually supported his post.
If you ask me, there is a strong mentality in WoW that says, "If I can make it on a PVP server, then I'm an elite." For those players, I don't think it's the PVP that attracts them, it's the bragging rights about being on a PVP server.
What it really goes to show is that " most" people want both in their game. WoW is a terrible example for this question because you have no way of knowing how many people play on multiple servers.
Many of the people I raided with had alt characters on PvP servers and only played them when they wanted to goof off doing that. How do you quantify that when asking the OPs question because how would you know if they'd be playing wow at all if they didn't offer the PvE server that all those people have mains on ? Are the pvp servers populated like they are because when people roll alts they pick the most popular one and when they raid with their guild they're still on one of the smaller servers ? Or how many started on a PvE server and eased into the pvp servers. A pvp only game wouldn't offer that transition.
Logical fallacies are easy to make but don't prove anything.
We do have some objective information, and you're right. It's in what the developers are doing. Smaller scale OW PvP based MMORPGs, much larger scale games based around ideas that are not OW PvP. OW PvP will exist, but it won't be the baseline mechanic in the game. Get outside of MMORPGs and you'll find a lot of games based around PvP and OW PvP. But they aren't MMORPGs. Developers know something we don't.
My take it is the focus. I bet players don't like to engage in multiple game types at the same time. Either they are in the mood for pve, and they want to focus on that, or they want to pvp .. and they focus on that.
Hence, there are a lot of pvp games that you do nothing but pvp. All shooters, in fact, are "OW" pvp .. since that is all they do in a level.
Sorry but thats just ignorant... all those pvp games are not "OPEN WORLD" pvp but INSTANCED pvp since all the people playing dont see each other on a persistent map, they just have instances of 12 vs 12, etc.
I for one, enjoy having my PvE mixed with the PvP, having to watch your back and having to defend your spawn make a mindless drone grinding task into something exciting...
Is really true that there isn't enough fans of ow pvp in the world to sustain and give profit to a big budget MMO?
You're asking the wrong question. Are there enough people that want to do the other activities necessary to make it an engaging MMORPG experience in an OW PVP world to sustain and give profit to a big budget MMO?
Not really.
I think there could be but some of the PvP's wouldn't be happy.
And then they return to their guild/clan/PVP/gaming channels to loudly share their disdain for how the game isn't 'real' PVP and how it's dumbed down, carebear, lame, gay, for the masses, or whatever other derogatory term they are using that week for why they aren't allowed to verbally abuse and violently rape anyone and everyone with complete lack of penalty or consequence to their actions. But that's the smallest of the hurdles, really.
The ultimate open world PVP game is a game where combat is the only activity or a game where only a fraction of the game is PVP. Once a game start involving other actions or gameplay paths beyond unadulterated killing sprees it needs to establish areas where those paths can be engaged in an enjoyable manner, and for many a big part of 'enjoyable' is relative safety.
It's disenchanting that this is even a question, but we have gotten so used to default MMO gameplay being KillLootLevel - as if that EVER was a requirement - that the obvious answer to the OP's question is almost alien.
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
WoW has always had Wpvp. Best selling game ever. Ever stop to think that possibly why the newer games have been failing left and right is because they don't have Wpvp?
If you want to see the damage pve only guy can do, take a look at Ever Quest Next Landmark. His AAA pure pve only "sandb0x" literally has 2-4 players per server.
You may have a point. Looking at WoW's server populations,
In other words, 70% of the top 10 most populated realms are PVP.
And how many servers are there for each type? May be there are a lot fewer pvp servers so they have to be more crowded.
It is the total pop that matters, not whether a few servers that are very crowded.
WoW's population isn't very well distributed anymore. With server transfers, the majority of the NA population is gathering to those top 10 servers. The top 10 serves now account for 2.25 Mil players while the next top 10 most populated servers make up about 1 Mil. I think the sample size is works.
I only went to that link because I didn't believe what BC said. What I found actually supported his post.
If you ask me, there is a strong mentality in WoW that says, "If I can make it on a PVP server, then I'm an elite." For those players, I don't think it's the PVP that attracts them, it's the bragging rights about being on a PVP server.
What it really goes to show is that " most" people want both in their game. WoW is a terrible example for this question because you have no way of knowing how many people play on multiple servers.
Many of the people I raided with had alt characters on PvP servers and only played them when they wanted to goof off doing that. How do you quantify that when asking the OPs question because how would you know if they'd be playing wow at all if they didn't offer the PvE server that all those people have mains on ? Are the pvp servers populated like they are because when people roll alts they pick the most popular one and when they raid with their guild they're still on one of the smaller servers ? Or how many started on a PvE server and eased into the pvp servers. A pvp only game wouldn't offer that transition.
Logical fallacies are easy to make but don't prove anything.
I never said I bought into that theroy that OWPVP is what people want in WoW. In fact, I tried to say that there are other reasons why players roll on PVP servers. For what it's worth, I completely agree with what you just said. I just thought it was interesting when I went to look, how popular PVP servers are in WoW. In fact, I thought that, in and of itself was kind of strange. As I said previously, I had actually doubted BC's claim. But it's still interesting to look at. And yes, I agree, there are more factors than just players wanting OWPVP.
For me, I like PVP, but on my terms. I've always felt I was in the majority on that one.
Is really true that there isn't enough fans of ow pvp in the world to sustain and give profit to a big budget MMO?
You're asking the wrong question. Are there enough people that want to do the other activities necessary to make it an engaging MMORPG experience in an OW PVP world to sustain and give profit to a big budget MMO?
Not really.
I think there could be but some of the PvP's wouldn't be happy.
And then they return to their guild/clan/PVP/gaming channels to loudly share their disdain for how the game isn't 'real' PVP and how it's dumbed down, carebear, lame, gay, for the masses, or whatever other derogatory term they are using that week for why they aren't allowed to verbally abuse and violently rape anyone and everyone with complete lack of penalty or consequence to their actions. But that's the smallest of the hurdles, really.
The ultimate open world PVP game is a game where combat is the only activity or a game where only a fraction of the game is PVP. Once a game start involving other actions or gameplay paths beyond unadulterated killing sprees it needs to establish areas where those paths can be engaged in an enjoyable manner, and for many a big part of 'enjoyable' is relative safety.
It's disenchanting that this is even a question, but we have gotten so used to default MMO gameplay being KillLootLevel - as if that EVER was a requirement - that the obvious answer to the OP's question is almost alien.
Or you make undesired PvPer's held accountable. The Wolf, sheep dog and sheep scenario never works because the wolves can't be stopped long term. The trick is having a balance between freedom and punishment for unnecessary killing.
I don't understand why I keep seeing this comment: "I don't understand why pvpers insist that a game be OW/FFA pvp."
Seriously?
Here's some questions,
i don't understand why some people like skinny jeans.
I don't understand why some people like cats.
I don't understand why some people like canned vegetables.
I don't understand why some people like Justin Bieber.
I wonder if the answer could be that as individuals we like different things.
So I have to ask, why are so many people who don't like pvp so frigging concerned about whether or not a game offers it for those that do. So much so that when a game does offer it, many will actually demand it be removed. They're doing it with AA, they do it with EVE, they did it in lineage 2.
You guys don't have enough shitty pve games to play?
I don't understand why I keep seeing this comment: "I don't understand why pvpers insist that a game be OW/FFA pvp."
Seriously?
Hers some questions,
i don't understand why some people like skinny jeans.
I don't understand why some people like cats.
I don't understand why some people like canned vegetables.
I don't understand why some people like Justin Bieber.
I wonder if the answer could be that as individuals we like different things.
So I have to ask, why are so many people who don't like pvp so frigging concerned about whether or not a game offers it for those that do. So much so that when a game does offer it, many will actually demand it be removed. They're doing it with AA, they do it with EVE, they did it in lineage 2.
You guys don't have enough shitty pve games to play?
Hmm is it true that there are not enough pvp players world wide for such an mmo? Yes there are however, it's a harder market to target and design around accurately. Particularly for developers who "design by focus group" or "follow market trends".
The pvp side of the house is every bit as diverse as the pve side, the OP specifically stated OW/pvp but that is not even close to all the available/possible pvp types. And just like various types of pve systems witch are typically mutually exclusive; the same hold true for various pvp styles. The 1st trap most developers often land themselves in they either by intent or in-action market towards all styles of pvp. They then get this confused look on their face when they find out hey they want different styles of play.
The 2nd is that multiplayer pvp of all types has been around long before mmos, and will in all likelihood outlast the genre. Pvpers don't NEED an mmo to get a multiplayer pvp rush. Whatever their poison their are multiple titles released every year to cater to it. Something a lot of mmo developers tend to forget is that, unlike an rpger who only has one avenue for an multiplayer rpg experience pvpers are not a captive audience.
the third most common hurdle is mmo developers in particular are overly reliant on "always developing" mentality. Pvp balance in mmo's is like some cult magic to a lot of developers, very few avoid getting stuck in "endless balance passes" Unlike a raid boss or dungeon or quest a couple of #'s can't be tweaked, an invisible wall placed/removed, players "funneled" towards certain things. Pvp on the other hand by it's very nature and the people it attracts thrives on dynamic changes in flow and pure competition. The more direct involvement post launch a developer feels the need to utilize; generally correlates to how well it was thought out/balanced before hand. And as noted above pvpers don't have to stick around to wait for you to get your ____ together.
Personally I enjoy pvp, tac sims, flight sims, fps, rts. However I never bother with an mmo's take on it. It is generally too pathetic to contemplate for me.
Comments
What it really goes to show is that " most" people want both in their game. WoW is a terrible example for this question because you have no way of knowing how many people play on multiple servers.
Many of the people I raided with had alt characters on PvP servers and only played them when they wanted to goof off doing that. How do you quantify that when asking the OPs question because how would you know if they'd be playing wow at all if they didn't offer the PvE server that all those people have mains on ? Are the pvp servers populated like they are because when people roll alts they pick the most popular one and when they raid with their guild they're still on one of the smaller servers ? Or how many started on a PvE server and eased into the pvp servers. A pvp only game wouldn't offer that transition.
Logical fallacies are easy to make but don't prove anything.
Sorry but thats just ignorant... all those pvp games are not "OPEN WORLD" pvp but INSTANCED pvp since all the people playing dont see each other on a persistent map, they just have instances of 12 vs 12, etc.
I for one, enjoy having my PvE mixed with the PvP, having to watch your back and having to defend your spawn make a mindless drone grinding task into something exciting...
And then they return to their guild/clan/PVP/gaming channels to loudly share their disdain for how the game isn't 'real' PVP and how it's dumbed down, carebear, lame, gay, for the masses, or whatever other derogatory term they are using that week for why they aren't allowed to verbally abuse and violently rape anyone and everyone with complete lack of penalty or consequence to their actions. But that's the smallest of the hurdles, really.
The ultimate open world PVP game is a game where combat is the only activity or a game where only a fraction of the game is PVP. Once a game start involving other actions or gameplay paths beyond unadulterated killing sprees it needs to establish areas where those paths can be engaged in an enjoyable manner, and for many a big part of 'enjoyable' is relative safety.
It's disenchanting that this is even a question, but we have gotten so used to default MMO gameplay being KillLootLevel - as if that EVER was a requirement - that the obvious answer to the OP's question is almost alien.
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 never said I bought into that theroy that OWPVP is what people want in WoW. In fact, I tried to say that there are other reasons why players roll on PVP servers. For what it's worth, I completely agree with what you just said. I just thought it was interesting when I went to look, how popular PVP servers are in WoW. In fact, I thought that, in and of itself was kind of strange. As I said previously, I had actually doubted BC's claim. But it's still interesting to look at. And yes, I agree, there are more factors than just players wanting OWPVP.
For me, I like PVP, but on my terms. I've always felt I was in the majority on that one.
Or you make undesired PvPer's held accountable. The Wolf, sheep dog and sheep scenario never works because the wolves can't be stopped long term. The trick is having a balance between freedom and punishment for unnecessary killing.
I don't understand why I keep seeing this comment: "I don't understand why pvpers insist that a game be OW/FFA pvp."
Seriously?
Here's some questions,
i don't understand why some people like skinny jeans.
I don't understand why some people like cats.
I don't understand why some people like canned vegetables.
I don't understand why some people like Justin Bieber.
I wonder if the answer could be that as individuals we like different things.
So I have to ask, why are so many people who don't like pvp so frigging concerned about whether or not a game offers it for those that do. So much so that when a game does offer it, many will actually demand it be removed. They're doing it with AA, they do it with EVE, they did it in lineage 2.
You guys don't have enough shitty pve games to play?
Ewww skinny jeans.
Hmm is it true that there are not enough pvp players world wide for such an mmo?
Yes there are however, it's a harder market to target and design around accurately.
Particularly for developers who "design by focus group" or "follow market trends".
The pvp side of the house is every bit as diverse as the pve side, the OP specifically stated OW/pvp but that is not even close to all the available/possible pvp types. And just like various types of pve systems witch are typically mutually exclusive; the same hold true for various pvp styles. The 1st trap most developers often land themselves in they either by intent or in-action market towards all styles of pvp. They then get this confused look on their face when they find out hey they want different styles of play.
The 2nd is that multiplayer pvp of all types has been around long before mmos, and will in all likelihood outlast the genre. Pvpers don't NEED an mmo to get a multiplayer pvp rush. Whatever their poison their are multiple titles released every year to cater to it. Something a lot of mmo developers tend to forget is that, unlike an rpger who only has one avenue for an multiplayer rpg experience pvpers are not a captive audience.
the third most common hurdle is mmo developers in particular are overly reliant on "always developing" mentality. Pvp balance in mmo's is like some cult magic to a lot of developers, very few avoid getting stuck in "endless balance passes" Unlike a raid boss or dungeon or quest a couple of #'s can't be tweaked, an invisible wall placed/removed, players "funneled" towards certain things. Pvp on the other hand by it's very nature and the people it attracts thrives on dynamic changes in flow and pure competition. The more direct involvement post launch a developer feels the need to utilize; generally correlates to how well it was thought out/balanced before hand. And as noted above pvpers don't have to stick around to wait for you to get your ____ together.
Personally I enjoy pvp, tac sims, flight sims, fps, rts. However I never bother with an mmo's take on it. It is generally too pathetic to contemplate for me.