Originally posted by Kyleran Most people prefer PVP that is more akin to an organized team sport rather than open world warfare, something to do with fairness and all that.
Yeah people like to test their skills against others. I can't really say it's fun to get blown up due to focus fire or massive amounts of AoE from the bigger zerg.
I suppose if collision detection and friendly fire were implemented then open world warfare might become a lot more interesting. But most MMO's design combat so that you can swing a weapon through your team and everyone can pile in, and there is little care about where an AoE hits because it won't kill your guys. That kind of stuff could help.
I enjoy massive open world RvR/PvP. These days I have a lot more fun in GW2's WvW than I do in WoW's BG's and Arenas. And don't get me started with Ashran, it's a glorified PvE raid zone. It's simply harder to do massive PvP right, because it's hard to balance it. Why is it hard to balance large scale PvP? Because of us, people...gamers are fickle. When people start to lose, very few have what it takes to tough it out. Majority jump to the winning team, thus making the balance worse.
This happened during DAOC, happened in WAR, happened in GW2, happening in WoW at the moment where horde PvP players jumped to alliance side during WoD expansion, happened in ESO. Unless gaming companies can find a way to stop people from jumping ship, it'll always be hard to balance massive PvP to make it more fair & balanced.
And it's because of this, some prefer to turtle into smaller 10-15min games like WoW's instanced BG's and arenas. Even though when you talk to people, they don't really like it, but it's an easy way to get gear. There used to be a realm pide thing with WoW, no longer the case, nobody gives a crap anymore. Out of any AV match with 40 players, roughly only 8-10 people that'll try to do the right things, while rest are filled with either bots or people that just want the matches to end so they could get rewarded. Yes, rewarded for losing, it breeds cancer, it gets people lazy.
So it's not players don't like massive PvP, it's that not many games have done it right, or gave it a fair shot. Blizzard did it with Wintergrasp, and look at how popular it was when it was the thing. It was always full, packed with players whenever the matches start. GW2 is doing a fairly good job with WvW except their match system is whacked, they have too many servers with low WvW representation that are matched up with servers with large rep. This causes balance issues. But for the most part it's still fun when you play in a T1/T2 server where you can enjoy massive PvP all the time.
Bottom line is, it's not that people don't like massive PvP. Too many gamers these days are just spoiled by easy gear provided by these short, instanced PvP where they are rewarded even for losing. Path to least resistance, it's always a thing with gamers as they choose the easy way out.
Played: EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-LOTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO-BDO Waiting For: CU & Vanilla WoW
Originally posted by filmoret Personally I love massive pvp but for some reason its a niche thing that doesn't appear to be growing very well. At first glance people usually just scream zergfest then cry and run away and goto a forum and write a post in utter despair. Having played Rift's 180 person fights and actually paying attention to what was happening you could see group organization and tactics. Same thing for GW2 but one can easily get bored of the player stacking that occurs. But for someone to cry about ESO's cyrodiil just boggles my mind altogether. What are people expecting from massive warfare? You get rewards for winning and using strategies and tactics trump a mindless zerg any day. Yet people will continually write articles about how zergy and crappy and pointless it all is.
OP, I just want to know if you are EP, Thornblade NA.
If you are DC or even AD, then I would like to hear more about how you use tactics successfully during the red zerg nightcapping sessions.
I love PvP when it is fun and, for the most part, works.
I don't play PvP too often and it has nothing to do with zergs. It has every thing to do with the jackasses that pop their collars and proclaim to be the most hardcoriest of all the hardcore.
This is the main reason I tend to stay away from PvP. It has nothing to do with being beat, that is going to happen in PvP. It isn't even the beating of the chest after I get beat. It is this mentality that if you don't PvP you are some kind of pu**y. These idiots hunt down and grief, yes grief, players that are not traditional PvPers to the point that that part of the community leaves the game. This leaves the idiots with no one to feed on except each other and what does that do for the game?
There is a reason you don't see many straight-up PvP games anymore and in my opinion it has every thing to do with the character of the so-called "hardcore" PvP player.
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
I think the real problem is how people are raised from the 90's and up, raised to "win at all costs" instead of enjoying the game.
I;m glad as a person I have some values in a valueless world.
It's definitely not a generational thing. Many older gamers played a ton of Street Fighter 2 or earlier games at a competitive level, and Sirlin is a great example (having written an excellent article Playing To Win.) He's actually around my age bracket and we kinda ended up in the same place (game designers who also do a lot of PVP balance work.) Though I got into a serious competitive mindset a little later ('97 with Dark Reign and Starcraft.)
We have values, but only the real values. We only obey the actual rules of the game (ie we don't cheat), not the fake rules that bad players invent (ie we're cheap as hell.) For example, a lot of players felt it was cheap to use throws in Street Fighter 2, but I still did it all the time because it was part of the game.
Sirlin basically uses the term "scrubs" to describe the players who invent these fake rules and allow them to limit their own play. Essentially what you've done is to call all of us older gamers scrubs. I assure you, not all older gamers are scrubs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by filmoret Personally I love massive pvp but for some reason its a niche thing that doesn't appear to be growing very well. At first glance people usually just scream zergfest then cry and run away and goto a forum and write a post in utter despair. Having played Rift's 180 person fights and actually paying attention to what was happening you could see group organization and tactics. Same thing for GW2 but one can easily get bored of the player stacking that occurs. But for someone to cry about ESO's cyrodiil just boggles my mind altogether. What are people expecting from massive warfare? You get rewards for winning and using strategies and tactics trump a mindless zerg any day. Yet people will continually write articles about how zergy and crappy and pointless it all is.
OP, I just want to know if you are EP, Thornblade NA.
If you are DC or even AD, then I would like to hear more about how you use tactics successfully during the red zerg nightcapping sessions.
That's what tactics are. You are outnumbered so you gotta do something tactful or you get killed. I think you are trying to enjoy the game the wrong way. You are only happy when the map belongs to your faction. You should be able to find something to be successful at instead. So the night capping crew outnumbers your faction 3-1. Simply avoid the main zerg and gank stragglers or cap stuff they can't teleport to. The map is big enough to find more then one style of pvp. I've seen strong groups of 6 hold back a group of 20 because they knew how to work together.
Most people are running off the shelf computers that don't meet large scale PvP requirements. It always comes down to latency and lag. Someone will throw out the same old same old, it's on your end, try and diagnose if it is network, graphics or you don't have that $600 SSD hard drive but it really doesn't mean a damn thing. It just means you will lose.
I've been in many battles in EVE Online and every one of them was a slide show where I was only able to determine how comical my loss was because I got to go in to character sheet and read the list of involved parties that popped my ship. Every slaughter in that game from the infamous BR battle to the hundreds of other fish in a barrel fights was the direct result of lag.
There needs to be permanence in order for it to be viable for me. Most of these games nowadays stick you in some instance and you trade keeps all day, that is just dull.
I think the real problem is how people are raised from the 90's and up, raised to "win at all costs" instead of enjoying the game.
I;m glad as a person I have some values in a valueless world.
It's definitely not a generational thing. Many older gamers played a ton of Street Fighter 2 or earlier games at a competitive level, and Sirlin is a great example (having written an excellent article Playing To Win.) He's actually around my age bracket and we kinda ended up in the same place (game designers who also do a lot of PVP balance work.) Though I got into a serious competitive mindset a little later ('97 with Dark Reign and Starcraft.)
We have values, but only the real values. We only obey the actual rules of the game (ie we don't cheat), not the fake rules that bad players invent (ie we're cheap as hell.) For example, a lot of players felt it was cheap to use throws in Street Fighter 2, but I still did it all the time because it was part of the game.
Sirlin basically uses the term "scrubs" to describe the players who invent these fake rules and allow them to limit their own play. Essentially what you've done is to call all of us older gamers scrubs. I assure you, not all older gamers are scrubs.
Well I have to agree with you, as long as you aren't breaking the rules, or taking advantage of something others can't equally do the same, then all's fair in PVP and War.
If you are playing a PVP game like EVE where losing has some significant consequences, then winning at all cost is definitely the way to play, fairness should never come into consideration and if it does, likely you've done something very wrong.
Your example about players creating artificial rules reminds me of my days in WOW, when people would say it was unfair in a duel for a Pally to pop his bubble shield, or for another player to use healing pots to win. Might as well tell a stealther it's unfair if they stealth to start the fight and back stab you.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think the real problem is how people are raised from the 90's and up, raised to "win at all costs" instead of enjoying the game.
I;m glad as a person I have some values in a valueless world.
It's definitely not a generational thing. Many older gamers played a ton of Street Fighter 2 or earlier games at a competitive level, and Sirlin is a great example (having written an excellent article Playing To Win.) He's actually around my age bracket and we kinda ended up in the same place (game designers who also do a lot of PVP balance work.) Though I got into a serious competitive mindset a little later ('97 with Dark Reign and Starcraft.)
We have values, but only the real values. We only obey the actual rules of the game (ie we don't cheat), not the fake rules that bad players invent (ie we're cheap as hell.) For example, a lot of players felt it was cheap to use throws in Street Fighter 2, but I still did it all the time because it was part of the game.
Sirlin basically uses the term "scrubs" to describe the players who invent these fake rules and allow them to limit their own play. Essentially what you've done is to call all of us older gamers scrubs. I assure you, not all older gamers are scrubs.
Well I have to agree with you, as long as you aren't breaking the rules, or taking advantage of something others can't equally do the same, then all's fair in PVP and War.
If you are playing a PVP game like EVE where losing has some significant consequences, then winning at all cost is definitely the way to play, fairness should never come into consideration and if it does, likely you've done something very wrong.
Your example about players creating artificial rules reminds me of my days in WOW, when people would say it was unfair in a duel for a Pally to pop his bubble shield, or for another player to use healing pots to win. Might as well tell a stealther it's unfair if they stealth to start the fight and back stab you.
I think its good when the community makes rules to help even the odds. If the devs don't give a crap enough about the pvp then the players have to. My early years we had a rule that you could only loot 3 items from a corpse. It made the game fair and helped keep the players happy. It wasn't our fault the devs were too stupid to make changes so the pvp would be more balanced and user friendly. Now that massive online has entered the equation it is up to the devs because you wont be able to get players to follow rules like this.
It would depend heavily if there was a real point to the PvP. If there were different groups in game that formed up on their own and were fighting over territory/towns/etc. then I wouldn't mind so much.
If the PvP is just to run out and kill each other mindlessly I don't think there's much point.
If the PvP is instanced like most games and one or two places is just going back and forth trying to control a place with no end then I don't see the point.
PvP seems best suited to a sandbox where you are vying to control a certain area and allow your citizens to do their thing in that territory.
Originally posted by filmoret Personally I love massive pvp but for some reason its a niche thing that doesn't appear to be growing very well. At first glance people usually just scream zergfest then cry and run away and goto a forum and write a post in utter despair. Having played Rift's 180 person fights and actually paying attention to what was happening you could see group organization and tactics. Same thing for GW2 but one can easily get bored of the player stacking that occurs. But for someone to cry about ESO's cyrodiil just boggles my mind altogether. What are people expecting from massive warfare? You get rewards for winning and using strategies and tactics trump a mindless zerg any day. Yet people will continually write articles about how zergy and crappy and pointless it all is.
problem is not the massive pvp but the technical part, a lot of time the game servers can't take the massive part well, I had a lot of problem on aion with that, too many players? connection couldn't keep up and massive lag was teh only thing we could see,
It is not just the technology that is the issue. It is also the fact that balancing the game for both small scale and large scale fights is impossible to do in a satisfactory way: How can abilities that are balanced in a duel be balanced in a battle between hundreds?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
If you are playing a PVP game like EVE where losing has some significant consequences, then winning at all cost is definitely the way to play, fairness should never come into consideration and if it does, likely you've done something very wrong.
I am surprised it took this long for someone to mention EVE. I would have thought it would be the first game that came to mind about massive PvP.
It is not just the technology that is the issue. It is also the fact that balancing the game for both small scale and large scale fights is impossible to do in a satisfactory way: How can abilities that are balanced in a duel be balanced in a battle between hundreds?
Planetside does it. The majority of weapons are single target, so they're the best you have whether it's a duel or a big fight. You get grenades for AOE and they're extremely limited even in the best of situations. You get vehicles that can do AOE, but if the fight is a vehicle fight (an outdoor fight) then everyone is in a vehicle and the AOE doesn't matter (basically you can take the AOE weapon and farm a lot of inconsequentially poor players, or you can take a single target weapon and kill the players who matter -- who would be the ones killing you if you took the weaker AOE weapons.)
So it's not impossible. It just isn't being done in MMORPGs where everyone gets a massively effective AOE that involves little to no risk.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I am surprised it took this long for someone to mention EVE. I would have thought it would be the first game that came to mind about massive PvP.
Given that millions upon millions of players playing other types of PVP, I would think the piddly 500k (or whatever) playing EVE would more be proof of what the OP is saying than a way to dispute the OP.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It is not just the technology that is the issue. It is also the fact that balancing the game for both small scale and large scale fights is impossible to do in a satisfactory way: How can abilities that are balanced in a duel be balanced in a battle between hundreds?
Planetside does it. The majority of weapons are single target, so they're the best you have whether it's a duel or a big fight. You get grenades for AOE and they're extremely limited even in the best of situations. You get vehicles that can do AOE, but if the fight is a vehicle fight (an outdoor fight) then everyone is in a vehicle and the AOE doesn't matter (basically you can take the AOE weapon and farm a lot of inconsequentially poor players, or you can take a single target weapon and kill the players who matter -- who would be the ones killing you if you took the weaker AOE weapons.)
So it's not impossible. It just isn't being done in MMORPGs where everyone gets a massively effective AOE that involves little to no risk.
...and there's no line of sight checks, collision detection or friendly fire in most MMORPGs.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I want decent reward ( renow rank i talk you , or old honor system from wow) you only can use gear if you have rank enough and this rank not static are dynamic like leaderboard (hey cyrodill dont forget you)
I wish its massive pvp not optional its nessecary to make things happens
I wish Solid RTS mechanics in 24h/7 massive pvp yes i read to nigth raid , nigth work , overextend playtime
I love OpenField figths
Less downtime period
Long Travel time
No AOE CAP ( no blob wars)
Siege Cap Mechanics(hardcap,or softcap more siege decay more fast)
Sieges its siege not KarmaTrain(yes gw2 i talk you)
Campaing/Map Lockdown(hey warhammer)
well and many others thing in actual market DONT HAVE
Comments
Yeah people like to test their skills against others. I can't really say it's fun to get blown up due to focus fire or massive amounts of AoE from the bigger zerg.
I suppose if collision detection and friendly fire were implemented then open world warfare might become a lot more interesting. But most MMO's design combat so that you can swing a weapon through your team and everyone can pile in, and there is little care about where an AoE hits because it won't kill your guys. That kind of stuff could help.
I enjoy massive open world RvR/PvP. These days I have a lot more fun in GW2's WvW than I do in WoW's BG's and Arenas. And don't get me started with Ashran, it's a glorified PvE raid zone. It's simply harder to do massive PvP right, because it's hard to balance it. Why is it hard to balance large scale PvP? Because of us, people...gamers are fickle. When people start to lose, very few have what it takes to tough it out. Majority jump to the winning team, thus making the balance worse.
This happened during DAOC, happened in WAR, happened in GW2, happening in WoW at the moment where horde PvP players jumped to alliance side during WoD expansion, happened in ESO. Unless gaming companies can find a way to stop people from jumping ship, it'll always be hard to balance massive PvP to make it more fair & balanced.
And it's because of this, some prefer to turtle into smaller 10-15min games like WoW's instanced BG's and arenas. Even though when you talk to people, they don't really like it, but it's an easy way to get gear. There used to be a realm pide thing with WoW, no longer the case, nobody gives a crap anymore. Out of any AV match with 40 players, roughly only 8-10 people that'll try to do the right things, while rest are filled with either bots or people that just want the matches to end so they could get rewarded. Yes, rewarded for losing, it breeds cancer, it gets people lazy.
So it's not players don't like massive PvP, it's that not many games have done it right, or gave it a fair shot. Blizzard did it with Wintergrasp, and look at how popular it was when it was the thing. It was always full, packed with players whenever the matches start. GW2 is doing a fairly good job with WvW except their match system is whacked, they have too many servers with low WvW representation that are matched up with servers with large rep. This causes balance issues. But for the most part it's still fun when you play in a T1/T2 server where you can enjoy massive PvP all the time.
Bottom line is, it's not that people don't like massive PvP. Too many gamers these days are just spoiled by easy gear provided by these short, instanced PvP where they are rewarded even for losing. Path to least resistance, it's always a thing with gamers as they choose the easy way out.
Played: EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-LOTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO-BDO
Waiting For: CU & Vanilla WoW
And what if "winning at all costs" is how they enjoy the game?
Waiting for:
The Repopulation
Albion Online
OP, I just want to know if you are EP, Thornblade NA.
If you are DC or even AD, then I would like to hear more about how you use tactics successfully during the red zerg nightcapping sessions.
Planetside 2 waves "hi"!
http://ps2alerts.com/Alert/3058
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
I love PvP when it is fun and, for the most part, works.
I don't play PvP too often and it has nothing to do with zergs. It has every thing to do with the jackasses that pop their collars and proclaim to be the most hardcoriest of all the hardcore.
This is the main reason I tend to stay away from PvP. It has nothing to do with being beat, that is going to happen in PvP. It isn't even the beating of the chest after I get beat. It is this mentality that if you don't PvP you are some kind of pu**y. These idiots hunt down and grief, yes grief, players that are not traditional PvPers to the point that that part of the community leaves the game. This leaves the idiots with no one to feed on except each other and what does that do for the game?
There is a reason you don't see many straight-up PvP games anymore and in my opinion it has every thing to do with the character of the so-called "hardcore" PvP player.
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
FPS...waves "goodbye"!
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
It's definitely not a generational thing. Many older gamers played a ton of Street Fighter 2 or earlier games at a competitive level, and Sirlin is a great example (having written an excellent article Playing To Win.) He's actually around my age bracket and we kinda ended up in the same place (game designers who also do a lot of PVP balance work.) Though I got into a serious competitive mindset a little later ('97 with Dark Reign and Starcraft.)
We have values, but only the real values. We only obey the actual rules of the game (ie we don't cheat), not the fake rules that bad players invent (ie we're cheap as hell.) For example, a lot of players felt it was cheap to use throws in Street Fighter 2, but I still did it all the time because it was part of the game.
Sirlin basically uses the term "scrubs" to describe the players who invent these fake rules and allow them to limit their own play. Essentially what you've done is to call all of us older gamers scrubs. I assure you, not all older gamers are scrubs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The thread is massive PVP. Planetside is massive PVP.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
lol
Most people are running off the shelf computers that don't meet large scale PvP requirements. It always comes down to latency and lag. Someone will throw out the same old same old, it's on your end, try and diagnose if it is network, graphics or you don't have that $600 SSD hard drive but it really doesn't mean a damn thing. It just means you will lose.
I've been in many battles in EVE Online and every one of them was a slide show where I was only able to determine how comical my loss was because I got to go in to character sheet and read the list of involved parties that popped my ship. Every slaughter in that game from the infamous BR battle to the hundreds of other fish in a barrel fights was the direct result of lag.
People has nothing to do with large scale PvP.
The internet doesn't like large scale PvP.
In the spirit of the generalization made by the topic description:
It is no wonder that players don't like games, when game devs suck.
There needs to be permanence in order for it to be viable for me. Most of these games nowadays stick you in some instance and you trade keeps all day, that is just dull.
Well I have to agree with you, as long as you aren't breaking the rules, or taking advantage of something others can't equally do the same, then all's fair in PVP and War.
If you are playing a PVP game like EVE where losing has some significant consequences, then winning at all cost is definitely the way to play, fairness should never come into consideration and if it does, likely you've done something very wrong.
Your example about players creating artificial rules reminds me of my days in WOW, when people would say it was unfair in a duel for a Pally to pop his bubble shield, or for another player to use healing pots to win. Might as well tell a stealther it's unfair if they stealth to start the fight and back stab you.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think its good when the community makes rules to help even the odds. If the devs don't give a crap enough about the pvp then the players have to. My early years we had a rule that you could only loot 3 items from a corpse. It made the game fair and helped keep the players happy. It wasn't our fault the devs were too stupid to make changes so the pvp would be more balanced and user friendly. Now that massive online has entered the equation it is up to the devs because you wont be able to get players to follow rules like this.
It would depend heavily if there was a real point to the PvP. If there were different groups in game that formed up on their own and were fighting over territory/towns/etc. then I wouldn't mind so much.
If the PvP is just to run out and kill each other mindlessly I don't think there's much point.
If the PvP is instanced like most games and one or two places is just going back and forth trying to control a place with no end then I don't see the point.
PvP seems best suited to a sandbox where you are vying to control a certain area and allow your citizens to do their thing in that territory.
problem is not the massive pvp but the technical part, a lot of time the game servers can't take the massive part well, I had a lot of problem on aion with that, too many players? connection couldn't keep up and massive lag was teh only thing we could see,
It is not just the technology that is the issue. It is also the fact that balancing the game for both small scale and large scale fights is impossible to do in a satisfactory way: How can abilities that are balanced in a duel be balanced in a battle between hundreds?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I am surprised it took this long for someone to mention EVE. I would have thought it would be the first game that came to mind about massive PvP.
Planetside does it. The majority of weapons are single target, so they're the best you have whether it's a duel or a big fight. You get grenades for AOE and they're extremely limited even in the best of situations. You get vehicles that can do AOE, but if the fight is a vehicle fight (an outdoor fight) then everyone is in a vehicle and the AOE doesn't matter (basically you can take the AOE weapon and farm a lot of inconsequentially poor players, or you can take a single target weapon and kill the players who matter -- who would be the ones killing you if you took the weaker AOE weapons.)
So it's not impossible. It just isn't being done in MMORPGs where everyone gets a massively effective AOE that involves little to no risk.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Given that millions upon millions of players playing other types of PVP, I would think the piddly 500k (or whatever) playing EVE would more be proof of what the OP is saying than a way to dispute the OP.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
...and there's no line of sight checks, collision detection or friendly fire in most MMORPGs.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I like massive pvp
I want decent reward ( renow rank i talk you , or old honor system from wow) you only can use gear if you have rank enough and this rank not static are dynamic like leaderboard (hey cyrodill dont forget you)
I wish its massive pvp not optional its nessecary to make things happens
I wish Solid RTS mechanics in 24h/7 massive pvp yes i read to nigth raid , nigth work , overextend playtime
I love OpenField figths
Less downtime period
Long Travel time
No AOE CAP ( no blob wars)
Siege Cap Mechanics(hardcap,or softcap more siege decay more fast)
Sieges its siege not KarmaTrain(yes gw2 i talk you)
Campaing/Map Lockdown(hey warhammer)
well and many others thing in actual market DONT HAVE
Im my book are 3 groups of players.
The ones dislike PvP maybe about 70%
The ones like PvP maybe around 30%
And the ones playing casual games with both, pvp and pve, might be 50% out of the 2 maingroups.
Just assumptions ofcause .. from what i saw over the recent errmm.88, 98, 2008.. wtf ..