Times maybe changing but PvP has always been the less popular playstyle. Even in WoW the PvE servers are more populated.
EQ was PvE only with PvP servers added only after the community demanded them. EQ was the biggest MMO at the time and ruled the MMO world for like 5 years. The PvP servers were great I was on every style, Rallos Zek, Vallon Zek, then Sullon Zek. I have never had more fun in any PvP focused or PvE/PvP balanced game ever.
For all the arenas, battle grounds, epic loot, prizes, keep defenses and whatever other gimmic people need dangled in front of them to fight each other.. nothing topped fighting over dungeons/raids in EQ. Controlling the PvE content was so much more intense and gratifying than any pvp centric content ever developed (imo).
So I am with the OP I want another PvE only MMO with "afterthought" pvp enabled servers thrown in hehe. Make a great PvE game and you don't need pvp content.
Originally posted by Muddleglum Times maybe changing but PvP has always been the less popular playstyle. Even in WoW the PvE servers are more populated. EQ was PvE only with PvP servers added only after the community demanded them. EQ was the biggest MMO at the time and ruled the MMO world for like 5 years. The PvP servers were great I was on every style, Rallos Zek, Vallon Zek, then Sullon Zek. I have never had more fun in any PvP focused or PvE/PvP balanced game ever. For all the arenas, battle grounds, epic loot, prizes, keep defenses and whatever other gimmic people need dangled in front of them to fight each other.. nothing topped fighting over dungeons/raids in EQ. Controlling the PvE content was so much more intense and gratifying than any pvp centric content ever developed (imo). So I am with the OP I want another PvE only MMO with "afterthought" pvp enabled servers thrown in hehe. Make a great PvE game and you don't need pvp content.
This is where WAR and many MMO's PvP went wrong. I don't want to be rewarded in special RvR xp and tokens that I need for better gear. I don't want to have to grind PvP to get things. People never sat in the RvR lakes waiting for a fight to start. You need something out there like a dungeon or some kind of activity so that when I want to PvP there are people to fight, and when there isn't a fight going on I can do something else while I wait for something to start up. Keeps are going to be flawed unless there is some reason for people to hang around in them and wait for them to get sieged. Or else its just a boring exercise in patience.
My best PvP memories are in games where there wasn't forced PvP, or at least PvE and PvP servers. At the very least non PvP people can mainly play on PvE servers and have an alt on the PvP server.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
I undersand what you are saying, but I did list in in most to least PvE at least. STO will be mainly PvE with a choice of PvP with the Klingons after you start a PvE character. There will be places for PvP, but most of the game will be PvE. SW TOR will be mainly PvE with a story. PvP will be somewhere down the line or in PvP only areas I bet. I played GW in early beta and at release. It had both PvE and PvP. Most of the game was PvE when I played with factions added after I left. So I don't know how it will be in GW2. I do know that you will have PvE as a big part of the game though. I still would like to know what the PvP only crowd wants from a game. The current PvP games are missing what? What would make them work, or how would you want a PvP only MMO to work?
That's the funny thing... PVP only games as a mmorpg in a way are a bit of a contradiction. There has to be elements of interactivity including character progression and growth. If PvP is the main feature, then there is no reason to not play a FPS instead unless they are drawn to a specific theme. Therefore there is always a form of PVE in PvP centered games. I mean, it still has to be the tool for growth, and in some ways, superiority. If you break down what pve and pvp is, there is very little difference at the core.
PvE pretty much tells a game object classified as an enemy to attack, the challenge is pretty dumb, it is predictable and its done by the computer. The reasons why MMORPGs cant have complex AI is due to the nature of the technology, too much AI or code, will make the game unplayable (huge performance hit). Therefore in PvE games, the computer is pretty stupid, enemies are in a way universal in their core behavior. No challenge at all really. So what is pvp? It takes the same concept of PvE but it has no AI to control it... in other words the input is coming from an unpredictable source, another player. It is actually in its own way, advanced AI, because its a person able to react to your interaction and vice versa.
The interaction doesnt change, just the difficulty. This is why I find it strange when PvP only supporters and PvE only supporters start making noise... its silly not accept both, or realize what they both truly are to the system.
I agree 100%, that is why I want the PvPers that complain about PvE to say why. I like a balance between both. If the PvE is boring, then the grind to reach meaningful PvP is hated. If the PvP is out of balance and meaningless, no amount of PvE can make up for it.
I am still waiting for the hybrid sandbox full loot PvP game. Something like DF with more meaningful PvE. Not just the skill and loot grind for PvP. If there were NPC cities with factions to join and help protect or fight against along with the PvP. It would be a better game. A reason to fight mobs and players that had meaning. Tasks to perform to increase your standing for new skills or crafting receipies. The fight over guild cities and hamlets have meaning. The fight over recources have meaning. But what about other aspects of the PvE world that is worth fighting over? The skill grind is the same as level grind and quest grind. I would just like to see something other than the politcal aliance fight that adds to the overall player conflict.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them? R.A.Salvatore
Times maybe changing but PvP has always been the less popular playstyle. Even in WoW the PvE servers are more populated.
Actually WoW had open world pvp and battleground pvp. Their PvE servers are battle ground and region specific pvp, therefore you cant suggest its the PvE only servers that are most popular.
Never were there truer words! You got your years, PVPer, now its time we get some niceness for our wishes. I am so sick and tired of everything revolving around that stupid PVP of yours. Give me cool powers, give me story, give me a complex world where no PVP nerfing and whatever comes with PVP happens.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
The reasons why MMORPGs cant have complex AI is due to the nature of the technology, too much AI or code, will make the game unplayable (huge performance hit). Therefore in PvE games, the computer is pretty stupid, enemies are in a way universal in their core behavior. No challenge at all really. So what is pvp? It takes the same concept of PvE but it has no AI to control it... in other words the input is coming from an unpredictable source, another player. It is actually in its own way, advanced AI, because its a person able to react to your interaction and vice versa.
The interaction doesnt change, just the difficulty. This is why I find it strange when PvP only supporters and PvE only supporters start making noise... its silly not accept both, or realize what they both truly are to the system.
Yes.. you hit on something I have evangelized for a long time. Most "PvE purists' don't want any type of PvP in the game because of "balancing and nerfing". They fail to realize that the fault here is NOT the PvP copmponent but rather the pitiful AI seen in today's games. To make up for an utter lack of intelligence designers just add more and more HP and immunities to mobs. This is why you have encounters against "human Boss mobs" with 100 times the HPs of a maxxed "human" character.
When PvE AI develops.. insane HPs and attacks will not be needed... and thus no "balancing" or "nerfing" will be needed between PvE andPvP encounters.
Until that day we are stuck with the totally illogical concept of "Tanking" (yes I will stand facing the wall and attack the 1 guy in Full Plate Armor while the 5 lightly armored people stand behind me and attack repeatedly against my back...) and the rest of the holy trinity. Until that day we are stuck with silly concepts like "pulling" guard after guard... one at a time.. as we make our way down a hallway.
Yet... (some) people seem to believe it is the PvP aspect that causes nerfing and balancing...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
No, it wouldn't work. It just wouldn't. I think your confusing a sandbox type of game with a pve game. You could make a pve game, but in the end it would just turn into WoW w/o pvp or just a single player RPG. But a game that changes and evolves by players decisions? Sooner or later you'd NEED pvp to make that work.
Like others have said, the PvP crowd really has no PvP games out there.
The games that tend to cater just to "PvP" aren't really PvP games at all, and they suck too. Why would I play a game that has no PvE content and focuses solely on PvP? That isn't real PvP, that's just stupid. If i want to play an FPS -type game where I keep doing the same shit over and over, I"ll play an FPS, not an MMORPG. Problem with these "PvP" MMORPGs is they tend to have meaningless and boring PvP that doesn't really relate to anything. They will instance their PvP, have an exp loss, and call their game "hardcore PvP" when in fact its just another crap game that doesnt support integrated PvE/PvP.
As for there being PvP games though, as I've said, there are none. We really need something without instances, and with open PvP with some penalties for dying. Really, in these games no one even cares about PvP. Darkfall, WH, AION, are all games with meaningless and boring PvP systems.
I remember EQ was a good PvP game. They didn't care about class balance issues, it was just a game purely catering to the PvE crowd. But they did one thing right, they had PvP servers, some of them had no rules and FFA PvP. That is how PvP should be. I don't see why game companies are trying to make their game PvP only, and ignore PvE. The way I see things, PvE is what makes PvP meaningful. How else are you going to have players fight each other if not over the PvE content within the game? And that same PvE content can be used to gain PvP advantages. So separating PvE and PvP is just idiotic on the part of the game designers.
We need to go back to the EQ days. Game should just focus on PvE, but there should be FFA PvP servers out there where you can do anything you want, PK People in towns, kill level 1's, take over newb zones, prevent other guilds from raiding, etc. When that happens, we will have a game with a real PvP system that is integrated with the PvE occurring on the server.
And I think it's really stupid on the part of game designers to try and market their MMO as being a PvP game. I don't want a game that says "This is a PvP game" when it's just a fake PvP game catering to newbies and carebears. I want a game that is a traditional PVE game WITH PVP SERVERS. Too many games have servers with one ruleset which is stupid.
Make a good game that works with PVE, and just open up some PvP servers (And get rid of the idiotic instancing bullshit, that always ruins PvP games.) That is all.
I thought the majority of western MMO players still prefered PvE, now most of the people posting here probably prefers PvP. PvP seems to be something that developers HAVE to do (to satisfy the forum warriors maybe) but as mentioned previously in this thread there has been few if any really good PvP games. I really would like to see some marketing research on this my guess is that a majority of the older MMO (and in my experience these people tend to stay with their games longer) players still would prefer a solid PVE title. The long term profit potential in a solid AAA PVE title is probably much greater than the current "try to do everything and fail at it" trend in games.
Agree with the OP "Give me PvE or expect no ۬s from me"
I would really love to see MMOs stop trying so hard to please everyone. Focusing on a narrower vision and building those elements extremely well seems like a much better direction than half-assedly trying to do everything. I would love to see a heavily PvE centric game. It can and should certainly have PvP in it, but more as a side issue. By the same token, consider a PvP focused game like Aion. I would have probably stuck with it if not for the tedious process of leveling and questing in it. It does Abyss PvP much better than any of its PvE content. It should just do the one thing it does well, and stop trying to please everyone.
Important facts: 1. Free to Play games are poorly made. 2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals. 3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE. 4. Community is more important than you think.
I would really love to see MMOs stop trying so hard to please everyone. Focusing on a narrower vision and building those elements extremely well seems like a much better direction than half-assedly trying to do everything. I would love to see a heavily PvE centric game. It can and should certainly have PvP in it, but more as a side issue. By the same token, consider a PvP focused game like Aion. I would have probably stuck with it if not for the tedious process of leveling and questing in it. It does Abyss PvP much better than any of its PvE content. It should just do the one thing it does well, and stop trying to please everyone.
I agree in that regard. Unfortunately the creative directors often get pushed around by the Publishers who could care less about the vision and only the biggest audience. The other downside is that even if you make a great game, if it doesnt do as well as the publisher would like, your name is damaged in the industry and therefore getting more work or more chances gets harder. So you can understand why its not really possible with the way the industry is designed for the kind of attitude the OP and others suggest. This "vision" is always deluded. The indie scene is taking off though so that developers can have their vision with minimal risk, you just wont see mmorpgs come from it. Furthermore developers cannot work on their own side projects while at a studio, contracts pretty much state that anything they work on, even if its the next greatest project on their own at home, belongs to them...essentially keeping what you desire from happening.
So until then the high cost and risk of a mmorpg will continuously force dev studios to try and please everyone. Making a game is very very hard, and it hardly goes as planned, as you have noticed with recent mmorpgs.
I thought the majority of western MMO players still prefered PvE, now most of the people posting here probably prefers PvP. PvP seems to be something that developers HAVE to do (to satisfy the forum warriors maybe) but as mentioned previously in this thread there has been few if any really good PvP games. I really would like to see some marketing research on this my guess is that a majority of the older MMO (and in my experience these people tend to stay with their games longer) players still would prefer a solid PVE title. The long term profit potential in a solid AAA PVE title is probably much greater than the current "try to do everything and fail at it" trend in games.
Agree with the OP "Give me PvE or expect no ۬s from me"
PVP is done because 1) its user generated content, 2) it keeps active subs longer and 3) its necessary in this day and age for such high risk projects. There have been a lot of horrible PvE games as well, so what does this show? Its not pve or pvp games that are not doing well, but ALL. This is directly linked to quality design and production, which is tied directly back to the Publishers. The top grossing mmorpgs have strong focuses on both PVP and PVE. Sometimes you take risks in new design, for example WAR with its player quests...which if you think about it is one of hte most innovative PVE features to hit the MMORPG scene... yet it was a flawed design with a flawed reward system. Furthermore it goes to show that even PVP lovers need smart PVE elements for character growth as well as ITEMIZATION from pve and pvp. WoW is still dominating the market because it does both PVP and PVE well on EVERY server. There is no long term profit potential for a PVE only title, as its a niche market. MMORPGs cost too much to make and maintain. PVE titles also rely heavily on continuous content being created, which costs more money and time. That wont happen if you have a PVE only title in this day and age that cant have advanced AI or other features.... Which actually leads into the next point. IT is safer and more profitable to make a AAA single player open world game focused on PVE than a mmorpg. Which, of course is why if given the choice the games will be single player.
I thought the majority of western MMO players still prefered PvE, now most of the people posting here probably prefers PvP. PvP seems to be something that developers HAVE to do (to satisfy the forum warriors maybe) but as mentioned previously in this thread there has been few if any really good PvP games. I really would like to see some marketing research on this my guess is that a majority of the older MMO (and in my experience these people tend to stay with their games longer) players still would prefer a solid PVE title. The long term profit potential in a solid AAA PVE title is probably much greater than the current "try to do everything and fail at it" trend in games.
Agree with the OP "Give me PvE or expect no ۬s from me"
PVP is done because 1) its user generated content, 2) it keeps active subs longer and 3) its necessary in this day and age for such high risk projects. There have been a lot of horrible PvE games as well, so what does this show? Its not pve or pvp games that are not doing well, but ALL. This is directly linked to quality design and production, which is tied directly back to the Publishers. The top grossing mmorpgs have strong focuses on both PVP and PVE. Sometimes you take risks in new design, for example WAR with its player quests...which if you think about it is one of hte most innovative PVE features to hit the MMORPG scene... yet it was a flawed design with a flawed reward system. Furthermore it goes to show that even PVP lovers need smart PVE elements for character growth as well as ITEMIZATION from pve and pvp. WoW is still dominating the market because it does both PVP and PVE well on EVERY server. There is no long term profit potential for a PVE only title, as its a niche market. MMORPGs cost too much to make and maintain. PVE titles also rely heavily on continuous content being created, which costs more money and time. That wont happen if you have a PVE only title in this day and age that cant have advanced AI or other features.... Which actually leads into the next point. IT is safer and more profitable to make a AAA single player open world game focused on PVE than a mmorpg. Which, of course is why if given the choice the games will be single player.
wow dominates the market because its a game thats easy to learn/ play, its very sociable, and they have amazing marketing , it isn't because they do anything that is super amazing, don't kid yourself
You do not consider solid marketing, highly accessible design laid out and followed through from its GDD to be an accomplishment?
Only someone who does not work in the industry would say as you have said and assume that is only why WoW is dominating the market. Everything about WoW from its initial design, to its engine, to the art, from how they wrote the networking code to the animations... Its game design is brilliant. Very few games in gaming history have been able to create such a solid well rounded well functioning dynamic, mechanic and aesthic system. Do you even know what a GDD is by any chance? Do you know the core theory behind game design, whether analog or digital? Im thinking no. Blizzard did just about everything right when making WoW, from its marketing research and yes its accessibility. That doesnt happen on its own btw, you have to make it happen and its not easy. Btw, in case you missed it, PVE and PVP are part of game design.
I dont think that PvP players are a majority or have generaly longer subscription time.
Imho the PvP players that stay long are firstmost hardcore gamers and that is the difference.
Then they are far more vocal as PvEers if i may mention AoC as example, where there is at least the PvE-crowd as big as the PvP-crowd if not even bigger but most postings in the forums are about PvP.
Yet there is no comercial successfull PvP-centered MMO live as an MMO needs to have PvE and PvP entangled into an fun and interesting gameplay that offers a rich gameplay with many ways to enjoy.
PvP is not self generated content it is repeating the same thing over and over again...
Building a Base from harvested/gathered resources is no PvP nor is it PvE it is ingame exploring/gathering/crafting/commerce.
EvE has done it a good way with secure sectors and unsecure sectors as Daoc did it with the 3 realms and borderzones.
Good PvE and PvP in the same game is possible!
A themepark put together with sandbox areas with warring realms and borderzones and secure and unsecure zones and a good crafting is possible and you do not need many servers if your map is big enough you can do it the eve way.
One Day one company will find out and bring a good game out.
Beside this i want really a good mechwarrior mmo - it could offer most of the things i wrote and even whole planets for guilds/mercenary bands/pirate kingdoms/clans to claim and fight for...
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
Pleas for more PvE are ill-suited for this particular website.
It doesn't matter how many PvP games that are made, most of the folks that post here at MMORPG.com will largely suck at them and declare the games a failure. Or they'll suck at all the PvP games out there and then come here to complain. I'm not sure about the above order.
Either way, only a few people in any of the scores of current PvP games will end up being successful/dominant, so for the majority who can't/ won't/ don't do what it takes to succeed in them, they have to protect there cyber-egos and declare the games a failure.
So while in the real world there are more than enough options for PvPers of all stripes, for obvious reasons there will never be enough PvP games for the folks here to be happy.
So even though PvEers only have a handful of options, and the PvPers have dozens upon dozens, they'll fight tooth and nail against anyone suggesting more PvE.
I would really like to see a new well-done PvE game. LotRO is a great example of a great PvE game. I would like to see something along that line, but maybe in another genre....sci-fi, horror, or some such.
I generally steer clear of PvP focused games. The communities that those games usually spawn are horrible. I don't mind if a game that I play has PvP as long as it's limited to certain zones and is kept separate.
PvE is what it is... I mean, the only interesting part about EQ-style combat is raid bosses that have scripted phases, rather than the tank-and-spank nightmare (imo it's horrible). I've seen more recent games have an actual tactical plan for killing bosses, one of my favs being the "bomberman" boss in the the Tarantia Sewers in AoC. So simple, but says a lot about where boss fights should be going, as well as the common mob. If PvE against trash mobs could hols any kind of interesting function, and let me go as far to say that I look for the kind of AI you expect from a modern-day Monster Hunter title, then more people would actually be interested in anything short of an epic boss.
Overall, PvE has a lot of growing up to do, and even if there is *more* of it, most of it sucks or isn't noteworthy - save a few shining examples during raid content.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
From a game design perspective, it is harder to please PVE only fanboys, and it doesnt reach a wide audience. Studies have been done on what is most popular, and a mixture of pve and pvp is it. Publishers and even some development studios have entire departments dedicated to reaching the most people as possible and catering to the majority when preparing a project.
There is one problem with this. Games designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator have never succeeded. By trying to appeal to that lowest common denominator, somehow the magic that makes a game special always gets eliminated.
Truely successful games have always been the ones to take a chance to do things their own way.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
wow dominates the market because its a game thats easy to learn/ play, its very sociable, and they have amazing marketing , it isn't because they do anything that is super amazing, don't kid yourself
You do not consider solid marketing, highly accessible design laid out and followed through from its GDD to be an accomplishment?
Only someone who does not work in the industry would say as you have said and assume that is only why WoW is dominating the market. Everything about WoW from its initial design, to its engine, to the art, from how they wrote the networking code to the animations... Its game design is brilliant. Very few games in gaming history have been able to create such a solid well rounded well functioning dynamic, mechanic and aesthic system. Do you even know what a GDD is by any chance? Do you know the core theory behind game design, whether analog or digital? Im thinking no. Blizzard did just about everything right when making WoW, from its marketing research and yes its accessibility. That doesnt happen on its own btw, you have to make it happen and its not easy. Btw, in case you missed it, PVE and PVP are part of game design.
Its game design document?
Anyways, i could care less of looking at it as someone in the industry or not, I am not in it, nor are most people. I don't give two shits if you are either, you don't impress me.
WOW's initial design is the offspring of Warhammer first of all (and no I'm not trying to give credit to Warhammer online or mythic) and then we could go threw the multiple games they snatched features and ideas from (all games guilty of it) all of that aside, I personally DISLIKE world of warcraft, I think the game sucks, its saturated the market with crap (only because others are trying to jump on their success)
and honestly bro, all you did was try to flex some "i'm a game industry guy wah wah wah i know stuff you don't " crap about a statement I made, and then just added onto what I said.
I said their marketing made the game what it is, you verified my statement in what you said
i said their game is easy to learn and play , you verified that also
take your bs somewhere else, or go make a good game, and stfu
Actually your response was said in a manner in which you disagree that WoW is dominating the market due to its balance of pvp and pve, or else you wouldnt have bothered responding and in the way you did.
Furthermore, its clear you are here just to insult and act childish. If you wish to do so, then feel free. The point here is that your response was based on some form of elitist disagreement in which you just try to switch it over to something else while assuming no great accomplishment has been made in its design.
I'm sorry if that bothers you but your out of no where reply comes across not only as ignorant but silly. You dont care to listen because you clearly think too much of yourself. Whats ironic is how you are here on a gaming site yet seem to have this attitude that you know so much more than everyone else... and when someone comes along with more info and possible professional connections, you insult them. Good job.
You cannot ignore, logically, inconvenient areas that contributed to WoW's success while touting your own version of the same thing. At the end of the day it comes down to elitism, plain and simple.
You either disagree with my information or you dont, but keep in mind why you responded in the first place and second how you wish to be perceived using the language and wording you do. If you disagree, keep out your elitist phrasing and explain why the teeny weeny detail you picked out is wrong... of course unless you are here fishing for confrontation, which might have been the case either way. If so, dont bother responding.
From a game design perspective, it is harder to please PVE only fanboys, and it doesnt reach a wide audience. Studies have been done on what is most popular, and a mixture of pve and pvp is it. Publishers and even some development studios have entire departments dedicated to reaching the most people as possible and catering to the majority when preparing a project.
There is one problem with this. Games designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator have never succeeded. By trying to appeal to that lowest common denominator, somehow the magic that makes a game special always gets eliminated.
Truely successful games have always been the ones to take a chance to do things their own way.
It doesnt work that way though. First you set an age range, you take into consideration where you want the game to go.. some countries have different rating systems and such, from there you try to explain all the types of people (in categories) the game will appeal too and what they may or may not like. You get a rough idea of the type of game it needs to be.
MMORPGs are high risk projects. For any game you dont look at the lowest demoninator and try to cater to them (though we see this with console games produced by third party Wii developers), but rather what elements would appeal to the widest range. Its all about ranges, not denominators. A mixture of PVE and PVP focus hits the largest range for mmorpg players. Certain themes work better in some countries than they do in others. Sci-fi for example. Believe it or not, space games, even though they tend to get made in Europe do not appeal the the wider European audience but rather North Americans more. Its one of those strange ironies about target audiences.
There is a whole slew of design choices, marketing decisions, IPs...ect that goes into a game. Most of the games that fail are due to bad marketing, bad design.. .not who its targeting persay but how its done. The game psyconaughts is a good example of this... its an amazing game, well designed, but the marketing department had no idea what to do with it. You play as a kid but it has adult elements to the game... therefore its a great game that won many awards yet failed in the marketplace. On the flip side there are games that are horribly designed and appeal to some of the worst and smallest targets yet do very well in the market place due to marketing... Oblivion is a good example of this. Console vs PC target audience also plays a huge role.
I do disagree it is dominating because of balance, I hear about imbalances all the god damn time, all over this forum. (Latest one being a paladin?) And didn't WOW make it so both horde and alliance have the same classes? Because of "balance" issues? We can make this list longer, but it isn't really worth the effort. ...and your whole other post to me was of the "i'm better than you" variety , so I'm not really sure where you go off saying anything about me, and honestly here you just explained yourself in a nutshell. Do you even know what LOL is by any chance? Because my LOL was perfectly researched and executed. yay for you knowing acronyms +10 for you friend
btw, warcraft already had a following, as did the company blizzard, so it isn't like this game was released off a total fresh idea/thought/huge risk .. they knew they'd get subscribers
I am not sure you understand what I said. Its not about game balance in regards to success, but design balance between PVP features (dynamics, mechanics and aesthetics) and the PVE features (dynamics, mechanics and aesthetics). There is a difference.
two things are happening here, either A) you were not able to comprehend my comments (in which case you shouldnt respond the way you did or at all) or you are purposefully misinterpreting and changing the topic which you disagree with.
Game balance has NOTHING to do with what was being said.
Comments
A PVE only game is a single player game. There are plenty out there like Dragon Age. PVP = MMO. Without the player there is no MMO.
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Times maybe changing but PvP has always been the less popular playstyle. Even in WoW the PvE servers are more populated.
EQ was PvE only with PvP servers added only after the community demanded them. EQ was the biggest MMO at the time and ruled the MMO world for like 5 years. The PvP servers were great I was on every style, Rallos Zek, Vallon Zek, then Sullon Zek. I have never had more fun in any PvP focused or PvE/PvP balanced game ever.
For all the arenas, battle grounds, epic loot, prizes, keep defenses and whatever other gimmic people need dangled in front of them to fight each other.. nothing topped fighting over dungeons/raids in EQ. Controlling the PvE content was so much more intense and gratifying than any pvp centric content ever developed (imo).
So I am with the OP I want another PvE only MMO with "afterthought" pvp enabled servers thrown in hehe. Make a great PvE game and you don't need pvp content.
This is where WAR and many MMO's PvP went wrong. I don't want to be rewarded in special RvR xp and tokens that I need for better gear. I don't want to have to grind PvP to get things. People never sat in the RvR lakes waiting for a fight to start. You need something out there like a dungeon or some kind of activity so that when I want to PvP there are people to fight, and when there isn't a fight going on I can do something else while I wait for something to start up. Keeps are going to be flawed unless there is some reason for people to hang around in them and wait for them to get sieged. Or else its just a boring exercise in patience.
My best PvP memories are in games where there wasn't forced PvP, or at least PvE and PvP servers. At the very least non PvP people can mainly play on PvE servers and have an alt on the PvP server.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
That's the funny thing... PVP only games as a mmorpg in a way are a bit of a contradiction. There has to be elements of interactivity including character progression and growth. If PvP is the main feature, then there is no reason to not play a FPS instead unless they are drawn to a specific theme. Therefore there is always a form of PVE in PvP centered games. I mean, it still has to be the tool for growth, and in some ways, superiority. If you break down what pve and pvp is, there is very little difference at the core.
PvE pretty much tells a game object classified as an enemy to attack, the challenge is pretty dumb, it is predictable and its done by the computer. The reasons why MMORPGs cant have complex AI is due to the nature of the technology, too much AI or code, will make the game unplayable (huge performance hit). Therefore in PvE games, the computer is pretty stupid, enemies are in a way universal in their core behavior. No challenge at all really. So what is pvp? It takes the same concept of PvE but it has no AI to control it... in other words the input is coming from an unpredictable source, another player. It is actually in its own way, advanced AI, because its a person able to react to your interaction and vice versa.
The interaction doesnt change, just the difficulty. This is why I find it strange when PvP only supporters and PvE only supporters start making noise... its silly not accept both, or realize what they both truly are to the system.
I agree 100%, that is why I want the PvPers that complain about PvE to say why. I like a balance between both. If the PvE is boring, then the grind to reach meaningful PvP is hated. If the PvP is out of balance and meaningless, no amount of PvE can make up for it.
I am still waiting for the hybrid sandbox full loot PvP game. Something like DF with more meaningful PvE. Not just the skill and loot grind for PvP. If there were NPC cities with factions to join and help protect or fight against along with the PvP. It would be a better game. A reason to fight mobs and players that had meaning. Tasks to perform to increase your standing for new skills or crafting receipies. The fight over guild cities and hamlets have meaning. The fight over recources have meaning. But what about other aspects of the PvE world that is worth fighting over? The skill grind is the same as level grind and quest grind. I would just like to see something other than the politcal aliance fight that adds to the overall player conflict.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?
R.A.Salvatore
Actually WoW had open world pvp and battleground pvp. Their PvE servers are battle ground and region specific pvp, therefore you cant suggest its the PvE only servers that are most popular.
/signed!
Never were there truer words! You got your years, PVPer, now its time we get some niceness for our wishes. I am so sick and tired of everything revolving around that stupid PVP of yours. Give me cool powers, give me story, give me a complex world where no PVP nerfing and whatever comes with PVP happens.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
If there were actually a good game on the market, the pvp versus pve wouldn't matter much.
The OP is worried about one tree versus another, when the whole forest is dying.
Apply lemon juice and candle flame here to reveal secret message.
Yes.. you hit on something I have evangelized for a long time. Most "PvE purists' don't want any type of PvP in the game because of "balancing and nerfing". They fail to realize that the fault here is NOT the PvP copmponent but rather the pitiful AI seen in today's games. To make up for an utter lack of intelligence designers just add more and more HP and immunities to mobs. This is why you have encounters against "human Boss mobs" with 100 times the HPs of a maxxed "human" character.
When PvE AI develops.. insane HPs and attacks will not be needed... and thus no "balancing" or "nerfing" will be needed between PvE andPvP encounters.
Until that day we are stuck with the totally illogical concept of "Tanking" (yes I will stand facing the wall and attack the 1 guy in Full Plate Armor while the 5 lightly armored people stand behind me and attack repeatedly against my back...) and the rest of the holy trinity. Until that day we are stuck with silly concepts like "pulling" guard after guard... one at a time.. as we make our way down a hallway.
Yet... (some) people seem to believe it is the PvP aspect that causes nerfing and balancing...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
No, it wouldn't work. It just wouldn't. I think your confusing a sandbox type of game with a pve game. You could make a pve game, but in the end it would just turn into WoW w/o pvp or just a single player RPG. But a game that changes and evolves by players decisions? Sooner or later you'd NEED pvp to make that work.
This statement is false.
Like others have said, the PvP crowd really has no PvP games out there.
The games that tend to cater just to "PvP" aren't really PvP games at all, and they suck too. Why would I play a game that has no PvE content and focuses solely on PvP? That isn't real PvP, that's just stupid. If i want to play an FPS -type game where I keep doing the same shit over and over, I"ll play an FPS, not an MMORPG. Problem with these "PvP" MMORPGs is they tend to have meaningless and boring PvP that doesn't really relate to anything. They will instance their PvP, have an exp loss, and call their game "hardcore PvP" when in fact its just another crap game that doesnt support integrated PvE/PvP.
As for there being PvP games though, as I've said, there are none. We really need something without instances, and with open PvP with some penalties for dying. Really, in these games no one even cares about PvP. Darkfall, WH, AION, are all games with meaningless and boring PvP systems.
I remember EQ was a good PvP game. They didn't care about class balance issues, it was just a game purely catering to the PvE crowd. But they did one thing right, they had PvP servers, some of them had no rules and FFA PvP. That is how PvP should be. I don't see why game companies are trying to make their game PvP only, and ignore PvE. The way I see things, PvE is what makes PvP meaningful. How else are you going to have players fight each other if not over the PvE content within the game? And that same PvE content can be used to gain PvP advantages. So separating PvE and PvP is just idiotic on the part of the game designers.
We need to go back to the EQ days. Game should just focus on PvE, but there should be FFA PvP servers out there where you can do anything you want, PK People in towns, kill level 1's, take over newb zones, prevent other guilds from raiding, etc. When that happens, we will have a game with a real PvP system that is integrated with the PvE occurring on the server.
And I think it's really stupid on the part of game designers to try and market their MMO as being a PvP game. I don't want a game that says "This is a PvP game" when it's just a fake PvP game catering to newbies and carebears. I want a game that is a traditional PVE game WITH PVP SERVERS. Too many games have servers with one ruleset which is stupid.
Make a good game that works with PVE, and just open up some PvP servers (And get rid of the idiotic instancing bullshit, that always ruins PvP games.) That is all.
I thought the majority of western MMO players still prefered PvE, now most of the people posting here probably prefers PvP. PvP seems to be something that developers HAVE to do (to satisfy the forum warriors maybe) but as mentioned previously in this thread there has been few if any really good PvP games. I really would like to see some marketing research on this my guess is that a majority of the older MMO (and in my experience these people tend to stay with their games longer) players still would prefer a solid PVE title. The long term profit potential in a solid AAA PVE title is probably much greater than the current "try to do everything and fail at it" trend in games.
Agree with the OP "Give me PvE or expect no ۬s from me"
Chi puo dir com'egli arde é in picciol fuoco.
He who can describe the flame does not burn.
Petrarch
I would really love to see MMOs stop trying so hard to please everyone. Focusing on a narrower vision and building those elements extremely well seems like a much better direction than half-assedly trying to do everything. I would love to see a heavily PvE centric game. It can and should certainly have PvP in it, but more as a side issue. By the same token, consider a PvP focused game like Aion. I would have probably stuck with it if not for the tedious process of leveling and questing in it. It does Abyss PvP much better than any of its PvE content. It should just do the one thing it does well, and stop trying to please everyone.
Important facts:
1. Free to Play games are poorly made.
2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals.
3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE.
4. Community is more important than you think.
I agree in that regard. Unfortunately the creative directors often get pushed around by the Publishers who could care less about the vision and only the biggest audience. The other downside is that even if you make a great game, if it doesnt do as well as the publisher would like, your name is damaged in the industry and therefore getting more work or more chances gets harder. So you can understand why its not really possible with the way the industry is designed for the kind of attitude the OP and others suggest. This "vision" is always deluded. The indie scene is taking off though so that developers can have their vision with minimal risk, you just wont see mmorpgs come from it. Furthermore developers cannot work on their own side projects while at a studio, contracts pretty much state that anything they work on, even if its the next greatest project on their own at home, belongs to them...essentially keeping what you desire from happening.
So until then the high cost and risk of a mmorpg will continuously force dev studios to try and please everyone. Making a game is very very hard, and it hardly goes as planned, as you have noticed with recent mmorpgs.
PVP is done because 1) its user generated content, 2) it keeps active subs longer and 3) its necessary in this day and age for such high risk projects. There have been a lot of horrible PvE games as well, so what does this show? Its not pve or pvp games that are not doing well, but ALL. This is directly linked to quality design and production, which is tied directly back to the Publishers. The top grossing mmorpgs have strong focuses on both PVP and PVE. Sometimes you take risks in new design, for example WAR with its player quests...which if you think about it is one of hte most innovative PVE features to hit the MMORPG scene... yet it was a flawed design with a flawed reward system. Furthermore it goes to show that even PVP lovers need smart PVE elements for character growth as well as ITEMIZATION from pve and pvp. WoW is still dominating the market because it does both PVP and PVE well on EVERY server. There is no long term profit potential for a PVE only title, as its a niche market. MMORPGs cost too much to make and maintain. PVE titles also rely heavily on continuous content being created, which costs more money and time. That wont happen if you have a PVE only title in this day and age that cant have advanced AI or other features.... Which actually leads into the next point. IT is safer and more profitable to make a AAA single player open world game focused on PVE than a mmorpg. Which, of course is why if given the choice the games will be single player.
PVP is done because 1) its user generated content, 2) it keeps active subs longer and 3) its necessary in this day and age for such high risk projects. There have been a lot of horrible PvE games as well, so what does this show? Its not pve or pvp games that are not doing well, but ALL. This is directly linked to quality design and production, which is tied directly back to the Publishers. The top grossing mmorpgs have strong focuses on both PVP and PVE. Sometimes you take risks in new design, for example WAR with its player quests...which if you think about it is one of hte most innovative PVE features to hit the MMORPG scene... yet it was a flawed design with a flawed reward system. Furthermore it goes to show that even PVP lovers need smart PVE elements for character growth as well as ITEMIZATION from pve and pvp. WoW is still dominating the market because it does both PVP and PVE well on EVERY server. There is no long term profit potential for a PVE only title, as its a niche market. MMORPGs cost too much to make and maintain. PVE titles also rely heavily on continuous content being created, which costs more money and time. That wont happen if you have a PVE only title in this day and age that cant have advanced AI or other features.... Which actually leads into the next point. IT is safer and more profitable to make a AAA single player open world game focused on PVE than a mmorpg. Which, of course is why if given the choice the games will be single player.
wow dominates the market because its a game thats easy to learn/ play, its very sociable, and they have amazing marketing , it isn't because they do anything that is super amazing, don't kid yourself
You do not consider solid marketing, highly accessible design laid out and followed through from its GDD to be an accomplishment?
Only someone who does not work in the industry would say as you have said and assume that is only why WoW is dominating the market. Everything about WoW from its initial design, to its engine, to the art, from how they wrote the networking code to the animations... Its game design is brilliant. Very few games in gaming history have been able to create such a solid well rounded well functioning dynamic, mechanic and aesthic system. Do you even know what a GDD is by any chance? Do you know the core theory behind game design, whether analog or digital? Im thinking no. Blizzard did just about everything right when making WoW, from its marketing research and yes its accessibility. That doesnt happen on its own btw, you have to make it happen and its not easy. Btw, in case you missed it, PVE and PVP are part of game design.
I dont think that PvP players are a majority or have generaly longer subscription time.
Imho the PvP players that stay long are firstmost hardcore gamers and that is the difference.
Then they are far more vocal as PvEers if i may mention AoC as example, where there is at least the PvE-crowd as big as the PvP-crowd if not even bigger but most postings in the forums are about PvP.
Yet there is no comercial successfull PvP-centered MMO live as an MMO needs to have PvE and PvP entangled into an fun and interesting gameplay that offers a rich gameplay with many ways to enjoy.
PvP is not self generated content it is repeating the same thing over and over again...
Building a Base from harvested/gathered resources is no PvP nor is it PvE it is ingame exploring/gathering/crafting/commerce.
EvE has done it a good way with secure sectors and unsecure sectors as Daoc did it with the 3 realms and borderzones.
Good PvE and PvP in the same game is possible!
A themepark put together with sandbox areas with warring realms and borderzones and secure and unsecure zones and a good crafting is possible and you do not need many servers if your map is big enough you can do it the eve way.
One Day one company will find out and bring a good game out.
Beside this i want really a good mechwarrior mmo - it could offer most of the things i wrote and even whole planets for guilds/mercenary bands/pirate kingdoms/clans to claim and fight for...
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
MWO Music Video - What does the Mech say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6HYNqCDLI
Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0x2iwK0BKM
Pleas for more PvE are ill-suited for this particular website.
It doesn't matter how many PvP games that are made, most of the folks that post here at MMORPG.com will largely suck at them and declare the games a failure. Or they'll suck at all the PvP games out there and then come here to complain. I'm not sure about the above order.
Either way, only a few people in any of the scores of current PvP games will end up being successful/dominant, so for the majority who can't/ won't/ don't do what it takes to succeed in them, they have to protect there cyber-egos and declare the games a failure.
So while in the real world there are more than enough options for PvPers of all stripes, for obvious reasons there will never be enough PvP games for the folks here to be happy.
So even though PvEers only have a handful of options, and the PvPers have dozens upon dozens, they'll fight tooth and nail against anyone suggesting more PvE.
I would really like to see a new well-done PvE game. LotRO is a great example of a great PvE game. I would like to see something along that line, but maybe in another genre....sci-fi, horror, or some such.
I generally steer clear of PvP focused games. The communities that those games usually spawn are horrible. I don't mind if a game that I play has PvP as long as it's limited to certain zones and is kept separate.
PvE is what it is... I mean, the only interesting part about EQ-style combat is raid bosses that have scripted phases, rather than the tank-and-spank nightmare (imo it's horrible). I've seen more recent games have an actual tactical plan for killing bosses, one of my favs being the "bomberman" boss in the the Tarantia Sewers in AoC. So simple, but says a lot about where boss fights should be going, as well as the common mob. If PvE against trash mobs could hols any kind of interesting function, and let me go as far to say that I look for the kind of AI you expect from a modern-day Monster Hunter title, then more people would actually be interested in anything short of an epic boss.
Overall, PvE has a lot of growing up to do, and even if there is *more* of it, most of it sucks or isn't noteworthy - save a few shining examples during raid content.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
There is one problem with this. Games designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator have never succeeded. By trying to appeal to that lowest common denominator, somehow the magic that makes a game special always gets eliminated.
Truely successful games have always been the ones to take a chance to do things their own way.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Why not try Vanguard? Best PvE MMO i've played
Vanguard is a very good game, I just wish people would get over its poor launch and give it a real chance.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
You do not consider solid marketing, highly accessible design laid out and followed through from its GDD to be an accomplishment?
Only someone who does not work in the industry would say as you have said and assume that is only why WoW is dominating the market. Everything about WoW from its initial design, to its engine, to the art, from how they wrote the networking code to the animations... Its game design is brilliant. Very few games in gaming history have been able to create such a solid well rounded well functioning dynamic, mechanic and aesthic system. Do you even know what a GDD is by any chance? Do you know the core theory behind game design, whether analog or digital? Im thinking no. Blizzard did just about everything right when making WoW, from its marketing research and yes its accessibility. That doesnt happen on its own btw, you have to make it happen and its not easy. Btw, in case you missed it, PVE and PVP are part of game design.
Its game design document?
Anyways, i could care less of looking at it as someone in the industry or not, I am not in it, nor are most people. I don't give two shits if you are either, you don't impress me.
WOW's initial design is the offspring of Warhammer first of all (and no I'm not trying to give credit to Warhammer online or mythic) and then we could go threw the multiple games they snatched features and ideas from (all games guilty of it) all of that aside, I personally DISLIKE world of warcraft, I think the game sucks, its saturated the market with crap (only because others are trying to jump on their success)
and honestly bro, all you did was try to flex some "i'm a game industry guy wah wah wah i know stuff you don't " crap about a statement I made, and then just added onto what I said.
I said their marketing made the game what it is, you verified my statement in what you said
i said their game is easy to learn and play , you verified that also
take your bs somewhere else, or go make a good game, and stfu
Actually your response was said in a manner in which you disagree that WoW is dominating the market due to its balance of pvp and pve, or else you wouldnt have bothered responding and in the way you did.
Furthermore, its clear you are here just to insult and act childish. If you wish to do so, then feel free. The point here is that your response was based on some form of elitist disagreement in which you just try to switch it over to something else while assuming no great accomplishment has been made in its design.
I'm sorry if that bothers you but your out of no where reply comes across not only as ignorant but silly. You dont care to listen because you clearly think too much of yourself. Whats ironic is how you are here on a gaming site yet seem to have this attitude that you know so much more than everyone else... and when someone comes along with more info and possible professional connections, you insult them. Good job.
You cannot ignore, logically, inconvenient areas that contributed to WoW's success while touting your own version of the same thing. At the end of the day it comes down to elitism, plain and simple.
You either disagree with my information or you dont, but keep in mind why you responded in the first place and second how you wish to be perceived using the language and wording you do. If you disagree, keep out your elitist phrasing and explain why the teeny weeny detail you picked out is wrong... of course unless you are here fishing for confrontation, which might have been the case either way. If so, dont bother responding.
There is one problem with this. Games designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator have never succeeded. By trying to appeal to that lowest common denominator, somehow the magic that makes a game special always gets eliminated.
Truely successful games have always been the ones to take a chance to do things their own way.
It doesnt work that way though. First you set an age range, you take into consideration where you want the game to go.. some countries have different rating systems and such, from there you try to explain all the types of people (in categories) the game will appeal too and what they may or may not like. You get a rough idea of the type of game it needs to be.
MMORPGs are high risk projects. For any game you dont look at the lowest demoninator and try to cater to them (though we see this with console games produced by third party Wii developers), but rather what elements would appeal to the widest range. Its all about ranges, not denominators. A mixture of PVE and PVP focus hits the largest range for mmorpg players. Certain themes work better in some countries than they do in others. Sci-fi for example. Believe it or not, space games, even though they tend to get made in Europe do not appeal the the wider European audience but rather North Americans more. Its one of those strange ironies about target audiences.
There is a whole slew of design choices, marketing decisions, IPs...ect that goes into a game. Most of the games that fail are due to bad marketing, bad design.. .not who its targeting persay but how its done. The game psyconaughts is a good example of this... its an amazing game, well designed, but the marketing department had no idea what to do with it. You play as a kid but it has adult elements to the game... therefore its a great game that won many awards yet failed in the marketplace. On the flip side there are games that are horribly designed and appeal to some of the worst and smallest targets yet do very well in the market place due to marketing... Oblivion is a good example of this. Console vs PC target audience also plays a huge role.
Its not as simple as you think.
I am not sure you understand what I said. Its not about game balance in regards to success, but design balance between PVP features (dynamics, mechanics and aesthetics) and the PVE features (dynamics, mechanics and aesthetics). There is a difference.
two things are happening here, either A) you were not able to comprehend my comments (in which case you shouldnt respond the way you did or at all) or
you are purposefully misinterpreting and changing the topic which you disagree with.
Game balance has NOTHING to do with what was being said.