Originally posted by Ausare The problem is consequence for PvP that is lacking. In the real world Parma death can be a punishment. In the real world I would say much more than half of people that would do things like griefing suffer keeping many from doing it. In games this does not happen. Instead the pve peopk e see their handiwork being screwed with with not real good recourse. They do not want to PvP but the only payback is to PvP. That does not work.
PvP can be fun but many do not want it.
What hard work? If it was a flagging system in some way, and they were not forced to PvP what hard work are they losing? There are other recourse options that could be available, such as banning the player from player shops or cities. I know it may not be the most ideal, but still. It's all about the design. In any games design if there are flaws people will exploit to level, get gear, make money, exploit the economy, other players, not just PvP them.
My hard work is for naught in GW2 when the economy is ruined by gold farmers. They are everywhere for instance and I have no recourse against them. Not even PvP. They're not stealing my 'nodes' but they're farming them so much whatever I get is not worth my 'hard time' to do.
There was a test once by scientists, there is a video from it but I forgot the name, maybe someone knows.
The researchers placed an ad for help, unsuspecting people not knowing they were part of their research responded.
The scene is that the researchers interrogate someone, and the unsuspecting person is asked to give small electric shocks to the person in the other room by turning a nob (who is in on the whole thing, in reality there are no shocks, but the unsusepcting person doesn't know this, they think they are giving shocks). When the researchers says "it might kill the person so don't go too far", many people agree to keep doing it, many people agreed to torture. These are random people picked up from ads.
Many people are inherently evil according to the research, all they need is the chance, and I think many people in PVP are given this chance to act on their instinct and get gratification out of making other people's gameplay miserable.
But the thing is. If i wanna Play as a elf i gotta pvp? Nope im out. Im not playing no fairies. I do like the idea that your Race determines who you are at war with. But this will alienate alot of people. My idea is that if you wanna play as an elf thats at war then you do but you can also make and elf who is neutral but is shunned by the majority of thier race.
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
There was a test once by scientists, there is a video from it but I forgot the name, maybe someone knows.
The researchers placed an ad for help, unsuspecting people not knowing they were part of their research responded.
The scene is that the researchers interrogate someone, and the unsuspecting person is asked to give small electric shocks to the person in the other room by turning a nob (who is in on the whole thing, in reality there are no shocks, but the unsusepcting person doesn't know this, they think they are giving shocks). When the researchers says "it might kill the person so don't go too far", many people agree to keep doing it, many people agreed to torture. These are random people picked up from ads.
Many people are inherently evil according to the research, all they need is the chance, and I think many people in PVP are given this chance to act on their instinct and get gratification out of making other people's gameplay miserable.
Yes, there are many studies, such as students becoming jailers or inmates. I remember that from those Psychology or Sociology classes in college.
But come on, people are also going to discriminate based on your gear level or gear score (or whatever it is in WoW) and people say that makes them feel miserable. It's design. There has to be a design to keep you happy, I believe that, and allow me to PvP in the open world with my friends, with meaningful PvP.
Originally posted by DSWBeef But the thing is. If i wanna Play as a elf i gotta pvp? Nope im out. Im not playing no fairies. I do like the idea that your Race determines who you are at war with. But this will alienate alot of people. My idea is that if you wanna play as an elf thats at war then you do but you can also make and elf who is neutral but is shunned by the majority of thier race.
Considering Human is always the most populated Race in any game that has them, I would think Human would have to have a faction or default that isn't forced to PvP. I know I wouldn't play a fairy either to avoid PvP, haha.
Perhaps, if only a couple Races actually were default flagged as PvP to others, or another particular race. A faction you choose to join, or your alignment, otherwise would put you into PvP for others.
*edit* My grammar sucks, but now I'm to tired to try and fix it.
The studies were not about people being evil but following riders of those they thought incharge. When the sane was done with out a leader figure telling them it was alright they did not. People by nature are followers. When told to do something many will without questioning. Especially if by someone they view as having authority.
I think you should think of the mechanics first before attaching lore into them. For example, you should think of races are race A, race B, race C before deciding what those races actually are. That way you don't come too attached to the lore and the lore won't get in the way of designing functional and balanced mechanics.
When you approach things the way you do, you can easily add things which don't make sense balance or mechanics-wise, but makes sense lore-wise. For example, elves need to be X because otherwise they wouldn't be elves. Or if you have angels you must have demons, no? Yet from the mechanics standpoint there may not be a need for a race like demons, or they would be out of place or out of balance.
Bad mechanics and balance can ruin a game, yet creative people can create lore around the mechanics.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by maplestone I'm not sure I agree with the premise that the majority of players exist in the middle ground.
Depends, often, on the ruleset of a particular game. Some do make the middle ground extraordinarily difficult to play in.
Forum-wise, the populations sure don't like each other very much, that's certain.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Originally posted by DSWBeef But the thing is. If i wanna Play as a elf i gotta pvp? Nope im out. Im not playing no fairies. I do like the idea that your Race determines who you are at war with. But this will alienate alot of people. My idea is that if you wanna play as an elf thats at war then you do but you can also make and elf who is neutral but is shunned by the majority of thier race.
If you had read all of my ideas, I actually included concepts that would allow players to alter their character, such as a Paladin going evil or a Redeemed "good aligned" Undead. Just through a quest-line that needs to be completed. I also included the idea of the game developers choosing how much or how little they want players to be able to customize their "side".
There's plenty of ways to handle it, but in the end it's the developers decision.
IMO, a very skilled and difficult NPC A.I. would make this to be less of an issue for PvE players. The biggest reason PvPing is stressful is because of how easy PvE is. It's predictable, it's a faceroll, it's only difficult when the monster's HP is higher. In PvP, it is more difficult because the A.I. is better. The person isn't artificial, they're skilled. (Also, their HP tends to be higher, LOL...)
And to answer your question: No. If you want to play as an elf, you don't have to PvP. As I clearly stated in my concepts, an Elf could easily play the game in Elf-Friendly zones which give a large advantage to Elf players. While not 100% safe, the amount of players actually PLAYING an Elf-Enemy AND being in that specific zone? Much lower than the FFA gankfest we all have seen before. Finally, I actually added the idea of race/faction goals, which then give all players a "Risk" level for their characters, changing every week. If the Orcs are raging a war against the Dwarves and all Orc players get huge bonuses for attacking Dwarves and questing in Dwarven areas, I do NOT see the Elf being threatened so much that they will ragequit from being spawncamped, PK'd, and griefed in elven territory.
I think you should think of the mechanics first before attaching lore into them. For example, you should think of races are race A, race B, race C before deciding what those races actually are. That way you don't come too attached to the lore and the lore won't get in the way of designing functional and balanced mechanics.
When you approach things the way you do, you can easily add things which don't make sense balance or mechanics-wise, but makes sense lore-wise. For example, elves need to be X because otherwise they wouldn't be elves. Or if you have angels you must have demons, no? Yet from the mechanics standpoint there may not be a need for a race like demons, or they would be out of place or out of balance.
Bad mechanics and balance can ruin a game, yet creative people can create lore around the mechanics.
Thank you for your post. When writing my extremely lengthy reply, I realized that my current game design wouldn't work with this concept I am speaking of in this thread.
FFA PvP would not be possible with any form of permadeath system, even if PvP meant 0% chance of permadeath (just being "knocked out") and only PvE can kill you. (That's just kindof stupid, IMO). It just doesn't work with FFA PvP.
Besides, I already have a much more organized, NPC-filled, hot-join enabled way to handle PvP in my design which is founded upon a kindof-permadeath for characters (but not accounts).
Any type of Risk v. Reward that I create has to require the PLAYER to CHOOSE his level of Risk. If the player cannot choose 0 Risk, then the design is flawed according to my own rules on design.
Any FFA PvP system means the player is not CHOOSING his Risk, unless I only fulfill the concepts I spoke about where the developer gives ultimate decision to the PLAYER (Such as allowing players to choose sides such as a "Good" aligned Undead or Evil Paladin, Neutral Elf, etc.)
There was a test once by scientists, there is a video from it but I forgot the name, maybe someone knows.
The researchers placed an ad for help, unsuspecting people not knowing they were part of their research responded.
The scene is that the researchers interrogate someone, and the unsuspecting person is asked to give small electric shocks to the person in the other room by turning a nob (who is in on the whole thing, in reality there are no shocks, but the unsusepcting person doesn't know this, they think they are giving shocks). When the researchers says "it might kill the person so don't go too far", many people agree to keep doing it, many people agreed to torture. These are random people picked up from ads.
Many people are inherently evil according to the research, all they need is the chance, and I think many people in PVP are given this chance to act on their instinct and get gratification out of making other people's gameplay miserable.
[mod edit]
some people do like to play evil in games ( no, that doesnt make them evil) and i believe in a modern pvp game we should find ways to make use of these villians rather than segregate them. We are in a game afterall, and i think that their diabolic play can be nurtured to provide improved gameplay for those not so inclined.
There was a test once by scientists, there is a video from it but I forgot the name, maybe someone knows.
The researchers placed an ad for help, unsuspecting people not knowing they were part of their research responded.
The scene is that the researchers interrogate someone, and the unsuspecting person is asked to give small electric shocks to the person in the other room by turning a nob (who is in on the whole thing, in reality there are no shocks, but the unsusepcting person doesn't know this, they think they are giving shocks). When the researchers says "it might kill the person so don't go too far", many people agree to keep doing it, many people agreed to torture. These are random people picked up from ads.
Many people are inherently evil according to the research, all they need is the chance, and I think many people in PVP are given this chance to act on their instinct and get gratification out of making other people's gameplay miserable.
No. Unless there is another experiement you are talking about.
Originally posted by Ausare The studies were not about people being evil but following riders of those they thought incharge. When the sane was done with out a leader figure telling them it was alright they did not. People by nature are followers. When told to do something many will without questioning. Especially if by someone they view as having authority.
I think you are referring to Milgrim's Electric Shock Experiment?
It would be interesting to add reference to this experiment Kohlberg's theory on moral development.
The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. Those who reason in a conventional way judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society's views and expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development. Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society's conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society's norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule's appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.[7][8][9]
In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones.
Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.[2]
There was a test once by scientists, there is a video from it but I forgot the name, maybe someone knows.
The researchers placed an ad for help, unsuspecting people not knowing they were part of their research responded.
The scene is that the researchers interrogate someone, and the unsuspecting person is asked to give small electric shocks to the person in the other room by turning a nob (who is in on the whole thing, in reality there are no shocks, but the unsusepcting person doesn't know this, they think they are giving shocks). When the researchers says "it might kill the person so don't go too far", many people agree to keep doing it, many people agreed to torture. These are random people picked up from ads.
Many people are inherently evil according to the research, all they need is the chance, and I think many people in PVP are given this chance to act on their instinct and get gratification out of making other people's gameplay miserable.
[mod edit]
some people do like to play evil in games ( no, that doesnt make them evil) and i believe in a modern pvp game we should find ways to make use of these villians rather than segregate them. We are in a game afterall, and i think that their diabolic play can be nurtured to provide improved gameplay for those not so inclined.
Interesting enough, according to Lawrence Kohlberg and his stages of moral development, people who have moral reasoning past that of the average person (Post-Conventional thought) can actually be confused by people as having Pre-Conventional thought (that of a selfish, ego-centric child).
Because of the close-minded, "be a good citizen", black/white right/wrong moral reasoning of most teenagers and adults (isn't it scary that most adults have the moral development of a teenager? *shudders*) I don't think they understand how Post-Conventional moral reasoning is rational. Cops are good guys, Felons are bad guys, and the authority they follow shouldn't be questioned.
I'd be very interested in Terrorists, Freedom Fighters, or Rebel's moral reasoning. If they are more often Post-Conventional compared to "citizen" society or if they are only that way BECAUSE of conventional moral reasoning (eww!).
My point? Playing evil in a video game can actually be Post-Conventional, because in reality they aren't evil, they just view things differently or understand reality better. Of course, those kids who just kill everyone for no reason are obviously still in Pre-Conventional moral development in a video game, but not every "evil" person is a child at heart.
I can easily see how bringing down every authority currently in power, anywhere, can be a good thing. It would also be bad as well, but it is not without its benefits. Of course, this doesn't mean you cannot believe whatever you want or be entirely one-sided (Super Terrorist or Extremely Pro-Government Supporter) and still be Post-Conventional in reasoning. WHAT you believe is not relevant to your level of moral reasoning. WHY you believe it is.
For example, in Star Wars, I think I'd believe more along the lines of Yoda than Sith or Jedi. In my understanding of the story, Yoda knew both the Dark and Light side and understood how both were good and both were evil.
I think you should think of the mechanics first before attaching lore into them. For example, you should think of races are race A, race B, race C before deciding what those races actually are. That way you don't come too attached to the lore and the lore won't get in the way of designing functional and balanced mechanics.
When you approach things the way you do, you can easily add things which don't make sense balance or mechanics-wise, but makes sense lore-wise. For example, elves need to be X because otherwise they wouldn't be elves. Or if you have angels you must have demons, no? Yet from the mechanics standpoint there may not be a need for a race like demons, or they would be out of place or out of balance.
Bad mechanics and balance can ruin a game, yet creative people can create lore around the mechanics.
I 100% agree with this.
It will also be easier to come up with lore once you have the game mechanics fleshed out. While, it may be impossible to make certain things work in-game (such as the werewolf off-line pvp idea, which sounds awesome).
It's not contrary to what I said, I'm fully aware there are PVP RP servers in WoW, but I doubt they are as prevalent as PVE RP servers. SWG has only PVE RP, Everquest has only PVE RP, Vanguard had only PVE RP at one point.
My point is, the communities differ, in more than just gameplay, and trying to bring two completely different communities together for whatever motive some PVP players have, is a recipe for disaster.
No one cares about Vanguard, that game was a huge flop with almost no playerbase.
You initially said "Name some PvP RP servers". He did. You were wrong.
Twisted Nether (PvP RP) was my main WoW server for a long time. Everquest may not have explicitly said "PvP RP", but the different rulesets they had, including Sullon Zek (religion based PvP), and Tallon/Vallon Zek (Good,Evil,Neutral alignments) were heavily RP oriented PvP servers.
So, you're wrong.
PvP and RP can work together, and everyone can be happy. The fact that there are more PvE RP servers than PvP RP servers just goes to the fact that there are more PvE players than PvP players, not that the two can't coexist.
Comments
What hard work? If it was a flagging system in some way, and they were not forced to PvP what hard work are they losing? There are other recourse options that could be available, such as banning the player from player shops or cities. I know it may not be the most ideal, but still. It's all about the design. In any games design if there are flaws people will exploit to level, get gear, make money, exploit the economy, other players, not just PvP them.
My hard work is for naught in GW2 when the economy is ruined by gold farmers. They are everywhere for instance and I have no recourse against them. Not even PvP. They're not stealing my 'nodes' but they're farming them so much whatever I get is not worth my 'hard time' to do.
There was a test once by scientists, there is a video from it but I forgot the name, maybe someone knows.
The researchers placed an ad for help, unsuspecting people not knowing they were part of their research responded.
The scene is that the researchers interrogate someone, and the unsuspecting person is asked to give small electric shocks to the person in the other room by turning a nob (who is in on the whole thing, in reality there are no shocks, but the unsusepcting person doesn't know this, they think they are giving shocks). When the researchers says "it might kill the person so don't go too far", many people agree to keep doing it, many people agreed to torture. These are random people picked up from ads.
Many people are inherently evil according to the research, all they need is the chance, and I think many people in PVP are given this chance to act on their instinct and get gratification out of making other people's gameplay miserable.
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships
Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
Yes, there are many studies, such as students becoming jailers or inmates. I remember that from those Psychology or Sociology classes in college.
But come on, people are also going to discriminate based on your gear level or gear score (or whatever it is in WoW) and people say that makes them feel miserable. It's design. There has to be a design to keep you happy, I believe that, and allow me to PvP in the open world with my friends, with meaningful PvP.
Considering Human is always the most populated Race in any game that has them, I would think Human would have to have a faction or default that isn't forced to PvP. I know I wouldn't play a fairy either to avoid PvP, haha.
Perhaps, if only a couple Races actually were default flagged as PvP to others, or another particular race. A faction you choose to join, or your alignment, otherwise would put you into PvP for others.
*edit* My grammar sucks, but now I'm to tired to try and fix it.
I think you should think of the mechanics first before attaching lore into them. For example, you should think of races are race A, race B, race C before deciding what those races actually are. That way you don't come too attached to the lore and the lore won't get in the way of designing functional and balanced mechanics.
When you approach things the way you do, you can easily add things which don't make sense balance or mechanics-wise, but makes sense lore-wise. For example, elves need to be X because otherwise they wouldn't be elves. Or if you have angels you must have demons, no? Yet from the mechanics standpoint there may not be a need for a race like demons, or they would be out of place or out of balance.
Bad mechanics and balance can ruin a game, yet creative people can create lore around the mechanics.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Depends, often, on the ruleset of a particular game. Some do make the middle ground extraordinarily difficult to play in.
Forum-wise, the populations sure don't like each other very much, that's certain.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
If you had read all of my ideas, I actually included concepts that would allow players to alter their character, such as a Paladin going evil or a Redeemed "good aligned" Undead. Just through a quest-line that needs to be completed. I also included the idea of the game developers choosing how much or how little they want players to be able to customize their "side".
There's plenty of ways to handle it, but in the end it's the developers decision.
IMO, a very skilled and difficult NPC A.I. would make this to be less of an issue for PvE players. The biggest reason PvPing is stressful is because of how easy PvE is. It's predictable, it's a faceroll, it's only difficult when the monster's HP is higher. In PvP, it is more difficult because the A.I. is better. The person isn't artificial, they're skilled. (Also, their HP tends to be higher, LOL...)
And to answer your question: No. If you want to play as an elf, you don't have to PvP. As I clearly stated in my concepts, an Elf could easily play the game in Elf-Friendly zones which give a large advantage to Elf players. While not 100% safe, the amount of players actually PLAYING an Elf-Enemy AND being in that specific zone? Much lower than the FFA gankfest we all have seen before. Finally, I actually added the idea of race/faction goals, which then give all players a "Risk" level for their characters, changing every week. If the Orcs are raging a war against the Dwarves and all Orc players get huge bonuses for attacking Dwarves and questing in Dwarven areas, I do NOT see the Elf being threatened so much that they will ragequit from being spawncamped, PK'd, and griefed in elven territory.
Thank you for your post. When writing my extremely lengthy reply, I realized that my current game design wouldn't work with this concept I am speaking of in this thread.
FFA PvP would not be possible with any form of permadeath system, even if PvP meant 0% chance of permadeath (just being "knocked out") and only PvE can kill you. (That's just kindof stupid, IMO). It just doesn't work with FFA PvP.
Besides, I already have a much more organized, NPC-filled, hot-join enabled way to handle PvP in my design which is founded upon a kindof-permadeath for characters (but not accounts).
Any type of Risk v. Reward that I create has to require the PLAYER to CHOOSE his level of Risk. If the player cannot choose 0 Risk, then the design is flawed according to my own rules on design.
Any FFA PvP system means the player is not CHOOSING his Risk, unless I only fulfill the concepts I spoke about where the developer gives ultimate decision to the PLAYER (Such as allowing players to choose sides such as a "Good" aligned Undead or Evil Paladin, Neutral Elf, etc.)
[mod edit]
some people do like to play evil in games ( no, that doesnt make them evil) and i believe in a modern pvp game we should find ways to make use of these villians rather than segregate them. We are in a game afterall, and i think that their diabolic play can be nurtured to provide improved gameplay for those not so inclined.
No. Unless there is another experiement you are talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w
I think you are referring to Milgrim's Electric Shock Experiment?
It would be interesting to add reference to this experiment Kohlberg's theory on moral development.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
In quote,
Conventional Level
The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. Those who reason in a conventional way judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society's views and expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development. Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society's conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society's norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule's appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.[7][8][9]
In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones.
Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.[2]
Interesting enough, according to Lawrence Kohlberg and his stages of moral development, people who have moral reasoning past that of the average person (Post-Conventional thought) can actually be confused by people as having Pre-Conventional thought (that of a selfish, ego-centric child).
Because of the close-minded, "be a good citizen", black/white right/wrong moral reasoning of most teenagers and adults (isn't it scary that most adults have the moral development of a teenager? *shudders*) I don't think they understand how Post-Conventional moral reasoning is rational. Cops are good guys, Felons are bad guys, and the authority they follow shouldn't be questioned.
I'd be very interested in Terrorists, Freedom Fighters, or Rebel's moral reasoning. If they are more often Post-Conventional compared to "citizen" society or if they are only that way BECAUSE of conventional moral reasoning (eww!).
My point? Playing evil in a video game can actually be Post-Conventional, because in reality they aren't evil, they just view things differently or understand reality better. Of course, those kids who just kill everyone for no reason are obviously still in Pre-Conventional moral development in a video game, but not every "evil" person is a child at heart.
I can easily see how bringing down every authority currently in power, anywhere, can be a good thing. It would also be bad as well, but it is not without its benefits. Of course, this doesn't mean you cannot believe whatever you want or be entirely one-sided (Super Terrorist or Extremely Pro-Government Supporter) and still be Post-Conventional in reasoning. WHAT you believe is not relevant to your level of moral reasoning. WHY you believe it is.
For example, in Star Wars, I think I'd believe more along the lines of Yoda than Sith or Jedi. In my understanding of the story, Yoda knew both the Dark and Light side and understood how both were good and both were evil.
I 100% agree with this.
It will also be easier to come up with lore once you have the game mechanics fleshed out. While, it may be impossible to make certain things work in-game (such as the werewolf off-line pvp idea, which sounds awesome).
My post got deleted for saying its not on comparing pvpers to frustrated wannabe torturers.
But calm oceans offensive post still stands.
Wtf?
No one cares about Vanguard, that game was a huge flop with almost no playerbase.
You initially said "Name some PvP RP servers". He did. You were wrong.
Twisted Nether (PvP RP) was my main WoW server for a long time. Everquest may not have explicitly said "PvP RP", but the different rulesets they had, including Sullon Zek (religion based PvP), and Tallon/Vallon Zek (Good,Evil,Neutral alignments) were heavily RP oriented PvP servers.
So, you're wrong.
PvP and RP can work together, and everyone can be happy. The fact that there are more PvE RP servers than PvP RP servers just goes to the fact that there are more PvE players than PvP players, not that the two can't coexist.