Good PvE and PvP at the same time is really hard to pull off. You need good solid mechanics that works just as well in both with unbalancing one or the other.
My guess is that it would be easiest to make with a good AI so the npcs and mobs act somewhat human, it doesn't have to really hard to tell who is a human and not but you can' use tanking against mobs without being able to tank players as well. Let the mob often attack the target that is actually best for them and let them at time syncronize attacks.
Yeah, some people might think that this will take out parts of the fun of PvE but having an open world where people need to specc for one or the other thing just suck. Not to mention nerfs for one or the other playstyles.
Good point. When there seems to be a decent mix of PvE and PvP, even in a game primarily focusing on PvE, there tends to be a lot of balancing issues and complaints that come up based on the classes PvP aspects.
Yeah, usually the mechanics gets one or the other right, or even none. Both need to be equally fun and each class need to work fine in both (if you have classes of course).
The worst thing is gear and skills for one or the other, that only works when you instance the PvP and not that great even then.
I have had different games where I liked the PvE or the PvP but I have never had a game that I thought did a good job on both of them. Balancing one always came at the expense of the other, except in GW where the balancing was separate and the PvE was lackluster anyways.
I enjoy them both. I rather enjoyed how games like AA did it. Set aside all of the negative things about AA for a second. I like how some areas are PvE only and some areas are PvP. I also like it when there is PvE content in those PvP zones because it gives me a sense of danger and adventure when I have to brave those areas.
I know this isn't everyone's cup of tea. I often see complaining about how people had to go into PvP areas when they are on PvE adventures. Of the two methods, I enjoy the first I mentioned and would prefer developers cater to it. However, I imagine that the strict separatists are a majority.
I have had different games where I liked the PvE or the PvP but I have never had a game that I thought did a good job on both of them. Balancing one always came at the expense of the other, except in GW where the balancing was separate and the PvE was lackluster anyways.
Yeah, and that is, like I said above, because they use seperate mechanics.
The only way for example to have trinity combat and good PvP & PvE is if taunts works on other players as well (which is why I prefer other mechanics).
If PvE and PvP is fought the same basic ways you don't need to nerf for one or the other. No specific speccs, no specific gear and the same basic tactics against both types of opponents.
All ways to make them particularly different always fail, and often you get a bad compromize that means both types of gameplay becomes worse.
Sure, I started out doing purely PvE (SWG, EQ2 didn't have PvP at start, WoW on PvE server). But then started to do PvP in WoW purely by chance (Tarren Mill battles were huge even on my PvE server) and got a taste for it. After that I couldn't miss it from my games.
But it's always gonna be a mix mostly. I honestly think most PvP players in MMO's accept that there will always be a certain portion of PvE to get through and cope with, even if they don't like it. The reverse can't be said for PvE players though, sadly.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
I have had different games where I liked the PvE or the PvP but I have never had a game that I thought did a good job on both of them. Balancing one always came at the expense of the other, except in GW where the balancing was separate and the PvE was lackluster anyways.
Yeah, and that is, like I said above, because they use seperate mechanics.
The only way for example to have trinity combat and good PvP & PvE is if taunts works on other players as well (which is why I prefer other mechanics).
If PvE and PvP is fought the same basic ways you don't need to nerf for one or the other. No specific speccs, no specific gear and the same basic tactics against both types of opponents.
All ways to make them particularly different always fail, and often you get a bad compromize that means both types of gameplay becomes worse.
I think a big thing that prevents good pvp and pve is how games handle crowd control. It is a staple part of PvE content, and pretty fun if implemented correctly. In PvP, though? Nobody has fun being CCed for 30 seconds. Some games put limits onto the amount you can CC someone, but then it doesn't make much sense when you have no idea they have been recently CCed and you are surprise unable to control them.
I think games just need to do one or the other and fully drop support for the other half. They get in the way of each other. I doubt this will happen though as devs see it as giving up half their potential audience, and they are probably right.
There will never be an open-world pvp game ever again. Accept it and move on.
And no, battle grounds do not count as open-world pvp no matter how big they are.
Open world pvp games goes against the dummy generation where everyone has to be a winner, and there can only be 0 competition.
I like your post, because it seems to be angry at everybody on both sides of liking Open World PvP.
Really though, having large PvP zones should be enough. I never understood the appeal some players get from wanting to have zero challenge combat just to ruin the fun of another player. If you just enjoy ticking people off, you can tick a lot more off by being an asshat outside of games.
I think a big thing that prevents good pvp and pve is how games handle crowd control. It is a staple part of PvE content, and pretty fun if implemented correctly. In PvP, though? Nobody has fun being CCed for 30 seconds. Some games put limits onto the amount you can CC someone, but then it doesn't make much sense when you have no idea they have been recently CCed and you are surprise unable to control them.
I think games just need to do one or the other and fully drop support for the other half. They get in the way of each other. I doubt this will happen though as devs see it as giving up half their potential audience, and they are probably right.
You are 100% right with the CC.
But I don't agree with your second conclusion, if you can make mechanics that works as well for both types of play and still are fun it works. The problem really is that far too many MMOs still use trinity combat and trinity combat MMOs shouldn't have PvP at all, it just leads to moronic nerfs and bad PvP.
Make CC all about body blocking and locking opponents in melee (exiting melee combat is dangerous, ask any SCA or ARMA member). Then add a better AI that makes mobs play like pretty bad players, maybe a second better AI that makes them play like average players for bosses. And make any skill and attack work equally good on players and mobs.
That already works in the FPs games that mixes real players and bots. Imagine if those games had 2 seperate combat system for bots and players, it would suck
I am sorry but I decided not to watch the rest of the video because it was long. From what I saw I agree overall that the current focus on convenience is a detriment for MMORPGs. Convenience has been a good thing in other games, but in a game that hinges on making players build relationships with one another, convenience is a huge problem. Having a challenge to overcome is how you make people work together, lowering the challenge has turned MMORPGs into shitty RPGs with shitty stories.
That said, I just do not think there is anything good coming from killing lowbies in questing areas. If the video explained why griefing is a good thing then my bad, the video was just taking too long to get to the points for me. I think in the first minute the creator didn't say anything other than "I dunno... just... I dunno.... maybe it's just me but... I dunno." Funny that the convenience I do not want in MMORPGs is what I want in the rest of the content I see.
I am sorry but I decided not to watch the rest of the video because it was long. From what I saw I agree overall that the current focus on convenience is a detriment for MMORPGs. Convenience has been a good thing in other games, but in a game that hinges on making players build relationships with one another, convenience is a huge problem. Having a challenge to overcome is how you make people work together, lowering the challenge has turned MMORPGs into shitty RPGs with shitty stories.
That said, I just do not think there is anything good coming from killing lowbies in questing areas. If the video explained why griefing is a good thing then my bad, the video was just taking too long to get to the points for me. I think in the first minute the creator didn't say anything other than "I dunno... just... I dunno.... maybe it's just me but... I dunno." Funny that the convenience I do not want in MMORPGs is what I want in the rest of the content I see.
Yeah, that is another problem with MMO PvP: most fights are decided before they even start.
In a FPS game you never know what will happen, someone playing their first time could get in a lucky shot on you even if you played for years and are good. With MMOs combat is only exciting when 2 people really close to eachother in level and gear fight.
The problem is basically that the huge powergap is made to make PvE players feel powerful but it doesn't work in PvP. A good powergap for PvP would be that a new player who really play excellent should just barely be able to beat a top geared max out player who plays lousy.
Funny enough is people accusing me for being a "carebear" when I say stuff like this, but I just don't see the fun with combat that can't go either way no matter how good or bad I play.
If a game is designed and built with both in mind, and they meld them well, absolutely. The problem comes when one aspect is focused on primarily, the other tends to suffer as a result.
While I prefer open world PvP DAoC had epic PvE and PvP, it just worked.
In order for a game to be great and have longevity with it's playerbase it has to have a nice combination of both.
As much as I don't like to admit it, the PvE/PvP mix of WoW wasn't that bad either; battleground when you wanted it also open on some zones otherwise good PvE.
Real life is perfect because it focuses on freedom. It allows freedom with risk and reward. The only downside about real life and why I play MMORPG's insteed is because the time is slower to gain skills/professions/influence. Also, real life seems boring, there is no amazing combat, some magic, etc...to makes you feel godly or something else...MMORPGs can also be slow too, which is fine. I would love to play a single MMORPG for 20+ years.
The reality is in real life if my character dies I have to start from total scratch. In MMORPG when my character dies and I lose everything, I'll still keep my existance, my mind, my current evolution to start the game again with new character from scratch. Finally, it's much easier to control a character with just pushing buttons and a mouse, over actually controlling your body in real life, wielding swords, guns and performing skills.
I don't think that MMORPGs have to be either/or. For all its faults, I enjoyed both aspects quite a bit in WAR. Bastion Stair, Lost Vale, and Temple of the Vulture Lord were cool, fun instances. They looked good and while they didn't have any mechanics that were ground breaking or truly inspired they were a good evenings fun. WARs PvP areas did a good job of keeping the 2 aspects apart, PvP in the lakes, everything else elsewhere. They had some raid level holiday spawns that were fun, some in PvE areas some in PvP areas so there was a little crossover. For all its faults and GROSS mismanagement, they did manage to do some things that were fun.
Comments
The worst thing is gear and skills for one or the other, that only works when you instance the PvP and not that great even then.
I know this isn't everyone's cup of tea. I often see complaining about how people had to go into PvP areas when they are on PvE adventures. Of the two methods, I enjoy the first I mentioned and would prefer developers cater to it. However, I imagine that the strict separatists are a majority.
I self identify as a monkey.
The only way for example to have trinity combat and good PvP & PvE is if taunts works on other players as well (which is why I prefer other mechanics).
If PvE and PvP is fought the same basic ways you don't need to nerf for one or the other. No specific speccs, no specific gear and the same basic tactics against both types of opponents.
All ways to make them particularly different always fail, and often you get a bad compromize that means both types of gameplay becomes worse.
But it's always gonna be a mix mostly. I honestly think most PvP players in MMO's accept that there will always be a certain portion of PvE to get through and cope with, even if they don't like it. The reverse can't be said for PvE players though, sadly.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
I think games just need to do one or the other and fully drop support for the other half. They get in the way of each other. I doubt this will happen though as devs see it as giving up half their potential audience, and they are probably right.
Really though, having large PvP zones should be enough. I never understood the appeal some players get from wanting to have zero challenge combat just to ruin the fun of another player. If you just enjoy ticking people off, you can tick a lot more off by being an asshat outside of games.
But I don't agree with your second conclusion, if you can make mechanics that works as well for both types of play and still are fun it works. The problem really is that far too many MMOs still use trinity combat and trinity combat MMOs shouldn't have PvP at all, it just leads to moronic nerfs and bad PvP.
Make CC all about body blocking and locking opponents in melee (exiting melee combat is dangerous, ask any SCA or ARMA member). Then add a better AI that makes mobs play like pretty bad players, maybe a second better AI that makes them play like average players for bosses. And make any skill and attack work equally good on players and mobs.
That already works in the FPs games that mixes real players and bots. Imagine if those games had 2 seperate combat system for bots and players, it would suck
That said, I just do not think there is anything good coming from killing lowbies in questing areas. If the video explained why griefing is a good thing then my bad, the video was just taking too long to get to the points for me. I think in the first minute the creator didn't say anything other than "I dunno... just... I dunno.... maybe it's just me but... I dunno." Funny that the convenience I do not want in MMORPGs is what I want in the rest of the content I see.
In a FPS game you never know what will happen, someone playing their first time could get in a lucky shot on you even if you played for years and are good. With MMOs combat is only exciting when 2 people really close to eachother in level and gear fight.
The problem is basically that the huge powergap is made to make PvE players feel powerful but it doesn't work in PvP. A good powergap for PvP would be that a new player who really play excellent should just barely be able to beat a top geared max out player who plays lousy.
Funny enough is people accusing me for being a "carebear" when I say stuff like this, but I just don't see the fun with combat that can't go either way no matter how good or bad I play.
In order for a game to be great and have longevity with it's playerbase it has to have a nice combination of both.
As much as I don't like to admit it, the PvE/PvP mix of WoW wasn't that bad either; battleground when you wanted it also open on some zones otherwise good PvE.
Real life is perfect because it focuses on freedom. It allows freedom with risk and reward. The only downside about real life and why I play MMORPG's insteed is because the time is slower to gain skills/professions/influence. Also, real life seems boring, there is no amazing combat, some magic, etc...to makes you feel godly or something else...MMORPGs can also be slow too, which is fine. I would love to play a single MMORPG for 20+ years.
The reality is in real life if my character dies I have to start from total scratch. In MMORPG when my character dies and I lose everything, I'll still keep my existance, my mind, my current evolution to start the game again with new character from scratch. Finally, it's much easier to control a character with just pushing buttons and a mouse, over actually controlling your body in real life, wielding swords, guns and performing skills.
To elaborate a little, I play mmorpgs to PvE. When I need a PvP fix I play shooters, fighters, rts games and the occasional moba.
Warhammer fanatic since '85.
