Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
PvP vs. PvE "Compromise"
Nitan66
Member UncommonPosts: 16
Another christmas list thread, but I wanted to get some opinions on this and to have some coding knowledgeables give me a reality check.
Basically I would like to see player controlled territory, but seeing how this is the "largest sandbox mmo" by territory I mean huge amounts of space. What I believe this would do, it would create PvE zones within PvP borders. I would also like these borders to be organic, so a neighboring faction could push your border back. In addition I think having NPC's controlled by the players would help. I think that if an enemy army wishes to take your castle it should take more than one battle. They could certainly win in one battle, if the make a lengthy push to eliminate all of your players/NPCs and finally lay siege upon your stronghold, but it would be more likely for the pushes to come in spurts. I hate the idea of sieges being limited to a window time, to me that makes no sense despite being beneficial to the casual players.
This could go a far way to strengthen the bond between PvP and PvE players. PvP players are protecting the lands of the PvE from their bloodthirsty adversaries, while PvE'ers are exploring/crafting/suppressing interior NPC mobs and also helping to provide the resources to keep a healthy NPC force.
So what do you guys think?
Comments
My hope is that there are different servers and that at certain points, like you said are natural, the two servers merge together like CRZ. That way the whole world is PvP for PvP fans and a portion (maybe 20%) is PvP for those that want it on demand.
There are some really interesting ways to implement PvP and PvE together but it's only for the benefit of PvP players because they do both.
Really it's a moot point.
EQ has always been PvE-centric and to think they're changing from their base formula (even if they say it's "something new") is naive imo.
Also...everyone is hoping for a sandbox, get ready to be disappointed...
All of this would be nice, however, I think it would be reaching and really far too open to abuse by griefer guilds (which are VERY common in PvP/PK), for this reason I would expect nothing like this to be implemented. The sad truth is that most companies would rather shy from anything that could be abused than have to police it.
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
or perhaps the usual way, PvP servers and PvE servers and no confining the 70% PvE player base into 30% or less of the world.
In a sandbox game there are no PvE, nor PvP players. I don't think I've played many sandbox games, if any, that didn't allow PvP combat mechanics to take place. Even in "safe" places.
I like both PvP and PvE... I believe there is a time and place for it all... I like complex raiding as well as running in group stealth trying to take out a couple targets.. But I feel there should be servers to represent every need of gamer out there... I feel the server list should goes as follows..
Paid Sub Servers -
1. PvE
2. PvP
3. RP (I think EQ started these types of servers but people do play them w/e)
F2P servers
Same as above!!!
Keep rule sets so people know what they are walking into... no PvP?? don't complain.. Just don't join...
I do believe that they should keep SUB servers so they don't have dumb down the game with restrictions or have to purchase character slots for station cash tec...
This is just my personal opinion....
What you actually said there is that it has to be OW PvP to be a sandbox, that line has been rejected over and over on these forums. It is the line advanced by the PvP minority to either exclude the PvE majority or turn them into victims of the gankers.
I again reject this proposition. A sandbox can be many things but for me the defining features are an open world and the ability to transform at least some portion of that world.
Have you played EQ? What you are suggesting with the Eve Hi-sec zones is, and correct me if I am wrong here, that if a player wants to hang around a major city, Freeport, Qeynos, Kelethin, Kaladim, Grobb, Ak'anon, or Felwith they are fine. However, if they want to leave those areas and say, found a group in High Hold, Guk, Solusek's Eye or a tradeskiller who just wants to gather items, they then need to leave and go through a PvP contested area? No thanks, and not just a little no thanks, a go to hell no thanks. Darkfall is out there, go play that, sounds like that's what you want anyway.
If EQNext has PvP, I'll be fine with it, but if my character ever gets into a position where I can be ganked just by some random asshat where I did nothing to provoke them, I'll walk away from the game and never look back.
When you learn what a sandbox is ...we can talk about sandbox games. This thread was about making pve and pvp work together.
My definition of a sandbox game is very much like yours. An open world where players can change and transform things. But I guess where my expectation of many sandbox games differs, is when player to player interaction occurs. If I can have free reign to interact the environment in many ways, I feel I should have free reign to interact with other players with the same lack of restriction that a typical MMORPG (the WoW or Rift, etc. model) would impose.
If the game is one that simulates realism, why stop with player / player interaction? I think you'll find that even in environments where you can be killed by another player at any moment, that not all people subscribe to the "kill everything in sight" game style. This has been made clear in many games (Eve, Day Z, etc.).
Do you think it's the lack of control that makes strictly PvE players have a distaste for open world PvP games?
No need to be rude. I'm sure I have a very clear understanding of what a sandbox is.
Oh and what gives PvE players a distaste for PvP is a well justified dislike of PvP players desire to dominate others.
Argh! I wish inference could be conveyed through text :P That wasn't a sarcastic question. Being primarily a PvE player myself, I partake in PvP regularly because I believe it makes me a better player. I believe participating in fights that aren't scripted, not knowing what to expect, and learning to adapt are valuable skills for any player to possess.
Main problem here is, that there is no compromise. It is either or. Either you can attack anyone anytime, or not. I doubt anybode would mind specific PvP zones, as long as they are not forced to go there (for the best mats or items IG).
Why to PvEers dislike those possible KoS scenarios? My guess is they do not like the distrust it brings the means of being a jerk and have their playsession ruined by some *beep*. Give people means to behave like idiots and they will do, usually. It is about having the choice of what to do. People are forced to things far enough, so they do not want to be forced to PvP if they don't like to in their spare time, too. It is the same rule in RP. You describe what your char does, not the way it affects other chars. It is up to them if they are hit, glanced, if they evade or even killed, not you. This powerplay is frowned upon in RP and forced PvP is just that powerplay. You force your will onto the other player.
Also people dislike their class being changed or nerfed for the sake of PvP. Happened to me more than once. I played a class, people complained it was inbalanced in PvP (in PvE it wasn't), got nerved or changed and either got too weak for PvE, or played in a completly different way (usually a way I didn't like anymore).
PvP and PvE have completely different interests, goals and needs and are hard to combine. IMHO.
First off what is the benifid of controlling the city?
2nd of all whats in it for the pve players other then having to deal with a gank zone and losing their hub. You offer pve'ers to deal with pvp but arent offering anything in return.
Now if you would have suggested a persistant pvp zone (bg) offering the dominating faction a pvp - only buff or even slow pvp currency over time while controlling the keep(s). Then you still wouldnt be offering a compromise but atleast then you arent forcing pvp on pve'ers.
But a zone like that wouldnt really end up working as intended, it will just lead to more people switching to the dominating faction.
I think that PvE and PvP zones need to be separated. When you are in a PvE zone you cant be attacked by other players.
As a PvE player i dont want to be bothered when i quest and enjoy PvE contents, when i do PvE i dont want to be forced to do PvP.
So no "compromise" for me.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
The argument that PvP is more realistic is something I'll never agree with. An NPC that is programmed to act like they are a part of the world is far more realistic while in game. Why? If I kill a person in the game I don't come to thier real house and take thier real stuff, there is no fear of loss within the context of the game. People playing the game know they are doing so but a well programmed NPC does not, of course. They will run if low on health, call out for help when around allies or fight to the death. If they kill you, they don't keep hunting for you afterwards because to them you are dead. I am of a mind that mobs should be harder and have better AI.
People operate on a completely different level when playing a game so PvP IMO is in no way, shape or form realistic. Is PvP fun? Very. Does it add a sense of danger? Yep. Could PvP be replaced with well programmed NPCs that act organic to the gameworld so PvE players can enjoy a more realistic experience? Absolutely.
I suppose I didn't fully clarify on my idea, and let me stress that I am trying for a compromise, although clearly many people reject any interaction between the two at all. The reason I don't want separate servers is due to the decrease in populations.
First off, when I say "territory" I mean MASSIVE slabs of land. Enough so that only a small percentage would actually be the front lines of PvP. And, although it would be possible for an enemy to slip past those lines, the NPC's would act as a police force within the territory. Besides this continuous battle going on, the area would act much as a regular PvE zone, with it's own mobs/quests.
What do the PvE'ers get? They get moving territory lines that add on to the story, and give them another way to interact with the world.
For example, let's say Guild X does a raid on a Necromancer NPC, they kill him granting them control of his vast minions, which they send to battle their enemy. Now Enemy Y must defend their lines from the undead swarm.
The reason this isn't like Eve's Sec system is because the lines aren't static. One area may be PvP heavy one day and the next it's in total control of the good guys. So assuming equal sides there would be a constant pull/push allowing for total exploration over time.
For those hardcore PvE'ers how would yall like this if you took away the PvP and made the front lines completely based upon PvE actions (Player vs Npc and Npc vs Npc)?
Sounds exactly what is already in place in PvP centric sandbox MMOs, safezones essentially.
And really discussing this is pointless, SOE or whatever studio creating EQN already has their planned model and they are not going to change it onthe whims of a fraction of their potential consumers. More so since those that QQ will still be playing the game regardless.
Their should be no compromise, let EQN be the vision that they have and SOE stick to thier guns and not making changes because of a handful of QQers.
And really just having PvP solves all problems which I find it doubtful that they will have a single server.
Or Wushu style with separate continents.
Works out effectively the same as separate servers, but that really offends some people, for some reason no one quite understands.
"Someone I can't see is enjoying this game in a way that I don't like! Summon the media, I need to hold a press conference. This cannot be allowed to continue."
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.
While this is generally a new idea to me (kudos on that, Nitan), I think there is at least one massive problem with this. The zone lines move in favor of the PvE crowd when they defeat a raid. The line would move in the PvP player when they defeat NPC border guards and push them back. Here's a few issues I can see that might be problematic for this system.
Such a system for moving the 'gank line' (my term for the boundary) would need to be carefully balanced to avoid an inherent advantage for one side or the other.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.