A lot of people who loved EQ and EQ2 for what they were/are will probably agree with me on this:
Everquest is and should be a PvE game. It's ok for them to try to implement great PvP, but I as sure as hell won't be disappointed if it sucks.
Don't get me wrong, I like playing against other players - but not in EQ.
Yes i agree with you...howether a good faction's PvP in EQN could be a good thing if not too invasive, but, as you, i prefer a game focused on PvE as EQ tradition.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
First of if you think you can't have PvE game with risk then you have never played old EQ. You don't need some idiot shooting you when you are fighting a mob or a group jumping you when your out getting mats.
As for PvP haveing any numbers then I wonder why games like EQ,Wow and Rift have 10 or more PvE servers to 1 or 2 PvP servers.
I didn't say nobody would ever grief and I didn't suggest a game where griefing is "not in any way controlled." But the guy I quoted said he can't think of any other reason why a "pvper" would want "pveers" in the game. I'm explained to him why he's wrong.
But he's not wrong, for the most part. The "PvPers" he is speaking of mostly want exactly what he described. That may even include you, I don't know. The group of PvPers we want are not playing those MMO's. They played DaoC.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't think there should be no griefing whatsoever. People are assholes and for the most part the game should let people be who they are. Let the community sort them out in their own way.
You're very wrong, and here's why: if you do not police people, if you give them no structure, your precious "community" will go down to the level of garbage (no, I don't think EVE where everyone wants to kill or scam everyone and nobody can be trusted a great community). Leaving people to their own devices is not an open decision, it's a decision to make the game a dog-eat-dog world, which means, again, you can say goodbye to a huge chunk of the playerbase.
That works great if you are doing what EVE does, or if you are simulating a low fantasy world (Embers of Caerus or Game of Thrones). But that is something a lot of people don't care for at all and they want a world that more closely resembles our reality, or even some fantasy reality.
EverQuest is a high fantasy universe. Turning EverQuest into a dog-eat-dog world (which is precisely what your "let the community decide" will accomplish) makes no sense. Nor did it make sense for SWG, which is why SWG used a flagging system.
To arbitrarily impose restrictions as simply an easy way out of dealing with the problem players is just lazy game design and it will lead to stale gameplay.
It's actually the opposite, a lot of griefing in games is far more arbitrary than means that would put an end to it. Explain to me how someone would spawn or corpse camp someone in real life. Also explain to me how, in real life, I kill a criminal and they come back again, or they come back on an alt. Or how about games where PvPers can murder over and over and they are not on any watch list and nobody cares? Griefing is very arbitrary and mostly an exploitation of game mechanics or bad design (or purposeful design), but there's really nothing arbitrary about guards, a police force, a judicial system, or outlaws. If anything, those things are necessary for the world to make sense at all at a time period that is more advanced than prehistoric era or a backwater poor country. Even a thousand years ago certain people could live in a quiet village and fish and nobody would ever bother them, but the opposite happens in FFA PvP MMO's because nobody bothered to design them properly.
Because in most FFA PvP MMO's there are tons of consequences for the PvEer and NONE FOR YOU.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW Currently playing: GW2, EVE Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
The "PvE" crowd (and by that I mean pve ONLY and no pvp or no forced pvp) always seems to think it's about guys who like to fight vs guys who don't like to fight. And how we just want to force our playstyle onto you. And why can't you just be left alone? It must be because we want to kill you! We're no-good dirty murderers who scare off entire playerbases with our ganking, looting, bindcamping etc. Why is the simple concept of risk vs reward such a hard thing to grasp? What if I want to be the one occasionally getting ganked?
Because that is specifically how a certain subset of "PvPers" (again, the group that I refer to as "griefers") position themselves. This is particularly apparently in EVE. A large subset of EVE has open dislike of the non-PvP portion of EVE (especially miners). So it very much becomes about the "PvPers" infringing on the PvE playstyles with a purpose, this is not made up nor is it a joke. Miners are specifically targeted and their ships suicide ganked for no profit.
Why is this possible? Because griefing is easy and it is not in any way controlled. When a game is designed in that manner, the things you claim that are not true DO become true, people DO scare off entire playerbases, people DO prey on the PvE side on purpose. And until they are policed, controlled, and removed from the game, you can forget about the average PvEer or even PvPer, since they are both not into cheap ganking activities.
I didn't say nobody would ever grief and I didn't suggest a game where griefing is "not in any way controlled." But the guy I quoted said he can't think of any other reason why a "pvper" would want "pveers" in the game. I'm explained to him why he's wrong.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't think there should be no griefing whatsoever. People are assholes and for the most part the game should let people be who they are. Let the community sort them out in their own way. To arbitrarily impose restrictions as simply an easy way out of dealing with the problem players is just lazy game design and it will lead to stale gameplay.
I want to make it clear that I'm not asking for a game that "caters to everybody." There is no such game. In my perfect game, there would be no place for somebody who wants to pve in peace with no consequence or threat. Talking about "infringing on the pve playstyles" means literally nothing to me.
Nagel likes talking about PVEers from only the PVE side of things, I can tell that much from how he phrased that EVE example. Now to have a bit of fun with his example while shredding it:
Griefing in High-sec takes two organized forms:
-Hulkageddon type events which target miners or afk mission or complex farmers. This event type targets botters especially as the original Hulkageddon was a small contest between corps to kill as many afk/botting miners as they could with Armageddon class battleships. Guess PVEers who violate the EULA or just fuck over the economy for their own profit in unfair ways should be left to their own devices right?
-0.0 motivated interdictions, example: the fairly recent gallentean ice mining interdiction by goonswarm to help swing a 0.0 war in their favour.
In either of those cases smart PVEers lived, I survived multiple gank attempts in my mission Tengu during Hulkageddons just because I wasn't a window licking afker .
Unorganized forms:
-Can flipping, almost extinct due to the rehaul of the mining barge class ship to have massive (almost industrial sized) ore holds. Only morons and botters now get can flipped.
-Random ganks, almost extinct due to rehaul of mining barge and reworking the insurance system to no longer provide money for a concordokkened ship. You'd have to be an ass to someone for them to expend cash on killing yo ass.
-Jita 4-4 ganks... noobs or extremely special people usually get killed in Jita 4-4 by undocking in something very fragile with something very valuable in their cargoholds (shuttles with plexes for example). Hauling low volume high value stuff should be done in a purpose built assault frigate (which can tank like a mofo and align and warp fast) or in a freighter (infinitely hard to take down, not impossible but hard, requires a pretty big fleet to do it in high-sec before getting concordokkened).
A lot of people who loved EQ and EQ2 for what they were/are will probably agree with me on this:
Everquest is and should be a PvE game. It's ok for them to try to implement great PvP, but I as sure as hell won't be disappointed if it sucks.
Don't get me wrong, I like playing against other players - but not in EQ.
I agree Everquest is and should be a PvE game. I think we can all agree on that. I think SOE agrees as well. They have stated they are not shutting down Everquest and this new game is not meant to be a replacement for it.
I would infer from this that they are going to leave Everquest as the PVE game it has always been and keep it available for the time being to all those who would like to play it in all of its PVE glory.
So those who do not wish to play against other players in Everquest still will not have to do so, even after August 2nd.
EQN may very well have some PVP content. It may even integrate its content well and in a way that this ignorant divisive way of thinking we've nearly all been trained to have by Blizzard and its many imitators will subside somewhat. I guess we'll see soon enough. For all we know the game could be a crappy Darkfall clone.
I didn't say nobody would ever grief and I didn't suggest a game where griefing is "not in any way controlled." But the guy I quoted said he can't think of any other reason why a "pvper" would want "pveers" in the game. I'm explained to him why he's wrong.
But he's not wrong, for the most part. The "PvPers" he is speaking of mostly want exactly what he described. That may even include you, I don't know. The group of PvPers we want are not playing those MMO's. They played DaoC.
Well then that would be why I started the whole thing off with this clarification: " If by "pvper" you mean people who advocate sandbox games with open world pvp and pvp with consequences (looting or something similar)"
It seems pretty obvious that his comment is directed at the majority of the people who are arguing for games that have open world pvp. If he's claiming to only be talking to people who just want to gank pve players, then I'm not sure who he's talking to because you so rarely see anybody saying that in these threads. It's almost always people's unfair interpretation of sandbox advocates.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't think there should be no griefing whatsoever. People are assholes and for the most part the game should let people be who they are. Let the community sort them out in their own way.
You're very wrong, and here's why: if you do not police people, if you give them no structure, your precious "community" will go down to the level of garbage (no, I don't think EVE where everyone wants to kill or scam everyone and nobody can be trusted a great community). Leaving people to their own devices is not an open decision, it's a decision to make the game a dog-eat-dog world, which means, again, you can say goodbye to a huge chunk of the playerbase.
That works great if you are doing what EVE does, or if you are simulating a low fantasy world (Embers of Caerus or Game of Thrones). But that is something a lot of people don't care for at all and they want a world that more closely resembles our reality, or even some fantasy reality.
EverQuest is a high fantasy universe. Turning EverQuest into a dog-eat-dog world (which is precisely what your "let the community decide" will accomplish) makes no sense. Nor did it make sense for SWG, which is why SWG used a flagging system.
Again, I never said no structure. I even explicitly said that in my response to you after you wrongly assumed that about me the first time. This is now the second time in as many posts that you've claimed that and I never once said I wanted it.
There are a plethora of ways to naturally DISCOURAGE griefing, while not setting up arbitrary barriers that ruin immersion in the futile hope of creating a perfect little world where everybody gets what they want. Having villains for people to hate is not a bad thing, but that doesn't mean there should be 0 consequences to the point of every 15 year old asshole running around bind-camping people.
To arbitrarily impose restrictions as simply an easy way out of dealing with the problem players is just lazy game design and it will lead to stale gameplay.
It's actually the opposite, a lot of griefing in games is far more arbitrary than means that would put an end to it. Explain to me how someone would spawn or corpse camp someone in real life. Also explain to me how, in real life, I kill a criminal and they come back again, or they come back on an alt. Or how about games where PvPers can murder over and over and they are not on any watch list and nobody cares? Griefing is very arbitrary and mostly an exploitation of game mechanics or bad design (or purposeful design), but there's really nothing arbitrary about guards, a police force, a judicial system, or outlaws. If anything, those things are necessary for the world to make sense at all at a time period that is more advanced than prehistoric era or a backwater poor country. Even a thousand years ago certain people could live in a quiet village and fish and nobody would ever bother them, but the opposite happens in FFA PvP MMO's because nobody bothered to design them properly.
Again, your whole argument is kind of just based on the assumption that I want a game with no rules. I just don't want lazy imaginary invulnerability force fields in place of a well thought out system.
Because in most FFA PvP MMO's there are tons of consequences for the PvEer and NONE FOR YOU.
Wrong in a couple different ways. First of all, I'm not sure what "most" ffa pvp mmo's you're talking about, and more importantly I'm not sure why you're putting their shortcomings on my shoulders. Assuming you're right about other ffa pvp mmo's having consequences for the pveer and none for the pvper (by the way, you're already making the assumption that i'm the guy killing the pve'er... do I have to point out that ad hominem attacks won't get you anywhere), that has nothing to do with anything I've said. You can have ffa pvp and still have notoriety systems, bounty lists, etc.
But mainly you're just wrong about the history of ffa pvp games. Take UO for instance: By FAR the most profitable professions were the pve and crafting templates. Tamers and bards come to mind, following by smiths, alchemists and tailors... roughly in that order. PK's in UO often risked their best gear and risked statloss (lost playing time = lost profits) every time they went out.
Just because a miner has no chance of fighting back against some PK and inevitably will lose whatever he has on him and set him back a good amount of time, doesn't mean there's no risk. Sure there's no risk of dying to that miner, but he's risking his time by looking for somebody who may not be there and he's risking dying to other PK's or the many guilds that existed solely to fight PK's.
First of if you think you can't have PvE game with risk then you have never played old EQ. You don't need some idiot shooting you when you are fighting a mob or a group jumping you when your out getting mats.
As for PvP haveing any numbers then I wonder why games like EQ,Wow and Rift have 10 or more PvE servers to 1 or 2 PvP servers.
I didn't say you can't have a pve game with risk. I just happen to believe that the best, most organic and most community-driven way to have risk is to have pvp. For instance, what do YOU care if you lose your stuff to some mob or some player? If you're ok with consequences, why do you care how you lose it? I mean you're gonna lose it (whatever IT is... time or items or xp or whatever) no matter what, why not lose it by having open world pvp which opens up more possibilities in gameplay?
And I'm not sure what you're talking about pvp having any numbers...? I didn't say anything about that. Though I will say that a well done sandbox game with open world pvp has RARELY been done. UO was wildly successful for its time and only went down hill after trammel was implemented, and EVE is still extremely successful.
The "PvE" crowd (and by that I mean pve ONLY and no pvp or no forced pvp) always seems to think it's about guys who like to fight vs guys who don't like to fight. And how we just want to force our playstyle onto you. And why can't you just be left alone? It must be because we want to kill you! We're no-good dirty murderers who scare off entire playerbases with our ganking, looting, bindcamping etc. Why is the simple concept of risk vs reward such a hard thing to grasp? What if I want to be the one occasionally getting ganked?
Because that is specifically how a certain subset of "PvPers" (again, the group that I refer to as "griefers") position themselves. This is particularly apparently in EVE. A large subset of EVE has open dislike of the non-PvP portion of EVE (especially miners). So it very much becomes about the "PvPers" infringing on the PvE playstyles with a purpose, this is not made up nor is it a joke. Miners are specifically targeted and their ships suicide ganked for no profit.
Why is this possible? Because griefing is easy and it is not in any way controlled. When a game is designed in that manner, the things you claim that are not true DO become true, people DO scare off entire playerbases, people DO prey on the PvE side on purpose. And until they are policed, controlled, and removed from the game, you can forget about the average PvEer or even PvPer, since they are both not into cheap ganking activities.
I didn't say nobody would ever grief and I didn't suggest a game where griefing is "not in any way controlled." But the guy I quoted said he can't think of any other reason why a "pvper" would want "pveers" in the game. I'm explained to him why he's wrong.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't think there should be no griefing whatsoever. People are assholes and for the most part the game should let people be who they are. Let the community sort them out in their own way. To arbitrarily impose restrictions as simply an easy way out of dealing with the problem players is just lazy game design and it will lead to stale gameplay.
I want to make it clear that I'm not asking for a game that "caters to everybody." There is no such game. In my perfect game, there would be no place for somebody who wants to pve in peace with no consequence or threat. Talking about "infringing on the pve playstyles" means literally nothing to me.
Nagel likes talking about PVEers from only the PVE side of things, I can tell that much from how he phrased that EVE example.
Funny how we're the ones who can't see it from their perspective, or don't want to compromise, or whatever. Compromise for them basically just means give them what they want.
First of if you think you can't have PvE game with risk then you have never played old EQ. You don't need some idiot shooting you when you are fighting a mob or a group jumping you when your out getting mats.
As for PvP haveing any numbers then I wonder why games like EQ,Wow and Rift have 10 or more PvE servers to 1 or 2 PvP servers.
Each of the PvE servers can access PvP through some type of Battleground. If given the choice of PvE servers with no access to PvP bg's or PvP servers, I would wager that most people would flood to the PvP servers. Once on the PvP servers, they would want the PvP nerfed so they could have PvP at their whim without interrupting their questing. Pure PvE servers just don't exist anymore.
When you give the option to PvP on PvE servers you negate the need to have PvP servers in my opinion. A better question is whether people would enjoy PvP in some fashion at all through out the life of the game. My guess is that those numbers would be a lot higher, almost into the 70-90% range. It is my experience that PvE servers house people that just don't want to lose what they have worked for, not that they don't like the occasional PvP.
First of if you think you can't have PvE game with risk then you have never played old EQ. You don't need some idiot shooting you when you are fighting a mob or a group jumping you when your out getting mats.
As for PvP haveing any numbers then I wonder why games like EQ,Wow and Rift have 10 or more PvE servers to 1 or 2 PvP servers.
Each of the PvE servers can access PvP through some type of Battleground. If given the choice of PvE servers with no access to PvP bg's or PvP servers, I would wager that most people would flood to the PvP servers. Once on the PvP servers, they would want the PvP nerfed so they could have PvP at their whim without interrupting their questing. Pure PvE servers just don't exist anymore.
When you give the option to PvP on PvE servers you negate the need to have PvP servers in my opinion. A better question is whether people would enjoy PvP in some fashion at all through out the life of the game. My guess is that those numbers would be a lot higher, almost into the 70-90% range. It is my experience that PvE servers house people that just don't want to lose what they have worked for, not that they don't like the occasional PvP.
The whole question of PvP will never ever be solved with battlegrounds or pvp "servers" for a lot of us. If PvP is an afterthought, not essential to the gameplay, then it's not what I want. If it's a minigame with no impact on how the game plays, then I don't care about it. If I wanted to "pvp occasionally" I would just play quake 3 or sc2 or something.
You can have ffa pvp and still have notoriety systems, bounty lists, etc.
That's what I am advocating. And the majority of "PvPers" don't want that. That's what I am trying to explain to you. I am explaining why PvEers don't want FFA PvP - I am explaining what they associate it with (if sometimes incorrectly). But instead of trying to understand a chunk of the playerbase you WANT to play your game you have already called them carebears and people who do not compromise. Good job. I'm sorry, the onus is on you that FFA PvP games are worth for PvEers to play, they do not owe you anything.
But mainly you're just wrong about the history of ffa pvp games. Take UO for instance: By FAR the most profitable professions were the pve and crafting templates. Tamers and bards come to mind, following by smiths, alchemists and tailors... roughly in that order. PK's in UO often risked their best gear and risked statloss (lost playing time = lost profits) every time they went out.
Where did I mention profit? But I haven't played UO, perhaps UO was actually properly managed and had anti-griefing in place, but UO no longer exists so it's hard to say, and I heard UO's PvP island is deserted so that doesn't really help your claim that everyone was fine with how UO worked.
Just because a miner has no chance of fighting back against some PK and inevitably will lose whatever he has on him and set him back a good amount of time, doesn't mean there's no risk. Sure there's no risk of dying to that miner, but he's risking his time by looking for somebody who may not be there and he's risking dying to other PK's or the many guilds that existed solely to fight PK's.
"Risking his time" give me a break. No he's not risking to die to other PK's, nobody is gonna attack him, he's not a miner and people only hate miners. Nor are anti-PK guilds very widespread in EVE at all - that's a thankless job because of how the game is designed.
There is no risk for two reds to lose two destroyers and a jump clone from suiciding a Hulk. It's very easy to do, much easier than it is for the given miner to survive. Now, if dying in EVE actually meant something...
And this happens all the time, and contrary to what the other poster said, it has nothing to do with AFK miners since not being AFK won't really save you from a suicide ganker. People just destroy Hulks because they hate miners, Goonswarm said this in an open statement and there are others. Retrievers are targeted, as well. PvEers can as well treat high sec like low sec at this rate, and I assure you, that is not what PvEers are looking for most of the time. A threat is fine. Constant, near guaranteed threat from people who lose nothing from what is nothing but griefing (no profit), is an indication that PvEers are not welcome in the game, plain and simple.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW Currently playing: GW2, EVE Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
I'd like to point out that Planetside 2 has no PVE servers and several active PvP servers.
is this proof that PvP is just a better game than PvE? Or maybe is it just proof that planetside works better as a PvP game?
Though it's not an mmo I agree with the overall point. It's getting tiring to hear people spew the line that pvp servers die out or people choose pve over pvp. We're talking about different games. Sure if you take a game where the world is built around the idea that there will be no open world pvp and then make a token open world pvp copy of that game, it's probably not going to be very popular.
First of if you think you can't have PvE game with risk then you have never played old EQ. You don't need some idiot shooting you when you are fighting a mob or a group jumping you when your out getting mats.
As for PvP haveing any numbers then I wonder why games like EQ,Wow and Rift have 10 or more PvE servers to 1 or 2 PvP servers.
Each of the PvE servers can access PvP through some type of Battleground. If given the choice of PvE servers with no access to PvP bg's or PvP servers, I would wager that most people would flood to the PvP servers. Once on the PvP servers, they would want the PvP nerfed so they could have PvP at their whim without interrupting their questing. Pure PvE servers just don't exist anymore.
When you give the option to PvP on PvE servers you negate the need to have PvP servers in my opinion. A better question is whether people would enjoy PvP in some fashion at all through out the life of the game. My guess is that those numbers would be a lot higher, almost into the 70-90% range. It is my experience that PvE servers house people that just don't want to lose what they have worked for, not that they don't like the occasional PvP.
The whole question of PvP will never ever be solved with battlegrounds or pvp "servers" for a lot of us. If PvP is an afterthought, not essential to the gameplay, then it's not what I want. If it's a minigame with no impact on how the game plays, then I don't care about it. If I wanted to "pvp occasionally" I would just play quake 3 or sc2 or something.
So you want that everyone in EQN have to be forced to do PvP in every zone of the game and in every server?
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
First of if you think you can't have PvE game with risk then you have never played old EQ. You don't need some idiot shooting you when you are fighting a mob or a group jumping you when your out getting mats.
As for PvP haveing any numbers then I wonder why games like EQ,Wow and Rift have 10 or more PvE servers to 1 or 2 PvP servers.
Each of the PvE servers can access PvP through some type of Battleground. If given the choice of PvE servers with no access to PvP bg's or PvP servers, I would wager that most people would flood to the PvP servers. Once on the PvP servers, they would want the PvP nerfed so they could have PvP at their whim without interrupting their questing. Pure PvE servers just don't exist anymore.
When you give the option to PvP on PvE servers you negate the need to have PvP servers in my opinion. A better question is whether people would enjoy PvP in some fashion at all through out the life of the game. My guess is that those numbers would be a lot higher, almost into the 70-90% range. It is my experience that PvE servers house people that just don't want to lose what they have worked for, not that they don't like the occasional PvP.
The whole question of PvP will never ever be solved with battlegrounds or pvp "servers" for a lot of us. If PvP is an afterthought, not essential to the gameplay, then it's not what I want. If it's a minigame with no impact on how the game plays, then I don't care about it. If I wanted to "pvp occasionally" I would just play quake 3 or sc2 or something.
So you want that everyone in EQN have to be forced to do PvP in every zone of the game?
I'm not sure I've ever even typed the letters EQN in my life. They can do whatever they want, it's their game. If I had my way yes the game would be an open world pvp game with asset destruction.
Also, you guys need to stop using the word "forced" all of the time in these threads.
So you want that everyone in EQN have to be forced to do PvP in every zone of the game and in every server?
No, they can just stand there and get PvPed if they want. They don't have to be forced to PvP back.
Honestly though, you're oversimplifying things. Most people are advocating a system where PvP is less likely to happen to people not seeking it due to incentives/penalties. As in Eve where I log in for hours every night and PVE and never get attacked. In all my years i've never once been attacked running high security missions. Mining is a different story, i've almost lost a whole .1% of my income to pvp people doing that..
You may not like pvp at all and would rather the three letters never be uttered again, but some of us like it and yes -- we want it delivered in an organic and integrated manner (not battlegrounds). That doesn't mean we want someone to force you to play that integrated game. If my perfect game were released I wouldn't care if all you guys who hate pvp just never showed up. I would like you to try it and see, but I won't cry about it if you don't.
The "PvE" crowd (and by that I mean pve ONLY and no pvp or no forced pvp) always seems to think it's about guys who like to fight vs guys who don't like to fight. And how we just want to force our playstyle onto you. And why can't you just be left alone? It must be because we want to kill you! We're no-good dirty murderers who scare off entire playerbases with our ganking, looting, bindcamping etc. Why is the simple concept of risk vs reward such a hard thing to grasp? What if I want to be the one occasionally getting ganked?
Because that is specifically how a certain subset of "PvPers" (again, the group that I refer to as "griefers") position themselves. This is particularly apparently in EVE. A large subset of EVE has open dislike of the non-PvP portion of EVE (especially miners). So it very much becomes about the "PvPers" infringing on the PvE playstyles with a purpose, this is not made up nor is it a joke. Miners are specifically targeted and their ships suicide ganked for no profit.
Why is this possible? Because griefing is easy and it is not in any way controlled. When a game is designed in that manner, the things you claim that are not true DO become true, people DO scare off entire playerbases, people DO prey on the PvE side on purpose. And until they are policed, controlled, and removed from the game, you can forget about the average PvEer or even PvPer, since they are both not into cheap ganking activities.
I didn't say nobody would ever grief and I didn't suggest a game where griefing is "not in any way controlled." But the guy I quoted said he can't think of any other reason why a "pvper" would want "pveers" in the game. I'm explained to him why he's wrong.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't think there should be no griefing whatsoever. People are assholes and for the most part the game should let people be who they are. Let the community sort them out in their own way. To arbitrarily impose restrictions as simply an easy way out of dealing with the problem players is just lazy game design and it will lead to stale gameplay.
I want to make it clear that I'm not asking for a game that "caters to everybody." There is no such game. In my perfect game, there would be no place for somebody who wants to pve in peace with no consequence or threat. Talking about "infringing on the pve playstyles" means literally nothing to me.
Nagel likes talking about PVEers from only the PVE side of things, I can tell that much from how he phrased that EVE example. Now to have a bit of fun with his example while shredding it:
Griefing in High-sec takes two organized forms:
-Hulkageddon type events which target miners or afk mission or complex farmers. This event type targets botters especially as the original Hulkageddon was a small contest between corps to kill as many afk/botting miners as they could with Armageddon class battleships. Guess PVEers who violate the EULA or just fuck over the economy for their own profit in unfair ways should be left to their own devices right?
-0.0 motivated interdictions, example: the fairly recent gallentean ice mining interdiction by goonswarm to help swing a 0.0 war in their favour.
In either of those cases smart PVEers lived, I survived multiple gank attempts in my mission Tengu during Hulkageddons just because I wasn't a window licking afker .
Unorganized forms:
-Can flipping, almost extinct due to the rehaul of the mining barge class ship to have massive (almost industrial sized) ore holds. Only morons and botters now get can flipped.
-Random ganks, almost extinct due to rehaul of mining barge and reworking the insurance system to no longer provide money for a concordokkened ship. You'd have to be an ass to someone for them to expend cash on killing yo ass.
-Jita 4-4 ganks... noobs or extremely special people usually get killed in Jita 4-4 by undocking in something very fragile with something very valuable in their cargoholds (shuttles with plexes for example). Hauling low volume high value stuff should be done in a purpose built assault frigate (which can tank like a mofo and align and warp fast) or in a freighter (infinitely hard to take down, not impossible but hard, requires a pretty big fleet to do it in high-sec before getting concordokkened).
In a game where your actions do have consequences both good and bad, not only for you but for your Corps/Alliance, then creating negative economic impacts on another Corps creates a positive economic impact for your Corps. Some analysis has been done on Hulkageddons over the years and it actually helps to boost the economy. By destroying a small part of the mining fleets that roam the universe, players are creating more demand for minerals, which ironically are mined by the miner ships they are blowing up. AFK miners ruin economies and it was mentioned above so I'll leave that alone, but I agree that destroying their hulks is win for everyone legitimately playing the game.
Where Nagel has it wrong is where he calls out a "subset" of players in the game by calling them PvP player. Anyone that logs into EvE is by definition a PvP player. There is no place in the game that you don't compete against another player. Even miners compete against each other because there are limited asteroids to harvest. It might not look like the traditional PvP, but by the very definition of player vs player - mining is PvP. CCP devs have acknowledged that some actions are within the scope of the game; many of the acceptable actions are ones you have listed that you deem negative. Miners aren't PvE players in EvE, they are miners with bite! To think that traders don't manipulate prices and have price wars during Hulkageddon.......well just keep believing that destroying Hulks isn't for profit. CCP does a good job curbing true griefing, but they also allow players to play their own way and create new dynamics that weren't thought up by from the devs, it's then the communities responsibility to counter one groups actions; that is what sandbox is all about.
I've been in ST contested in EQ2 on a PvE server where my actions were halted because another group purposely chained mobs to my group so we wouldn't get the named that was up. Even on a PvE server PvP still happens. I have always agreed that ganking for ganking sakes is not the kind of PvP I enjoy; but PvP takes many forms outside of the norm.
I just want gear loss, maybe lose a level or skills or something like that. Nothing makes your heart pump faster than loss, if you don't lose anything then it's boring, just respawn constantly and there is nothing on the line, it's like playing Poker without money... just boring.
Nothing made my heart pump faster than EVE Online back when I played it, I just loved having so much on the line. SWG was a bit like that too until people moaned and SOE dumbed it down.
Compromise can only exist when both sides want it.There are factions on each side that want things their way and their way only and everyone must be forced to conform.
You can have ffa pvp and still have notoriety systems, bounty lists, etc.
That's what I am advocating. And the majority of "PvPers" don't want that.
What pvpers are you talking about exactly? I'm pretty sure I'm more of an authority on what me and my peers want. I basically never see people openly advocating a game with 0 rules. The vast majority of the people arguing on the side of open world pvp love the idea of organic natural restrictions like that ones I mentioned. Maybe you're just assuming things about them without them saying it?
That's what I am trying to explain to you. I am explaining why PvEers don't want FFA PvP - I am explaining what they associate it with (if sometimes incorrectly). But instead of trying to understand a chunk of the playerbase you WANT to play your game you have already called them carebears and people who do not compromise. Good job. I'm sorry, the onus is on you that FFA PvP games are worth for PvEers to play, they do not owe you anything.
I'm sorry what are you even talking about? I truly don't even understand your point. You're saying that it's somehow on me personally to slap some sense into "PvE" players who wrongly assume things about games? If they hear a game is going to have open world pvp and they jump the gun and assume there will be 0 systems in place to discourage people from murdering (just like in real life), then that's on THEM, not me. I'm not actively trying to recruit pve players... certainly not presumptuous, close-minded ones.
I thought I already made it clear that I don't want a game that caters to every playstyle. I could care less if a game gets the "pve" crowd. If the pve crowd is the same one that jumps from themepark to themepark causing inflated population and then inevitable busts when they all get tried of their new toy, then good riddance if they're not attracted to the same kind of game I am.
But mainly you're just wrong about the history of ffa pvp games. Take UO for instance: By FAR the most profitable professions were the pve and crafting templates. Tamers and bards come to mind, following by smiths, alchemists and tailors... roughly in that order. PK's in UO often risked their best gear and risked statloss (lost playing time = lost profits) every time they went out.
Where did I mention profit? But I haven't played UO, perhaps UO was actually properly managed and had anti-griefing in place, but UO no longer exists so it's hard to say, and I heard UO's PvP island is deserted so that doesn't really help your claim that everyone was fine with how UO worked.
Profits is what it's all about when you're talking about consequences. That's what it means. What other consequence are you talking about? You're the one that said ffa pvp games result in consequences for the pve player and NO CONSEQUENCES for the pvp player. What did you mean by consequences? I assume you mean whatever loss they would accrue.
And you're gonna really have to chill with the assumptions. I didn't say everybody was fine with how UO worked. Again, I'm not trying to find a game that everybody likes. It doesn't exist.
Just because a miner has no chance of fighting back against some PK and inevitably will lose whatever he has on him and set him back a good amount of time, doesn't mean there's no risk. Sure there's no risk of dying to that miner, but he's risking his time by looking for somebody who may not be there and he's risking dying to other PK's or the many guilds that existed solely to fight PK's.
"Risking his time" give me a break. No he's not risking to die to other PK's, nobody is gonna attack him, he's not a miner and people only hate miners. Nor are anti-PK guilds very widespread in EVE at all - that's a thankless job because of how the game is designed.
....what? Like seriously.... what? Why are you acting like EVE is the only game that has had ffa pvp?
Are you saying PK's don't attack each other? Have you ever even played one of these games you claim to know so much about? Darkfall? UO? PK's attack each other ALL the time. And what do you mean people only hate miners?
Maybe anti-PK guilds weren't widespread in EVE, but they were in UO. It all depends on how you make the game. They were feasible in UO because you had vast travel, so you could reasonably get in contact with a well known anti-PK guild when you got killed in a dungeon, and they could be there very quickly. It's all in how the game is designed.
There is no risk for two reds to lose two destroyers and a jump clone from suiciding a Hulk. It's very easy to do, much easier than it is for the given miner to survive. Now, if dying in EVE actually meant something...
And this happens all the time, and contrary to what the other poster said, it has nothing to do with AFK miners since not being AFK won't really save you from a suicide ganker. People just destroy Hulks because they hate miners, Goonswarm said this in an open statement and there are others. Retrievers are targeted, as well. PvEers can as well treat high sec like low sec at this rate, and I assure you, that is not what PvEers are looking for most of the time. A threat is fine. Constant, near guaranteed threat from people who lose nothing from what is nothing but griefing (no profit), is an indication that PvEers are not welcome in the game, plain and simple.
Thanks for your words about EVE - a game I don't play and am not talking about....?
I'd like to point out that Planetside 2 has no PVE servers and several active PvP servers.
is this proof that PvP is just a better game than PvE? Or maybe is it just proof that planetside works better as a PvP game?
Though it's not an mmo I agree with the overall point. It's getting tiring to hear people spew the line that pvp servers die out or people choose pve over pvp. We're talking about different games. Sure if you take a game where the world is built around the idea that there will be no open world pvp and then make a token open world pvp copy of that game, it's probably not going to be very popular.
I find it hilarious that the PVE Themepark crowd think that they have any room to talk about success or failure of PVP vs. PVE.
Look at the carnage of the MMORPG genre is your proof of how sustainable that play style is. EQN is a reflection of that and the only reason why these threads have been so hotly debated. One side of the argument is rational based on the information we know, while the other side of the argument is in denial and projects what they want to be the case.
First of if you think you can't have PvE game with risk then you have never played old EQ. You don't need some idiot shooting you when you are fighting a mob or a group jumping you when your out getting mats.
As for PvP haveing any numbers then I wonder why games like EQ,Wow and Rift have 10 or more PvE servers to 1 or 2 PvP servers.
Each of the PvE servers can access PvP through some type of Battleground. If given the choice of PvE servers with no access to PvP bg's or PvP servers, I would wager that most people would flood to the PvP servers. Once on the PvP servers, they would want the PvP nerfed so they could have PvP at their whim without interrupting their questing. Pure PvE servers just don't exist anymore.
When you give the option to PvP on PvE servers you negate the need to have PvP servers in my opinion. A better question is whether people would enjoy PvP in some fashion at all through out the life of the game. My guess is that those numbers would be a lot higher, almost into the 70-90% range. It is my experience that PvE servers house people that just don't want to lose what they have worked for, not that they don't like the occasional PvP.
The whole question of PvP will never ever be solved with battlegrounds or pvp "servers" for a lot of us. If PvP is an afterthought, not essential to the gameplay, then it's not what I want. If it's a minigame with no impact on how the game plays, then I don't care about it. If I wanted to "pvp occasionally" I would just play quake 3 or sc2 or something.
I completely agree. I was merely stating that PvP is actually a huge part of online gaming, but most people don't recognize it because they look at server types and not actual player statistics. If you look at who I was responding to, keenber was using the stat of 1 to 2 PvP per game etc. My response was saying that no one needs more than 1 to 2 PvP servers because PvE servers actually have PvP too. If a game company were to create PvE servers where you could not access bg's at all, I would guess that the PvP servers would be the most populated. Very few players (in my experience) enjoy just one side of the game exclusively.
I am a Shadowbane player, and am still looking for great asset destruction from an AAA game company. I would love to see a persistent world where PvP solves the conflict shaped by guilds/alliances (as done in EvE). But...a lot of players do only want the battle ground type PvP. Again pure PvE servers are a myth today, what you really have are PvP-full and PvP-lite servers across all games.
Originally posted by TribeofOne in your suggestion.. what compromise are the PvPers making? I see PvEers making ALL the compromises.
I don't want any kind of compromise. I'm the guy that's saying you CAN'T have a game that caters to everybody.
Whether the pvp crowd is making compromises or not doesn't matter, the pve crowd are the ones claiming that they're compromising, but they're not. ffa "zones", battlegrounds, pvp servers, are not compromises. It doesn't affect them at all and also doesn't give us what we want.
Comments
Yes i agree with you...howether a good faction's PvP in EQN could be a good thing if not too invasive, but, as you, i prefer a game focused on PvE as EQ tradition.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
First of if you think you can't have PvE game with risk then you have never played old EQ. You don't need some idiot shooting you when you are fighting a mob or a group jumping you when your out getting mats.
As for PvP haveing any numbers then I wonder why games like EQ,Wow and Rift have 10 or more PvE servers to 1 or 2 PvP servers.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
Nagel likes talking about PVEers from only the PVE side of things, I can tell that much from how he phrased that EVE example. Now to have a bit of fun with his example while shredding it:
Griefing in High-sec takes two organized forms:
-Hulkageddon type events which target miners or afk mission or complex farmers. This event type targets botters especially as the original Hulkageddon was a small contest between corps to kill as many afk/botting miners as they could with Armageddon class battleships. Guess PVEers who violate the EULA or just fuck over the economy for their own profit in unfair ways should be left to their own devices right?
-0.0 motivated interdictions, example: the fairly recent gallentean ice mining interdiction by goonswarm to help swing a 0.0 war in their favour.
In either of those cases smart PVEers lived, I survived multiple gank attempts in my mission Tengu during Hulkageddons just because I wasn't a window licking afker
.
Unorganized forms:
-Can flipping, almost extinct due to the rehaul of the mining barge class ship to have massive (almost industrial sized) ore holds. Only morons and botters now get can flipped.
-Random ganks, almost extinct due to rehaul of mining barge and reworking the insurance system to no longer provide money for a concordokkened ship. You'd have to be an ass to someone for them to expend cash on killing yo ass.
-Jita 4-4 ganks... noobs or extremely special people usually get killed in Jita 4-4 by undocking in something very fragile with something very valuable in their cargoholds (shuttles with plexes for example). Hauling low volume high value stuff should be done in a purpose built assault frigate (which can tank like a mofo and align and warp fast) or in a freighter (infinitely hard to take down, not impossible but hard, requires a pretty big fleet to do it in high-sec before getting concordokkened).
I agree Everquest is and should be a PvE game. I think we can all agree on that. I think SOE agrees as well. They have stated they are not shutting down Everquest and this new game is not meant to be a replacement for it.
I would infer from this that they are going to leave Everquest as the PVE game it has always been and keep it available for the time being to all those who would like to play it in all of its PVE glory.
So those who do not wish to play against other players in Everquest still will not have to do so, even after August 2nd.
EQN may very well have some PVP content. It may even integrate its content well and in a way that this ignorant divisive way of thinking we've nearly all been trained to have by Blizzard and its many imitators will subside somewhat. I guess we'll see soon enough. For all we know the game could be a crappy Darkfall clone.
from what i hear its gonna be even more hardcore than eq1.
'The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make some other sorry bastard die for his'
Well then that would be why I started the whole thing off with this clarification: " If by "pvper" you mean people who advocate sandbox games with open world pvp and pvp with consequences (looting or something similar)"
It seems pretty obvious that his comment is directed at the majority of the people who are arguing for games that have open world pvp. If he's claiming to only be talking to people who just want to gank pve players, then I'm not sure who he's talking to because you so rarely see anybody saying that in these threads. It's almost always people's unfair interpretation of sandbox advocates.
Again, I never said no structure. I even explicitly said that in my response to you after you wrongly assumed that about me the first time. This is now the second time in as many posts that you've claimed that and I never once said I wanted it.
There are a plethora of ways to naturally DISCOURAGE griefing, while not setting up arbitrary barriers that ruin immersion in the futile hope of creating a perfect little world where everybody gets what they want. Having villains for people to hate is not a bad thing, but that doesn't mean there should be 0 consequences to the point of every 15 year old asshole running around bind-camping people.
Again, your whole argument is kind of just based on the assumption that I want a game with no rules. I just don't want lazy imaginary invulnerability force fields in place of a well thought out system.
Wrong in a couple different ways. First of all, I'm not sure what "most" ffa pvp mmo's you're talking about, and more importantly I'm not sure why you're putting their shortcomings on my shoulders. Assuming you're right about other ffa pvp mmo's having consequences for the pveer and none for the pvper (by the way, you're already making the assumption that i'm the guy killing the pve'er... do I have to point out that ad hominem attacks won't get you anywhere), that has nothing to do with anything I've said. You can have ffa pvp and still have notoriety systems, bounty lists, etc.
But mainly you're just wrong about the history of ffa pvp games. Take UO for instance: By FAR the most profitable professions were the pve and crafting templates. Tamers and bards come to mind, following by smiths, alchemists and tailors... roughly in that order. PK's in UO often risked their best gear and risked statloss (lost playing time = lost profits) every time they went out.
Just because a miner has no chance of fighting back against some PK and inevitably will lose whatever he has on him and set him back a good amount of time, doesn't mean there's no risk. Sure there's no risk of dying to that miner, but he's risking his time by looking for somebody who may not be there and he's risking dying to other PK's or the many guilds that existed solely to fight PK's.
I didn't say you can't have a pve game with risk. I just happen to believe that the best, most organic and most community-driven way to have risk is to have pvp. For instance, what do YOU care if you lose your stuff to some mob or some player? If you're ok with consequences, why do you care how you lose it? I mean you're gonna lose it (whatever IT is... time or items or xp or whatever) no matter what, why not lose it by having open world pvp which opens up more possibilities in gameplay?
And I'm not sure what you're talking about pvp having any numbers...? I didn't say anything about that. Though I will say that a well done sandbox game with open world pvp has RARELY been done. UO was wildly successful for its time and only went down hill after trammel was implemented, and EVE is still extremely successful.
Funny how we're the ones who can't see it from their perspective, or don't want to compromise, or whatever. Compromise for them basically just means give them what they want.
Each of the PvE servers can access PvP through some type of Battleground. If given the choice of PvE servers with no access to PvP bg's or PvP servers, I would wager that most people would flood to the PvP servers. Once on the PvP servers, they would want the PvP nerfed so they could have PvP at their whim without interrupting their questing. Pure PvE servers just don't exist anymore.
When you give the option to PvP on PvE servers you negate the need to have PvP servers in my opinion. A better question is whether people would enjoy PvP in some fashion at all through out the life of the game. My guess is that those numbers would be a lot higher, almost into the 70-90% range. It is my experience that PvE servers house people that just don't want to lose what they have worked for, not that they don't like the occasional PvP.
The whole question of PvP will never ever be solved with battlegrounds or pvp "servers" for a lot of us. If PvP is an afterthought, not essential to the gameplay, then it's not what I want. If it's a minigame with no impact on how the game plays, then I don't care about it. If I wanted to "pvp occasionally" I would just play quake 3 or sc2 or something.
I'd like to point out that Planetside 2 has no PVE servers and several active PvP servers.
is this proof that PvP is just a better game than PvE? Or maybe is it just proof that planetside works better as a PvP game?
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
Though it's not an mmo I agree with the overall point. It's getting tiring to hear people spew the line that pvp servers die out or people choose pve over pvp. We're talking about different games. Sure if you take a game where the world is built around the idea that there will be no open world pvp and then make a token open world pvp copy of that game, it's probably not going to be very popular.
So you want that everyone in EQN have to be forced to do PvP in every zone of the game and in every server?
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
I'm not sure I've ever even typed the letters EQN in my life. They can do whatever they want, it's their game. If I had my way yes the game would be an open world pvp game with asset destruction.
Also, you guys need to stop using the word "forced" all of the time in these threads.
No, they can just stand there and get PvPed if they want. They don't have to be forced to PvP back.
Honestly though, you're oversimplifying things. Most people are advocating a system where PvP is less likely to happen to people not seeking it due to incentives/penalties. As in Eve where I log in for hours every night and PVE and never get attacked. In all my years i've never once been attacked running high security missions. Mining is a different story, i've almost lost a whole .1% of my income to pvp people doing that..
You may not like pvp at all and would rather the three letters never be uttered again, but some of us like it and yes -- we want it delivered in an organic and integrated manner (not battlegrounds). That doesn't mean we want someone to force you to play that integrated game. If my perfect game were released I wouldn't care if all you guys who hate pvp just never showed up. I would like you to try it and see, but I won't cry about it if you don't.
In a game where your actions do have consequences both good and bad, not only for you but for your Corps/Alliance, then creating negative economic impacts on another Corps creates a positive economic impact for your Corps. Some analysis has been done on Hulkageddons over the years and it actually helps to boost the economy. By destroying a small part of the mining fleets that roam the universe, players are creating more demand for minerals, which ironically are mined by the miner ships they are blowing up. AFK miners ruin economies and it was mentioned above so I'll leave that alone, but I agree that destroying their hulks is win for everyone legitimately playing the game.
Where Nagel has it wrong is where he calls out a "subset" of players in the game by calling them PvP player. Anyone that logs into EvE is by definition a PvP player. There is no place in the game that you don't compete against another player. Even miners compete against each other because there are limited asteroids to harvest. It might not look like the traditional PvP, but by the very definition of player vs player - mining is PvP. CCP devs have acknowledged that some actions are within the scope of the game; many of the acceptable actions are ones you have listed that you deem negative. Miners aren't PvE players in EvE, they are miners with bite! To think that traders don't manipulate prices and have price wars during Hulkageddon.......well just keep believing that destroying Hulks isn't for profit. CCP does a good job curbing true griefing, but they also allow players to play their own way and create new dynamics that weren't thought up by from the devs, it's then the communities responsibility to counter one groups actions; that is what sandbox is all about.
I've been in ST contested in EQ2 on a PvE server where my actions were halted because another group purposely chained mobs to my group so we wouldn't get the named that was up. Even on a PvE server PvP still happens. I have always agreed that ganking for ganking sakes is not the kind of PvP I enjoy; but PvP takes many forms outside of the norm.
I just want gear loss, maybe lose a level or skills or something like that. Nothing makes your heart pump faster than loss, if you don't lose anything then it's boring, just respawn constantly and there is nothing on the line, it's like playing Poker without money... just boring.
Nothing made my heart pump faster than EVE Online back when I played it, I just loved having so much on the line. SWG was a bit like that too until people moaned and SOE dumbed it down.
What pvpers are you talking about exactly? I'm pretty sure I'm more of an authority on what me and my peers want. I basically never see people openly advocating a game with 0 rules. The vast majority of the people arguing on the side of open world pvp love the idea of organic natural restrictions like that ones I mentioned. Maybe you're just assuming things about them without them saying it?
I'm sorry what are you even talking about? I truly don't even understand your point. You're saying that it's somehow on me personally to slap some sense into "PvE" players who wrongly assume things about games? If they hear a game is going to have open world pvp and they jump the gun and assume there will be 0 systems in place to discourage people from murdering (just like in real life), then that's on THEM, not me. I'm not actively trying to recruit pve players... certainly not presumptuous, close-minded ones.
I thought I already made it clear that I don't want a game that caters to every playstyle. I could care less if a game gets the "pve" crowd. If the pve crowd is the same one that jumps from themepark to themepark causing inflated population and then inevitable busts when they all get tried of their new toy, then good riddance if they're not attracted to the same kind of game I am.
Profits is what it's all about when you're talking about consequences. That's what it means. What other consequence are you talking about? You're the one that said ffa pvp games result in consequences for the pve player and NO CONSEQUENCES for the pvp player. What did you mean by consequences? I assume you mean whatever loss they would accrue.
And you're gonna really have to chill with the assumptions. I didn't say everybody was fine with how UO worked. Again, I'm not trying to find a game that everybody likes. It doesn't exist.
....what? Like seriously.... what? Why are you acting like EVE is the only game that has had ffa pvp?
Are you saying PK's don't attack each other? Have you ever even played one of these games you claim to know so much about? Darkfall? UO? PK's attack each other ALL the time. And what do you mean people only hate miners?
Maybe anti-PK guilds weren't widespread in EVE, but they were in UO. It all depends on how you make the game. They were feasible in UO because you had vast travel, so you could reasonably get in contact with a well known anti-PK guild when you got killed in a dungeon, and they could be there very quickly. It's all in how the game is designed.
Thanks for your words about EVE - a game I don't play and am not talking about....?
I find it hilarious that the PVE Themepark crowd think that they have any room to talk about success or failure of PVP vs. PVE.
Look at the carnage of the MMORPG genre is your proof of how sustainable that play style is. EQN is a reflection of that and the only reason why these threads have been so hotly debated. One side of the argument is rational based on the information we know, while the other side of the argument is in denial and projects what they want to be the case.
/shrug
I completely agree. I was merely stating that PvP is actually a huge part of online gaming, but most people don't recognize it because they look at server types and not actual player statistics. If you look at who I was responding to, keenber was using the stat of 1 to 2 PvP per game etc. My response was saying that no one needs more than 1 to 2 PvP servers because PvE servers actually have PvP too. If a game company were to create PvE servers where you could not access bg's at all, I would guess that the PvP servers would be the most populated. Very few players (in my experience) enjoy just one side of the game exclusively.
I am a Shadowbane player, and am still looking for great asset destruction from an AAA game company. I would love to see a persistent world where PvP solves the conflict shaped by guilds/alliances (as done in EvE). But...a lot of players do only want the battle ground type PvP. Again pure PvE servers are a myth today, what you really have are PvP-full and PvP-lite servers across all games.
I don't want any kind of compromise. I'm the guy that's saying you CAN'T have a game that caters to everybody.
Whether the pvp crowd is making compromises or not doesn't matter, the pve crowd are the ones claiming that they're compromising, but they're not. ffa "zones", battlegrounds, pvp servers, are not compromises. It doesn't affect them at all and also doesn't give us what we want.