The more important component of the game is the one that is done well. As it stands, I mostly do PvE, because it is more common for a game to do PvE well than to do PvP well.
Most MMORPGs do PvE rather badly, though, with a heavy focus on grinding. Just because I'm willing to kill ten furbolgs doesn't mean I want to have to kill a thousand of them before I can move on. A lot of PvE content requires groups, without giving players the practical means to actually get a group, which completely destroys the content.
As badly done as PvE typically is, however, PvP is usually a lot worse. Most games have PvP won by some combination of whichever side has higher levels, better gear, and/or more players. That makes the actual PvP combat itself little more than playing out the string in a battle with a known outcome. That's completely stupid.
Because it is hard to do PvE well and harder still to do PvP well, it is also important that they be separated. Otherwise, even if you can get one or the other right (and just getting one right is a lot more than most games can claim), if the other interferes with it, it can destroy what could have been a pretty good piece of a game.
And so... back to the topic... have you noticed that PvP conversations initiate a much more vehement response from the player base than PvE topics? We can all talk about raiding all day, and jovially share tactics and strategies all day long. But PvP?!? Whoa, nelly!!
I likes me some spirited conversation, though!
I think it's because pvp does bring it home in a more personal way and so many people have so many different defnitions of what constitutes "good pvp".
I also think it's because there is a segment of the pvp community who are just bad sports, both in winning and losing. They take what is supposed to be fun and turn it into something that seems, well... "dirty".
And to top it off, it seems that some of these people who have "issues" use pvp as their very own method of bringing (a sometimes nasty) relevance into their lives.
I was once told that a more notable pvp figure on our server was in reality this tiny, geeky, nasty, misfit who rarely washed, had problems with creating romantic releationships, problems with social relations (well, more than the "normal" problems that we all have perhaps) and was just a thoroughly unlikable fellow.
So it made perfect sense that he was a nasty little bully in game.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
IMO the only game that came close to getting PvP and PvE balance right was DAoC. Find me the next DAoC and I will show you a loyal subscriber for years.
Both PvP and PvE are important, but it really depends on the MMORPG on how you'd go about implementing the rulesets. I find that it makes most business sense to create servers with different rulesets, so that they game caters to everyones preferred playstyle. IF there isn't enough demand for a particular ruleset, you can always transfer peoples characters to a server of their choice and shut that server down. However, some games may not need different rulesets, because the core of the game may only cause it to make sense to have 1 or 2 types of servers. I think players like variety. There are pure PvE and pure PvP crowds, but I bet most people fall in the middle somewhere. It's good when a game offers full pvp, contested zone pvp, pvp matches, and arena's. Doing this offers something for everyone. Many games have this approach and this approach should be expanded upon. If I was a developer, I'd create 4 rulesets. A PvE server, a RP-PvE server, a Consensual PvP server, and a Open PvP server. I'd also have classes balanced based on server type. It's always a tragedy when PvE is messed with as a result of classes being buffed or nerfed in the name of PvP. Leave classes alone on PvE and RP servers, and balance the classes on the PvP servers.
Well said!
Especially about balancing the classes [or better yet, use a class-less system ie. Ryzom].
If one subscription fee gets a player access to all the server types, every gamer should be happy. My guess is that the PvE servers would pay for the Open PvP one, but if all were available no one could cry foul.
Robsolf, you're automatically assuming I go to zones 20 levels lower than me? Don't you think that's a bit unfair?
Sure, I enjoy the benefits of my class.
I'm new to the MMORPG world so haven't had the experience of playing all the games you all have referenced----but, I have played enough open PVP to know that--as sure as there are levels of players 20+ below you--that's where the 'dedicated PVP' players will go.
Unfair??---An understatement!!!
The only way to cure this would be a penalty for killing players so far beneath you they CAN'T fight back.
As long as this is not done--those of us who want to experience the 'game' aspect of mmorpG will continue to seek out a setting where we can learn the leveling/questing side and not where is the nearest graveyard.
I fail to see the benefits of a level 50+ killing a level 30-
I also fail to see the benefit of a level 50+ killing someone so outmatched that they can't fight back.
If you do that, you should be instantly attackable by anyone and any thing in the game, regardless of faction, for a period of time (like 24 hours). So that if you go into a city, you are attacked by the guards. If you're out and about, players above you (should they exist) or of your same faction can attack you.
If a player wants to boast about their skill in PvP combat, they should actually exhibit some, first. And that's not the way to do it. *nods*
I've been thinking about this ever since the good old MUD days. PVP give games that litte tingle of fear and adrenalin which is good, especially if there is some risk involved other than ego bashing. On the other hand too much risk and it becomes a chore instead of a fun thing. The most negative aspect of PVP in modern games is that it is the driving force behind class balance, a concept which to me is utterly boring and no game ever gets right.
Almost all new MMORPGs these days produce identical characters within a specific class, and classes that are differently named but have almost identical abilities. We all race through the PVE content to get to the endgame, wich usually consist of either endlessly repeating identical PVE encounters(Raids) or endlessly repeating identical PVP encounters. The world is usually so small the thrill of exploration has long since been vanquished at the endgame point.
I do enjpy pvp, but most of the time the rigidity/simplicity of the given ruleset makes it fairly predetermined who will win.
I also enjoy a good story, but more often that not the storylines are far from dynamic or unique, altho I must admit that WOW has done some good things with phasing in WotLK.
Ok so this did turn out to be more of a rant against the general simplification and dumbing down of MMORPGS than a concise view of PVP vs PVE but I'll sum up what I do feel here:
PVP tends to drag the system into a conformity I find boring while PVE tends to be without any risk and thus the rewards and victories are bit hollow.
I've been thinking about this ever since the good old MUD days. PVP give games that litte tingle of fear and adrenalin which is good, especially if there is some risk involved other than ego bashing. On the other hand too much risk and it becomes a chore instead of a fun thing. The most negative aspect of PVP in modern games is that it is the driving force behind class balance, a concept which to me is utterly boring and no game ever gets right. Almost all new MMORPGs these days produce identical characters within a specific class, and classes that are differently named but have almost identical abilities. We all race through the PVE content to get to the endgame, wich usually consist of either endlessly repeating identical PVE encounters(Raids) or endlessly repeating identical PVP encounters. The world is usually so small the thrill of exploration has long since been vanquished at the endgame point. I do enjpy pvp, but most of the time the rigidity/simplicity of the given ruleset makes it fairly predetermined who will win. I also enjoy a good story, but more often that not the storylines are far from dynamic or unique, altho I must admit that WOW has done some good things with phasing in WotLK. Ok so this did turn out to be more of a rant against the general simplification and dumbing down of MMORPGS than a concise view of PVP vs PVE but I'll sum up what I do feel here: PVP tends to drag the system into a conformity I find boring while PVE tends to be without any risk and thus the rewards and victories are bit hollow.
Caladan - Grumpy old gamer
I could have said it better. I wish developers would just make a great PvE game and have very distinct classes. No balancing for PvP, just thrown in there and let the players do what they will with the classes. I enjoyed the older games that had more diversity in their classes and more freedom to do whatever you want. You didn't have npcs leading you around with boring quest. You went where you wanted to xp, you made your own adventures.
My views on the subject is as follows. PvE is all about content. PvE is quality missions, good lore, replayablitlty. Some games have good PvE, some do not. To me, that is a true make or break of a title. Now with that said,
PvP in my eyes depends on the title. I will give a few examples of this logic.
Good PvP
DAoC is a realm based MMO. The PvP takes place in regions where realms are battling for control and you can only PvP opposing realms. It fits the lore of the game. Next example will be LOTRO. You can only PvP if you are battling a player if they are playing a minion of Sauron or if you are a minion of Sauron yourself. It fits perfectly for the lore of Middle Earth. ShadowBane, it is pretty much open PvP, you trying to control your territory, it fits that game style.
Bad PvP
CoX has regions where heroes can battle villians and they are level restricted. While I agree with this in some degree (level restricting) I dont agree with it being confined to only special regions. The PvP there is so run down, it is nearly dead there. It also doesnt really work with the concept of the game of battling villians when you cannot openly battle player villians besides in a few marked off areas.
"It's always more satisfying to defeat or kill an opponent if that opponent is human."
I disagree with this statement.
Each time I tried PvP, it sucked not only to be beaten, but also to beat the other player, overall it's a bad feeling. There's no fun in humiliating someone else for no reason.
PvP is COMPLETELY non-essential to the gaming experience and is, at most, an "enhancement" if you so choose to call it. For me it's an annoyance, really.
"It's always more satisfying to defeat or kill an opponent if that opponent is human." I disagree with this statement. Each time I tried PvP, it sucked not only to be beaten, but also to beat the other player, overall it's a bad feeling. There's no fun in humiliating someone else for no reason. PvP is COMPLETELY non-essential to the gaming experience and is, at most, an "enhancement" if you so choose to call it. For me it's an annoyance, really.
I disagree. The OP said it almost perfectly, it's a really nice and easy way to put replayability into the game. With PvE only games it gets really boring after you've gotten all your 'uber' gear, as there isn't a whole lot else to do, except rerolling which tends to be nothing more than doing the same stuff all over again but under a new face.
PvP, when done right; is engaging, challenging, replayable, and fun. It's not about griefing or humiliating people, though some might disagree. It's about going into enemy territory and trying to survive. It's much less engaging when you know where a monster will spawn, or the lvl of the monster that's going to be there. In good pvp you just never know when a higher (or lower) lvl might show up and catch you off guard. With good group PvP, the same applies, but you also get a bit of that raiding thrill of coordinating attacks to try and handle large feats (larger / more powerful forces of enemy players).
In the current time period PvP IS essential to the gaming experience, because pvp = replayability. While it's true that you can offer some degree of replayability by constantly adding new content for PvE, but to do so in a timely manner usually leads to the new content getting more and more stale, as the amount of effort it takes to really make new and engaging PvE content jsut cannot keep up w/ the current player demand for it.
The problem w/ PvP, and imho this should be the actual focus of this topic, is how compatable it is with PvE. Certain games (ie DAoC, UO) have managed to combine them fairly well. Other games (ie LotRO, EQ) have not. It's no secret that balancing for PvP tends to be very different from balancing for PvE, and more often than not that difference just cannot be gapped. If a game has too much PvE, the PvP tends to suffer. If a game has too much PvP, the PvE tends to suffer. The thing is, the ratio does not seem to be 1:1 for PvE to PvP content, so what is it? Players seem to want a bit more PvE content, but enough engaging PvP to keep the game fresh & interesting. If you put too much benefit into PvE, then PvP becomes unrewarding and tends to suffer, the opposite is also true.
This delicate balance is one that very few MMOs seem to have achieved, and I would argue that none have really mastered.
both are really important... both are fun....so I voted for....equal parts for both pve n pvp
QUESTION: Quote: Originally Posted by Xridnasa: - What's a "grocery store"? Is that like McDonald's? - ANSWER: Quote: Originally Posted by sidimazz: - Kind of, just without the rapist.
Sadly, there can be no consensus between the 2 "factions", because their interests are diametrically opposed. I tend to lean towards PvE, personally. I enjoy PvP in context, but I dislike how most MMO's have implemented it, and the abyssmal failure of PvP-only MMO's have shown that PvP can not carry an IP worth a darn, while primarily PvE games like WoW are huge successes.
What is the fundamental difference between PvP and PvE? At the highest level, the difference is "content". Content is a generic term that encompasses all of the reasons we log in. Content can be monsters to fight, areas to explore, achievements to get, other players to intereact with, or other players to fight...it's all content. The difference is in the consistency of the content.
PvE content is 100% consistent, predictable, and "safe". It never changes, it's never amazingly random, and it's always there. It's comfortable, and a great many players enjoy it for that very reason.
PvP content is random, inconsistent and volatile. You never know if you're going to get it, and if you do it's usually against your will, unless you were deliberately seeking it.
My 2 favorite examples of PvP in an MMO are City of Heroes and Shadowbane.
Shadowbane was a PvP-only game, with very little real content...the players were there to provide the content, and there were in-game things to lose if you lost a fight...so no one fought, ever. And, eventually, no one played, and the game died.
Meanwhile, City of Heroes is a very successful (by pre-WoW standards) MMO that had ZERO PvP in it, and still has nearly as many players today as it did at it's peak. They tried to add PvP to the game and that aspect of it has never really caught on...it's a slapped-on freak of the game that very few people are interested in experience.
Why? Because the truth of the matter is, there are not 2 factions, but 3: PvE, PvP, and Griefers, and the Griefers outnumber the PvP players by an order of magnitude. True PvP players play games like Counterstrike, where it's them vs another player in the purest spirit of competition...that's the kind of PvP I really enjoy. Right now I'm spending WAY too many hours in Left 4 Dead for that very reason
However, the type of PvP players who like MMO's are not PvP players, they are griefers. For them, PvP isn't fun unless they are attacking someone that doesn't WANT to be attacked. To prove this, I submit to you Eve Online, the most wretched hive of scum and villainy in the MMO market. The devs are *%&%(% and they love *%&%* players. They designed the game around the concept that an aggressor has the advantage and the game is FILLED with ways for aggressors to prey upon the week...and it's huge...and growing, faster than CCP can upgrade the hardware.
I was in EQ in the early days, founded the Guide Program and was on the very first servers, and when we rolled out the PvP servers, they were ghost towns...because there was no one to prey upon both other predators, and where's the fun in that? The OP used Ultima Online as his example, but PK's (player killers, the prime example of griefers) were the reason UO was never as successful as EQ, it alienated people right and left and, IMHO, how badly PvP was implemented in UO was why EQ was so huge in the beginning...ANYthing but UO
It is not possible to have Griefing PvPrs and PvE players in the same MMO and have both be happy, it is not physically possible. It is possible to have a game with only PvE be successful, many have done just that. It is not possible to have a PvP-only MMO be successful, simply because the concept of persistence doesn't apply to people. The OP mentioned the Mario games, which is, for all intents and purposes, a FPS, which only proves my point. PvP MMO's die out quickly because those that are really good dominate those that aren't, and those that aren't (which is the vast majority of the player base) go play something else...why log in every day to lose?
Give me PvP FPS's and PvE MMO's and I'll be happy. That allows me to play how I want, where I want, without having someone else's playstyle inflicted upon me against my will.
I think it's certainly true that PvE experiences in MMORPGs are inferior to those in single player games.
But at the same time, single player games entertain a person for what, maybe 40-50 hours?
MMORPGs often have to entertain players that much for a week. So of course there's going to have to be grinding of some sort. There's just no way for content makers to keep up.
OTOH, while the gameplay might not be as rewarding, it's not so "throw-away", either. After you finish a single player RPG, what is there left to do? Play another one, starting from scratch. in a MMORPG, there's always more and more PVE content coming out eventually. Sure a few single player games get expansion packs, but not that many, MMORPGs can last for years.
PvP, on the other hand doesn't even really seem that instrinsic to role-playing games. You don't really do it in table top games, I guess in some early things like Melee (precursor to GURPs) you fought each other, but that was more of a wargame.
In many cases, there's really no skill involved, most PvP I've seen is mostly just ganking on lower level players, or using some sort of exploit. And even when there is some skill involved, often it's just who had the best equipment.
I rarely buy single player games, if ever. My wife and I like to play cooperative PVE. Not only do we play on PC, but have a Playstation3 and never buy games for it that aren't at least 2 player cooperative. I compete every day in the real world and have even been called the best in my field by international athletes and trainers, I do therapeutic massage and bodywork. I think the world needs a lot more cooperation than fighting and shooting each other. I have also done martial arts for over 25 years, so, I know how to fight an opponent.
I can say I'm absolutely disappointed no one can figure out how important the MM, the O, and the RPG can be with adding PvP as the primary factor into a MMORPG's initial design. It's possible, it can be seen in the creation of rpgs when it was just rooms fill with nerds and their knight statuettes.
PvP with some PvE elements is my ideal choice simply because having players vs players in a new way is the only path developers sould be taken since everything else has been done.
Sadly the only example to cite is completely ficticious and it's game isn't even a mmorpg, but a .hack setting where players pretty much ruled the nature of the beast has a market that even hardcore 'i h8 pvp' people.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
PvP or PvE or both.... well, from one of the old school gamers that was around before UO and still around I can say that when it is done right it can be a great addition to a game. Here's the rub though.
PvP requires the gamers to basically make up the meat of the game experience. This really started becoming a big issue around the dawn of the doom era. The single player game was relatively light weight with the focus being on the map design for frag fests. These games were quite simple to crank out (not counting the Duke Nukem game that has been in the works for a decade or more) and they came out one after the other. And why not, they required less development time and they could charge a premium price on em. This subtle shift was completely done away with with the Unreal Tournament games that didn't even bother with the pretense of a single player game and still charged a premium price for it.
Developers, for many many years, bemoaned the fact that single player rpgs took forever and a day to develop. The amount of content that went into them, tying all of the individual pieces together into a semblance of a story line, the amount of time commitment expected from the gamers etc all served to lower the actual profit lines of games that ostensibly have been some of the best ever released (Planescape Torment to name but one).
Then came along the idea of taking an RPG and letting tons of other people play in the same space. The first graphical one I ever played was Neverwinter Nights on AOL (the gold box based one, not the bioware one). I only vaguely remember that game, being in college and all at the time and all of the things that come along with college I do remember Ultima Online, however, and while it was neat, kept me around for close to a year, it was a hollow shell of an Ultima game. Gone was the Avatar and the stories that Richard Garriot had crafted. With every subsequent release that has come since then, even in a pve game like EQ, the story lines were weak, pathetic, and had less depth than the choose your own adventure books of the 1980's. Now the PvE game is nothing more than a pathetic treadmill to keep players chasing the carrot on the stick. Wow had released with pvp servers and had promised an extensive pvp system with honor and rewards. They only started delivering that when the pve game ran dry and people were bored of running Molten Core hours on end.
Even Warhammer, with its rich history to draw upon, fails miserably with its pve game and while I credit the folks at Mythic with their ability to craft an entertaining, albeit for a short time, game they want the pvp to continue the treadmill that the pve game cannot. All of it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to try and keep players paying the most they can for the least amount of effort from dev teams. Other games, Eve, Darkfall etc, all seem to be heading down the Unreal Tournament route. Meaning they won't even try and give the impression of a pve game and want nothing more than the players to make their own drama, their own storylines, all while paying for the privelege of being their own content designers.
This is why I sincerely hope that BioWare will come in and show all the kiddie developers how to actually craft a story, and to (for the first time) introduce the RPG into mmorpg.
Think about it. How many bears and cats can you kill and still remain interested. Once you've done the gamit of PVE raiding to the Nth degree its ALL the same. I last about a month in a pure PVE game before cancelling out of sheer boredom. Full PVP on the other hand can be boring as well. First of all *sandbox* might mean always on PVP but generally you will find many times that the action factor equals that of a PVE game without PVP.
DAOC was/is the perfect balance of PVE/PVP. In fact the PVE element of the game incorporated PVP into it as well. You PVE in a PVP dungeon as an example. You lose control of forts and you lose access to a PVP dungeon. Cause and effect PVP if you will. In DAOC when we zoned into Frontiers it was always on PVP. You went there to PVP and that PVP had objectives. Unlike WAR where they totally hosed the PVP compared to the legendary DAOC.
Had they made DAOC 2.0 it would dominate the modern day MMO world. If i want to brainlessly PVP ill just play Quake War Enemy Territory but i prefer objectives. goals in the PVP element other then to just gank and run all the time which is about as exciting as killing bears and cats after a short while.
However, the type of PvP players who like MMO's are not PvP players, they are griefers. For them, PvP isn't fun unless they are attacking someone that doesn't WANT to be attacked. To prove this, I submit to you Eve Online, the most wretched hive of scum and villainy in the MMO market. The devs are *%&%(% and they love *%&%* players. They designed the game around the concept that an aggressor has the advantage and the game is FILLED with ways for aggressors to prey upon the week...and it's huge...and growing, faster than CCP can upgrade the hardware.
I agree with many of your observations but I'm going to have to take exception to this. There are many players in Eve Online who are fundamentally decent people. Many of these don't even care all that much for PvP. What's interesting and exciting to them is the possibility of danger and the dynamism that brings on a global scale. It wakes you up, keeps you motivated and focused and sharpens not only your survival but political skills. You pay attention to the big picture as massive alliances wage war in 0.0 because that could impact you indirectly. Legends that last forever are actual historical fact on single server Eve. The vast majority of players may never have personal contact with earthshaking battles or clever scams but we all feel like we're part of that world and, whether personally vested or not, tend to have heroes and villains whose adventures we keep up with - and I'm not talking about the fictional ones.
Not everyone needs to feel like a big fish. Alot of us enjoy being clever little fishes that know when to fight and when to hide and when to fasttalk like Han Solo on crack. It's being part of something that means something that's most exciting.
I think it's certainly true that PvE experiences in MMORPGs are inferior to those in single player games. But at the same time, single player games entertain a person for what, maybe 40-50 hours? MMORPGs often have to entertain players that much for a week. So of course there's going to have to be grinding of some sort. There's just no way for content makers to keep up. OTOH, while the gameplay might not be as rewarding, it's not so "throw-away", either. After you finish a single player RPG, what is there left to do? Play another one, starting from scratch. in a MMORPG, there's always more and more PVE content coming out eventually. Sure a few single player games get expansion packs, but not that many, MMORPGs can last for years. PvP, on the other hand doesn't even really seem that instrinsic to role-playing games. You don't really do it in table top games, I guess in some early things like Melee (precursor to GURPs) you fought each other, but that was more of a wargame. In many cases, there's really no skill involved, most PvP I've seen is mostly just ganking on lower level players, or using some sort of exploit. And even when there is some skill involved, often it's just who had the best equipment.
In most MMOs PvP strikes me as fakey and silly and rewards all the wrong people for doing all the wrong things. Eve's an exception for me because the PvP makes sense and is part of what makes the setting as exciting as it is - it allows the players to create drama. Even non PvP activites have a little extra juice injected because there's always the possibility, or the inevitability sooner or later, of things getting hot. Have to plan ahead, have to think about making friends , chose your enemies wisely, and really have to mind your reputation because it will be with you for a long, long, time.
Likewise I have to differ on the longevity of singleplayer games. There are still singleplayer games out there with fan and modding communities that have been around longer than any MMO. Maybe, just maybe, one can learn something from them?
I have played MMO's for a long time and I must admit that there is good and bad to each side. I personally enjoy PvE, I like doing quests and finding out the 'story' behind the game. This does not mean I don't like PvP I just feel that I prefer the 'option' to PvP when i feel like it. For me wow is the perect situation. I can go along and do my quests, take in the story and have a good time. and when I get the feeling to PvP I can 'choose' to enter a battleground and partake in the PvP.
williwaw87Maple Story CorrespondentMemberPosts: 43
PvE is more important than PvP. Look at two competing MMO's
Maplestory- All PvE No PvP
Windslayer- Mainly PvP Some PvE
Maplestory was doing better after a couple months.
I believe that Everquest 1 did the best job at giving you pvp and pve at the same time.. I believe a game should have both but the items or reward you get should equal out.. If Everquest 1 had battle grounds they wouldnt of put and extra stat just for pvp the gear reward would have been the same from raid reward..
One of the things i hate about a game in how much time it takes.. I believe you should have to work for the max lvl but you shouldnt have to double grind to take part in 2 aspects of the game ... I guess this kinda turned in to a WoW hate post i'm sorry....
I guess what i'm trying to say is I like both pvp and pve but the game has to balance them well
Comments
The more important component of the game is the one that is done well. As it stands, I mostly do PvE, because it is more common for a game to do PvE well than to do PvP well.
Most MMORPGs do PvE rather badly, though, with a heavy focus on grinding. Just because I'm willing to kill ten furbolgs doesn't mean I want to have to kill a thousand of them before I can move on. A lot of PvE content requires groups, without giving players the practical means to actually get a group, which completely destroys the content.
As badly done as PvE typically is, however, PvP is usually a lot worse. Most games have PvP won by some combination of whichever side has higher levels, better gear, and/or more players. That makes the actual PvP combat itself little more than playing out the string in a battle with a known outcome. That's completely stupid.
Because it is hard to do PvE well and harder still to do PvP well, it is also important that they be separated. Otherwise, even if you can get one or the other right (and just getting one right is a lot more than most games can claim), if the other interferes with it, it can destroy what could have been a pretty good piece of a game.
I think it's because pvp does bring it home in a more personal way and so many people have so many different defnitions of what constitutes "good pvp".
I also think it's because there is a segment of the pvp community who are just bad sports, both in winning and losing. They take what is supposed to be fun and turn it into something that seems, well... "dirty".
And to top it off, it seems that some of these people who have "issues" use pvp as their very own method of bringing (a sometimes nasty) relevance into their lives.
I was once told that a more notable pvp figure on our server was in reality this tiny, geeky, nasty, misfit who rarely washed, had problems with creating romantic releationships, problems with social relations (well, more than the "normal" problems that we all have perhaps) and was just a thoroughly unlikable fellow.
So it made perfect sense that he was a nasty little bully in game.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
IMO the only game that came close to getting PvP and PvE balance right was DAoC. Find me the next DAoC and I will show you a loyal subscriber for years.
Well said!
Especially about balancing the classes [or better yet, use a class-less system ie. Ryzom].
If one subscription fee gets a player access to all the server types, every gamer should be happy. My guess is that the PvE servers would pay for the Open PvP one, but if all were available no one could cry foul.
<p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg></a></p>;
I'm new to the MMORPG world so haven't had the experience of playing all the games you all have referenced----but, I have played enough open PVP to know that--as sure as there are levels of players 20+ below you--that's where the 'dedicated PVP' players will go.
Unfair??---An understatement!!!
The only way to cure this would be a penalty for killing players so far beneath you they CAN'T fight back.
As long as this is not done--those of us who want to experience the 'game' aspect of mmorpG will continue to seek out a setting where we can learn the leveling/questing side and not where is the nearest graveyard.
I fail to see the benefits of a level 50+ killing a level 30-
Common Sense.....Isn't
I also fail to see the benefit of a level 50+ killing someone so outmatched that they can't fight back.
If you do that, you should be instantly attackable by anyone and any thing in the game, regardless of faction, for a period of time (like 24 hours). So that if you go into a city, you are attacked by the guards. If you're out and about, players above you (should they exist) or of your same faction can attack you.
If a player wants to boast about their skill in PvP combat, they should actually exhibit some, first. And that's not the way to do it. *nods*
Community Manager, Vivox, Inc.
I've been thinking about this ever since the good old MUD days. PVP give games that litte tingle of fear and adrenalin which is good, especially if there is some risk involved other than ego bashing. On the other hand too much risk and it becomes a chore instead of a fun thing. The most negative aspect of PVP in modern games is that it is the driving force behind class balance, a concept which to me is utterly boring and no game ever gets right.
Almost all new MMORPGs these days produce identical characters within a specific class, and classes that are differently named but have almost identical abilities. We all race through the PVE content to get to the endgame, wich usually consist of either endlessly repeating identical PVE encounters(Raids) or endlessly repeating identical PVP encounters. The world is usually so small the thrill of exploration has long since been vanquished at the endgame point.
I do enjpy pvp, but most of the time the rigidity/simplicity of the given ruleset makes it fairly predetermined who will win.
I also enjoy a good story, but more often that not the storylines are far from dynamic or unique, altho I must admit that WOW has done some good things with phasing in WotLK.
Ok so this did turn out to be more of a rant against the general simplification and dumbing down of MMORPGS than a concise view of PVP vs PVE but I'll sum up what I do feel here:
PVP tends to drag the system into a conformity I find boring while PVE tends to be without any risk and thus the rewards and victories are bit hollow.
Caladan - Grumpy old gamer
I could have said it better. I wish developers would just make a great PvE game and have very distinct classes. No balancing for PvP, just thrown in there and let the players do what they will with the classes. I enjoyed the older games that had more diversity in their classes and more freedom to do whatever you want. You didn't have npcs leading you around with boring quest. You went where you wanted to xp, you made your own adventures.
My views on the subject is as follows. PvE is all about content. PvE is quality missions, good lore, replayablitlty. Some games have good PvE, some do not. To me, that is a true make or break of a title. Now with that said,
PvP in my eyes depends on the title. I will give a few examples of this logic.
Good PvP
DAoC is a realm based MMO. The PvP takes place in regions where realms are battling for control and you can only PvP opposing realms. It fits the lore of the game. Next example will be LOTRO. You can only PvP if you are battling a player if they are playing a minion of Sauron or if you are a minion of Sauron yourself. It fits perfectly for the lore of Middle Earth. ShadowBane, it is pretty much open PvP, you trying to control your territory, it fits that game style.
Bad PvP
CoX has regions where heroes can battle villians and they are level restricted. While I agree with this in some degree (level restricting) I dont agree with it being confined to only special regions. The PvP there is so run down, it is nearly dead there. It also doesnt really work with the concept of the game of battling villians when you cannot openly battle player villians besides in a few marked off areas.
"It's always more satisfying to defeat or kill an opponent if that opponent is human."
I disagree with this statement.
Each time I tried PvP, it sucked not only to be beaten, but also to beat the other player, overall it's a bad feeling. There's no fun in humiliating someone else for no reason.
PvP is COMPLETELY non-essential to the gaming experience and is, at most, an "enhancement" if you so choose to call it. For me it's an annoyance, really.
I disagree. The OP said it almost perfectly, it's a really nice and easy way to put replayability into the game. With PvE only games it gets really boring after you've gotten all your 'uber' gear, as there isn't a whole lot else to do, except rerolling which tends to be nothing more than doing the same stuff all over again but under a new face.
PvP, when done right; is engaging, challenging, replayable, and fun. It's not about griefing or humiliating people, though some might disagree. It's about going into enemy territory and trying to survive. It's much less engaging when you know where a monster will spawn, or the lvl of the monster that's going to be there. In good pvp you just never know when a higher (or lower) lvl might show up and catch you off guard. With good group PvP, the same applies, but you also get a bit of that raiding thrill of coordinating attacks to try and handle large feats (larger / more powerful forces of enemy players).
In the current time period PvP IS essential to the gaming experience, because pvp = replayability. While it's true that you can offer some degree of replayability by constantly adding new content for PvE, but to do so in a timely manner usually leads to the new content getting more and more stale, as the amount of effort it takes to really make new and engaging PvE content jsut cannot keep up w/ the current player demand for it.
The problem w/ PvP, and imho this should be the actual focus of this topic, is how compatable it is with PvE. Certain games (ie DAoC, UO) have managed to combine them fairly well. Other games (ie LotRO, EQ) have not. It's no secret that balancing for PvP tends to be very different from balancing for PvE, and more often than not that difference just cannot be gapped. If a game has too much PvE, the PvP tends to suffer. If a game has too much PvP, the PvE tends to suffer. The thing is, the ratio does not seem to be 1:1 for PvE to PvP content, so what is it? Players seem to want a bit more PvE content, but enough engaging PvP to keep the game fresh & interesting. If you put too much benefit into PvE, then PvP becomes unrewarding and tends to suffer, the opposite is also true.
This delicate balance is one that very few MMOs seem to have achieved, and I would argue that none have really mastered.
both are really important... both are fun....so I voted for....equal parts for both pve n pvp
QUESTION:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xridnasa:
-
What's a "grocery store"? Is that like McDonald's?
-
ANSWER:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sidimazz:
-
Kind of, just without the rapist.
Both - that was the strength of DAoC - PvE if you want or PvP if you want. (an hell yeah, i loved ToA ... after some patches
).
-------------------------------------
Playing: Overwatch, Genshin Impact, Black Desert Mobile, Hundred Soul, Cyberpunk 2077
Inactive: WAR, DAoC, RIFT, GW1/2, TSW, Age of Wulin, Black Desert, Blade & Soul, Skyforge
Sadly, there can be no consensus between the 2 "factions", because their interests are diametrically opposed. I tend to lean towards PvE, personally. I enjoy PvP in context, but I dislike how most MMO's have implemented it, and the abyssmal failure of PvP-only MMO's have shown that PvP can not carry an IP worth a darn, while primarily PvE games like WoW are huge successes.
What is the fundamental difference between PvP and PvE? At the highest level, the difference is "content". Content is a generic term that encompasses all of the reasons we log in. Content can be monsters to fight, areas to explore, achievements to get, other players to intereact with, or other players to fight...it's all content. The difference is in the consistency of the content.
PvE content is 100% consistent, predictable, and "safe". It never changes, it's never amazingly random, and it's always there. It's comfortable, and a great many players enjoy it for that very reason.
PvP content is random, inconsistent and volatile. You never know if you're going to get it, and if you do it's usually against your will, unless you were deliberately seeking it.
My 2 favorite examples of PvP in an MMO are City of Heroes and Shadowbane.
Shadowbane was a PvP-only game, with very little real content...the players were there to provide the content, and there were in-game things to lose if you lost a fight...so no one fought, ever. And, eventually, no one played, and the game died.
Meanwhile, City of Heroes is a very successful (by pre-WoW standards) MMO that had ZERO PvP in it, and still has nearly as many players today as it did at it's peak. They tried to add PvP to the game and that aspect of it has never really caught on...it's a slapped-on freak of the game that very few people are interested in experience.
Why? Because the truth of the matter is, there are not 2 factions, but 3: PvE, PvP, and Griefers, and the Griefers outnumber the PvP players by an order of magnitude. True PvP players play games like Counterstrike, where it's them vs another player in the purest spirit of competition...that's the kind of PvP I really enjoy. Right now I'm spending WAY too many hours in Left 4 Dead for that very reason
However, the type of PvP players who like MMO's are not PvP players, they are griefers. For them, PvP isn't fun unless they are attacking someone that doesn't WANT to be attacked. To prove this, I submit to you Eve Online, the most wretched hive of scum and villainy in the MMO market. The devs are *%&%(% and they love *%&%* players. They designed the game around the concept that an aggressor has the advantage and the game is FILLED with ways for aggressors to prey upon the week...and it's huge...and growing, faster than CCP can upgrade the hardware.
I was in EQ in the early days, founded the Guide Program and was on the very first servers, and when we rolled out the PvP servers, they were ghost towns...because there was no one to prey upon both other predators, and where's the fun in that? The OP used Ultima Online as his example, but PK's (player killers, the prime example of griefers) were the reason UO was never as successful as EQ, it alienated people right and left and, IMHO, how badly PvP was implemented in UO was why EQ was so huge in the beginning...ANYthing but UO
It is not possible to have Griefing PvPrs and PvE players in the same MMO and have both be happy, it is not physically possible. It is possible to have a game with only PvE be successful, many have done just that. It is not possible to have a PvP-only MMO be successful, simply because the concept of persistence doesn't apply to people. The OP mentioned the Mario games, which is, for all intents and purposes, a FPS, which only proves my point. PvP MMO's die out quickly because those that are really good dominate those that aren't, and those that aren't (which is the vast majority of the player base) go play something else...why log in every day to lose?
Give me PvP FPS's and PvE MMO's and I'll be happy. That allows me to play how I want, where I want, without having someone else's playstyle inflicted upon me against my will.
I think it's certainly true that PvE experiences in MMORPGs are inferior to those in single player games.
But at the same time, single player games entertain a person for what, maybe 40-50 hours?
MMORPGs often have to entertain players that much for a week. So of course there's going to have to be grinding of some sort. There's just no way for content makers to keep up.
OTOH, while the gameplay might not be as rewarding, it's not so "throw-away", either. After you finish a single player RPG, what is there left to do? Play another one, starting from scratch. in a MMORPG, there's always more and more PVE content coming out eventually. Sure a few single player games get expansion packs, but not that many, MMORPGs can last for years.
PvP, on the other hand doesn't even really seem that instrinsic to role-playing games. You don't really do it in table top games, I guess in some early things like Melee (precursor to GURPs) you fought each other, but that was more of a wargame.
In many cases, there's really no skill involved, most PvP I've seen is mostly just ganking on lower level players, or using some sort of exploit. And even when there is some skill involved, often it's just who had the best equipment.
R.I.P. City of Heroes and my 17 characters there
I rarely buy single player games, if ever. My wife and I like to play cooperative PVE. Not only do we play on PC, but have a Playstation3 and never buy games for it that aren't at least 2 player cooperative. I compete every day in the real world and have even been called the best in my field by international athletes and trainers, I do therapeutic massage and bodywork. I think the world needs a lot more cooperation than fighting and shooting each other. I have also done martial arts for over 25 years, so, I know how to fight an opponent.
I can say I'm absolutely disappointed no one can figure out how important the MM, the O, and the RPG can be with adding PvP as the primary factor into a MMORPG's initial design. It's possible, it can be seen in the creation of rpgs when it was just rooms fill with nerds and their knight statuettes.
PvP with some PvE elements is my ideal choice simply because having players vs players in a new way is the only path developers sould be taken since everything else has been done.
Sadly the only example to cite is completely ficticious and it's game isn't even a mmorpg, but a .hack setting where players pretty much ruled the nature of the beast has a market that even hardcore 'i h8 pvp' people.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
PvP or PvE or both.... well, from one of the old school gamers that was around before UO and still around I can say that when it is done right it can be a great addition to a game. Here's the rub though.
PvP requires the gamers to basically make up the meat of the game experience. This really started becoming a big issue around the dawn of the doom era. The single player game was relatively light weight with the focus being on the map design for frag fests. These games were quite simple to crank out (not counting the Duke Nukem game that has been in the works for a decade or more) and they came out one after the other. And why not, they required less development time and they could charge a premium price on em. This subtle shift was completely done away with with the Unreal Tournament games that didn't even bother with the pretense of a single player game and still charged a premium price for it.
Developers, for many many years, bemoaned the fact that single player rpgs took forever and a day to develop. The amount of content that went into them, tying all of the individual pieces together into a semblance of a story line, the amount of time commitment expected from the gamers etc all served to lower the actual profit lines of games that ostensibly have been some of the best ever released (Planescape Torment to name but one).
Then came along the idea of taking an RPG and letting tons of other people play in the same space. The first graphical one I ever played was Neverwinter Nights on AOL (the gold box based one, not the bioware one). I only vaguely remember that game, being in college and all at the time and all of the things that come along with college
I do remember Ultima Online, however, and while it was neat, kept me around for close to a year, it was a hollow shell of an Ultima game. Gone was the Avatar and the stories that Richard Garriot had crafted. With every subsequent release that has come since then, even in a pve game like EQ, the story lines were weak, pathetic, and had less depth than the choose your own adventure books of the 1980's. Now the PvE game is nothing more than a pathetic treadmill to keep players chasing the carrot on the stick. Wow had released with pvp servers and had promised an extensive pvp system with honor and rewards. They only started delivering that when the pve game ran dry and people were bored of running Molten Core hours on end.
Even Warhammer, with its rich history to draw upon, fails miserably with its pve game and while I credit the folks at Mythic with their ability to craft an entertaining, albeit for a short time, game they want the pvp to continue the treadmill that the pve game cannot. All of it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to try and keep players paying the most they can for the least amount of effort from dev teams. Other games, Eve, Darkfall etc, all seem to be heading down the Unreal Tournament route. Meaning they won't even try and give the impression of a pve game and want nothing more than the players to make their own drama, their own storylines, all while paying for the privelege of being their own content designers.
This is why I sincerely hope that BioWare will come in and show all the kiddie developers how to actually craft a story, and to (for the first time) introduce the RPG into mmorpg.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/7300033012
Just like the game industry, this web site has left the RPG out of MMORPG. RP wasn't even a choice.
Think about it. How many bears and cats can you kill and still remain interested. Once you've done the gamit of PVE raiding to the Nth degree its ALL the same. I last about a month in a pure PVE game before cancelling out of sheer boredom. Full PVP on the other hand can be boring as well. First of all *sandbox* might mean always on PVP but generally you will find many times that the action factor equals that of a PVE game without PVP.
DAOC was/is the perfect balance of PVE/PVP. In fact the PVE element of the game incorporated PVP into it as well. You PVE in a PVP dungeon as an example. You lose control of forts and you lose access to a PVP dungeon. Cause and effect PVP if you will. In DAOC when we zoned into Frontiers it was always on PVP. You went there to PVP and that PVP had objectives. Unlike WAR where they totally hosed the PVP compared to the legendary DAOC.
Had they made DAOC 2.0 it would dominate the modern day MMO world. If i want to brainlessly PVP ill just play Quake War Enemy Territory but i prefer objectives. goals in the PVP element other then to just gank and run all the time which is about as exciting as killing bears and cats after a short while.
I agree with many of your observations but I'm going to have to take exception to this. There are many players in Eve Online who are fundamentally decent people. Many of these don't even care all that much for PvP. What's interesting and exciting to them is the possibility of danger and the dynamism that brings on a global scale. It wakes you up, keeps you motivated and focused and sharpens not only your survival but political skills. You pay attention to the big picture as massive alliances wage war in 0.0 because that could impact you indirectly. Legends that last forever are actual historical fact on single server Eve. The vast majority of players may never have personal contact with earthshaking battles or clever scams but we all feel like we're part of that world and, whether personally vested or not, tend to have heroes and villains whose adventures we keep up with - and I'm not talking about the fictional ones.
Not everyone needs to feel like a big fish. Alot of us enjoy being clever little fishes that know when to fight and when to hide and when to fasttalk like Han Solo on crack. It's being part of something that means something that's most exciting.
Always notice what you notice.
In most MMOs PvP strikes me as fakey and silly and rewards all the wrong people for doing all the wrong things. Eve's an exception for me because the PvP makes sense and is part of what makes the setting as exciting as it is - it allows the players to create drama. Even non PvP activites have a little extra juice injected because there's always the possibility, or the inevitability sooner or later, of things getting hot. Have to plan ahead, have to think about making friends , chose your enemies wisely, and really have to mind your reputation because it will be with you for a long, long, time.
Likewise I have to differ on the longevity of singleplayer games. There are still singleplayer games out there with fan and modding communities that have been around longer than any MMO. Maybe, just maybe, one can learn something from them?
Always notice what you notice.
Hi all,
I have played MMO's for a long time and I must admit that there is good and bad to each side. I personally enjoy PvE, I like doing quests and finding out the 'story' behind the game. This does not mean I don't like PvP I just feel that I prefer the 'option' to PvP when i feel like it. For me wow is the perect situation. I can go along and do my quests, take in the story and have a good time. and when I get the feeling to PvP I can 'choose' to enter a battleground and partake in the PvP.
PvE is more important than PvP. Look at two competing MMO's
Maplestory- All PvE No PvP
Windslayer- Mainly PvP Some PvE
Maplestory was doing better after a couple months.
<a href="http://profile.xfire.com/n45vrsa9"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/0/n45vrsa9.png"; width="440" height="111" /></a>
I believe that Everquest 1 did the best job at giving you pvp and pve at the same time.. I believe a game should have both but the items or reward you get should equal out.. If Everquest 1 had battle grounds they wouldnt of put and extra stat just for pvp the gear reward would have been the same from raid reward..
One of the things i hate about a game in how much time it takes.. I believe you should have to work for the max lvl but you shouldnt have to double grind to take part in 2 aspects of the game ... I guess this kinda turned in to a WoW hate post i'm sorry....
I guess what i'm trying to say is I like both pvp and pve but the game has to balance them well