If that were the case, then why is it that PvPers are always the ones arguing against separate servers and PvEers always the ones arguing for separate server rule sets. I think its pretty obvious who would be doing the more missing than gaining.
Simple reasoning: Beceause one game play interfere with the other but not other way round.
However, I was pointing to bigger picture.
that is at least closer to what one would call an answer. but it could be a little more explict
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If that were the case, then why is it that PvPers are always the ones arguing against separate servers and PvEers always the ones arguing for separate server rule sets. I think its pretty obvious who would be doing the more missing than gaining.
Simple reasoning: Beceause one game play interfere with the other but not other way round.
However, I was pointing to bigger picture.
What you interpret as an "interference," PvE players interpret as an "annoyance."
There may be a way to make PvE and PvP work. Forcing a player who is not interested in PvP into non-consensual PvP is not it.
If that were the case, then why is it that PvPers are always the ones arguing against separate servers and PvEers always the ones arguing for separate server rule sets. I think its pretty obvious who would be doing the more missing than gaining.
Simple reasoning: Beceause one game play interfere with the other but not other way round.
However, I was pointing to bigger picture.
Actually I believe the opposite of what you said is true but its just an opinion. But I feel the PVE does effect PVP and PVP does effect PVE that is why it is so hard to do a balancing act without upsetting either gamers.
PVP can be effected by gear treadmills of the PVE playstlye in particular. PVE tend to be effected by buffs and nerfs for balanced PVP.
If that were the case, then why is it that PvPers are always the ones arguing against separate servers and PvEers always the ones arguing for separate server rule sets. I think its pretty obvious who would be doing the more missing than gaining.
Simple reasoning: Beceause one game play interfere with the other but not other way round.
However, I was pointing to bigger picture.
Actually I believe the opposite of what you said is true but its just an opinion. But I feel the PVE does effect PVP and PVP does effect PVE that is why it is so hard to do a balancing act without upsetting either gamers.
PVP can be effected by gear treadmills of the PVE playstlye in particular. PVE tend to be effected by buffs and nerfs for balanced PVP.
Just two examples that I think of.
the way Wurm handles pvp and pve is perfect...absolutely perfect in design, implementation and proven output.
in PVE nobody cares if you are uber and you got that uber from pvp server. so.....pvp servers...skill boost..pve not..done
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Your speaking as if everything has already been figured out. Time to just close the book and call it a wrap.
What's tried and true today doesn't always work tomorrow.
It doesn't matter what kind of industry you're in, every 10 to 20 years some things going to come along that will force you to re-think and re-tool. I'm personally going through for the third time in my industry.
Times change, Tastes change, Technologies change
That's the real world
What you're describing is great for things which haven't been tried. Virtual worlds have been tried. Many types of games have been tried. We have a good sense for what is and isn't popular among players -- what players fundamentally want out of their gaming -- and none of that knowledge points us towards a return to the failed virtual world model of the past.
Bruce Lee's "be like water" quote isn't about rigidly repeating mistakes it's about fluidly adapting. Virtual worlds have consistently failed or been mediocre. The industry has adapted to that reality.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If that were the case, then why is it that PvPers are always the ones arguing against separate servers and PvEers always the ones arguing for separate server rule sets. I think its pretty obvious who would be doing the more missing than gaining.
Simple reasoning: Beceause one game play interfere with the other but not other way round.
However, I was pointing to bigger picture.
Actually I believe the opposite of what you said is true but its just an opinion. But I feel the PVE does effect PVP and PVP does effect PVE that is why it is so hard to do a balancing act without upsetting either gamers.
PVP can be effected by gear treadmills of the PVE playstlye in particular. PVE tend to be effected by buffs and nerfs for balanced PVP.
Just two examples that I think of.
the way Wurm handles pvp and pve is perfect...absolutely perfect in design, implementation and proven output.
in PVE nobody cares if you are uber and you got that uber from pvp server. so.....pvp servers...skill boost..pve not..done
yeah someone pointed out that game earlier. I might have to go give it a try.
What you interpret as an "interference," PvE players interpret as an "annoyance."
There may be a way to make PvE and PvP work. Forcing a player who is not interested in PvP into non-consensual PvP is not it.
Yep, that is what I said, it is one way "interference".
Of course forcing players into anything is never good idea, there needs to be compromises made on both fronts but when it works, you get some spectacular environment.
Is it worthy from developer stand point? Likely not.
Actually I believe the opposite of what you said is true but its just an opinion. But I feel the PVE does effect PVP and PVP does effect PVE that is why it is so hard to do a balancing act without upsetting either gamers.
PVP can be effected by gear treadmills of the PVE playstlye in particular. PVE tend to be effected by buffs and nerfs for balanced PVP.
Just two examples that I think of.
That is a matter of game design and balancing, not actually inherited by play styles.
Like I said before, balancing is never ending process and in that case "why" does not matter...
What you interpret as an "interference," PvE players interpret as an "annoyance."
There may be a way to make PvE and PvP work. Forcing a player who is not interested in PvP into non-consensual PvP is not it.
Yep, that is what I said, it is one way "interference".
Of course forcing players into anything is never good idea, there needs to be compromises made on both fronts but when it works, you get some spectacular environment.
Is it worthy from developer stand point? Likely not.
I cant for the life of me imagine why
for pvp there are pvp players enough to last a lifetime. Why does any pvp player care at all about pve players and what they are or are not doing is beyond me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What you interpret as an "interference," PvE players interpret as an "annoyance."
There may be a way to make PvE and PvP work. Forcing a player who is not interested in PvP into non-consensual PvP is not it.
Yep, that is what I said, it is one way "interference".
Of course forcing players into anything is never good idea, there needs to be compromises made on both fronts but when it works, you get some spectacular environment.
Is it worthy from developer stand point? Likely not.
Just to be clear, I am not against PvP game play, I am just against it in MMORPGs. IMHO, it just messes up the genre and transforms it from one in which players can come together as a community and enjoy adventuring in the game and battling game objectives, to one in which players turn against each other contributing to what all too often results in inconsiderate and toxic communities.
What you interpret as an "interference," PvE players interpret as an "annoyance."
There may be a way to make PvE and PvP work. Forcing a player who is not interested in PvP into non-consensual PvP is not it.
Yep, that is what I said, it is one way "interference".
Of course forcing players into anything is never good idea, there needs to be compromises made on both fronts but when it works, you get some spectacular environment.
Is it worthy from developer stand point? Likely not.
Just to be clear, I am not against PvP game play, I am just against it in MMORPGs. IMHO, it just messes up the genre and transforms it from one in which players can come together as a community and enjoy adventuring in the game and battling game objectives, to one in which players turn against each other contributing to what all too often results in inconsiderate and toxic communities.
I agree with this.
I do think large scale territorial clan vs clan warfare to be very interesting and fun. HOWEVER, as anyone who has read The Art of War all the best tactics are the same tatics that we consider toxic so its a catch 22. If you remove the ability of key features for people to follow The Art of War its hard to make a good and 'honest' war based PvP.
On the other hand. PvE AI can be created to be much 'smarter' then what they implement today providing plenty of basic tactical adventures for all.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Your speaking as if everything has already been figured out. Time to just close the book and call it a wrap.
What's tried and true today doesn't always work tomorrow.
It doesn't matter what kind of industry you're in, every 10 to 20 years some things going to come along that will force you to re-think and re-tool. I'm personally going through for the third time in my industry.
Times change, Tastes change, Technologies change
That's the real world
What you're describing is great for things which haven't been tried. Virtual worlds have been tried. Many types of games have been tried. We have a good sense for what is and isn't popular among players -- what players fundamentally want out of their gaming -- and none of that knowledge points us towards a return to the failed virtual world model of the past.
Bruce Lee's "be like water" quote isn't about rigidly repeating mistakes it's about fluidly adapting. Virtual worlds have consistently failed or been mediocre. The industry has adapted to that reality.
Who's saying anything about copying failed models? You seem to be holding a very broad brush in your hands. You have to be very careful when you stroke it, because you'll wipe out a whole shit load of things that you shouldn't have.
If something's mediocre it means the ones responsible for making it did a shitty job.
for pvp there are pvp players enough to last a lifetime. Why does any pvp player care at all about pve players and what they are or are not doing is beyond me
Same thing I keep telling you and Sovrath - they don't.
for pvp there are pvp players enough to last a lifetime. Why does any pvp player care at all about pve players and what they are or are not doing is beyond me
Same thing I keep telling you and Sovrath - they don't.
Only one who cares is you...
so I ask again.
Why are pvp players so objectionable to increasing safe zones and creating PvE servers? Why do some of them spent an unhealthy amount of time talking about what PvE players are or are not doing.
and trust me I know they do, I have been in clan Vents in Darkfall for years I hear it first hand
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Just to be clear, I am not against PvP game play, I am just against it in MMORPGs. IMHO, it just messes up the genre and transforms it from one in which players can come together as a community and enjoy adventuring in the game and battling game objectives, to one in which players turn against each other contributing to what all too often results in inconsiderate and toxic communities.
It is a matter of implementation. In my early post in the thread, I highlighted several conceptual issues that are difficult but not impossible to overcome.
Very good example is EVE Online where PVP and PVE can not only co-exist but supplement each other and contribute to exceptional experience.
Just to be clear, I am not against PvP game play, I am just against it in MMORPGs. IMHO, it just messes up the genre and transforms it from one in which players can come together as a community and enjoy adventuring in the game and battling game objectives, to one in which players turn against each other contributing to what all too often results in inconsiderate and toxic communities.
It is a matter of implementation. In my early post in the thread, I highlighted several conceptual issues that are difficult but not impossible to overcome.
Very good example is EVE Online where PVP and PVE can not only co-exist but supplement each other and contribute to exceptional experience.
I played EvE and although its true as a PvE player you can do a lot there is still a great deal of risk at higher levels.
Additionally, the community itself has somewhat of a reputation of being filled with sociopaths which from my personal experience is not completely unjustified.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The bolded part is the root of all problems here. The answer is: you don't have to develop systems where nothing gives you an advantage. The whole point of mmoRPG PvP is to benefit from everything you do in PvE. If you try to balance everything, you've created a moba inside an RPG, and there is a totally different genre with lots of games that does it better.
I don't see a problem here, really. You play PvE part of a game to become stronger and use your powers against enemy players, which you want to be weaker and less skilled than yourself.
The real question, and which very few game has done right, is: Why do we fight against the other players and how does it help me to become even stronger? There has to be some reason to do PvP other than to get gear or 'have some fun'. If you - as a designer - can't think of any, don't implement PvP and focus on creating awesome PvE instead.
Firstly, you and the developers can't begin to assume you know what the player's motivations are for playing the game. Every single person is going to have a different set of motivations. Some might enjoy the story, some might just enjoy the combat, exploring, whatever. This is true for both PvE and PvP - everyone's motivation is different.
Thirdly, @deniter "The whole point of mmoRPG PvP is to benefit from everything you do in PvE." What the fuck? I mean seriously, I don't think you thought this statement through. The point of player vs player is to fight other players. Everything else is tangential. PvP gear / ranks / rewards are carrots to keep you playing for longer. Keeps / objectives etc are ways of guiding players to "designed" encounters, i.e. sculpting the pvp to make it more interesting.
You just described a game design principles for MOBA games. If a player only wants to fight other players (s)he doesn't need persistent world, crafting, or exp grind for doing that. There are lots of better games for PvP only, you don't need MMORPG for that. People keep constantly complaining how they have to do stupid quests to level up faster, and how they only want to reach max level so they can start PvP, or how they are forced to do PvE in order to do PvP. Either a game they are playing is designed very badly, or they are playing a wrong game.
What mmoRPGs should be about is adventuring in a fantasy world, exploring anchient ruins, searhing hidden treasures, and occasionally - yes - fighting members of an enemy faction controlled by other players. But wandering in a living, breathing world could be dangerous sometimes, and you can't expect all fights to be balanced or even fair for that matter. Should you meet a hero who has slain dragons and demons and acquired anchient relics and artifacts, you can be sure he's not on equal ground with someone who just had his first sword forged for him, or even with one who has done fighting for a long time but has never left his post in city guard.
Regarding to your comment about player's motivations i can only advice to do some research before buying a new game and find out what the game is about. If you're not interested in PvE, don't buy any RPGs.
The term MMORPG has become almost a synonym for online game, while in reality it describes only a certain kind of online games with certain kind of gameplay. If a game has both PvE and PvP they better be connected somehow to complement each others, not some separate mini-games within a same title that segregates the community into two (or even more), very different kind of group of players. This has a direct impact on a game's community, and it's not a positive one.
Why are pvp players so objectionable to increasing safe zones and creating PvE servers?
One wants to PVP, one can't PVP in safe zone.
What is so difficult about understanding why one does not want safe zones...?
that was a reason I never heard from Darkfall players when I was there.
Most likely because the map is super huge.
Reasons where 1. they shouldnt play a PvP game if they dont want to PvP (which is a bit odd reasoning that doesnt make much sense to the specific question) 2. they are skill camping where its safe (only remote valid reason I have ever heard but to be fair its really hard to skill camp in most safe zones
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
that was a reason I never heard from Darkfall players when I was there.
Most likely because the map is super huge.
Reasons where 1. they shouldnt play a PvP game if they dont want to PvP (which is a bit odd reasoning that doesnt make much sense to the specific question) 2. they are skill camping where its safe (only remote valid reason I have ever heard but to be fair its really hard to skill camp in most safe zones
The reasons share the same bottom line - pvp anywhere, anytime.
Comments
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What you interpret as an "interference," PvE players interpret as an "annoyance."
There may be a way to make PvE and PvP work. Forcing a player who is not interested in PvP into non-consensual PvP is not it.
PVP can be effected by gear treadmills of the PVE playstlye in particular.
PVE tend to be effected by buffs and nerfs for balanced PVP.
Just two examples that I think of.
in PVE nobody cares if you are uber and you got that uber from pvp server. so.....pvp servers...skill boost..pve not..done
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Bruce Lee's "be like water" quote isn't about rigidly repeating mistakes it's about fluidly adapting. Virtual worlds have consistently failed or been mediocre. The industry has adapted to that reality.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Of course forcing players into anything is never good idea, there needs to be compromises made on both fronts but when it works, you get some spectacular environment.
Is it worthy from developer stand point? Likely not.
Like I said before, balancing is never ending process and in that case "why" does not matter...
for pvp there are pvp players enough to last a lifetime. Why does any pvp player care at all about pve players and what they are or are not doing is beyond me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Just to be clear, I am not against PvP game play, I am just against it in MMORPGs. IMHO, it just messes up the genre and transforms it from one in which players can come together as a community and enjoy adventuring in the game and battling game objectives, to one in which players turn against each other contributing to what all too often results in inconsiderate and toxic communities.
I do think large scale territorial clan vs clan warfare to be very interesting and fun. HOWEVER, as anyone who has read The Art of War all the best tactics are the same tatics that we consider toxic so its a catch 22. If you remove the ability of key features for people to follow The Art of War its hard to make a good and 'honest' war based PvP.
On the other hand. PvE AI can be created to be much 'smarter' then what they implement today providing plenty of basic tactical adventures for all.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If something's mediocre it means the ones responsible for making it did a shitty job.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Only one who cares is you...
Why are pvp players so objectionable to increasing safe zones and creating PvE servers? Why do some of them spent an unhealthy amount of time talking about what PvE players are or are not doing.
and trust me I know they do, I have been in clan Vents in Darkfall for years I hear it first hand
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Very good example is EVE Online where PVP and PVE can not only co-exist but supplement each other and contribute to exceptional experience.
Additionally, the community itself has somewhat of a reputation of being filled with sociopaths which from my personal experience is not completely unjustified.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What is so difficult about understanding why one does not want safe zones...?
What mmoRPGs should be about is adventuring in a fantasy world, exploring anchient ruins, searhing hidden treasures, and occasionally - yes - fighting members of an enemy faction controlled by other players. But wandering in a living, breathing world could be dangerous sometimes, and you can't expect all fights to be balanced or even fair for that matter. Should you meet a hero who has slain dragons and demons and acquired anchient relics and artifacts, you can be sure he's not on equal ground with someone who just had his first sword forged for him, or even with one who has done fighting for a long time but has never left his post in city guard.
Regarding to your comment about player's motivations i can only advice to do some research before buying a new game and find out what the game is about. If you're not interested in PvE, don't buy any RPGs.
The term MMORPG has become almost a synonym for online game, while in reality it describes only a certain kind of online games with certain kind of gameplay. If a game has both PvE and PvP they better be connected somehow to complement each others, not some separate mini-games within a same title that segregates the community into two (or even more), very different kind of group of players. This has a direct impact on a game's community, and it's not a positive one.
Most likely because the map is super huge.
Reasons where
1. they shouldnt play a PvP game if they dont want to PvP (which is a bit odd reasoning that doesnt make much sense to the specific question)
2. they are skill camping where its safe (only remote valid reason I have ever heard but to be fair its really hard to skill camp in most safe zones
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
that is true. Its the most bizzare thing I have ever experienced.
How dare those pve carebears want there own server, we want them here to.....[what?]....
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me