Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Help Bring PvEers and PvPers together
Henchdwarf
Member UncommonPosts: 517
Im getting super tired of trying to express the various pros and cons of the two playstyles as i see them, without it turning into a carbon copied of every other similar convo, stereotyping contest.
I am pro pvp, anti ganker. I hate gankers, i love carebears. i am neither, but both accuse me of being the other.
this is not fair, and this artificial divide is hurting the industry.
we keep seeing articles and commentaries complaining about how this game or that is unable to merge to the two player styles, and therefore becomes a trough for whichever side the speaker doesent like.
i think we should be keeping the discussion going in term of seeking inovative solutions to let them coexist, and in a perfect game, support eachother without ruining eachothers gameplay.
The best i can come up with (and even i have to squint hard to picture it working...) is
A- some kind of open world where pvp is maintained in open moving zones. these would be "fronts" like in war. on either side of these zones are PvE zones, operating like any typical varition of quest driven craftverse, tailored for the lore and style of the game.
The carebears would be the main directors of economy, and could easily become PvP toons if they wished to make the journey to the edges. They would have to support their faction constantly, and as a whole, so they would have to risk their zone shrinking, if they arent diligent enough, though they would be safe from ganking while within. The PvPers would therefore be the standing army, still able to gather and quest in the PvP zones, but primarily there to push the front forwards, in competiton with neighboring factions/territories.
PvP and politics would matter (especially if there were many such territories expanding at their own relative rates), letting both the gankers and Defender pvpers have their niche, and the internal strength would depend on the questing and crafting PvEers within.
different territories would end up being ruled as they each developed, some would be led by crafters, others by gankers etc. it would be a long term changing experiment.
ive mused on a possible mechanic to this, where the top rated PvE of his particular zone becomes the "GM" of the territory, able to have a hand in spending "realm points" towards large scale strategy gamesque features, that would affect the front design.
plz CONSTRUCTIVELY comment, and if my idea doesent sound good, plz only contribute your ideas towards this goal, rather than fall into bickering over two(or more) perfectly correct opinions on playstyles
Comments
I had some of this feeling in the original alterac valley in wow classic accturly!
the main problem with WoW, is that there was no component of world impermanence. This is as good a term as any i can think of to describe what sandbox builders like me love to play in. a world that can be, and will changed and defined by the players. also, though WoW does have an auction house, its player economy plays no substantial part in the greater conflicts.
imagin WoW, where the territories could be fought for, gained and lost in month long struggles. not controled by any specific players, but as a result of how well an opposing faction was able to work independantly, and therefore as a competitive whole.
Actually sounds like a fairly fun system to have a "frontline" which wavers back and forth through multiple zones.
The mention of diplomacy is the only thing I don't think works -- the rest of your idea is completely feasible until you try to mention diplomacy (which seems to assume player factions, which would strongly work against the "frontline" being a fun gameplay element.)
I mean I can see mercenary guilds as a concept. Basically you'd have a 2-3 faction game (WOW/DAOC) but allow guilds to potentially switch sides -- and in fact the game would incentivize merc guilds to intentionally join the underdog side (but not so much that they're switching teams every other night, obviously.) In this way you create more of a dynamic game world, and maybe then you could have diplomacy too (with the non-merc guilds footing the bill to keep that strong Merc Guild around, helping their faction and not the others.)
But all of that's just a side comment. Overall I like this idea.
Naturally we're assuming effort is made to make PVE fun. This may sound like a "duh" comment, but apparently someone should've made such a comment to Mythic while WAR was being made (whose PVE/PVP system bears some vague similarities.) That game had very little effort put into making PVE fun. For that matter, WAR's split between PVE and PVP was never really enjoyed that much -- and I'm not sure if that's just because PVE was abysmal (so earning PVE points towards the war wasn't fun) or if only one type of player was attracted to the game (possibly because of the former reason.)
Basically you have zones stretching across the world, with the lucrative dungeons in the center and bonus rewards from the dungeons closer to the enemy's natural headquarters. So you'd want to fight to control the further dungeons so that you could get the good gear out of it.
The only concern I'd have is ensuring there's a proper spread of content tiers (ie different level mobs). You'd almost want camps that dynamically reacted to player presence so that each zone offered challenges all over the place (because you could potentially get backed up to the zone in front of your HQ, and that's not a lot of room for the PVEers to have fun in, and the entire level/gear spread of players need to have something fun to do.) Obviously some PVEers are fine with saying "Oh crap, our backs' to the wall and I want to do the center-of-the-map dungeon so I'll PVP for a bit," but others are PVE purists.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think diplomacy could work say put in a similar system to civ even have playable diplomats so that when you venture onto someone elses land its not gank gank gank.
its who are you and then in a controlled manner escort the diplomat to the said council/leader/king.
the transporting party gains xp/gold whatever the diplomat gains xp/gold based upon how sucssesful their visit to said land was.
the devs could design equipment/skills of which they give out to factions based upon their pve quests and pvp feats of which then they could use it as battering tools with other factions.
Therefor the most sucsessful factions are the ones that delve into pvp and pve if you go one sided you wont get the benefits of the other side of the game. But then a PVP faction could use bullying tactics on say a pve faction for their skills/equipment and vicer verser.
just an idea from my side
(sorry about the spelling leaving for work not got time to spell check cant find the bar up above)
*pats and hugs*
Well I am a bit of both aswell, I understand the like of both 'worlds', so to speak ^^
Too bad Im generally also a very unstable(emotionally) and badly skilled player...so that's driving me further away from everyone in the end ^^
I think the problem with MMORPGs and PvP is due to games trying to cater to PvPers.
Like I said in some other post.. They tend to ruin their games by trying to cater
What they do is they design their endgame for PvPers, so all there is to do in the game is PvP. That is a stupid idea though.
They need to design their game for the PvErs, make the PvE content challenging, and take the PvE content out of instances. Then put up different servers with different rulesets, a PvP server that has PvP turned on no matter what race/level you are.
That is all that has to be done to make a successful PvP MMORPG. But like I said these retarded companies are trying to sell their "Hardcore PvPer" message by making endgames pure PvP (which is boring if it is pointless or artificial, such as when they put point systems / gearshops in to encourage it). People will PvP when there are limited resources, that is all that needs to be brought back into the genre.
And the carebears can stay on their PvE-only servers while the PvPers pick the PvP server that has a ruleset they like. They really need to ditch instancing though
Personally I'm tired of seeing all games trying to cater to both crowds. I think if a p2p mmo that focused solely on quality pve came out, it would do really well. There are more than enough pvp focused, or catering to, games out there already.
Anytime I read a post that refers to PvE players as "carebears," I pretty much tune out. If you want a PvE player's opinion on an issue, I suggest not starting out by insulting them. But by doing so, you have helped answer the question why many PvE players don't want to be "brought together" with PvPers.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
im not suggesting a game should cater to both, i think its completely possible to bring them together in a mutually complimentary way.
I am both player types. Im gonna go out on the limb and say that i think most MMO players have a shade of both sides.
the game i was describing in the OP, is one that seeks to find a place for both play styles, in way that lets all players support eachother, without having to dictate terms or draw lines in the sand (unless you mean literally, then thats exactly what i was suggesting)
I think the problem with many current titles, is they cater EXCLUSIVELY to one side or the other, making it a rather boring and pointless game from either perspective. this is why when the debate invariabley breaks between both sides, they are equally right and wealthy in well cited arguements.
PvP needs to be meaningful and politicallly driven with world changing consequences, AND the majority of ingame content must be stable and at the disposal and pace of ANY place style.
please continue to contribute your brain storms on how to do this. this thread is starting to veer off into the usual boring "cant be done cuz its too hard" section, and we've had enough of those.
*edit and sorry Amanthe, i dont use the term carebear as an insult. one of the proudest moments in my MMO career was, in the final days of Death Server, in Shadowbane, all the nongankers surviving guilds banded together and finally defeated the evil ganker empire, who had frustrated virtually the entire server since its creation. We crushed them in this battle, and burnt their keep to the ground. They were called Lords of Death, and we banded together under a guild named "The Carebear Alliance".
if it stands up to gankers, then its a term of pride, not an insult used by stupid children.
lets try to make things better.
My issue is when PVP unlocks "content" for PVE'rs. I don't personally mind this, but I can see how it would turn off a ton of casual players who want to log on and experience the unlocked content whenever they log on. I can't comment on anything else, but unlockable content based on PVP is very very hard to do.
I suppose wintergrasp works for the masses because its on such a short cooldown, so there is really no 'permanent capture' feeling. I am assuming it works, but truthfully I have no idea if players really like the system.
To be honest here, I think pvp doesnt even belong in mmos. I think competition bring out the worst in people, and thats not really something I want in a game that is supposed to live and breathe out of player interactions.
Players can still compete in many forms, like a healthy player driven economy, for example.
But pvp? My perfect mmo could very well be without it at all.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
Competition was eliminated once they instanced their resources.
There is no competition in a game like WoW, no rush to do anything, because things are always going to be there for you.
MMOs without some kind of drama and competition tend to be boring PVE grinds where you just wait around for PVE content to respawn. Throw PVP into the mix and shared content, now that is fun. Guilds warring with each other all the time and alliances forming/disbanding. That is what is fun
Its not fun for me and its not fun for alot of other people. So there goes your beautiful theory on what fun is.
Seriously dude, arguing about whether or not something requires skill is one thing, but to try to argue on what is fun and whats not is just retarded.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
this thread is not for a debate! plz go to the other zillion threads that merely mention the terms PvP and PvE, if you want to endlessly debate the pros and cons of the two dominant opinions in this unwinnable fight.
i posted this so you could both suggest positive ideas, and try to work together, not just keep saying how your way is better.
if you feel inclined towards such, just dont do it.
Fine.
I think that for a game to be healthy pve and pvp need to be kept seperate. Any game that tries to emulate any sort of relatively civilized world needs to put pve and pvp in different corners. Think roman empire. the world very organized and with lots of rules, pvp is done in the coliseum and on the borders of the empire, never in empire space (eve pun not intended).
I dont agree with instancing, but I do agree with seperating different areas as pve and pvp flagged. Like how WoW flag you for FFA pvp when you enter the STV arena.
think about how fun it would be to have both uninstanced, though organized, arena type pvp with winner ladders, and at the same time, more frantic, large scale pvp on the borders of the empire, while still providing a safe haven inside its borders for all the people who cant be assed fighting and just want to farm, craft, and explore in peace?
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
Toquio, did you see the rough template i described in my OP? it was suggesting large richly developed PvE zones, where all new content (quests and harvest/crafting areas) and economy is centered, surrounded by an expanding (and once expanded, potentially shrinkable) border. This would be a PvP zone where the factions would PvP to try to grow and take territory, but never shrink past a certain spacious ammount. PvPers would be able to fight and affect the world, and expand the territories for PvEers to explore and develope. I also mused that a ranking system for the PvEers could be created, which allowed the top PvEer (by whatever standard suited the balance and lore of the game) could be sort of a deity or RTS influencer in the PvP borderlands, playing a part in war front design and defence. This game would give limitless roles for PvPers and PvEers to work together, without impeding eachothers prefered style in the slightest. perhaps each faction could be racially themed and stylized (elves, cat people etc) with guilds within, organizing around function, rather than comptition. Im trying to get this conversation going, as i wish to convey how many PvPers like me, are actually wannabe empire builders. each faction/zone would be self determining, no ingame forceful rulership, but organized however its citizens manifested participation....
hrm, all my paragraphs got mushed together..hope it still comes out ok.
This is an area that SWG shined in IMO. It allowed both playstyles to exist within the same environment as well as separated them in a way that didn't interfere with either play-style.
It also placed consequence as a result of faction play. Which IMO resulted in the best PVP I've exprienced. It was at it's best during the Pre-cu era with the temporay enemy flagging system. I liked that you could set your city up as a PVP territory with electronics that detected enemy personel. As well as mines that detonated as a result of a flag.
Neutral players never had to worry about being flagged by either side. They could however still take part in PVP if they grouped with players who were flagged. I liked that in order to be Rebel or IMP you had to take part in the "WAR". If you didn't you were a neutral. It made the most sense out of any faction system I've played.
It put perfect use to that third faction every pvper wants in a PVP game. As well as catered to those who never wanted to take part in PVP. Yet could if they wanted to from time to time, they were never forced to though.
Something like this is win, win far all IMO
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm with Malickie on his point. First Pvp'ers and PvE'ers need to be on the same server. That right there helps break down any us vs them attitude since now both groups are able to cross the divide with their current toons and stop being Pvp'ers and PvE'ers and just become gamers. This is where SWG (old version) had it going. Open world Pvp that except for the server / area lag didn't affect the one's that just wanted to PvE. I also think that having them together allows those that wouldn't normally Pvp (and I was one of them) to dip their toe's into the other side and check it out at their pace.
Zone's and what not. Fixed - not as good but probably easier for dev's to set up. I'll use LotRO as my example. 2 factions Free and Monster. At some point the zone, say North Downs, blurs from a PvE area into a Pvp area. You want to PvE just stay south of the line, Pvp cross it for either open Pvp or quest driven (like SWG has in Restuess). This idea was what the Neutral zones were originally suppose to be like in STO, an area you just went into for open Pvp or to accomplish objectives. For reasons why to go in just look at SWG:JTL, resources are better in that area. Greater danger = Greater rewards.
Moblie zones - This one's good but you really couldn't have the game be linked to an IP since with the exception of one based on a war the give and take in capturable area wouldn't go, but yes captureable area's that allow your side to do different things if it was under your control. Only other problem is you'd have to be willing to accept map resets since at some point one side or the other will 'win'.
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
Nebliss, you wouldnt need map resets, and the other sides could never win, if there was a substantial minimum territory size that could not shrink any further. for the PvEers (and deep down, PvPers) absolute destruction would be a game flaw. if you go with the borderlands "front" approach, several different roughly circular player nonpvp zones, seperated by stretches of conquerable neutral PvP land. a territory could never be wiped off the map, or even made unplayabley small, it could only ever lose the territory it conquered. perhaps extra territory would give a faster resource node regeneration speed, or somthing, so that a zone would indeed be interested in in expanding, but it would defeat the purpose of this entire thread if, in the end, the PvEers were forced to be eradicated through war.
Perhaps the "top PvEer deity" figure i mentioned earlier, could have some control on what front or direction the zone expanded, if the PvPers fufilled the requirments of growth. you would fill the neutral land with unique regional resources, that once conquered, provided a new source and dimension of items for crafters to make...