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.
I didn't mean to sound contradictory. I was just jumping in on what I thought was a good opening to talk about the fallacy of segregated pvp areas/zones/servers.
Have you looked into DFUW btw? It has its flaws, but it probably best represents Shadowbane's legacy at the moment.
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.
Well, i m absolutely against this type of PvP, as i say before i like to do PvP sometimes but when i decide to do it.
"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.
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 didn't mean to sound contradictory. I was just jumping in on what I thought was a good opening to talk about the fallacy of segregated pvp areas/zones/servers.
Have you looked into DFUW btw? It has its flaws, but it probably best represents Shadowbane's legacy at the moment.
No worries, glad civil discussions can still be had.
DF - I was in the beta and played for about a month. I want to state right up front that DF and probably DFUW is a great game for a player that likes more action oriented combat, the game play was smooth, the crafting was decent and the exploration was insane (in a good way). Why I won't be playing DF or MO or any manual style combat game is I realized I just didn't have as much fun. The concepts are right up my alley, but the actual gameplay was not to my liking. I was also hoping for more free formed cities, wherever the guild could choose, not just pre chosen spots in the world that the devs created. I probably could have enjoyed the combat but I hated having to use reagents to cast spells, I'm more old school where I like a mana/power pool.
A few things I liked about DF were how if you chose 1 path in magic it blocked you from going down an alternate path. I enjoyed the combat in the water, and even mounted combat. I enjoyed the scenery and having to go lots of places to harvest reagents (even if I didn't like having to have reagents, I loved the exploration).
Overall a game that mixed SB and EQ2 would be a great game for me. I'm interested in EQN because of Smedley's interest in EvE; if EQN was to become a fantasy styled EvE I would find my new mmoRPG home. I think that EQN will still be a pretty cool game even if it's PvE based. I do agree though that segregated zones/servers spread a game too thin and water down the content to where neither camp really thrive in the game.
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.
I didn't mean to sound contradictory. I was just jumping in on what I thought was a good opening to talk about the fallacy of segregated pvp areas/zones/servers.
Have you looked into DFUW btw? It has its flaws, but it probably best represents Shadowbane's legacy at the moment.
No worries, glad civil discussions can still be had.
DF - I was in the beta and played for about a month. I want to state right up front that DF and probably DFUW is a great game for a player that likes more action oriented combat, the game play was smooth, the crafting was decent and the exploration was insane (in a good way). Why I won't be playing DF or MO or any manual style combat game is I realized I just didn't have as much fun. The concepts are right up my alley, but the actual gameplay was not to my liking. I was also hoping for more free formed cities, wherever the guild could choose, not just pre chosen spots in the world that the devs created. I probably could have enjoyed the combat but I hated having to use reagents to cast spells, I'm more old school where I like a mana/power pool.
A few things I liked about DF were how if you chose 1 path in magic it blocked you from going down an alternate path. I enjoyed the combat in the water, and even mounted combat. I enjoyed the scenery and having to go lots of places to harvest reagents (even if I didn't like having to have reagents, I loved the exploration).
Overall a game that mixed SB and EQ2 would be a great game for me. I'm interested in EQN because of Smedley's interest in EvE; if EQN was to become a fantasy styled EvE I would find my new mmoRPG home. I think that EQN will still be a pretty cool game even if it's PvE based. I do agree though that segregated zones/servers spread a game too thin and water down the content to where neither camp really thrive in the game.
DFUW actually changed the game from DF1 in good ways and bad ways. You don't use reagents anymore really. You do have 1 generic reagent called "dust of the elements" but it's basically just like ammo for mages. You don't have to worry about having a certain amount of each kind depending on what spells you like to cast etc.
And yeah I agree about freely making cities wherever you want. It would be cool to not just be able to place cities wherever you want in the world, but also be able to design those cities the way you want. In DFUW the layout of the city is predetermined. I guess they do it for balance reasons, but it's a little unfortunate.
I will say this though, I LOVE the overall feel of the world. Player cities have looooong histories stretching back all the way into the first DF. They have cool names and styles/layouts to them. You wouldn't have that in a game where you can build a city wherever you want.
Also, have you looked into The Repopulation? The combat is more tab-targeting based like oldschool MMO's and is going to have a pretty in-depth siege mechanic.
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.
The PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server.
Personally, I hope SOE makes the game OW FFA PvP. Then I will laugh my butt off when this game fails, or becomes a niche game, like every other OW FFA PvP game attempt. Everyone always likes to mention EVEs success as a barometer in which to gauge the success of an OW FFA PvP game, while all the while failing to recognize that the only reason EVE has been as successful (if you want to call a 500k player base successful) is because its the only game of its kind. Trust that if there was only one game featuring PvE content, it would have a player base easily numbering in the 50 million, not 500K like EVEs population.
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.
The PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server.
Personally, I hope SOE makes the game OW FFA PvP. Then I will laugh my butt off when this game fails, or becomes a niche game, like every other OW FFA PvP game attempt. Everyone always likes to mention EVEs success as a barometer in which to gauge the success of an OW FFA PvP game, while all the while failing to recognize that the only reason EVE has been so successful is because its the only game of its kind. Trust that if there was only one game featuring PvE content, it would have a player base easily numbering in the 50 million, not 500K like EVEs population.
You view the population as "pvpers" and "pveers." In other words, you're either somebody preying on the weak, or you're the weak. This isn't true. There are a ton of people that simply want a game with depth. In UO, the only blue (innocent) players I ever killed were "noto PK's", basically players that didn't get enough kill counts to go red, but would still kill people. Sneaky assholes, basically. So in your narrow view of the population, where do I fit in?
You talk about this like the only decision is whether or not to have pvp on all servers or only some servers. What we're saying is we want a game that's DESIGNED with pvp in mind. Try taking pvp out of Darkfall, it's not gonna happen. The game is built around city building/sieging, that couldn't exist without pvp.
It's NOT that we want to grief people and take their stuff. Our opinion is that the best game possible simply doesn't restrict people from fighting... that doesn't mean we always want to fight. It means arbitrary rules saying you can't do something in general removes immersion, pvp most of all.
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.
The PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server.
This isn't the reason at all. You are way off base.
Where many are coming from is that we want a game designed from the ground up with a fully integrated PVE/PVP experience such that the economy and gameplay are dependent on the existence of both.
It is a game design philosophy and a point you have either misunderstood or overlooked.
edit: the part of your post I cut out I just found illogical.
You view the population as "pvpers" and "pveers." In other words, you're either somebody preying on the weak, or you're the weak. This isn't true. There are a ton of people that simply want a game with depth. In UO, the only blue (innocent) players I ever killed were "noto PK's", basically players that didn't get enough kill counts to go red, but would still kill people. Sneaky assholes, basically. So in your narrow view of the population, where do I fit in?
You talk about this like the only decision is whether or not to have pvp on all servers or only some servers. What we're saying is we want a game that's DESIGNED with pvp in mind. Try taking pvp out of Darkfall, it's not gonna happen. The game is built around city building/sieging, that couldn't exist without pvp.
It's NOT that we want to grief people and take their stuff. Our opinion is that the best game possible simply doesn't restrict people from fighting... that doesn't mean we always want to fight. It means arbitrary rules saying you can't do something in general removes immersion, pvp most of all.
I am going to assume that you are new to this debate so I'll provide a brief refresher. If we were all in agreement that EQN should implement "consensual" PvP, then I am certain this subject would not have been so hotly debate for the past month. The heated debate comes in when Pro OW FFA PvP folks insist that EQN should have forced "non-consensual" OW FFA PvP. PvE players should not be forced to PvP simply to satisfy the wants of the hard core FFA PvP crowd. You would think this an obvious proposition, surprisingly to the FFA PvP crowd it is not.
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.
The PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server.
This isn't the reason at all. You are way off base.
Where many are coming from is that we want a game designed from the ground up with a fully integrated PVE/PVP experience such that the economy and gameplay are dependent on the existence of both.
It is a game design philosophy and a point you have either misunderstood or overlooked.
edit: the part of your post I cut out I just found illogical.
Again, if the PvP is "consensual," then there is no debate.
You view the population as "pvpers" and "pveers." In other words, you're either somebody preying on the weak, or you're the weak.
I'll start taking you seriously once you stop labeling PvE players as "weak".
Well first of all, that was my interpretation of this guy's opinion. PvP players prey on the PvE players and the PvE players are helpless against them. That seems to be how every PvE player views the situation in the context of these debates. Do you deny that in a situation where a PK is hunting a PvE player, that the PvE player is at a disadvantage? If you don't deny that, then I'm not sure what other word I'm supposed to use besides weak.
Also tbh I don't really care if you take me seriously, because I don't take you seriously. You totally dropped the conversation we were having, no apologies about your assumptions about me, nothing.... just gone. Why would I care if you take me seriously?
The PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server.
This isn't the reason at all. You are way off base.
Where many are coming from is that we want a game designed from the ground up with a fully integrated PVE/PVP experience such that the economy and gameplay are dependent on the existence of both.
It is a game design philosophy and a point you have either misunderstood or overlooked.
edit: the part of your post I cut out I just found illogical.
Again, if the PvP is "consensual," then there is no debate.
I feel like the point is here -> .
o/ <- yet you are way over here
It could be me that is lost though, at what point does the word consensual become relevant in regards to anything I have said here.
I was outlining what I want. I get that you want "consensual" pvp by your definition. That has no bearing on my explanation to you of why your assumption that we want "PvEers" to "populate the servers" is wrong.
The PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server.
This isn't the reason at all. You are way off base.
Where many are coming from is that we want a game designed from the ground up with a fully integrated PVE/PVP experience such that the economy and gameplay are dependent on the existence of both.
It is a game design philosophy and a point you have either misunderstood or overlooked.
edit: the part of your post I cut out I just found illogical.
Again, if the PvP is "consensual," then there is no debate.
I feel like the point is here -> .
o/ <- yet you are way over here
It could be me that is lost though, at what point does the word consensual become relevant in regards to anything I have said here.
I was outlining what I want. I get that you want "consensual" pvp by your definition. That has no bearing on my explanation to you of why your assumption that we want "PvEers" to "populate the servers" is wrong.
I'm not usually the kind of guy to pile on... but I have to say that I've never argued with such incompetent debaters as the "PvE" crowd on this discussion. It seems like all of their arguments come down to ad hominem attacks, assumptions, misconceptions about previous examples of open world pvp, etc. And when you correct them on it, they flat out ignore your points, twist them into something they're not or just go back to ad hominem attacks. Really frustrating and disappointing.
The PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server.
This isn't the reason at all. You are way off base.
Where many are coming from is that we want a game designed from the ground up with a fully integrated PVE/PVP experience such that the economy and gameplay are dependent on the existence of both.
It is a game design philosophy and a point you have either misunderstood or overlooked.
edit: the part of your post I cut out I just found illogical.
Again, if the PvP is "consensual," then there is no debate.
I feel like the point is here -> .
o/ <- yet you are way over here
It could be me that is lost though, at what point does the word consensual become relevant in regards to anything I have said here.
I was outlining what I want. I get that you want "consensual" pvp by your definition. That has no bearing on my explanation to you of why your assumption that we want "PvEers" to "populate the servers" is wrong.
The word "consensual" is imminently relevant. It is what this debate is all about. If your contention is that the word "consensual" is not relevant, then you are right, we have nothing to discuss.
The sole issue in this entire PvE vs PvP debate is whether EQN should have "consensual" or "non-consensual" PvP. If we can all agree that EQN should have "consensual" PvP, then ...
... no other compromise would be necessary rendering the very nature of this entire thread irrelevant.
The PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server.
This isn't the reason at all. You are way off base.
Where many are coming from is that we want a game designed from the ground up with a fully integrated PVE/PVP experience such that the economy and gameplay are dependent on the existence of both.
It is a game design philosophy and a point you have either misunderstood or overlooked.
edit: the part of your post I cut out I just found illogical.
Again, if the PvP is "consensual," then there is no debate.
I feel like the point is here -> .
o/ <- yet you are way over here
It could be me that is lost though, at what point does the word consensual become relevant in regards to anything I have said here.
I was outlining what I want. I get that you want "consensual" pvp by your definition. That has no bearing on my explanation to you of why your assumption that we want "PvEers" to "populate the servers" is wrong.
The word "consensual" is imminently relevant. It is what this debate is all about. If your contention is that the word "consensual" is not relevant, then you are right, we have nothing to discuss.
The sole issue in this entire PvE vs PvP debate is whether EQN should have "consensual" or "non-consensual" PvP. If we can all agree that EQN should have "consensual" PvP, then ...
... no other compromise would be necessary rendering the very nature of this thread irrelevant.
Dude... you made a point. And he told you why you were wrong. Now you're just totally sidestepping your misunderstanding and saying it's not what the thread is about. Cop-out.
The word "consensual" is imminently relevant. It is what this debate is all about. If your contention is that the word "consensual" is not relevant, then you are right, we have nothing to discuss.
The sole issue in this entire PvE vs PvP debate is whether EQN should have "consensual" or "non-consensual" PvP. If we can all agree that EQN should have "consensual" PvP, then ...
... no other compromise would be necessary rendering the very nature of this thread irrelevant.
In your opinion, how would you make PvP consensual without ruining immersion, i.e. battlegrounds / instanced fights. Both of which I think would take away from the sandbox elements of a game.
Well first of all, that was my interpretation of this guy's opinion. PvP players prey on the PvE players and the PvE players are helpless against them. That seems to be how every PvE player views the situation in the context of these debates. Do you deny that in a situation where a PK is hunting a PvE player, that the PvE player is at a disadvantage? If you don't deny that, then I'm not sure what other word I'm supposed to use besides weak.
*sigh*
"Weak" has little relevance to someone being at a disadvantage. That's called a handicap. You are not strong because you attack someone more handicapped than you who never opted for it, nor are they weak because of it, they simply chose not to play. This attitude of griefers that everyone who doesn't participate in their silly little game is a carebear, weakling, or something else is precisely what makes it so difficult to argue for a simulated world that simply has PvP as an option. Your language advocates kill or be killed worlds, why in the world would a PvEer want that? Change your language, and people will listen to you. Continue with this superiority and lording over, everyone will run away.
If you mean at a disadvantage, then yes. If you need a PvE fit to do PvE activities, then you are handicapped when participating in PvE. If you cannot improve in crafting while improving in combat, you are handicapped because your character is not skilled in combat. If players who chose to concentrate their activities in these areas are always handicapped against PvP and are constantly at their mercy, that is a poorly designed game for the non-PvP side and nobody who is more interested in the non-PvP side will ever prefer it.
Originally posted by Nitan66
In your opinion, how would you make PvP consensual without ruining immersion.
Lack of open PvP doesn't ruin immersion that much at the end of the day, plenty of people got immersed in EQ and SWG, your argument isn't really valid. If anything, FFA PvP often results in less immersive worlds because it's implemented in a very clunky and gamey manner where people spawn camp. That's not immersive. At all.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW Currently playing: GW2, EVE Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
The word "consensual" is imminently relevant. It is what this debate is all about. If your contention is that the word "consensual" is not relevant, then you are right, we have nothing to discuss.
The sole issue in this entire PvE vs PvP debate is whether EQN should have "consensual" or "non-consensual" PvP. If we can all agree that EQN should have "consensual" PvP, then ...
... no other compromise would be necessary rendering the very nature of this thread irrelevant.
In your opinion, how would you make PvP consensual without ruining immersion, i.e. battlegrounds / instanced fights. Both of which I think would take away from the sandbox elements of a game.
.... and how would you suggest it be made non-consensual without ruining immersion for the larger number of PvE players who find being randomly PK'd immersion breaking?
Do not talk about consequences, strong or otherwise for consequences to kick in there has to be prior PK and we do not want that at all without consent.
In your opinion, how would you make PvP consensual without ruining immersion.
Lack of open PvP doesn't ruin immersion that much at the end of the day, plenty of people got immersed in EQ and SWG, your argument isn't really valid. If anything, FFA PvP often results in less immersive worlds because it's implemented in a very clunky and gamey manner where people spawn camp. That's not immersive. At all.
First off, I wasn't being argumentative, although I don't blame you for assuming so. As the purpose of this thread is to find a compromise between PvP and PvE, I would like to hear suggestions concerning that. And as far as I know, EQ didn't have any PvP outside of PvP servers, but then again I haven't played in a decade nor have I ever played SWG. I'm not saying they aren't immersive games, but I wouldn't consider EQ a sandbox either. Of course that's only my opinion.
.... and how would you suggest it be made non-consensual without ruining immersion for the larger number of PvE players who find being randomly PK'd immersion breaking?
Do not talk about consequences, strong or otherwise for consequences to kick in there has to be prior PK and we do not want that at all without consent.
If you read the thread at all you would see I already put my 2 cents on how I would implement it.
And to take away consequences is stupid. Consequences are the most powerful tool available without changing the nature of something. Our entire justice system is based upon consequences. The difficulty in applying them in a game is to choose the correct ones. And yes, I do think there are consequences that exist to prevent PKing.
In your opinion, how would you make PvP consensual without ruining immersion.
Lack of open PvP doesn't ruin immersion that much at the end of the day, plenty of people got immersed in EQ and SWG, your argument isn't really valid. If anything, FFA PvP often results in less immersive worlds because it's implemented in a very clunky and gamey manner where people spawn camp. That's not immersive. At all.
First off, I wasn't being argumentative, although I don't blame you for assuming so. As the purpose of this thread is to find a compromise between PvP and PvE, I would like to hear suggestions concerning that. And as far as I know, EQ didn't have any PvP outside of PvP servers, but then again I haven't played in a decade nor have I ever played SWG. I'm not saying they aren't immersive games, but I wouldn't consider EQ a sandbox either. Of course that's only my opinion.
The more I consider the topic the more I believe the only real compromise that can be had with our current community is the one we are currently living under.
The compromise of "you play your game and I will play mine."
Hardly a novel viewpoint I know, but it does seem to ring true from where I sit.
Things may some day change, but until then I do not expect change.
Well first of all, that was my interpretation of this guy's opinion. PvP players prey on the PvE players and the PvE players are helpless against them. That seems to be how every PvE player views the situation in the context of these debates. Do you deny that in a situation where a PK is hunting a PvE player, that the PvE player is at a disadvantage? If you don't deny that, then I'm not sure what other word I'm supposed to use besides weak.
*sigh*
"Weak" has little relevance to someone being at a disadvantage. That's called a handicap. You are not strong because you attack someone more handicapped than you who never opted for it, nor are they weak because of it, they simply chose not to play. This attitude of griefers that everyone who doesn't participate in their silly little game is a carebear, weakling, or something else is precisely what makes it so difficult to argue for a simulated world that simply has PvP as an option. Your language advocates kill or be killed worlds, why in the world would a PvEer want that? Change your language, and people will listen to you. Continue with this superiority and lording over, everyone will run away.
This is truly pathetic. A PK killing pve/harvesting characters evokes the phrase "preying on the weak." Why do you take such offense about that? It's a totally reasonable and accurate phrase to use and was not even the point of my post. I'm not saying anything about them as human beings, though if I had to guess I would say that pve players are probably worse at pvp than pvp players (for obvious reasons), so I don't see how calling them weak is a stretch.
I DIDN'T SAY THAT THEY'RE WEAK BECAUSE THEY DON'T PARTICIPATE IN MY GAMES. I never said that. The vast majority of your "arguments" are based on stuff I never even said.
And a PvE player would want that world because of the satisfying nature of a game that has risk/reward. Is that really so hard to understand? It's more satisfying to earn something if there's a chance you're going to lose it. That's like the whole IDEA behind the age-old concept of risk/reward. The riskier the situation is, the more rewarding it is.
If you mean at a disadvantage, then yes. If you need a PvE fit to do PvE activities, then you are handicapped when participating in PvE. If you cannot improve in crafting while improving in combat, you are handicapped because your character is not skilled in combat. If players who chose to concentrate their activities in these areas are always handicapped against PvP and are constantly at their mercy, that is a poorly designed game for the non-PvP side and nobody who is more interested in the non-PvP side will ever prefer it.
First I like how you're still talking about EVE lol. Second, being handicapped means you're weaker. I'm about done arguing about definitions, because A) it's a waste of time and you're objectively and factually wrong. I don't care WHY the person is weaker, they're weaker.
Third, there ARE non-pvp people who prefer that kind of game because of the satisfaction and rush that comes along with harvesting/crafting/pve'ing in dangerous situations.
Are you going to continue to ignore the other discussion we were having? Why would anybody want to ever talk to you? It's like trading with a known thief. The moment you're made to look silly in an argument you just stop responding. Not cool.
.... and how would you suggest it be made non-consensual without ruining immersion for the larger number of PvE players who find being randomly PK'd immersion breaking?
Do not talk about consequences, strong or otherwise for consequences to kick in there has to be prior PK and we do not want that at all without consent.
If you read the thread at all you would see I already put my 2 cents on how I would implement it.
And to take away consequences is stupid. Consequences are the most powerful tool available without changing the nature of something. Our entire justice system is based upon consequences. The difficulty in applying them in a game is to choose the correct ones. And yes, I do think there are consequences that exist to prevent PKing.
Actually I have read this entire thread, I have been following it from the beginning. As to your posts I have just re-read them all and I do not think you have proposed much other than large territories and beacon fires.
As to consequences I say it again for a consequence to happen there has to be a prior event. So player killing has already occurred, breaking immersion for those that do not want PvP at all.
PS. I know of a number of legal systems I have never heard of a justice system, just legal systems relabeled for political reasons.
And a PvE player would want that world because of the satisfying nature of a game that has risk/reward. Is that really so hard to understand? It's more satisfying to earn something if there's a chance you're going to lose it. That's like the whole IDEA behind the age-old concept of risk/reward. The riskier the situation is, the more rewarding it is.
On the topic of what a PVE player may want.
I think this is a very strong point you bring up that goes a bit deeper than is usually given credit. How often is it in life that we don't exactly always know what we want? Can we predict with certainty what art we will enjoy or what music will move us? Is our gaming hobby not also in some way like that?
I never participated in PvP in any games aside from when i was "forced" by a game I enjoyed that had FFA pvp (M59). it wasn't until my sister mocked me in WOW because she was doing well in battlegrounds that I did some just so she would not be able to lord that over me. I forced myself to play a game type that I had never enjoyed and I learned that I could enjoy it.
I'm not claiming everyone out there who avoids PvP is a PvP lover deep down inside and just doesn't know it. I'm simply submitting the question -- Can we ever be absolutely certain what we will love today, tomorrow, and next year? Especially if that thing is new to us in some way.
My answer is that anyone who claims certainty in this is either a person far advanced beyond what I am, or being at least somewhat dishonest with themselves.
First off, I wasn't being argumentative, although I don't blame you for assuming so. As the purpose of this thread is to find a compromise between PvP and PvE, I would like to hear suggestions concerning that. And as far as I know, EQ didn't have any PvP outside of PvP servers, but then again I haven't played in a decade nor have I ever played SWG. I'm not saying they aren't immersive games, but I wouldn't consider EQ a sandbox either. Of course that's only my opinion.
Yeah, I'm sorry, I've gotten a bit heated from arguing with some of the other people in this thread.
I just think that you don't want to claim certain games are not immersive just because the PvP is not open. Generally, people are fairly comfortable with the idea because it amounts to an aggregation of: "if you tried to PvP you'd be dead instantly".
The only way I see bridging PvP and PvE, or, rather, adding FFA PvP to a sandbox is by equalizing PvP and PvE influences. In other words, PvPers won't have many influence paths that are stronger than monster paths, and vice versa, monsters will be as powerful and as dangerous as any PvPer. This actually makes a lot of sense, main reason that most games have a very strong disconnect between PvPers and PvEers is because the PvE AI is dumb as bricks and because PvPers use many exploits that aren't really part of the game world (and breaks immersion, btw), and also because PvPers are, well, immortal.
I think if the game was reworked in such a way that you would have highly safe zones that were indeed safe. While trying to still retain the theoretical possibility, this could be implemented by having extremely harsh penalties for PvP in safe zones to create a very strong deterrent. I don't exactly expect to be murdered in real life every waking moment, same here. I think Arche Age has some sort of a jail system? Not sure how it's implemented there.
It's also important that alts ore side accounts cannot be strong enough to do this. It's too easy and, again, immersion breaking when people make alts that have no reputation and own nothing that they do not care about who can grief people in safe zones. This shouldn't be happening.
Tbh, it is often easier simply to remove PvP from safe zones, because policing it takes a lot of effort that doesn't have much return, and it's very difficult to police the game against exploiters and alts. People behave very differently when they can't be properly punished for anything they'd want to do. To aid immersion you could simply add some ability to deal non-kill damage so basically I can in-game punch someone in the face, or maybe you could add small non-safe zones into certain portions of a safe zone (dingy street alleys or abandoned houses) to make things interesting.
Beyond safe zones, the PvP = PvE equivalency must apply. I generally found PvE very easy and passive in most games, so PvP always presents a very glaring difference and the game just becomes unbalanced in that regard. Becoming better at beating PvE enemies should also make you stronger against PvPers. If this occurs, PvE players won't be so heavily handicapped and they could treat a ganker like just another mob. Similarly, if a PvEer is regularly attacked by mobs while mining, they would have little reason to object if a PvPer did it instead since it's something they are, again, used to. I don't understand why games have such a discrepancy between the two. Why don't Guristas Pirates jam me, or harpies fly around while I am trying to mine some ore?
I think a bigger concern with this becomes penalty for loss and death. Some games have highly harsh ones that will not work with inventive mobs since it will make the game very difficult, but that is my point - if the PvPers are making the game far more difficult than it would be without them, something is wrong with the PvE or PvP side of the game.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW Currently playing: GW2, EVE Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
Comments
I didn't mean to sound contradictory. I was just jumping in on what I thought was a good opening to talk about the fallacy of segregated pvp areas/zones/servers.
Have you looked into DFUW btw? It has its flaws, but it probably best represents Shadowbane's legacy at the moment.
Well, i m absolutely against this type of PvP, as i say before i like to do PvP sometimes but when i decide to do it.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
No worries, glad civil discussions can still be had.
DF - I was in the beta and played for about a month. I want to state right up front that DF and probably DFUW is a great game for a player that likes more action oriented combat, the game play was smooth, the crafting was decent and the exploration was insane (in a good way). Why I won't be playing DF or MO or any manual style combat game is I realized I just didn't have as much fun. The concepts are right up my alley, but the actual gameplay was not to my liking. I was also hoping for more free formed cities, wherever the guild could choose, not just pre chosen spots in the world that the devs created. I probably could have enjoyed the combat but I hated having to use reagents to cast spells, I'm more old school where I like a mana/power pool.
A few things I liked about DF were how if you chose 1 path in magic it blocked you from going down an alternate path. I enjoyed the combat in the water, and even mounted combat. I enjoyed the scenery and having to go lots of places to harvest reagents (even if I didn't like having to have reagents, I loved the exploration).
Overall a game that mixed SB and EQ2 would be a great game for me. I'm interested in EQN because of Smedley's interest in EvE; if EQN was to become a fantasy styled EvE I would find my new mmoRPG home. I think that EQN will still be a pretty cool game even if it's PvE based. I do agree though that segregated zones/servers spread a game too thin and water down the content to where neither camp really thrive in the game.
DFUW actually changed the game from DF1 in good ways and bad ways. You don't use reagents anymore really. You do have 1 generic reagent called "dust of the elements" but it's basically just like ammo for mages. You don't have to worry about having a certain amount of each kind depending on what spells you like to cast etc.
And yeah I agree about freely making cities wherever you want. It would be cool to not just be able to place cities wherever you want in the world, but also be able to design those cities the way you want. In DFUW the layout of the city is predetermined. I guess they do it for balance reasons, but it's a little unfortunate.
I will say this though, I LOVE the overall feel of the world. Player cities have looooong histories stretching back all the way into the first DF. They have cool names and styles/layouts to them. You wouldn't have that in a game where you can build a city wherever you want.
Also, have you looked into The Repopulation? The combat is more tab-targeting based like oldschool MMO's and is going to have a pretty in-depth siege mechanic.
The PvE crowd doesn't need to compromise. They are the one's saying they want separate PvE and PvP servers. In other words, they can do without PvPers. PvPers, on the other hand, do not want separate servers. They want everyone in one server. Why do you think that is? Well, because without PvEers, PvPers have no one to populate their server.
Personally, I hope SOE makes the game OW FFA PvP. Then I will laugh my butt off when this game fails, or becomes a niche game, like every other OW FFA PvP game attempt. Everyone always likes to mention EVEs success as a barometer in which to gauge the success of an OW FFA PvP game, while all the while failing to recognize that the only reason EVE has been as successful (if you want to call a 500k player base successful) is because its the only game of its kind. Trust that if there was only one game featuring PvE content, it would have a player base easily numbering in the 50 million, not 500K like EVEs population.
You view the population as "pvpers" and "pveers." In other words, you're either somebody preying on the weak, or you're the weak. This isn't true. There are a ton of people that simply want a game with depth. In UO, the only blue (innocent) players I ever killed were "noto PK's", basically players that didn't get enough kill counts to go red, but would still kill people. Sneaky assholes, basically. So in your narrow view of the population, where do I fit in?
You talk about this like the only decision is whether or not to have pvp on all servers or only some servers. What we're saying is we want a game that's DESIGNED with pvp in mind. Try taking pvp out of Darkfall, it's not gonna happen. The game is built around city building/sieging, that couldn't exist without pvp.
It's NOT that we want to grief people and take their stuff. Our opinion is that the best game possible simply doesn't restrict people from fighting... that doesn't mean we always want to fight. It means arbitrary rules saying you can't do something in general removes immersion, pvp most of all.
This isn't the reason at all. You are way off base.
Where many are coming from is that we want a game designed from the ground up with a fully integrated PVE/PVP experience such that the economy and gameplay are dependent on the existence of both.
It is a game design philosophy and a point you have either misunderstood or overlooked.
edit: the part of your post I cut out I just found illogical.
I am going to assume that you are new to this debate so I'll provide a brief refresher. If we were all in agreement that EQN should implement "consensual" PvP, then I am certain this subject would not have been so hotly debate for the past month. The heated debate comes in when Pro OW FFA PvP folks insist that EQN should have forced "non-consensual" OW FFA PvP. PvE players should not be forced to PvP simply to satisfy the wants of the hard core FFA PvP crowd. You would think this an obvious proposition, surprisingly to the FFA PvP crowd it is not.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
Again, if the PvP is "consensual," then there is no debate.
Well first of all, that was my interpretation of this guy's opinion. PvP players prey on the PvE players and the PvE players are helpless against them. That seems to be how every PvE player views the situation in the context of these debates. Do you deny that in a situation where a PK is hunting a PvE player, that the PvE player is at a disadvantage? If you don't deny that, then I'm not sure what other word I'm supposed to use besides weak.
Also tbh I don't really care if you take me seriously, because I don't take you seriously. You totally dropped the conversation we were having, no apologies about your assumptions about me, nothing.... just gone. Why would I care if you take me seriously?
I feel like the point is here -> .
o/ <- yet you are way over here
It could be me that is lost though, at what point does the word consensual become relevant in regards to anything I have said here.
I was outlining what I want. I get that you want "consensual" pvp by your definition. That has no bearing on my explanation to you of why your assumption that we want "PvEers" to "populate the servers" is wrong.
I'm not usually the kind of guy to pile on... but I have to say that I've never argued with such incompetent debaters as the "PvE" crowd on this discussion. It seems like all of their arguments come down to ad hominem attacks, assumptions, misconceptions about previous examples of open world pvp, etc. And when you correct them on it, they flat out ignore your points, twist them into something they're not or just go back to ad hominem attacks. Really frustrating and disappointing.
The word "consensual" is imminently relevant. It is what this debate is all about. If your contention is that the word "consensual" is not relevant, then you are right, we have nothing to discuss.
The sole issue in this entire PvE vs PvP debate is whether EQN should have "consensual" or "non-consensual" PvP. If we can all agree that EQN should have "consensual" PvP, then ...
... no other compromise would be necessary rendering the very nature of this entire thread irrelevant.
Dude... you made a point. And he told you why you were wrong. Now you're just totally sidestepping your misunderstanding and saying it's not what the thread is about. Cop-out.
In your opinion, how would you make PvP consensual without ruining immersion, i.e. battlegrounds / instanced fights. Both of which I think would take away from the sandbox elements of a game.
*sigh*
"Weak" has little relevance to someone being at a disadvantage. That's called a handicap. You are not strong because you attack someone more handicapped than you who never opted for it, nor are they weak because of it, they simply chose not to play. This attitude of griefers that everyone who doesn't participate in their silly little game is a carebear, weakling, or something else is precisely what makes it so difficult to argue for a simulated world that simply has PvP as an option. Your language advocates kill or be killed worlds, why in the world would a PvEer want that? Change your language, and people will listen to you. Continue with this superiority and lording over, everyone will run away.
If you mean at a disadvantage, then yes. If you need a PvE fit to do PvE activities, then you are handicapped when participating in PvE. If you cannot improve in crafting while improving in combat, you are handicapped because your character is not skilled in combat. If players who chose to concentrate their activities in these areas are always handicapped against PvP and are constantly at their mercy, that is a poorly designed game for the non-PvP side and nobody who is more interested in the non-PvP side will ever prefer it.
Lack of open PvP doesn't ruin immersion that much at the end of the day, plenty of people got immersed in EQ and SWG, your argument isn't really valid. If anything, FFA PvP often results in less immersive worlds because it's implemented in a very clunky and gamey manner where people spawn camp. That's not immersive. At all.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
.... and how would you suggest it be made non-consensual without ruining immersion for the larger number of PvE players who find being randomly PK'd immersion breaking?
Do not talk about consequences, strong or otherwise for consequences to kick in there has to be prior PK and we do not want that at all without consent.
First off, I wasn't being argumentative, although I don't blame you for assuming so. As the purpose of this thread is to find a compromise between PvP and PvE, I would like to hear suggestions concerning that. And as far as I know, EQ didn't have any PvP outside of PvP servers, but then again I haven't played in a decade nor have I ever played SWG. I'm not saying they aren't immersive games, but I wouldn't consider EQ a sandbox either. Of course that's only my opinion.
If you read the thread at all you would see I already put my 2 cents on how I would implement it.
And to take away consequences is stupid. Consequences are the most powerful tool available without changing the nature of something. Our entire justice system is based upon consequences. The difficulty in applying them in a game is to choose the correct ones. And yes, I do think there are consequences that exist to prevent PKing.
The more I consider the topic the more I believe the only real compromise that can be had with our current community is the one we are currently living under.
The compromise of "you play your game and I will play mine."
Hardly a novel viewpoint I know, but it does seem to ring true from where I sit.
Things may some day change, but until then I do not expect change.
This is truly pathetic. A PK killing pve/harvesting characters evokes the phrase "preying on the weak." Why do you take such offense about that? It's a totally reasonable and accurate phrase to use and was not even the point of my post. I'm not saying anything about them as human beings, though if I had to guess I would say that pve players are probably worse at pvp than pvp players (for obvious reasons), so I don't see how calling them weak is a stretch.
I DIDN'T SAY THAT THEY'RE WEAK BECAUSE THEY DON'T PARTICIPATE IN MY GAMES. I never said that. The vast majority of your "arguments" are based on stuff I never even said.
And a PvE player would want that world because of the satisfying nature of a game that has risk/reward. Is that really so hard to understand? It's more satisfying to earn something if there's a chance you're going to lose it. That's like the whole IDEA behind the age-old concept of risk/reward. The riskier the situation is, the more rewarding it is.
First I like how you're still talking about EVE lol. Second, being handicapped means you're weaker. I'm about done arguing about definitions, because A) it's a waste of time and
you're objectively and factually wrong. I don't care WHY the person is weaker, they're weaker.
Third, there ARE non-pvp people who prefer that kind of game because of the satisfaction and rush that comes along with harvesting/crafting/pve'ing in dangerous situations.
Are you going to continue to ignore the other discussion we were having? Why would anybody want to ever talk to you? It's like trading with a known thief. The moment you're made to look silly in an argument you just stop responding. Not cool.
Actually I have read this entire thread, I have been following it from the beginning. As to your posts I have just re-read them all and I do not think you have proposed much other than large territories and beacon fires.
As to consequences I say it again for a consequence to happen there has to be a prior event. So player killing has already occurred, breaking immersion for those that do not want PvP at all.
PS. I know of a number of legal systems I have never heard of a justice system, just legal systems relabeled for political reasons.
On the topic of what a PVE player may want.
I think this is a very strong point you bring up that goes a bit deeper than is usually given credit. How often is it in life that we don't exactly always know what we want? Can we predict with certainty what art we will enjoy or what music will move us? Is our gaming hobby not also in some way like that?
I never participated in PvP in any games aside from when i was "forced" by a game I enjoyed that had FFA pvp (M59). it wasn't until my sister mocked me in WOW because she was doing well in battlegrounds that I did some just so she would not be able to lord that over me. I forced myself to play a game type that I had never enjoyed and I learned that I could enjoy it.
I'm not claiming everyone out there who avoids PvP is a PvP lover deep down inside and just doesn't know it. I'm simply submitting the question -- Can we ever be absolutely certain what we will love today, tomorrow, and next year? Especially if that thing is new to us in some way.
My answer is that anyone who claims certainty in this is either a person far advanced beyond what I am, or being at least somewhat dishonest with themselves.
Yeah, I'm sorry, I've gotten a bit heated from arguing with some of the other people in this thread.
I just think that you don't want to claim certain games are not immersive just because the PvP is not open. Generally, people are fairly comfortable with the idea because it amounts to an aggregation of: "if you tried to PvP you'd be dead instantly".
The only way I see bridging PvP and PvE, or, rather, adding FFA PvP to a sandbox is by equalizing PvP and PvE influences. In other words, PvPers won't have many influence paths that are stronger than monster paths, and vice versa, monsters will be as powerful and as dangerous as any PvPer. This actually makes a lot of sense, main reason that most games have a very strong disconnect between PvPers and PvEers is because the PvE AI is dumb as bricks and because PvPers use many exploits that aren't really part of the game world (and breaks immersion, btw), and also because PvPers are, well, immortal.
I think if the game was reworked in such a way that you would have highly safe zones that were indeed safe. While trying to still retain the theoretical possibility, this could be implemented by having extremely harsh penalties for PvP in safe zones to create a very strong deterrent. I don't exactly expect to be murdered in real life every waking moment, same here. I think Arche Age has some sort of a jail system? Not sure how it's implemented there.
It's also important that alts ore side accounts cannot be strong enough to do this. It's too easy and, again, immersion breaking when people make alts that have no reputation and own nothing that they do not care about who can grief people in safe zones. This shouldn't be happening.
Tbh, it is often easier simply to remove PvP from safe zones, because policing it takes a lot of effort that doesn't have much return, and it's very difficult to police the game against exploiters and alts. People behave very differently when they can't be properly punished for anything they'd want to do. To aid immersion you could simply add some ability to deal non-kill damage so basically I can in-game punch someone in the face, or maybe you could add small non-safe zones into certain portions of a safe zone (dingy street alleys or abandoned houses) to make things interesting.
Beyond safe zones, the PvP = PvE equivalency must apply. I generally found PvE very easy and passive in most games, so PvP always presents a very glaring difference and the game just becomes unbalanced in that regard. Becoming better at beating PvE enemies should also make you stronger against PvPers. If this occurs, PvE players won't be so heavily handicapped and they could treat a ganker like just another mob. Similarly, if a PvEer is regularly attacked by mobs while mining, they would have little reason to object if a PvPer did it instead since it's something they are, again, used to. I don't understand why games have such a discrepancy between the two. Why don't Guristas Pirates jam me, or harpies fly around while I am trying to mine some ore?
I think a bigger concern with this becomes penalty for loss and death. Some games have highly harsh ones that will not work with inventive mobs since it will make the game very difficult, but that is my point - if the PvPers are making the game far more difficult than it would be without them, something is wrong with the PvE or PvP side of the game.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?