Just like any art form, the genre needs someone to push the boundaries, or it's just going to be doomed to mediocrity.
Philosophical? No, it's knowledge.
This is a square wheel. We know it's a bad design. It's knowledge.
You don't "push boundaries" by repeating a known mistake. So while it's true that pushing boundaries can help this and other genres do well, repeating a mistake isn't pushing boundaries.
"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 a pvp only MMORPG doesn't exist or at the very least been defined in this discussion if its suggested that pvp cant work in a pve environment then that is the same thing as saying pvp cant exist in an MMORPG at all, peroid.
so some of you might want to address this point
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Just like any art form, the genre needs someone to push the boundaries, or it's just going to be doomed to mediocrity.
Philosophical? No, it's knowledge.
This is a square wheel. We know it's a bad design. It's knowledge.
You don't "push boundaries" by repeating a known mistake. So while it's true that pushing boundaries can help this and other genres do well, repeating a mistake isn't pushing boundaries.
That's ok
I now understand why so many of these games have such a rough go at it. Why F2P models are needed to make them viable.
You guys really are stuck in a rut and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
given that a pvp only MMORPG doesn't exist or at the very least been defined in this discussion if its suggested that pvp cant work in a pve environment then that is the same thing as saying pvp cant exist in an MMORPG at all, peroid.
so some of you might want to address this point
Already addressed... Based on your previous posts, it does seem you like repeating yourself until you get the answer you want to hear.
1. simply put we ask 'why' your answer is 'because they want to be d((kcs' and we say 'yeah that is what we already said. so given we agree time to move on I suppose
2. when one says 'can pve and pvp mix together?' it kind of assumes (although in fairness does not insist) that there is pve only games...(check) there are games with both(check) and there are those that are only PVP (uncheck). thus, if pvp cant work in pve then it assumes it cant work at all because there is no such thing as a pvp MMORPG
2) that would be false assumption then
Not to say you failed to explain the relevance of "pure-pvp-mmorpg" - you can mix PVE and PVP without having one.
given that a pvp only MMORPG doesn't exist or at the very least been defined in this discussion if its suggested that pvp cant work in a pve environment then that is the same thing as saying pvp cant exist in an MMORPG at all, peroid.
so some of you might want to address this point
Already addressed... Based on your previous posts, it does seem you like repeating yourself until you get the answer you want to hear.
no it hasnt.
more over its very much in your best interest as someone interested in pvp to make the point extreemly clear and stated often with examples because if you loose the meta debate or find yourself accidentally suggesting pve is not good in pvp then guess what?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I now understand why so many of these games have such a rough go at it. Why F2P models are needed to make them viable.
You guys really are stuck in a rut and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
So you do agree that the "mix of PVE and PVP in a virtual world" that other poster mentioned isdefinitely not the futureof MMORPGs!
You may have the wrong explanation for why it won't happen (your "stuck in a rut" vs. the actual "we don't want to repeat mistakes others have already learned from"), but you at least changed your mind on my original post you responded to.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To me this is an opinion thread and no one is right or wrong. I am just responding with my viewpoints. I can see where Gdemami is coming from I just don't agree. Sorry for the wall of text
Because you have an opinion does not mean you can't be wrong. And you are wrong :-P
Just look at single player games. They still recieve patches and balance changes, even if no new content is being added. And there is no PVP in those games whatsoever either.
Same applies to MMOs, just they are way more complex.
I am not denying that balancing for PVE and PVP is more challenging, but to think PVE balancing requires less effort is foolish. Balancing is not just about nerfing of unintended play but also about variety and usefulness of all classes and skills as well as providing enjoyable, engaging experience.
This is all directed at the single player stuff:
Wow I don't know what to say at this point to you. Basically anyone who doesn't see things the way you do is wrong so it doesn't matter what anyone says. A good example lets say I am color blind and I say the sky is gray, to me the sky is gray no matter what color you say it is, but to you I am wrong no matter what even though I will never see anything other than gray. People opinions are just that opinions and not facts and when people like yourself understand this the world will be a lot better place.
Now some actually facts: There is not class balancing in single player games to start with
because you normally will only play one class at a time so a difference
in the way a class plays or strength or weakness is what most developers
go for from the start. So why would a developer waste time and resources on something like that, they will fix game breaking bugs in single player games but not class balancing. Give me a list of games that do this to support you idea, instead of just stating a obtuse fact like this.
I own over 1000 single player games throughout my life and I have never seen class balancing after development in a single player game. I started gaming with pong so been playing games a long time. Now if you are talking about a single player with a co-op that is not a true single player either so it can be thrown out of the discussion. Lets start with a single player game I loved many years ago, final fantasy don't remember them changing a thing after it launch. Skip forward to a newer game Witcher 3 they have not changed the way his mechanics work, now you can get mods for your game to change it but the studio has only changed bugs other than the dlc which added things, and we have discussed this already my view on that already.
Now the only games I can think of changing are games like Starcraft, but guess what the changes had nothing to do with the single player aspect they were changed because of the multiplayer aspect or as some would call it in MMO's PVP. So all those claims would be null and void.
So again if you are going to make a statement like that and say others are wrong then give a list to support your claim.
I forgot to add if the game is in early access or adding features all the time that wouldn't count either because it is not truly released per say, they are using players to test their game instead of doing testing.
There is not class balancing in single player games to start with
because you normally will only play one class at a time so a difference
in the way a class plays or strength or weakness is what most developers
go for from the start.
Just to reiterate my view is there should be unbalanced classes in games that are PVE. Everyone should not be the same across the board in damage, healing, tanking. This class should be able to do something that class cannot etc... Even games like WOW started this way, but over the years it basically has come down to everyone can do everything, everyone else can.
An example a mage should never be able to take hits like a tank can. A tank should never have the dps output of a Ranger or Mage. A healer should not be tanking or doing dps roles etc....
That is were this thread started, the link between trying to make all the classes closer to the same because of a PVP element.
I do enjoy PVP sometimes as it can give a rush that PVE doesn't sometimes. I just don't like changes made to the PVE aspect of a game based off the feedback of the PVP element.
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...
But balancing should not be a never ending process, that is the whole point. Once at game is release they should not have to change the way a class plays unless they add an xpac that adds new skills or something of that degree. The only reason a good amount of games nerf and buff classes has nothing to do with PVE at all, it is to balance for the PVP aspect. So in those games if you removed the PVP you would have classes that did not get changed every time the wind changed direction.
My argument for this is balancing should be done in the testing phase of a game which most games do not even truly have anymore. Once a game is released unless something is horribly wrong they should not need to change the way a class plays.
I think it doesn't matter what either of us say because we stand on opposite ends of the spectrum. You seem to like the balancing changes all the time I detest them.
My experience is the opposite. In the two primarily PvE orientated MMOs I've played (LotRO and SW:TOR), I'd estimate 98% of balance changes happened due to PvE with the remaining 2% occuring due to PvP.
Whilst I agree with you that games should not need balancing after release, the reality is that developers / professional testers can never 100% anticipate all the possible ways to play the game. This has meant that when the game launches, inevitably the community finds a way to break a class and so the devs need to fix it.
Also, MMOs aren't static. Even if the classes are "balanced", new content will get released that favours one class or another, resulting in people excluding less efficient classes, resulting in a "balance" change. In fact, this is where the majority of balance issues come from: new content favouring certain classes.
Finally, classes also get balanced for PvE because of differing playstyles. During this thread, many of the pvp-haters have said they're happy with classes having different advantages in PvE, as long as each one is useful. However, you seem to be ignoring 90% of players who play solo. These are the people I most often see clamouring for balancing. Balancing solo in PvE is pretty much the same as balancing for PvP (its essentially damage output vs damage mitigation), but balancing for solo play is the root cause of why so many classes become homogenised.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
My experience is the opposite. In the two primarily PvE orientated MMOs I've played (LotRO and SW:TOR), I'd estimate 98% of balance changes happened due to PvE with the remaining 2% occuring due to PvP.
Whilst I agree with you that games should not need balancing after release, the reality is that developers / professional testers can never 100% anticipate all the possible ways to play the game. This has meant that when the game launches, inevitably the community finds a way to break a class and so the devs need to fix it.
Also, MMOs aren't static. Even if the classes are "balanced", new content will get released that favours one class or another, resulting in people excluding less efficient classes, resulting in a "balance" change. In fact, this is where the majority of balance issues come from: new content favouring certain classes.
Finally, classes also get balanced for PvE because of differing playstyles. During this thread, many of the pvp-haters have said they're happy with classes having different advantages in PvE, as long as each one is useful. However, you seem to be ignoring 90% of players who play solo. These are the people I most often see clamouring for balancing. Balancing solo in PvE is pretty much the same as balancing for PvP (its essentially damage output vs damage mitigation), but balancing for solo play is the root cause of why so many classes become homogenised.
Yeah PVE can effect PVP, want disagree there at all. Kinda the point changes to one will almost always effect the other, there are a couple exceptions, people have pointed to Wurm which I have not played.
Also the point of MMO not being static was covered already, if new content is release yes there should be changes made.
The last statement could also be true to an extent. Not thinking about solo play myself but see where you are coming from with that.
There is not class balancing in single player games to start with
because you normally will only play one class at a time so a difference
in the way a class plays or strength or weakness is what most developers
go for from the start.
Since you are in some sort of denial state, any further discussion is moot....
I will concede to your single player based on pillars of eternity example.
Think most of the changes come from something not working as intended which should have been found in a proper testing program. They did sell testing phase instead of really doing testing. People that pay to get into testing do not truly test a game a good portion of the time.
I now understand why so many of these games have such a rough go at it. Why F2P models are needed to make them viable.
You guys really are stuck in a rut and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
So you do agree that the "mix of PVE and PVP in a virtual world" that other poster mentioned isdefinitely not the futureof MMORPGs!
You may have the wrong explanation for why it won't happen (your "stuck in a rut" vs. the actual "we don't want to repeat mistakes others have already learned from"), but you at least changed your mind on my original post you responded to.
No I don't agree with that.
PvE is a must in these games, even if the PvP crowd doesn't want to admit it. Does a PvP only MMORPG even exist?
I'm toying with Black Desert at the moment. I can see a certain crowd shitting all over it, but it seems to have some very interesting systems. A thinking man's game.
I've never been much for Asian games, but it seems these days that when it comes to MMORPG's, they're the ones who don't seem to be afraid to innovate.
PvE is a must in these games, even if the PvP crowd doesn't want to admit it. Does a PvP only MMORPG even exist?
I'm toying with Black Desert at the moment. I can see a certain crowd shitting all over it, but it seems to have some very interesting systems. A thinking man's game.
I've never been much for Asian games, but it seems these days that when it comes to MMORPG's, they're the ones who don't seem to be afraid to innovate.
Well the games that the MMORPG industry is producing aren't "virtual worlds" with a mix of PVE and PVP.
So you either "don't see that changing" (as you just said,) or you do see it changing and believe virtual worlds are the future. One or the other.
Why does it matter whether a PVP-only MMORPG exists? How is that at all relevant to our conversation? The "mix of PVE and PVP" part of the statement isn't the wrong part, as every MMORPG is a mix of PVE and PVP (even the ones that isolate PVE from PVP are.) It's the "virtual world" part of the claim that's wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
PvE is a must in these games, even if the PvP crowd doesn't want to admit it. Does a PvP only MMORPG even exist?
I'm toying with Black Desert at the moment. I can see a certain crowd shitting all over it, but it seems to have some very interesting systems. A thinking man's game.
I've never been much for Asian games, but it seems these days that when it comes to MMORPG's, they're the ones who don't seem to be afraid to innovate.
Well the games that the MMORPG industry is producing aren't "virtual worlds" with a mix of PVE and PVP.
So you either "don't see that changing" (as you just said,) or you do see it changing and believe virtual worlds are the future. One or the other.
Why does it matter whether a PVP-only MMORPG exists? How is that at all relevant to our conversation? The "mix of PVE and PVP" part of the statement isn't the wrong part, as every MMORPG is a mix of PVE and PVP (even the ones that isolate PVE from PVP are.) It's the "virtual world" part of the claim that's wrong.
Can we agree that the spirit of an MMORPG is about playing an avatar with many other players in an imaginary world?
Can we agree that MMORPG's are intended to have longevity?
Let's not get hung up on the term "Virtual World"
How about we use the terms "Immersive World" and "Immersive AI"
Now I will argue that the more the player is immersed, the more the player is entertained. I will also argue that the more plausible a world is, the more immersive it is. And I will make the same argument with the AI's behavior acting in a plausible manner. Giving the mob the illusion of intelligence for entertainment purpose.
Wouldn't these things make a gameplay-focused game more entertaining?
Could it give a game more longevity?
How can you keep the brunt of your hard worked and expensive assets from being devoured and spit out after the first 30-60 days?
Make interaction with any place in the world fun for any progression level. Get away from the level through and throw it away design.
Your tried and true customers have "been there done that" It's a lot more difficult to please them. But they are a huge market with the disposable income.
Don't make the mistake of relying too much on the younger generations, there is plenty of pull from newer genres.
Can we agree that the spirit of an MMORPG is about playing an avatar with many other players in an imaginary world?
Can we agree that MMORPG's are intended to have longevity?
Let's not get hung up on the term "Virtual World"
How about we use the terms "Immersive World" and "Immersive AI"
Now I will argue that the more the player is immersed, the more the player is entertained. I will also argue that the more plausible a world is, the more immersive it is. And I will make the same argument with the AI's behavior acting in a plausible manner. Giving the mob the illusion of intelligence for entertainment purpose.
Wouldn't these things make a gameplay-focused game more entertaining?
Could it give a game more longevity?
How can you keep the brunt of your hard worked and expensive assets from being devoured and spit out after the first 30-60 days?
Make interaction with any place in the world fun for any progression level. Get away from the level through and throw it away design.
Your tried and true customers have "been there done that" It's a lot more difficult to please them. But they are a huge market with the disposable income.
Don't make the mistake of relying too much on the younger generations, there is plenty of pull from newer genres.
Tough times if you want to make MMORPG's
I'm fine with a lot of those things.
Immersion can just as much refer to the flow state (where the player is "immersed in the game") and games like Geometry Wars 2 and Tetris achieve the flow state (immersion) to a higher degree than most games out there, in spite of being entirely abstract and not "realistic" at all.
But if we stick strictly to the "believability" definition of immersion, then the comment becomes: yes, that's very important but gameplay is typically more important (put another way: gamers are more likely to quit because the gameplay is rather boring than because things are slightly less believable.)
Which goes back to the video on AI design that implies there's a fairly sizable gameplay quality loss to support the moderate believability improvement that would happen with 'immersive AI'.
There's still plenty of ways AI could change in MMORPGs, and I suppose some of those ways might be more believable, but inevitably the AI isn't ever going to make sense as a replacement for a live opponent, since that's just not the type of game MMORPGs are.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
PVP fits beter in PVE games now because they aren't using the trinity anymore....SInce basically all classes can do everything in most games it isn't as gamebreaking as when rogues used to fight enchanters.
PVP fits beter in PVE games now because they aren't using the trinity anymore....SInce basically all classes can do everything in most games it isn't as gamebreaking as when rogues used to fight enchanters.
HERE...everyone read this.
Statements like this one is why I think its important for you all to define and with examples (if possible) what a pvp only MMORPG is. because best I can tell no such thing has ever existed.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
PVP fits beter in PVE games now because they aren't using the trinity anymore....SInce basically all classes can do everything in most games it isn't as gamebreaking as when rogues used to fight enchanters.
HERE...everyone read this.
Statements like this one is why I think its important for you all to define and with examples (if possible) what a pvp only MMORPG is. because best I can tell no such thing has ever existed.
You keep asking for this but you will never get it Sean. There is no such animal. A PvP only MMO is an FPS/MOBA. Players who are really interested in competitive PvP do not play MMORPGs. If the more dynamic and competitive PvP is to be found in FPSs and MOBAs, why would anyone want to PvP in an MMORPG? The predominant interest that PvP-centric players have with MMORPGs is the "gank" and "sheep" factor. Without those two dynamics in MMORPGs, PvP-centric players would be virtually non-existent in the genre. Perfect proof of this can be found everywhere in MMORPGs that feature a mixture of PvE and PvP. Once the PvE players leave these games the game sets off on a slow decline phase before its eventual death.
There are two reasons why developers include PvP in MMORPGs. One is the obvious profit potential from tapping that FPS/MOBA pool of players, and the second is because it is easier to develop MMORPGs with PvP as an endgame focus because developing content is hella expensive and with PvP as an end game players are the content. So no a PvP only MMORPG has never existed because by their very nature MMORPGs are about players role playing a character and uniting in adventure and journey against an NPC virtual world. Injecting PvP into this equation serves only to fracture that experience, not enhance it.
PVP fits beter in PVE games now because they aren't using the trinity anymore....SInce basically all classes can do everything in most games it isn't as gamebreaking as when rogues used to fight enchanters.
HERE...everyone read this.
Statements like this one is why I think its important for you all to define and with examples (if possible) what a pvp only MMORPG is. because best I can tell no such thing has ever existed.
You keep asking for this but you will never get it Sean. There is no such animal. A PvP only MMO is an FPS/MOBA. Players who are really interested in competitive PvP do not play MMORPGs. If the more dynamic and competitive PvP is to be found in FPSs and MOBAs, why would anyone want to PvP in an MMORPG? The predominant interest that PvP-centric players have with MMORPGs is the "gank" and "sheep" factor. Without those two dynamics in MMORPGs, PvP-centric players would be virtually non-existent in the genre. Perfect proof of this can be found everywhere in MMORPGs that feature a mixture of PvE and PvP. Once the PvE players leave these games the game sets off on a slow decline phase before its eventual death.
There are two reasons why developers include PvP in MMORPGs. One is the obvious profit potential from tapping that FPS/MOBA pool of players, and the second is because it is easier to develop MMORPGs with PvP as an endgame focus because developing content is hella expensive and with PvP as an end game players are the content. So no a PvP only MMORPG has never existed because by their very nature MMORPGs are about players role playing a character and uniting in adventure and journey against an NPC virtual world. Injecting PvP into this equation serves only to fracture that experience, not enhance it.
better than what? better than something that has never been done before ever?
I dont think people are all on the same page here is what i am saying and because of that I think people will be talking about different concepts completely and the entire debate will turn into a massive cluster F
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
PVP fits beter in PVE games now because they aren't using the trinity anymore....SInce basically all classes can do everything in most games it isn't as gamebreaking as when rogues used to fight enchanters.
HERE...everyone read this.
Statements like this one is why I think its important for you all to define and with examples (if possible) what a pvp only MMORPG is. because best I can tell no such thing has ever existed.
You keep asking for this but you will never get it Sean. There is no such animal. A PvP only MMO is an FPS/MOBA. Players who are really interested in competitive PvP do not play MMORPGs. If the more dynamic and competitive PvP is to be found in FPSs and MOBAs, why would anyone want to PvP in an MMORPG? The predominant interest that PvP-centric players have with MMORPGs is the "gank" and "sheep" factor. Without those two dynamics in MMORPGs, PvP-centric players would be virtually non-existent in the genre. Perfect proof of this can be found everywhere in MMORPGs that feature a mixture of PvE and PvP. Once the PvE players leave these games the game sets off on a slow decline phase before its eventual death.
There are two reasons why developers include PvP in MMORPGs. One is the obvious profit potential from tapping that FPS/MOBA pool of players, and the second is because it is easier to develop MMORPGs with PvP as an endgame focus because developing content is hella expensive and with PvP as an end game players are the content. So no a PvP only MMORPG has never existed because by their very nature MMORPGs are about players role playing a character and uniting in adventure and journey against an NPC virtual world. Injecting PvP into this equation serves only to fracture that experience, not enhance it.
I don't believe it's the PvP that fractures the experience. It's the people who like to role play psychopaths. In the real world they get away with it a couple times before they are taken out of the equation for good. In these games they just keep going and going like the Energizer Bunny.
I believe most MMORPGer's like both in their game of choice. It's the very few Asshats that ruin the experience for most.
Comments
This is a square wheel. We know it's a bad design. It's knowledge.
You don't "push boundaries" by repeating a known mistake. So while it's true that pushing boundaries can help this and other genres do well, repeating a mistake isn't pushing boundaries.
"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 a pvp only MMORPG doesn't exist or at the very least been defined in this discussion if its suggested that pvp cant work in a pve environment then that is the same thing as saying pvp cant exist in an MMORPG at all, peroid.
so some of you might want to address this point
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I now understand why so many of these games have such a rough go at it. Why F2P models are needed to make them viable.
You guys really are stuck in a rut and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
no it hasnt.
more over its very much in your best interest as someone interested in pvp to make the point extreemly clear and stated often with examples because if you loose the meta debate or find yourself accidentally suggesting pve is not good in pvp then guess what?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You may have the wrong explanation for why it won't happen (your "stuck in a rut" vs. the actual "we don't want to repeat mistakes others have already learned from"), but you at least changed your mind on my original post you responded to.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Wow I don't know what to say at this point to you. Basically anyone who doesn't see things the way you do is wrong so it doesn't matter what anyone says. A good example lets say I am color blind and I say the sky is gray, to me the sky is gray no matter what color you say it is, but to you I am wrong no matter what even though I will never see anything other than gray. People opinions are just that opinions and not facts and when people like yourself understand this the world will be a lot better place.
Now some actually facts:
There is not class balancing in single player games to start with because you normally will only play one class at a time so a difference in the way a class plays or strength or weakness is what most developers go for from the start. So why would a developer waste time and resources on something like that, they will fix game breaking bugs in single player games but not class balancing. Give me a list of games that do this to support you idea, instead of just stating a obtuse fact like this.
I own over 1000 single player games throughout my life and I have never seen class balancing after development in a single player game. I started gaming with pong so been playing games a long time. Now if you are talking about a single player with a co-op that is not a true single player either so it can be thrown out of the discussion. Lets start with a single player game I loved many years ago, final fantasy don't remember them changing a thing after it launch. Skip forward to a newer game Witcher 3 they have not changed the way his mechanics work, now you can get mods for your game to change it but the studio has only changed bugs other than the dlc which added things, and we have discussed this already my view on that already.
Now the only games I can think of changing are games like Starcraft, but guess what the changes had nothing to do with the single player aspect they were changed because of the multiplayer aspect or as some would call it in MMO's PVP. So all those claims would be null and void.
So again if you are going to make a statement like that and say others are wrong then give a list to support your claim.
I forgot to add if the game is in early access or adding features all the time that wouldn't count either because it is not truly released per say, they are using players to test their game instead of doing testing.
Random example of class/skill balance changes in single player game:
https://forums.obsidian.net/blog/7/entry-184-update-notes-106/
Since you are in some sort of denial state, any further discussion is moot....
An example a mage should never be able to take hits like a tank can. A tank should never have the dps output of a Ranger or Mage. A healer should not be tanking or doing dps roles etc....
That is were this thread started, the link between trying to make all the classes closer to the same because of a PVP element.
I do enjoy PVP sometimes as it can give a rush that PVE doesn't sometimes. I just don't like changes made to the PVE aspect of a game based off the feedback of the PVP element.
Whilst I agree with you that games should not need balancing after release, the reality is that developers / professional testers can never 100% anticipate all the possible ways to play the game. This has meant that when the game launches, inevitably the community finds a way to break a class and so the devs need to fix it.
Also, MMOs aren't static. Even if the classes are "balanced", new content will get released that favours one class or another, resulting in people excluding less efficient classes, resulting in a "balance" change. In fact, this is where the majority of balance issues come from: new content favouring certain classes.
Finally, classes also get balanced for PvE because of differing playstyles. During this thread, many of the pvp-haters have said they're happy with classes having different advantages in PvE, as long as each one is useful. However, you seem to be ignoring 90% of players who play solo. These are the people I most often see clamouring for balancing. Balancing solo in PvE is pretty much the same as balancing for PvP (its essentially damage output vs damage mitigation), but balancing for solo play is the root cause of why so many classes become homogenised.
Also the point of MMO not being static was covered already, if new content is release yes there should be changes made.
The last statement could also be true to an extent. Not thinking about solo play myself but see where you are coming from with that.
Think most of the changes come from something not working as intended which should have been found in a proper testing program. They did sell testing phase instead of really doing testing. People that pay to get into testing do not truly test a game a good portion of the time.
PvE is a must in these games, even if the PvP crowd doesn't want to admit it. Does a PvP only MMORPG even exist?
I'm toying with Black Desert at the moment. I can see a certain crowd shitting all over it, but it seems to have some very interesting systems. A thinking man's game.
I've never been much for Asian games, but it seems these days that when it comes to MMORPG's, they're the ones who don't seem to be afraid to innovate.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
So you either "don't see that changing" (as you just said,) or you do see it changing and believe virtual worlds are the future. One or the other.
Why does it matter whether a PVP-only MMORPG exists? How is that at all relevant to our conversation? The "mix of PVE and PVP" part of the statement isn't the wrong part, as every MMORPG is a mix of PVE and PVP (even the ones that isolate PVE from PVP are.) It's the "virtual world" part of the claim that's wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
has anyone been clear, explicit and 'loud' about what a pvp only mmorpg game even looks like yet?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Can we agree that MMORPG's are intended to have longevity?
Let's not get hung up on the term "Virtual World"
How about we use the terms "Immersive World" and "Immersive AI"
Now I will argue that the more the player is immersed, the more the player is entertained. I will also argue that the more plausible a world is, the more immersive it is. And I will make the same argument with the AI's behavior acting in a plausible manner. Giving the mob the illusion of intelligence for entertainment purpose.
Wouldn't these things make a gameplay-focused game more entertaining?
Could it give a game more longevity?
How can you keep the brunt of your hard worked and expensive assets from being devoured and spit out after the first 30-60 days?
Make interaction with any place in the world fun for any progression level. Get away from the level through and throw it away design.
Your tried and true customers have "been there done that" It's a lot more difficult to please them. But they are a huge market with the disposable income.
Don't make the mistake of relying too much on the younger generations, there is plenty of pull from newer genres.
Tough times if you want to make MMORPG's
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Immersion can just as much refer to the flow state (where the player is "immersed in the game") and games like Geometry Wars 2 and Tetris achieve the flow state (immersion) to a higher degree than most games out there, in spite of being entirely abstract and not "realistic" at all.
But if we stick strictly to the "believability" definition of immersion, then the comment becomes: yes, that's very important but gameplay is typically more important (put another way: gamers are more likely to quit because the gameplay is rather boring than because things are slightly less believable.)
Which goes back to the video on AI design that implies there's a fairly sizable gameplay quality loss to support the moderate believability improvement that would happen with 'immersive AI'.
There's still plenty of ways AI could change in MMORPGs, and I suppose some of those ways might be more believable, but inevitably the AI isn't ever going to make sense as a replacement for a live opponent, since that's just not the type of game MMORPGs are.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Statements like this one is why I think its important for you all to define and with examples (if possible) what a pvp only MMORPG is. because best I can tell no such thing has ever existed.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You keep asking for this but you will never get it Sean. There is no such animal. A PvP only MMO is an FPS/MOBA. Players who are really interested in competitive PvP do not play MMORPGs. If the more dynamic and competitive PvP is to be found in FPSs and MOBAs, why would anyone want to PvP in an MMORPG? The predominant interest that PvP-centric players have with MMORPGs is the "gank" and "sheep" factor. Without those two dynamics in MMORPGs, PvP-centric players would be virtually non-existent in the genre. Perfect proof of this can be found everywhere in MMORPGs that feature a mixture of PvE and PvP. Once the PvE players leave these games the game sets off on a slow decline phase before its eventual death.
There are two reasons why developers include PvP in MMORPGs. One is the obvious profit potential from tapping that FPS/MOBA pool of players, and the second is because it is easier to develop MMORPGs with PvP as an endgame focus because developing content is hella expensive and with PvP as an end game players are the content. So no a PvP only MMORPG has never existed because by their very nature MMORPGs are about players role playing a character and uniting in adventure and journey against an NPC virtual world. Injecting PvP into this equation serves only to fracture that experience, not enhance it.
'PVP fits beter in...'
better than what? better than something that has never been done before ever?
I dont think people are all on the same page here is what i am saying and because of that I think people will be talking about different concepts completely and the entire debate will turn into a massive cluster F
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I believe most MMORPGer's like both in their game of choice. It's the very few Asshats that ruin the experience for most.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee