The problem is that PvPers are never happy unless PvP is central to the game. Otherwise, they whine about PvP being tacked on as an afterthought, when they should be happy to get any at all.
No, we shouldn't. Most MMO's are PvE centric with PvP tacked on and it does not work for players who prefer PvP. We deserve a few PvP centric games when most are PvE centric, don't we? Why shouldn't we get a game that we enjoy as well? How would you feel if the tables were turned and the majority of your gameplay from level 1 onward was PvP only with a tacked on PvE instance as a mere side game?
Here's my question - why are so many PvEers on this website so anti PvP? Why is there so much hatred for it? Most PVPers I know not only tolerate PvE, they enjoy it and participate in it at endgame levels in most of their MMO's. We just happen to also enjoy PvP quite a bit. Why are PvPers more tolerant than the supposedly nice and sweet and friendly PvE crowd? HMM?
Exactly. You've also hit on one of the key underlying themes in this forum that is liberally sprinkled throughout most of the complaints. The difference is only in how willing they are to admit to their pvp intolerance.
Some even claim to like PvP but everything they say is about how PvE is "suffering" at the hands of the PvP crowd...all this before they've played one minute of this game's PvE.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Although I appreciate your intervention and attempt at pay-back humor (Iseling... I do believe I once referred to a thread getting sapphened) just follow the bouncing ball and notice the tone and style of the posts preceding the one you've quoted...if you can be objective that is.
Notice that he even played the "you must be new to gaming" cliched gaming credential card.
It's all there in black and white....I'll wait.
We all have our moments of card dealing, I can't judge either of you. Just a friendly reminder that it's okay to have different ideas.
Although I appreciate your intervention and attempt at pay-back humor (Iseling... I do believe I once referred to a thread getting sapphened) just follow the bouncing ball and notice the tone and style of the posts preceding the one you've quoted...if you can be objective that is.
Notice that he even played the "you must be new to gaming" cliched gaming credential card.
It's all there in black and white....I'll wait.
We all have our moments of card dealing, I can't judge either of you. Just a friendly reminder that it's okay to have different ideas.
That we can agree on.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
No,I don't like any type of pvp beside rvr/faction vs faction etc and I find a pve only game boring(in LOTRO I spent a lot of time in monster area because it was the only pvp available,so much that I lost interest in leveling my free people character)
The problem is that PvPers are never happy unless PvP is central to the game. Otherwise, they whine about PvP being tacked on as an afterthought, when they should be happy to get any at all.
No, we shouldn't. Most MMO's are PvE centric with PvP tacked on and it does not work for players who prefer PvP. We deserve a few PvP centric games when most are PvE centric, don't we? Why shouldn't we get a game that we enjoy as well? How would you feel if the tables were turned and the majority of your gameplay from level 1 onward was PvP only with a tacked on PvE instance as a mere side game?
Here's my question - why are so many PvEers on this website so anti PvP? Why is there so much hatred for it? Most PVPers I know not only tolerate PvE, they enjoy it and participate in it at endgame levels in most of their MMO's. We just happen to also enjoy PvP quite a bit. Why are PvPers more tolerant than the supposedly nice and sweet and friendly PvE crowd? HMM?
It's my experience that both extreme PvE players and extreme PvP players are no different in how they argue their points. Most people want a game tailored to their tastes. To say PvPers or PvEers are more or less tolerant is biased I could for example pull out countless threads about how games should be purely PvP as PvE is stale and boring and no fun and PvE players ruin PvP. The reality is most people couldn't care less as long as the game is fun and has choice. Besides I thought this forum in general was one of the most vocal sandbox PvP community I have seen in a while.
There are also a few PvP games, though they don't generally do as well in the market as PvE centric games and as such tend to have content added to attract the PvE playerbase. Maybe this will change in the future, who knows. However for more PvP focused games to get funding it needs to be shown that the model has an attractive userbase and support given, something that has only happened in limited numbers in general (for various reasons).
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Yeah, I'd like the idea of the game more if it focused on a million different things before 3 faction large scale PvP. Zergy PvP, even when there are secondary objectives to complete with smaller groups, is my least favorite form of PvP. To me, Zenimax is taking my favorite IP and focusing the game around my least favorite form of PvP.
I think I've finally decided to just take a pass on this one until perhaps a month or two after release when I can see the community's reaction to it.
Here's my question - why are so many PvEers on this website so anti PvP? Why is there so much hatred for it? Most PVPers I know not only tolerate PvE, they enjoy it and participate in it at endgame levels in most of their MMO's. We just happen to also enjoy PvP quite a bit. Why are PvPers more tolerant than the supposedly nice and sweet and friendly PvE crowd? HMM?
I think your first qusetion is easily answered. I would even ask you to solve it yourself.
And "no" pvp'ers aren't all tolerant of pve.
Heck, I remember several more "pro-pvp'ers" in an alliance I was in who constantly complained when the alliance did raids.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
...and this one is still in development and the developer is obviously open to criticism and feedback as is evident with the recent level 50 exploration changes.
Yes. Let's go over to the Archeage forum and demand a themepark.
More power to you. I'm not the one trying to suppress opinions here.
And I'm not the one trying to criticize other's opinions dismissively and aggresively.
I can keep this up all day if you wish.
Honey, you have been aggressive and dismissive at one point or another in all of these topics about ESO. Seriously, do you think we are blind to it?
[mod edit]
I never once said you are any of those who believe as you do as wrong. What is wrong is the focus on game elements that are detrimental to the ES experience, as in detrimental to ES fans. You come from a perspective that is PvP centric and pro-DAoC and we merely think it should have a lesser focus than it does.
The problem is that PvPers are never happy unless PvP is central to the game. Otherwise, they whine about PvP being tacked on as an afterthought, when they should be happy to get any at all.
No, we shouldn't. Most MMO's are PvE centric with PvP tacked on and it does not work for players who prefer PvP. We deserve a few PvP centric games when most are PvE centric, don't we? Why shouldn't we get a game that we enjoy as well? How would you feel if the tables were turned and the majority of your gameplay from level 1 onward was PvP only with a tacked on PvE instance as a mere side game?
Here's my question - why are so many PvEers on this website so anti PvP? Why is there so much hatred for it? Most PVPers I know not only tolerate PvE, they enjoy it and participate in it at endgame levels in most of their MMO's. We just happen to also enjoy PvP quite a bit. Why are PvPers more tolerant than the supposedly nice and sweet and friendly PvE crowd? HMM?
I'm curious, other than the recently made up lore from Zenimax which conflicts with ES cannon, where do you get the impression that the Elder Scrolls series is or should be focused on PvP? If anything, the game should focus on politics as only one of the games (Skyrim) had any warring factions and it was skirmish type stuff at best. If anything is going to claim to be ES or the spiritual successor of the ES series, then it needs to embrace the largest aspects of it, which is an open world, open skill system, in depth crafting system, main story line quests, class based guilds, any race any faction, side quests and exploration enticing points of interest.
Originally posted by evilastro Without the realm combat, I would probably play it for a month or two and then get bored, much like SWTOR. I need good PvP to keep me interested in a game long term.
I am actually worried about the length of time the game may interest me, too. I have a feeling that, for me, this may be just another flash in the pan MMO that lasts me a month or two. I hope I am wrong.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Vorthanion Originally posted by IselinOriginally posted by VorthanionOriginally posted by IselinOriginally posted by azzamasinNo because the game would be to one-dimensional.I'd still play it but I would get burnt out of doing the same stuff and would likely find myself quitting after the first month or 2. There jsut wont be enough content to satiate the average gamer. Hence the reason why I continue to support the AvA style conflict ontop of an amazing Elder Scrolls Experience.
Yup. That's how I feel too. No one has ever been able to satisfy the appetites of those who live for PvE content consumption. They always pig-out on it faster than they can serve it. It's always much better to design a game system that has replayability than constantly adding content. Is AvA in this game going to be worth doing over and over again? Hard to tell at this point. But if it's done right, it has the potential for having much more long-lasting appeal than waiting for yet another top-gear-entry only raid content that is almost identical to the previous content except the bad guys have different names and their bad-shit-on-the-floor-that-must-be-avoided-with-just-a-jump-to-the-left-and-then-a-step-to-the-right is a different shade of puce. I can understand that having multiple play styles catered to, adds depth to a game. The problem is that PvPers are never happy unless PvP is central to the game. Otherwise, they whine about PvP being tacked on as an afterthought, when they should be happy to get any at all. Every single MMO I have ever followed had PvPers whining about one thing or another, if it wasn't about primary representation in the game, then it was about class balance at the expense of the PvE game or believing they deserve better loot than regular adventurers and equal to raiders.Even more insidiously is their constant push to funnel PvE players into PvP areas by tying it into PvE quests and rewards. This is something I see them push for all the time, a nice constant flow of cannon fodder and easy pickings. You're talking about different things than I am and both of yours can be put into the single category of bad development.There are creative ways to balance PvP separately from PvE without need for separate gear or bogus PVP-only stats. Rift took a good crack at it with the PvP soul that each class has available...except they didn't go far enough. ESO will also have AvA-only skill progression with 3 separate branches. That has potential for PvP balancing without hurting the PvE. Also don't forget that PvE only games are also constantly being tweaked and rebalkanced based exclusively on PvE criteria. It's a cliche that those nerfed in PvE always blame PvP balancing for the change when often, it was all about PvE balancing the overpowerd heals that were trivializing the content, for example.Aslo.. I've never heard PvPers complain about PvP just being a tacked-on ugly step-child except when it is...like in LOTRO... like in vanilla WOW. There are bad development trends, usually motivated by the bottom line, where developers try to be everything to all people. Some players are so used to having it that way, that when a developer has the vision, focus and balls to not do that, all hell breaks lose in the forums with people demanding things like raids, PvE with anyone from all factions, scenario PvP, etc. This particular MMO is RvR--or AvA if you prefer-centric. It has been designed that way. It's a horse, not a cow. Horses are for riding and cows are for milking. You can try to do it the opposite way but the results won't be ideal. Bad development from your perspective, not mine nor the many, many others who could give a rat's ass about PvP.
You are either new to the genre or new to the world of gaming sites, as the PvP fanatics have been around and complaining since the days I started playing EverQuest back in 1999. Although I know it had been going on even before that with UO and the whole Trammel affair, but I didn't learn about that till I started lurking other boards besides those for EQ.
whats hilarious is PVE exclusive players are the same exact way. they whine that pvp is in their pve game and if an expansion comes out that is pvp focused in any way, they whine about that too.
a lot of gamers are quite selfish, you see that a lot on these forums especially.
a lot of them just want a game that is catered exactly for them or what their vision that game should be like and if it isn't? it sucks and will be a total failure and they spend all their time hating on it and wishing for it to "fail"
i see that attitude a lot around here, its very cancerous to the community IMO
Originally posted by Leiloni Here's my question - why are so many PvEers on this website so anti PvP? Why is there so much hatred for it? Most PVPers I know not only tolerate PvE, they enjoy it and participate in it at endgame levels in most of their MMO's. We just happen to also enjoy PvP quite a bit. Why are PvPers more tolerant than the supposedly nice and sweet and friendly PvE crowd? HMM?
From my point of view, PvP can be fun. Unfortunately, PvP has been infested with FPS players that take it too far, ie: corpse camping, "tea bagging" dead corpses, chickens who do not fight unless they have an obvious upper hand, and massive chest beating.
I have been in PvP duels with friends and laughed at the weird and wild things we all did, not caring if I won (rare occurrence) or lost (the usual outcome). It was about another form of fun. Many PvPers are all about win at all costs and the fun gets sucked out of it for me.
In alliance vs alliance PvP, I just have no interest. It is much too chaotic for me, similar to giving 1000s of players clubs and letting them go at each other non-stop. Some smaller organized groups may form and be somewhat successful, but the overall feel is mass confusion. I understand that many players enjoy this kind of gameplay. It's just not my cup of tea.
I wonder how AvAvA in TES would work if they threw in friendly fire. That could draw me in as care and strategy would now factor into the picture. Does the Mage throw that fireball into the melee? If the opponents outnumber the allies, maybe...
I guess when all is said and done, it doesn't matter much. A player dies on the battlefield and they just have to run a little ways to get back into the battle. There is NO battlefield casualties. If a player finds the opposing player that is kind of organizing their team, there is nothing they can do to take that "organizer" out of the game and cripple their side.
Now, if Cyrodiil had actual battles, where players were kicked out of it when they died until the battle was decided, then another battle started from the last one left off with different players, I would be interested. Instead, it will be one long, never-ending battle with infinite opponents and allies vying for a minute or two of superiority at any given point. Log out when you need to go to bed or work and log back in later there will be very little changed when you left. Some things may have changed while you were gone, but eventually, nothing really ever changes. In the end, I just don't find this at all compelling for me.
Again, this is just my take on PvP. Your mileage may vary
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I chose "Other", as a few of the options worked for me. I'd still play it anyway, just to try it out. I'd play if the PvP was full loot and /or open world, and I'd play simply if the pvp was good. So yeah, I suppose I'd just play it anyway...
I would want to play it even more without AvAvA...I voted open world pvp but it wouldnt matter even if it didnt have PvP at all since I like ES series because of its PvE.
Well im an explorer, never have been all that into pvp so as long as I get to explore the entirety of Tamriel (likely only after several expansions) I will be more than happy to let them take my money.
Originally posted by Torvaldr How they implement pvp will be a determining factor if I play the game or not. I would rather there be a pve only option, and if I have to pvp then I probably won't play the game.
It's not the only factor though. The payment model, class design, combat, crafting and progression among other things also matter. It's the whole package, but any of them, especially pvp could be a dealbreaker for me.
well i can tell you right now you will not be forced to pvp as it is segregated from the rest of the world.
not sure about your other concerns but the crafting sounds very interesting to me personally.
mmo progression/endgame is probably the biggest question mark right now with this game (especially if you don't want to pvp), at least in my opinion.
Originally posted by Torvaldr How they implement pvp will be a determining factor if I play the game or not. I would rather there be a pve only option, and if I have to pvp then I probably won't play the game.It's not the only factor though. The payment model, class design, combat, crafting and progression among other things also matter. It's the whole package, but any of them, especially pvp could be a dealbreaker for me.
I agree. The whole package and how it fits together matters. I just took one aspect that seems to be quite divisive and thought this could be interesting to look at. This one aspect seems to permeate into many of the other aspects of the MMO, though.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by meddyck Without AvA, this would for me be a generic fantasy MMO based on an IP from other games I didn't play using mechanics I dislike (limited hotbar skills, no targeted healing). So no I wouldn't be thinking twice about it if it didn't have AvA.
If the game was sub based I would far more likely play a game that actually tried to give players interesting pve content,even if the pvp was limited rather than a game that wanted you to pay them $180 a year but only offered a bigger pvp playzone but no pve content.
So the answer is yes, if the pve content looked good to me I would.
Comments
Exactly. You've also hit on one of the key underlying themes in this forum that is liberally sprinkled throughout most of the complaints. The difference is only in how willing they are to admit to their pvp intolerance.
Some even claim to like PvP but everything they say is about how PvE is "suffering" at the hands of the PvP crowd...all this before they've played one minute of this game's PvE.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
We all have our moments of card dealing, I can't judge either of you. Just a friendly reminder that it's okay to have different ideas.
That we can agree on.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
No,I don't like any type of pvp beside rvr/faction vs faction etc and I find a pve only game boring(in LOTRO I spent a lot of time in monster area because it was the only pvp available,so much that I lost interest in leveling my free people character)
It's my experience that both extreme PvE players and extreme PvP players are no different in how they argue their points. Most people want a game tailored to their tastes. To say PvPers or PvEers are more or less tolerant is biased I could for example pull out countless threads about how games should be purely PvP as PvE is stale and boring and no fun and PvE players ruin PvP. The reality is most people couldn't care less as long as the game is fun and has choice. Besides I thought this forum in general was one of the most vocal sandbox PvP community I have seen in a while.
There are also a few PvP games, though they don't generally do as well in the market as PvE centric games and as such tend to have content added to attract the PvE playerbase. Maybe this will change in the future, who knows. However for more PvP focused games to get funding it needs to be shown that the model has an attractive userbase and support given, something that has only happened in limited numbers in general (for various reasons).
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Yeah, I'd like the idea of the game more if it focused on a million different things before 3 faction large scale PvP. Zergy PvP, even when there are secondary objectives to complete with smaller groups, is my least favorite form of PvP. To me, Zenimax is taking my favorite IP and focusing the game around my least favorite form of PvP.
I think I've finally decided to just take a pass on this one until perhaps a month or two after release when I can see the community's reaction to it.
I think your first qusetion is easily answered. I would even ask you to solve it yourself.
And "no" pvp'ers aren't all tolerant of pve.
Heck, I remember several more "pro-pvp'ers" in an alliance I was in who constantly complained when the alliance did raids.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I never once said you are any of those who believe as you do as wrong. What is wrong is the focus on game elements that are detrimental to the ES experience, as in detrimental to ES fans. You come from a perspective that is PvP centric and pro-DAoC and we merely think it should have a lesser focus than it does.
I prefer RvR but I voted on OWPvP...however I would have to be convinced that the game mechanics were done right.
If there was no PvP whatsoever I wouldn't be interested. I might be interested in a co-op version I could play with friends though.
A small sized, West Coast, RvR guild.
www.citadelguild.comI'm curious, other than the recently made up lore from Zenimax which conflicts with ES cannon, where do you get the impression that the Elder Scrolls series is or should be focused on PvP? If anything, the game should focus on politics as only one of the games (Skyrim) had any warring factions and it was skirmish type stuff at best. If anything is going to claim to be ES or the spiritual successor of the ES series, then it needs to embrace the largest aspects of it, which is an open world, open skill system, in depth crafting system, main story line quests, class based guilds, any race any faction, side quests and exploration enticing points of interest.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
The Deep Web is sca-ry.
I can understand that having multiple play styles catered to, adds depth to a game. The problem is that PvPers are never happy unless PvP is central to the game. Otherwise, they whine about PvP being tacked on as an afterthought, when they should be happy to get any at all. Every single MMO I have ever followed had PvPers whining about one thing or another, if it wasn't about primary representation in the game, then it was about class balance at the expense of the PvE game or believing they deserve better loot than regular adventurers and equal to raiders. Even more insidiously is their constant push to funnel PvE players into PvP areas by tying it into PvE quests and rewards. This is something I see them push for all the time, a nice constant flow of cannon fodder and easy pickings.
You're talking about different things than I am and both of yours can be put into the single category of bad development. There are creative ways to balance PvP separately from PvE without need for separate gear or bogus PVP-only stats. Rift took a good crack at it with the PvP soul that each class has available...except they didn't go far enough. ESO will also have AvA-only skill progression with 3 separate branches. That has potential for PvP balancing without hurting the PvE. Also don't forget that PvE only games are also constantly being tweaked and rebalkanced based exclusively on PvE criteria. It's a cliche that those nerfed in PvE always blame PvP balancing for the change when often, it was all about PvE balancing the overpowerd heals that were trivializing the content, for example. Aslo.. I've never heard PvPers complain about PvP just being a tacked-on ugly step-child except when it is...like in LOTRO... like in vanilla WOW. There are bad development trends, usually motivated by the bottom line, where developers try to be everything to all people. Some players are so used to having it that way, that when a developer has the vision, focus and balls to not do that, all hell breaks lose in the forums with people demanding things like raids, PvE with anyone from all factions, scenario PvP, etc. This particular MMO is RvR--or AvA if you prefer-centric. It has been designed that way. It's a horse, not a cow. Horses are for riding and cows are for milking. You can try to do it the opposite way but the results won't be ideal.
Bad development from your perspective, not mine nor the many, many others who could give a rat's ass about PvP.
You are either new to the genre or new to the world of gaming sites, as the PvP fanatics have been around and complaining since the days I started playing EverQuest back in 1999. Although I know it had been going on even before that with UO and the whole Trammel affair, but I didn't learn about that till I started lurking other boards besides those for EQ.
whats hilarious is PVE exclusive players are the same exact way. they whine that pvp is in their pve game and if an expansion comes out that is pvp focused in any way, they whine about that too.
a lot of gamers are quite selfish, you see that a lot on these forums especially.
a lot of them just want a game that is catered exactly for them or what their vision that game should be like and if it isn't? it sucks and will be a total failure and they spend all their time hating on it and wishing for it to "fail"
i see that attitude a lot around here, its very cancerous to the community IMO
I have been in PvP duels with friends and laughed at the weird and wild things we all did, not caring if I won (rare occurrence) or lost (the usual outcome). It was about another form of fun. Many PvPers are all about win at all costs and the fun gets sucked out of it for me.
In alliance vs alliance PvP, I just have no interest. It is much too chaotic for me, similar to giving 1000s of players clubs and letting them go at each other non-stop. Some smaller organized groups may form and be somewhat successful, but the overall feel is mass confusion. I understand that many players enjoy this kind of gameplay. It's just not my cup of tea.
I wonder how AvAvA in TES would work if they threw in friendly fire. That could draw me in as care and strategy would now factor into the picture. Does the Mage throw that fireball into the melee? If the opponents outnumber the allies, maybe...
I guess when all is said and done, it doesn't matter much. A player dies on the battlefield and they just have to run a little ways to get back into the battle. There is NO battlefield casualties. If a player finds the opposing player that is kind of organizing their team, there is nothing they can do to take that "organizer" out of the game and cripple their side.
Now, if Cyrodiil had actual battles, where players were kicked out of it when they died until the battle was decided, then another battle started from the last one left off with different players, I would be interested. Instead, it will be one long, never-ending battle with infinite opponents and allies vying for a minute or two of superiority at any given point. Log out when you need to go to bed or work and log back in later there will be very little changed when you left. Some things may have changed while you were gone, but eventually, nothing really ever changes. In the end, I just don't find this at all compelling for me.
Again, this is just my take on PvP. Your mileage may vary
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
well i can tell you right now you will not be forced to pvp as it is segregated from the rest of the world.
not sure about your other concerns but the crafting sounds very interesting to me personally.
mmo progression/endgame is probably the biggest question mark right now with this game (especially if you don't want to pvp), at least in my opinion.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
+1
If the game was sub based I would far more likely play a game that actually tried to give players interesting pve content,even if the pvp was limited rather than a game that wanted you to pay them $180 a year but only offered a bigger pvp playzone but no pve content.
So the answer is yes, if the pve content looked good to me I would.