Open World PvP and PvE Coexistence

FaunNoe

I just remember playing an mmorpg years ago where you could tick off PvP in-game in which case you couldn't be attacked by any player and you couldn't attack another player either. Once you turned PvP on you could attack other players and vice versa but there was a time limit before you could tick it off. You couldn't just Kill a player and then say "Well, I'm done fighting now, so I'm ticking PvP off so no one can kill me." You would have to deal with people being able to attack you for like an hour or so of in-game time. 

What do you think of this? Do you think something like this would work out nicely? 

Nebless

I liked that system while I was playing.  Not only could I turn it on if I wanted to, but also the auto turn on feature if I engaged in certain 'hostile' actions.  Added some spice to life.

You couldn't turn it off for 15min after it turned on, nor could you hide in buildings to wait it out.  The whole 'actions have consequences' type thing.

I neve saw anything wrong with it and never really understood why certain players didn't like it enough that the Dev's changed the system and did away with it.

If the game didn't start with it, I could see where it would be useful when merging Pvp and PvE servers together after the Pvp server has effectively 'died'.

iixviiiix

Heavy punishment instead of silly ticking .

Dvora

The solution is not to separate PVE from PVP, it is for players that hate PVP to stay away from games that don't mellow it out enough for them.  Let the hardcore pvpers have those games.

Many if not most PVP players like PVE as well, as long as it is decently good PVE.  PVP only MMOs feel half ass and quickly become boring for me.  I like PVE with a threat of possible PVP, and PVP with real consequences.  

Some of my all time favorite games were full loot pvp games, such as UO before trammel.  If the game didnt have pve it would have been garbage.  That said full loot is hard to properly pull off and keep any sort of decent population.  It can be done I think but it worked in the early days because back then not everyone was quite so bloodthirsty as they seem to be now.  I suspect fewer kids played back then also... 

IMO not enough games try Shadowbane's approach.  Shadowbane had some great gameplay but suffered from piss poor graphics, bugs, and a boring world design.  What  brought it to life was the guild interaction & PVP, and pretty damn interesting classes & combat.  PVP was partial loot, you did not lose the gear you were wearing, only what you  were carrying.  You had something to lose by dying, and something to gain by killing others while not being overwhelming for the victims.

I still think full loot can work if gear is easy enough to get, but psychologically its too much for alot of people.  Partial loot would find the center of both PVE and PVP player camps and sustain a population alot easier.  Shadowbane died because of bugs and poor graphics, not because of it's PVP.  Some of my friends that really arent PVPers still have some of their best memories in Shadowbane.

The guild wars in Shadowbane actually meant something as well, even to those non pvp friends.  Losing your city basically disbanded your in game guild roster.  Ganking groups were a way to put a damper on enemy guild resource (gold & gear) gathering.  So much fun in that game!  It's a shame nobody has tried something similar again with better presentation.

I think games like Crowfall and Camelot unchained that are more or less giving up on real PVE are shooting themselves in the foot.  Maybe that is just a budget thing but imo without decent pve also they are wasting their opportunities.

Eldurian

FaunNoe said:

I just remember playing an mmorpg years ago where you could tick off PvP in-game in which case you couldn't be attacked by any player and you couldn't attack another player either. Once you turned PvP on you could attack other players and vice versa but there was a time limit before you could tick it off. You couldn't just Kill a player and then say "Well, I'm done fighting now, so I'm ticking PvP off so no one can kill me." You would have to deal with people being able to attack you for like an hour or so of in-game time. 

What do you think of this? Do you think something like this would work out nicely? 

At least for me, the draw of Open World PvP is the realism and the capability of total war. For instance when the big zerg guilds are abusing everyone else I hit them where it hurts. Their newbs and their gatherers. Essentially testing the capabilities of the most powerful factions to protect their own. 

Much like how in Age of Empires or other RTS games when your first aim isn't to crush their military head on. It's to cripple kill their villagers and cripple their economy when they let their guard down. Then you steamroll over the top of their economically crippled nation.

Flagging for me and anyone else with a brain in their heads means never being flagged while you gather and being flagged when you are seeking PvP.

If you are going to do that there is no point to Open World PvP whatsoever IMO. You may as well just confine it to arenas.

At least for me I will gladly go into PvP zones for rewards that I feel are worth the risks presented but in games with PvP flagging I almost never flag up. There isn't anything worthwhile to fight over if all PvP is 100% consensual. 

In my mind allowing PvE and PvP to exist side by side is having zones where those not wishing to be exposed to PvP don't have to be and making it so they can enjoy an 100% enjoyable experience inside those zones and offering the reward of scarce resources only gatherable in PvP zones for those who are willing to accept the risk.

Eldurian

I think the other mistake often made in this argument is in the assumption there are PvEers and PvPers.

Only a small number of PvEers never want to PvP and practically no PvPers never want to PvE. The issue is capturing as many players that fall somewhere in the middle as possible. Certain people like ZionBane are just a lost cause and fall entirely outside the target audience of any game that allows for Open World PvP.

A great number of your "PvEers" in a PvP game are going to be people who are also PvPers sometimes.

ZionBane

I think it could work, if the PvP timer was a week, or.. say... 30 hours of game time. 

Also, I think that if they set it so that anyone you killed, could freely kill you back at any time, regardless of your flag at the moment, you know.. just to keep things lively.

Moirae

Oh for gods sakes, not again. No, it doesn't work. 

JudgeUK

Enforced mixing of pvp and pve sure worked well for Aion "the next big AAA mmo!"

Oh hold on, correction - It didn't.
Not at all in fact.

The game turned into a gank fest with lvl 40 players one shotting lvl 18's when they got to the first of the games' much vaunted pvpve areas. With these 'hardcore' players then repeatedly suiciding so they wouldn't out level the lower area zones.

Subs rapidly dwindled in the face of this player stupidity - and I use this term intentionally - and what is left now? A shell of a ftp existence, with the game just about forgotten in mainstream gaming media.

When in fact Aion should be remembered - as a lesson in what not to do with pvp and pve.

Dauzqul

I want a believable PvP system.

• Gigantic Open World game designed for PvE, but with the permanent ability to fight players of the opposing faction.
• Enemy name tags and levels will be invisible.

ZionBane

Dauzqul said:

I want a believable PvP system.

• Gigantic Open World game designed for PvE, but with the permanent ability to fight players of the opposing faction.
• Enemy name tags and levels will be invisible.

Why not simply remove the level grind, that way all PvP is equal?

Kabulozo

It has been working in Lineage since 1998. Pve and Pvp happen and work in the same environment and it has been doing great in Korea for years.

Just add a flag/pk system along side with a clan war system.

Kyleran

Dvora said:

The solution is not to separate PVE from PVP, it is for players that hate PVP to stay away from games that don't mellow it out enough for them.  Let the hardcore pvpers have those games.

Many if not most PVP players like PVE as well, as long as it is decently good PVE.  PVP only MMOs feel half ass and quickly become boring for me.  I like PVE with a threat of possible PVP, and PVP with real consequences.  

Some of my all time favorite games were full loot pvp games, such as UO before trammel.  If the game didnt have pve it would have been garbage.  That said full loot is hard to properly pull off and keep any sort of decent population.  It can be done I think but it worked in the early days because back then not everyone was quite so bloodthirsty as they seem to be now.  I suspect fewer kids played back then also... 

IMO not enough games try Shadowbane's approach.  Shadowbane had some great gameplay but suffered from piss poor graphics, bugs, and a boring world design.  What  brought it to life was the guild interaction & PVP, and pretty damn interesting classes & combat.  PVP was partial loot, you did not lose the gear you were wearing, only what you  were carrying.  You had something to lose by dying, and something to gain by killing others while not being overwhelming for the victims.

I still think full loot can work if gear is easy enough to get, but psychologically its too much for alot of people.  Partial loot would find the center of both PVE and PVP player camps and sustain a population alot easier.  Shadowbane died because of bugs and poor graphics, not because of it's PVP.  Some of my friends that really arent PVPers still have some of their best memories in Shadowbane.

The guild wars in Shadowbane actually meant something as well, even to those non pvp friends.  Losing your city basically disbanded your in game guild roster.  Ganking groups were a way to put a damper on enemy guild resource (gold & gear) gathering.  So much fun in that game!  It's a shame nobody has tried something similar again with better presentation.

I think games like Crowfall and Camelot unchained that are more or less giving up on real PVE are shooting themselves in the foot.  Maybe that is just a budget thing but imo without decent pve also they are wasting their opportunities.

I'd be interested to know what time period you played SB in? There was a lot I enjoyed in SB but the clan war mechanic was what drove me away.

I was there for the first 4 months after launch, and it was a good time until a single guild (alluance?) arose that basically swept my server and destroyed every single other clans cities from the map.

More disconcerting was the games protection against sneak attacks wasn't well thought out.  As I recall there was a limit to the number of buildings you could put under the timers protection.

So when war was declared for 11 am EST I logged in at 8 am only to find the enemy had attacked at 3:00 am and leveled most of our walls and any unprotected bulidings. (One I owned or managed being one of those)

As others logged in it was clear there was no will to even attempt to fight the enemy especially as the walls were down and could not be replaced in time.

Anyways, the pattern repeated itself with other assaults and I left for good.

They may have changed this later but at the time I was there the design favored attackers far too heavily which is often the case in these games.

Kyleran

Eldurian said:

I think the other mistake often made in this argument is in the assumption there are PvEers and PvPers.

Only a small number of PvEers never want to PvP and practically no PvPers never want to PvE. The issue is capturing as many players that fall somewhere in the middle as possible. Certain people like ZionBane are just a lost cause and fall entirely outside the target audience of any game that allows for Open World PvP.

A great number of your "PvEers" in a PvP game are going to be people who are also PvPers sometimes.

You described me perfectly. I don't really enjoy PVP (as I suck at it) but I do like and will fight for a "cause" such as home defense.

Which is why you find me in EVE in null sec or DAOCs frontiers but rarely in a PVE only server or game.

Flagging is of no interest since it seems to be PVP for "fun" which seems pointless to me..

Kyleran

JudgeUK said:

Enforced mixing of pvp and pve sure worked well for Aion "the next big AAA mmo!"

Oh hold on, correction - It didn't.
Not at all in fact.

The game turned into a gank fest with lvl 40 players one shotting lvl 18's when they got to the first of the games' much vaunted pvpve areas. With these 'hardcore' players then repeatedly suiciding so they wouldn't out level the lower area zones.

Subs rapidly dwindled in the face of this player stupidity - and I use this term intentionally - and what is left now? A shell of a ftp existence, with the game just about forgotten in mainstream gaming media.

When in fact Aion should be remembered - as a lesson in what not to do with pvp and pve.

Where as EVE is a good example of how it can be done.

Not saying it's perfect or for everyone, but it is a successful model.

They key is in maintaining the proper controls, checks and balances so the game doesn't turn into modern day Afganistan or Somalia.

SEANMCAD

POINT 1:
I think punishments is a silly idea because of the fact that games are supposed to virtualize what you want to do, and if you want to commit a crime again other real humans that warrants punishment then we should create mechanics to enabled that, but instead (to be blunt) offer the person therapy help. I know this can bring up a lot of conversation about killing in general in a game and that is a fair point but I still think wanting to attack real humans who do not want to be attacked is a true deviance

That is not to say people who enjoy PvP needs thready but it is to say those who want to impose pvp on pve players (which is where the crime part comes from) do and developers should not activity put in code that basically enables that behavior.

POINT 2:
Although PvP players do enjoy PvE from time to time I agree and even PvE players sometimes like to do PvP I personally think the complications between the two motivations and communities is such that they should be seperated either server wise or completely different games. I dont think the two can coexist well within the same enviroment. I have ideas on how it could be but it usually ends up with the pvp player saying that their enamies can use that as a way to hide or they get ticked off that they cant hit pve players (which as far as I am concerned is a mental condition that needs therapy). So I dont think they can co-exist.

Eldurian

JudgeUK said:

Enforced mixing of pvp and pve sure worked well for Aion "the next big AAA mmo!"

Oh hold on, correction - It didn't.
Not at all in fact.

The game turned into a gank fest with lvl 40 players one shotting lvl 18's when they got to the first of the games' much vaunted pvpve areas. With these 'hardcore' players then repeatedly suiciding so they wouldn't out level the lower area zones.

Subs rapidly dwindled in the face of this player stupidity - and I use this term intentionally - and what is left now? A shell of a ftp existence, with the game just about forgotten in mainstream gaming media.

When in fact Aion should be remembered - as a lesson in what not to do with pvp and pve.

Aion should be remembered as nothing other than another example of how taking WoW and tweaking a few features is not a recipe for a successful MMO. It's WoW with wings. It couldn't have succeeded no matter what it's PvP model was.

Dauzqul

ZionBane said:

Dauzqul said:

I want a believable PvP system.

• Gigantic Open World game designed for PvE, but with the permanent ability to fight players of the opposing faction.
• Enemy name tags and levels will be invisible.

Why not simply remove the level grind, that way all PvP is equal?

If the level grind was removed, there would be no sense of enjoyment / achievement.

H0urg1ass

Kyleran said:

JudgeUK said:

Enforced mixing of pvp and pve sure worked well for Aion "the next big AAA mmo!"

Oh hold on, correction - It didn't.
Not at all in fact.

The game turned into a gank fest with lvl 40 players one shotting lvl 18's when they got to the first of the games' much vaunted pvpve areas. With these 'hardcore' players then repeatedly suiciding so they wouldn't out level the lower area zones.

Subs rapidly dwindled in the face of this player stupidity - and I use this term intentionally - and what is left now? A shell of a ftp existence, with the game just about forgotten in mainstream gaming media.

When in fact Aion should be remembered - as a lesson in what not to do with pvp and pve.

Where as EVE is a good example of how it can be done.

Not saying it's perfect or for everyone, but it is a successful model.

They key is in maintaining the proper controls, checks and balances so the game doesn't turn into modern day Afganistan or Somalia.

Agreed, and you beat me to the response.

Just to build on your excellent "checks and balances" point, EVE succeeds in this by making it far easier for someone to avoid PVP than to be engaged in PVP.  The defender has a dozen options at their fingertips to avoid a fight, while the aggressor really only has two options to force a fight.

In order to balance the two, this is a must-have, bottom up, game design choice.  The defender needs more options than the aggressor.    

Additionally, I really don't like flags, because it lets lazy and stupid people get away with being lazy and stupid.  Make character, turn flag off, live in harmless invulnerability until you get bored and jump to the next big AAA title.  I prefer other, more organic and tactically thoughtful options, that allow a player to avoid being killed while still able to maintain their PVE lifestyle, however, if they slip and get lazy, then they may have unsolicited PVP forced upon them.

Hatefull

It worked very well in SWG on my server anyway. I don't really have the energy to read all the same re-hashed points again. All the usual suspects saying all the usual things. Maybe I will participate further in the next PvE/PvP coexist thread.

MadFrenchie

The trend actually has been to remove or minimize the level grind and just focus on the PvP.  The rise of MOBAs and recent trend of renewed interest in hero shooters are just highly refined versions of RPG arena PvP without the prior leveling requirements of an MMORPG.

As Kyleran mentioned, the only unique aspect MMORPGs can bring to the table here are the large-scale wars and the possibility for such open world PvP to influence game events or the world itself.  Trying to "hone" your PvP in arena-style, small group PvP instances will always result in an experience that's not as refined as a MOBA or Hero Shooter and one that requires exponentially more time spent doing something OTHER than PvPing just to get to the point where you CAN PvP.

SavageHorizon

Why do pvpers start these threads lol, seems they want PVE players to help make the pvp world feel alive because contrary to belief pve is more popular in mmo's than pvp. 

Played your pvp games and the PVE players can play there pve games, what's the problem. 

Cryomatrix

Hi guys, 

What I am about to say goes back to when I played WoW in 2004. But I liked that system where you could take out the other faction if you saw them leveling. I thought it was a fun system, I liked ganking people from time to time and I liked being ganked from time to time. I thought it worked well. 

I do like open world PvP but I have to say I don't like the full loot aspect. Even though it made sense in EVE which I played, I don't like it in fantasy games because I think it is fun to get good gear and I don't want to lose it by getting ganked. 

I am fine with open PvP in PvE games, it is actually fun, i just don't think you should lose everything. My 2 cents. 

Cryomatrix

Kyleran

SavageHorizon said:

Why do pvpers start these threads lol, seems they want PVE players to help make the pvp world feel alive because contrary to belief pve is more popular in mmo's than pvp. 

Played your pvp games and the PVE players can play there pve games, what's the problem. 

Contrary to your belief as mentioned above there are quite a few players interested in both PVE and PVP in their MMOs with those only willing to do one to the exclusion of the other likely the real outliers.

SEANMCAD

Kyleran said:

SavageHorizon said:

Why do pvpers start these threads lol, seems they want PVE players to help make the pvp world feel alive because contrary to belief pve is more popular in mmo's than pvp. 

Played your pvp games and the PVE players can play there pve games, what's the problem. 

Contrary to your belief as mentioned above there are quite a few players interested in both PVE and PVP in their MMOs with those only willing to do one to the exclusion of the other likely the real outliers.

my question would be why not play two different games. why does the desire to play both have to be in the same game?

ZionBane

Dauzqul said:

ZionBane said:

Dauzqul said:

I want a believable PvP system.

• Gigantic Open World game designed for PvE, but with the permanent ability to fight players of the opposing faction.
• Enemy name tags and levels will be invisible.

Why not simply remove the level grind, that way all PvP is equal?

If the level grind was removed, there would be no sense of enjoyment / achievement.

Are you saying there would be no sense of achievement for world exploration, that awarded a title, and rare artifacts, unless a level was also affixed to it?

Are you saying that Competing Dungeons, Raids, and slaying world Bosses that awarded titles, artifacts and cosmetics.. would have no sense of Enjoyment or achievement unless a level was added to it?

Are you saying that being victorious in Agreed upon duels, that could reward Titles and Commendations.. would have no sense of enjoyment, unless levels were added to it?

Just wondering?