People keep talking about PvP breaking PvE, but I don't see why. Maybe if PvP is introduced into a game where there is already complex PvE it would break it. But if the game is designed with PvP and PvE in mind, why can't the mobs be balanced accordingly?
I'm so hesitant to even respond to you because you're unreasonable and have COMPLETELY ignored me in previous discussions when you were losing the argument. Also you insulted me personally. But I'm stubborn so here we go....
Just being there isn't what breaks it, it's how players play vrs how mob AI works that tends to break things. A skill that is too powerful in pvp because it has some effect that's making a class " OP " can sometimes be useful or critical in pve without being game breaking. ( or vise versa )
Once nerfed to bring it in line for pvp/pve, the skill becomes useless in the other and changes the whole dynamic of how that class plays.
That's because of how those games are designed. They're built from the ground up around things like snares, stuns, taunts, etc. There's nothing that says mobs can't be similar to players. Not to mention you could just have certain things work on mobs and not players. Just because you've seen other games get ruined by pvp changes, doesn't mean they're necessary.
It's easy to say just design a game so that doesn't happen, but history shows it's not that simple. No one else has done it...or even come close. The reason pve's are so vocal is because people are far better at figuring out things developers never intended so it's pvp that ends up with the skills that are broken or need changing and the pve side that gets the nerf.
You're just wrong, plain and simple. UO had great PvE, Darkfall had great PvE.
It happens the other way around some times but not nearly as often. I don't mind a game that has pvp but I know going in that if they're not split it's going to be one of those games that your class will see nerfs and broken skills because of changes from something I don't even do.
You can have different armor resistances for mobs and players, you can have certain skills not work on players or not work on mobs. This isn't a problem.
Most people seems to think that combat mechanics is a choice between FPS zerging and rigid trinity but there are many other possibilities.
Isn't this the crux of the entire debate though going on here so often! There are so many who feel a working system that can please differeng people is impossible, like this Sirbalin fellow. Then there are those who are open to the possibility that perhaps there is an evolution possible within the genre, great or small, that will make our current problems with games either obsolete or partially mitigated.
I am on the side that does not believe the choice is either PvE or PvP, I do not think the choice in combat mechanics is between Trinity combat or Zergfest.
Just because something is what we have seen from so many MMOs in the past does not mean that trend must continue because it is some sort of fundamental law of the universe.
Agree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
In my game experience the only system that works well in PvE is the HOLY TRINITY, it imply an aggro managment and a taunt skill. Without a tank with a taunt skill the traditional classes (pure healers, pure dps) cant do their job, cause if they are attacked by mobs and bosses they will probably die, without the healer the tank will be killed as well, without dps you will probably dont be able to kill your enemy (a strong boss for example).
This system is the only one that need a real coordination and interdependence between classes in a party, all classes are important and fondamental for the others due their specic skills and role.
The only alternative system i have tested in another game is the one used in GW2 and i think that is a real fail. Every classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (stay alive, heal themself and do dps) so every class in a group can be replaced by another.
You really didn't say much about the necessity of a taunt ability. Just that without the taunt, the healers and dps would die... why? Many many games exist with tanks that don't have a taunt ability. Id suggest you broaden your horizons.
...because they will probably take the aggro (healing and dps generate many aggro) of the mobs or boss and they will be killed if there is no tank that can take the aggro on himself.
I have played all the most famous MMORPG released since 1999 and i have find in trinity a perfect system for my taste so i really dont need to broaden my horizons...maybe you need if you make this kind of questions.
Why would I need to broaden my horizons exactly? Do you understand what youre saying or are you just trying to clumsily throw it back in my face? You're the one making the claim that pve won't work without a taunt. I'm not making the claim that you cant have pve WITH a taunt. I'm merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities and that games exist that have good pve and no taunts. If you've never played those games, broaden your horizons.
Why would i need to broaden my orizon exactly?
Cause if you ask me why healers and dps will die without a tank that take aggro in a trinity mmorpg, you probably have not played an istance or a raid in EQ or WoW (just to mention the more famous) .
I m merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities...
If we talking about a MMORPG i disagree.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
I m merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities...
If we talking about a MMORPG i disagree.
you disagree with yourself?
In any case, I think I agree/disagree with you that taunt isn't necessarily integral and could theoretically be left out of PVE and leave an enjoyable game. Taunt is but one option on the infinite list of possibilities when it comes to threat management. Why not player/mob collision with actual body blocking and tanks that physically intercept mobs trying to attack their friends? (edit: wouldn't this sort of thing leave a tank useful in PvE AND PvP combat?)
I'm not offering a perfect solution, but just because you and I don't know a great alternative to taunt/threat mechanics doesn't mean there is no such thing possible.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Gholos Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Gholos Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Loke666 Originally posted by GholosAgree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
ftb>I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
In my game experience the only system that works well in PvE is the HOLY TRINITY, it imply an aggro managment and a taunt skill. Without a tank with a taunt skill the traditional classes (pure healers, pure dps) cant do their job, cause if they are attacked by mobs and bosses they will probably die, without the healer the tank will be killed as well, without dps you will probably dont be able to kill your enemy (a strong boss for example).
This system is the only one that need a real coordination and interdependence between classes in a party, all classes are important and fondamental for the others due their specic skills and role.
The only alternative system i have tested in another game is the one used in GW2 and i think that is a real fail. Every classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (stay alive, heal themself and do dps) so every class in a group can be replaced by another.
You really didn't say much about the necessity of a taunt ability. Just that without the taunt, the healers and dps would die... why? Many many games exist with tanks that don't have a taunt ability. Id suggest you broaden your horizons.
...because they will probably take the aggro (healing and dps generate many aggro) of the mobs or boss and they will be killed if there is no tank that can take the aggro on himself.
I have played all the most famous MMORPG released since 1999 and i have find in trinity a perfect system for my taste so i really dont need to broaden my horizons...maybe you need if you make this kind of questions.
Why would I need to broaden my horizons exactly? Do you understand what youre saying or are you just trying to clumsily throw it back in my face? You're the one making the claim that pve won't work without a taunt. I'm not making the claim that you cant have pve WITH a taunt. I'm merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities and that games exist that have good pve and no taunts. If you've never played those games, broaden your horizons.
Why would i need to broaden my orizon exactly?
Cause if you ask me why healers and dps will die without a tank that take aggro in a trinity mmorpg, you probably have not played an istance or a raid in EQ or WoW (just to mention the more famous) .
I m merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities...
If we talking about a MMORPG i disagree.
Dear lord.... just because you have played games that require things like taunts, that doesn't mean you need them. Again, you're making the claim here. You're saying good pve can't exist without taunts. I'm not here to teach you basic logic.
I m merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities...
If we talking about a MMORPG i disagree.
you disagree with yourself?
In any case, I think I agree/disagree with you that taunt isn't necessarily integral and could theoretically be left out of PVE and leave an enjoyable game. Taunt is but one option on the infinite list of possibilities when it comes to threat management. Why not player/mob collision with actual body blocking and tanks that physically intercept mobs trying to attack their friends? (edit: wouldn't this sort of thing leave a tank useful in PvE AND PvP combat?)
I'm not offering a perfect solution, but just because you and I don't know a great alternative to taunt/threat mechanics doesn't mean there is no such thing possible.
That's me saying that. He's one of the people saying you need taunts to have pve and so in order to have a game with pvp and pve, you have to find a way to make taunts work in pvp...
The fact that the second biggest MMO in the west is Eve, which has FFA PvP, and that the biggest game in the world, LoL, is all PvP, destroys that argument.
I think that GW2 actually have more active players but that really doesn't matter, PvP is surely large enough. If nothing else does games like WoT, DOTA and LOL prove that even if they aren't exactly full MMOs.
But the real problem is that no games have really made both PvE and PvP popular so far. A game can get loads of player in one or the other but no-one made a game that have about equal numbers playing one or the other.
It is surely possible but you need some out of the box thinking for it.
No one knows GW numbers so it doesn't matter.
And yes, games have done PvE and PvP.
Dark Age of Camelot. Asheron's Cal. Eve. All balanced both quite well.
I m merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities...
If we talking about a MMORPG i disagree.
you disagree with yourself?
In any case, I think I agree/disagree with you that taunt isn't necessarily integral and could theoretically be left out of PVE and leave an enjoyable game. Taunt is but one option on the infinite list of possibilities when it comes to threat management. Why not player/mob collision with actual body blocking and tanks that physically intercept mobs trying to attack their friends? (edit: wouldn't this sort of thing leave a tank useful in PvE AND PvP combat?)
I'm not offering a perfect solution, but just because you and I don't know a great alternative to taunt/threat mechanics doesn't mean there is no such thing possible.
That's me saying that. He's one of the puerile saying you need taunts to have pve and so in order to have a game with pvp and pve, you have to find a way to make taunts work in pvp...
I can see either way as a possibility, there are more things in heaven and earth after all, than are dreamt of in my philosophy.
The only disagreement I have is that taunt is necessary and absolute. On that I side with you absolutely. Logic dictates that because a thing is not known to me, is not proof the thing does not exist.
I m merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities...
If we talking about a MMORPG i disagree.
you disagree with yourself?
In any case, I think I agree/disagree with you that taunt isn't necessarily integral and could theoretically be left out of PVE and leave an enjoyable game. Taunt is but one option on the infinite list of possibilities when it comes to threat management. Why not player/mob collision with actual body blocking and tanks that physically intercept mobs trying to attack their friends? (edit: wouldn't this sort of thing leave a tank useful in PvE AND PvP combat?)
I'm not offering a perfect solution, but just because you and I don't know a great alternative to taunt/threat mechanics doesn't mean there is no such thing possible.
That's me saying that. He's one of the puerile saying you need taunts to have pve and so in order to have a game with pvp and pve, you have to find a way to make taunts work in pvp...
I can see either way as a possibility, there are more things in heaven and earth after all, than are dreamt of in my philosophy.
The only disagreement I have is that taunt is necessary and absolute. On that I side with you absolutely. Logic dictates that because a thing is not known to me, is not proof the thing does not exist.
First, you don't need taunts to work in PvP. Second, you could just make them an interrupt.
Having class abilities that just don't work in PvP is fine.
Agree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
ftb>I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
In my game experience the only system that works well in PvE is the HOLY TRINITY, it imply an aggro managment and a taunt skill. Without a tank with a taunt skill the traditional classes (pure healers, pure dps) cant do their job, cause if they are attacked by mobs and bosses they will probably die, without the healer the tank will be killed as well, without dps you will probably dont be able to kill your enemy (a strong boss for example).
This system is the only one that need a real coordination and interdependence between classes in a party, all classes are important and fondamental for the others due their specic skills and role.
The only alternative system i have tested in another game is the one used in GW2 and i think that is a real fail. Every classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (stay alive, heal themself and do dps) so every class in a group can be replaced by another.
You really didn't say much about the necessity of a taunt ability. Just that without the taunt, the healers and dps would die... why? Many many games exist with tanks that don't have a taunt ability. Id suggest you broaden your horizons.
...because they will probably take the aggro (healing and dps generate many aggro) of the mobs or boss and they will be killed if there is no tank that can take the aggro on himself.
I have played all the most famous MMORPG released since 1999 and i have find in trinity a perfect system for my taste so i really dont need to broaden my horizons...maybe you need if you make this kind of questions.
Why would I need to broaden my horizons exactly? Do you understand what youre saying or are you just trying to clumsily throw it back in my face? You're the one making the claim that pve won't work without a taunt. I'm not making the claim that you cant have pve WITH a taunt. I'm merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities and that games exist that have good pve and no taunts. If you've never played those games, broaden your horizons.
Why would i need to broaden my orizon exactly?
Cause if you ask me why healers and dps will die without a tank that take aggro in a trinity mmorpg, you probably have not played an istance or a raid in EQ or WoW (just to mention the more famous) .
I m merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities...
If we talking about a MMORPG i disagree.
Dear lord.... just because you have played games that require things like taunts, that doesn't mean you need them. Again, you're making the claim here. You're saying good pve can't exist without taunts. I'm not here to teach you basic logic.
I have played GW2 too, that is a mmorpg without trinity, aggro managment and a taunt skill and i have find PvE not challenging, without the need of strategy and coordination between players. This is why a prefer a more traditional approach.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
The AI isn't the problem. Yes, it's dumb, but that's not because they can't be made smarter. In contemporary MMOs, mobs aren't a goal. They are a means to a goal, that goal being leveling. Change the reason for the mobs and you can change the combat. Be careful what you wish for, though, as that could very well break the coveted trinity.
The main point of a MMO is being challenged and overcoming that challenge.
You have made your own assumptions as to what the main point of an MMO is. That aside, what I presented wasn't that people didn't want to be challenged, but rather where they were looking for that challenge.
And yes, it might break the trinity but it have frankly been the same since Meridian 59 launched in '96. The combat mechanics of MMOs either need some work or to be scrapped entirely and replaced by something new. So far have no game really pulled off a new great combat mechanics but some have done interesting tries at it.
I'm not a fan of the trinity either. I enjoy almost every other MMO combat except the trinity.
I'm sick to death with skill rotations. A new PvE combat system where you actually have to to think while you play would be a great addition to the genre. You still need group dynamics of course but most pen and paper RPGs have non trinity systems that works excellent.
You're preaching to the choir.
Most people seems to think that combat mechanics is a choice between FPS zerging and rigid trinity but there are many other possibilities.
Ditto.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Dear lord.... just because you have played games that require things like taunts, that doesn't mean you need them. Again, you're making the claim here. You're saying good pve can't exist without taunts. I'm not here to teach you basic logic.
I have played GW2 too, that is a mmorpg without trinity, aggro managment and a taunt skill and i have find PvE not challenging, without the need of strategy and coordination between players. This is why a prefer a more traditional approach.
There seems to be a confused point here. Is your statement that you prefer the trinity system and WOW style taunt/aggro mechanics, or is your statement that you feel that is the only possible way PVE combat can function properly?
Earlier it sounded as if you were saying that was the only possibility, which is illogical. Now it is sounding like you are just making a claim on your personal tastes -- which everyone should agree is a perfectly valid statement.
Even so, the fact that you found GW2 unchallenging and boring is in no way proof that the lack of a trinity or WOW style taunt/aggro makes PVE boring and unchallenging. Even as far as your personal tastes are concerned.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Gholos Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Gholos Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Gholos Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Loke666 Originally posted by GholosAgree. In EQN i want to play a pure tank, so if they will introduce some kind of PvP, my class have to work without the need to drasticaly change my build and role.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
ftb>I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
In my game experience the only system that works well in PvE is the HOLY TRINITY, it imply an aggro managment and a taunt skill. Without a tank with a taunt skill the traditional classes (pure healers, pure dps) cant do their job, cause if they are attacked by mobs and bosses they will probably die, without the healer the tank will be killed as well, without dps you will probably dont be able to kill your enemy (a strong boss for example).
This system is the only one that need a real coordination and interdependence between classes in a party, all classes are important and fondamental for the others due their specic skills and role.
The only alternative system i have tested in another game is the one used in GW2 and i think that is a real fail. Every classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (stay alive, heal themself and do dps) so every class in a group can be replaced by another.
You really didn't say much about the necessity of a taunt ability. Just that without the taunt, the healers and dps would die... why? Many many games exist with tanks that don't have a taunt ability. Id suggest you broaden your horizons.
...because they will probably take the aggro (healing and dps generate many aggro) of the mobs or boss and they will be killed if there is no tank that can take the aggro on himself.
I have played all the most famous MMORPG released since 1999 and i have find in trinity a perfect system for my taste so i really dont need to broaden my horizons...maybe you need if you make this kind of questions.
Why would I need to broaden my horizons exactly? Do you understand what youre saying or are you just trying to clumsily throw it back in my face? You're the one making the claim that pve won't work without a taunt. I'm not making the claim that you cant have pve WITH a taunt. I'm merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities and that games exist that have good pve and no taunts. If you've never played those games, broaden your horizons.
Why would i need to broaden my orizon exactly?
Cause if you ask me why healers and dps will die without a tank that take aggro in a trinity mmorpg, you probably have not played an istance or a raid in EQ or WoW (just to mention the more famous) .
I m merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities...
If we talking about a MMORPG i disagree.
Dear lord.... just because you have played games that require things like taunts, that doesn't mean you need them. Again, you're making the claim here. You're saying good pve can't exist without taunts. I'm not here to teach you basic logic.
I have played GW2 too, that is a mmorpg without trinity, aggro managment and a taunt skill and i have find PvE not challenging, without the need of strategy and coordination between players. This is why a prefer a more traditional approach.
Taunts dont promote coordination, they discourage it. Its a lazy way to design a game. Without taunts you'd have to coordinate with your team more regarding who needs heals, resses, peels, etc. Taunts do the opposite of what you say they do.
"I think everyone can agree it would not. The crux of the matter being though, if the game is in fact designed for and dependent on pve/pvp integration and the removal of one game mode would be disastrous -- the developers should know that and are not going to give you a PVE server. I want everyone to be happy playing games, but if and only if a game is designed with integration in mind -- it would be detrimental to the game and an injustice to all players if they were not playing the game in its working state. The population would be split and a large portion of it would be watching their PVE server fail and would then leave the game having never taken the opportunity to try the working state of the game. Maybe that is their choice to play on the proverbial "sinking ship" but it isn't a choice developers are likely to offer, and for good reason."
I think if the PvP and PvE were good and important in an MMO then it wouldn't matter. In fact I think EQN will do this via different progression paths. Hypothetically, if the PvE was so bad by itself that having a PvE only server would die off, why would the PvE players play it in the first place? I think designing an MMO that makes both PvE and PvP equally important is possible it's just that not everyone wants to do both at the same time.
Have a great PvP system installed and have one server type. Just allow people to choose PvP and don't give more valuable rewards to those that do. If the PvP is that good and that popular then people will do it regardless, they don't need incentives.
I think if the PvP and PvE were good and important in an MMO then it wouldn't matter. In fact I think EQN will do this via different progression paths. Hypothetically, if the PvE was so bad by itself that having a PvE only server would die off, why would the PvE players play it in the first place? I think designing an MMO that makes both PvE and PvP equally important is possible it's just that not everyone wants to do both at the same time.
Have a great PvP system installed and have one server type. Just allow people to choose PvP and don't give more valuable rewards to those that do. If the PvP is that good and that popular then people will do it regardless, they don't need incentives.
Maybe an example would help? Let's say there is a game where all the gear is crafted by players and every time a player died half or so of their gear would be ruined and half would stay on their corpse. Lets also say for example, 100 people played the game out of which 30 were constantly PVPing. All the while the PVE players would be running dungeons and finding expensive crafting materials to sell and make gear, because high end dungeons are a way to get some of the best possible crafting materials in the game.
How much gear destruction do you think those PVE players running dungeons would be seeing?
How much gear loss/destruction do you think those PVP players would be seeing?
I argue that the vast majority of gear production would be coming from those doing PVE, running dungeons, mining, lumberjacking, hunting, etc.. to get materials and crafting with it.
I argue that the vast majority of gear loss would come from those few players participating in PVP.
What could happen to this very simple economy I have outlined if suddenly the majority of gear loss were no longer lost? The results could be disastrous for the economy. I'm not wise on economics but it could get to the point where dungeons weren't really worth running as there is just no real market for the mats?
My point was never that the PVE should be "so bad" that it couldn't entertain and carry the game, my point was only that it could possibly exist as an integral part of a larger overarching system, intertwined with PVP economically or perhaps in other ways?
I think the game you wish for is a definite possibility and i'm not going to say your thoughts on design are wrong, but given some certain and specific game design mechanisms it is possible to make a game where separation is not so simple. This is not at all to say there are no PVE solutions to gear destruction and economic issues, I am only speaking to those game systems where these things are in fact handled with PVP.
"I think everyone can agree it would not. The crux of the matter being though, if the game is in fact designed for and dependent on pve/pvp integration and the removal of one game mode would be disastrous -- the developers should know that and are not going to give you a PVE server. I want everyone to be happy playing games, but if and only if a game is designed with integration in mind -- it would be detrimental to the game and an injustice to all players if they were not playing the game in its working state. The population would be split and a large portion of it would be watching their PVE server fail and would then leave the game having never taken the opportunity to try the working state of the game. Maybe that is their choice to play on the proverbial "sinking ship" but it isn't a choice developers are likely to offer, and for good reason."
I think if the PvP and PvE were good and important in an MMO then it wouldn't matter. In fact I think EQN will do this via different progression paths. Hypothetically, if the PvE was so bad by itself that having a PvE only server would die off, why would the PvE players play it in the first place? I think designing an MMO that makes both PvE and PvP equally important is possible it's just that not everyone wants to do both at the same time.
Have a great PvP system installed and have one server type. Just allow people to choose PvP and don't give more valuable rewards to those that do. If the PvP is that good and that popular then people will do it regardless, they don't need incentives.
This is the mistake almost every pve only advocate makes. Its not that we want pvp and you want pve. We want pvp and pve, and you just want pve. So when we say we want a game that is built on both, we're saying we want a game that is designed in such a way that both are important. You can't dimly take one or the other out. It's not that the pve would be "bad by itself", it's that you're removing entire chunks of the game at that point.
For instance, say you have a game where city building and sieging is a major feature. Maybe you farm certain mobs to get a specific kind of building material that your clan is low on. If you take out the pvp, you have no reason to pve because the main drop from that mob was a certain kind of building material that you no longer need because nobody sieges cities.
Hypothetically, if the PvE was so bad by itself that having a PvE only server would die off, why would the PvE players play it in the first place?
Most gameplay, when removed from their game and used as a standalone element would seem incomplete. That doesn't mean that particular type of gameplay was bad, rather that it has lost its relevance and context. Resource gathering is a great example of this.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
SOE isn't good at PvP, so keep that in mind when talking about PvP in EQN. I don't see SOE doing something that we don't already see in popular MMO's. I fully expect to see EQN to follow WoW's model of having contested zones vs safe zones, and having Battlegrounds and arenas. Like it or not, it's a big part of WoW, and it has made Blizzard a lot of money. SOE will want a slice of that pie.
So this whole territorial control, open vs instanced, specific server PvP ruleset, etc.. I just don't see SOE pulling any of that off. PvP servers in EQ2 are pretty much nightmares, they are loosely supported and developed, and battlegrounds in EQ2 pretty much is the worst BG implementation I've seen in MMO's. So while I'm cautiously optimistic about EQN in terms of PvE, I've got no confidence in SOE on doing PvP right.
SOE's history on handling PvP is to hype the PvP servers up, then once people started enjoying them, they drop support and started to only care about their PvE playerbase. They'll offer bad PvP balance tweaks, and they'll do little to make sure PvP stays viable and awesome. Then PvP servers slowly die down, get merged, heck they even removed the PvP server completely in Vanguard.
So yeah, I want PvP to be good, but it's SOE so I don't see it happening. I'm expecting to see a WoW model with mixed contested zones vs safe zones, and instanced BG's.
actually from all the discussions i did read on pve vs pvp, its actually completely opposite - pvpers are the unreasonable ones.
oh really? You must of missed the locked thread that was started last month comparing PVPers to rapist then. Or the numerous other comments about PVPers wanting to arbitrarily abuse other players and get off on it. Yes your 'research' into this matter must have been extensive.
The specific reason why PVPers don't want separate servers isn't because they want to gank PVEers. They're saying a separate server won't work if PVP is integral to game design. Which is what many on that side wish/hope is in place for EQN.
If you can have a game design function by removing PVP from the equation, then that means PVP is not a factor in core game design. It's like looking at crafting and saying I don't like crafting in a game. Then demanding that there be separate servers for crafting and non-crafting. But you can't do that in most games because crafting is an integral part in game design, especially a sandbox. It would break the game to completely remove it, even if you personally choose to craft or not. The understanding is that in many of these games crafting is the best gear, so you could say that you are being 'forced' to craft then if you want the best gear.
PVEers are basically charging that they don't mind there being PVP as long as its not an important factor in the game. They do this by broad statements of not being forced to PVP. Being forced? Just be on the look out for people. Avoid them. It should be easier to do in a sandbox because there's no set quests or 'hunting grounds' for you to be stalked. Again, Themepark mentality is so pervasive in these forums that most PVEers are worried about situations that will never come to pass in a properly executed Sandbox.
The PVE community here is blatantly ignoring the dozen upon dozens of posts that people that like PVP have responded. They do this for one simple reason. To keep perpetuating a false narrative, while slandering a sub-sect group of players as gankers and griefers or even worse.
So who's being unreasonable again? Because the PVP folks in here have been far more reasonable and in touch with reality than those taking up the charge on the other side of the issue.
SOE isn't good at PvP, so keep that in mind when talking about PvP in EQN. I don't see SOE doing something that we don't already see in popular MMO's. I fully expect to see EQN to follow WoW's model of having contested zones vs safe zones, and having Battlegrounds and arenas. Like it or not, it's a big part of WoW, and it has made Blizzard a lot of money. SOE will want a slice of that pie.
So this whole territorial control, open vs instanced, specific server PvP ruleset, etc.. I just don't see SOE pulling any of that off. PvP servers in EQ2 are pretty much nightmares, they are loosely supported and developed, and battlegrounds in EQ2 pretty much is the worst BG implementation I've seen in MMO's. So while I'm cautiously optimistic about EQN in terms of PvE, I've got no confidence in SOE on doing PvP right.
SOE's history on handling PvP is to hype the PvP servers up, then once people started enjoying them, they drop support and started to only care about their PvE playerbase. They'll offer bad PvP balance tweaks, and they'll do little to make sure PvP stays viable and awesome. Then PvP servers slowly die down, get merged, heck they even removed the PvP server completely in Vanguard.
So yeah, I want PvP to be good, but it's SOE so I don't see it happening. I'm expecting to see a WoW model with mixed contested zones vs safe zones, and instanced BG's.
I'm with you. Historically we've seen a lot of bad ideas with SOE and PvP.
My hope is though that they aren't trying to emulate WOW (or EQ). My hope is since they are going for a sandbox they are either going to emulate the most successful sandbox model we actually have seen work (Eve) or they have something new and interesting in mind that will actually work (longshot I know).
And still, as you allude -- even if they get it right out of the box they could always run it poorly and drive it into the ground.
My hopes are about as high as dirt that it is going to pan out.
Still, I gotta have some hope -- as an MMO addict I will always be chasing that dragon.
So yeah, I want PvP to be good, but it's SOE so I don't see it happening. I'm expecting to see a WoW model with mixed contested zones vs safe zones, and instanced BG's.
Not to be rude, but could you at least do a little research about EQN before posting?
Considering they specifically said that they went back to the drawing board with game design two years ago because they didn't want to be a 'me too' game. They also said that EQN is going to be something we've never seen before.
actually from all the discussions i did read on pve vs pvp, its actually completely opposite - pvpers are the unreasonable ones.
oh really? You must of missed the locked thread that was started last month comparing PVPers to rapist then. Or the numerous other comments about PVPers wanting to arbitrarily abuse other players and get off on it. Yes your 'research' into this matter must have been extensive.
The specific reason why PVPers don't want separate servers isn't because they want to gank PVEers. They're saying a separate server won't work if PVP is integral to game design. Which is what many on that side wish/hope is in place for EQN.
If you can have a game design function by removing PVP from the equation, then that means PVP is not a factor in core game design. It's like looking at crafting and saying I don't like crafting in a game. Then demanding that there be separate servers for crafting and non-crafting. But you can't do that in most games because crafting is an integral part in game design, especially a sandbox. It would break the game to completely remove it, even if you personally choose to craft or not. The understanding is that in many of these games crafting is the best gear, so you could say that you are being 'forced' to craft then if you want the best gear.
PVEers are basically charging that they don't mind there being PVP as long as its not an important factor in the game. They do this by broad statements of not being forced to PVP. Being forced? Just be on the look out for people. Avoid them. It should be easier to do in a sandbox because there's no set quests or 'hunting grounds' for you to be stalked. Again, Themepark mentality is so pervasive in these forums that most PVEers are worried about situations that will never come to pass in a properly executed Sandbox.
The PVE community here is blatantly ignoring the dozen upon dozens of posts that people that like PVP have responded. They do this for one simple reason. To keep perpetuating a false narrative, while slandering a sub-sect group of players as gankers and griefers or even worse.
So who's being unreasonable again? Because the PVP folks in here have been far more reasonable and in touch with reality than those taking up the charge on the other side of the issue.
actually from all the discussions i did read on pve vs pvp, its actually completely opposite - pvpers are the unreasonable ones.
oh really? You must of missed the locked thread that was started last month comparing PVPers to rapist then. Or the numerous other comments about PVPers wanting to arbitrarily abuse other players and get off on it. Yes your 'research' into this matter must have been extensive.
The specific reason why PVPers don't want separate servers isn't because they want to gank PVEers. They're saying a separate server won't work if PVP is integral to game design. Which is what many on that side wish/hope is in place for EQN.
If you can have a game design function by removing PVP from the equation, then that means PVP is not a factor in core game design. It's like looking at crafting and saying I don't like crafting in a game. Then demanding that there be separate servers for crafting and non-crafting. But you can't do that in most games because crafting is an integral part in game design, especially a sandbox. It would break the game to completely remove it, even if you personally choose to craft or not. The understanding is that in many of these games crafting is the best gear, so you could say that you are being 'forced' to craft then if you want the best gear.
PVEers are basically charging that they don't mind there being PVP as long as its not an important factor in the game. They do this by broad statements of not being forced to PVP. Being forced? Just be on the look out for people. Avoid them. It should be easier to do in a sandbox because there's no set quests or 'hunting grounds' for you to be stalked. Again, Themepark mentality is so pervasive in these forums that most PVEers are worried about situations that will never come to pass in a properly executed Sandbox.
The PVE community here is blatantly ignoring the dozen upon dozens of posts that people that like PVP have responded. They do this for one simple reason. To keep perpetuating a false narrative, while slandering a sub-sect group of players as gankers and griefers or even worse.
So who's being unreasonable again? Because the PVP folks in here have been far more reasonable and in touch with reality than those taking up the charge on the other side of the issue.
Wow... well said.
I've seen a few posts in this thread that made me wish we had a "like" button of some sort, this jdnyc just made one of them.
This crafting being integral to game design explanation should be framed and hung on the front page for all those who don't understand what "integration" means when we are trying to explain why we are hoping there aren't separate PVE/PVP servers.
So yeah, I want PvP to be good, but it's SOE so I don't see it happening. I'm expecting to see a WoW model with mixed contested zones vs safe zones, and instanced BG's.
Not to be rude, but could you at least do a little research about EQN before posting?
Considering they specifically said that they went back to the drawing board with game design two years ago because they didn't want to be a 'me too' game. They also said that EQN is going to be something we've never seen before.
So yeah....
Not to be rude but could you go back in time and follow SOE, play their games, and see what they've done? Rather than assume all the best based on empty hype and no details? I've played SOE games since 1999, I know full on well what SOE does, is capable of, and the type of bait & switch they pull with PvP.
Comments
I'm so hesitant to even respond to you because you're unreasonable and have COMPLETELY ignored me in previous discussions when you were losing the argument. Also you insulted me personally. But I'm stubborn so here we go....
That's because of how those games are designed. They're built from the ground up around things like snares, stuns, taunts, etc. There's nothing that says mobs can't be similar to players. Not to mention you could just have certain things work on mobs and not players. Just because you've seen other games get ruined by pvp changes, doesn't mean they're necessary.
You're just wrong, plain and simple. UO had great PvE, Darkfall had great PvE.
You can have different armor resistances for mobs and players, you can have certain skills not work on players or not work on mobs. This isn't a problem.
Isn't this the crux of the entire debate though going on here so often! There are so many who feel a working system that can please differeng people is impossible, like this Sirbalin fellow. Then there are those who are open to the possibility that perhaps there is an evolution possible within the genre, great or small, that will make our current problems with games either obsolete or partially mitigated.
I am on the side that does not believe the choice is either PvE or PvP, I do not think the choice in combat mechanics is between Trinity combat or Zergfest.
Just because something is what we have seen from so many MMOs in the past does not mean that trend must continue because it is some sort of fundamental law of the universe.
Why would i need to broaden my orizon exactly?
Cause if you ask me why healers and dps will die without a tank that take aggro in a trinity mmorpg, you probably have not played an istance or a raid in EQ or WoW (just to mention the more famous) .
I m merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities...
If we talking about a MMORPG i disagree.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
you disagree with yourself?
In any case, I think I agree/disagree with you that taunt isn't necessarily integral and could theoretically be left out of PVE and leave an enjoyable game. Taunt is but one option on the infinite list of possibilities when it comes to threat management. Why not player/mob collision with actual body blocking and tanks that physically intercept mobs trying to attack their friends? (edit: wouldn't this sort of thing leave a tank useful in PvE AND PvP combat?)
I'm not offering a perfect solution, but just because you and I don't know a great alternative to taunt/threat mechanics doesn't mean there is no such thing possible.
Just to branch off of my OP because I feel many people are missing what I feel is a major part, BUT
How would many people feel about using NPCs to obtain PvP objectives??
i.e. I want to kill Player X, I send 3 Y's to attack him. I have limited control over them.
Would still be Player vs. AI, but AI is an extension of another player.
Generally I feel there is strong reluctance to have AI minions in most games, but being a RTS fan as well, I would love it.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
ftb>I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
In my game experience the only system that works well in PvE is the HOLY TRINITY, it imply an aggro managment and a taunt skill. Without a tank with a taunt skill the traditional classes (pure healers, pure dps) cant do their job, cause if they are attacked by mobs and bosses they will probably die, without the healer the tank will be killed as well, without dps you will probably dont be able to kill your enemy (a strong boss for example).
This system is the only one that need a real coordination and interdependence between classes in a party, all classes are important and fondamental for the others due their specic skills and role.
The only alternative system i have tested in another game is the one used in GW2 and i think that is a real fail. Every classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (stay alive, heal themself and do dps) so every class in a group can be replaced by another.
You really didn't say much about the necessity of a taunt ability. Just that without the taunt, the healers and dps would die... why? Many many games exist with tanks that don't have a taunt ability. Id suggest you broaden your horizons....because they will probably take the aggro (healing and dps generate many aggro) of the mobs or boss and they will be killed if there is no tank that can take the aggro on himself.
I have played all the most famous MMORPG released since 1999 and i have find in trinity a perfect system for my taste so i really dont need to broaden my horizons...maybe you need if you make this kind of questions.
Why would I need to broaden my horizons exactly? Do you understand what youre saying or are you just trying to clumsily throw it back in my face? You're the one making the claim that pve won't work without a taunt. I'm not making the claim that you cant have pve WITH a taunt. I'm merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities and that games exist that have good pve and no taunts. If you've never played those games, broaden your horizons.Why would i need to broaden my orizon exactly?
Cause if you ask me why healers and dps will die without a tank that take aggro in a trinity mmorpg, you probably have not played an istance or a raid in EQ or WoW (just to mention the more famous) .
I m merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities...
If we talking about a MMORPG i disagree.
Dear lord.... just because you have played games that require things like taunts, that doesn't mean you need them. Again, you're making the claim here. You're saying good pve can't exist without taunts. I'm not here to teach you basic logic.I m merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities...
If we talking about a MMORPG i disagree.
you disagree with yourself?
In any case, I think I agree/disagree with you that taunt isn't necessarily integral and could theoretically be left out of PVE and leave an enjoyable game. Taunt is but one option on the infinite list of possibilities when it comes to threat management. Why not player/mob collision with actual body blocking and tanks that physically intercept mobs trying to attack their friends? (edit: wouldn't this sort of thing leave a tank useful in PvE AND PvP combat?)
I'm not offering a perfect solution, but just because you and I don't know a great alternative to taunt/threat mechanics doesn't mean there is no such thing possible.
That's me saying that. He's one of the people saying you need taunts to have pve and so in order to have a game with pvp and pve, you have to find a way to make taunts work in pvp...No one knows GW numbers so it doesn't matter.
And yes, games have done PvE and PvP.
Dark Age of Camelot. Asheron's Cal. Eve. All balanced both quite well.
I can see either way as a possibility, there are more things in heaven and earth after all, than are dreamt of in my philosophy.
The only disagreement I have is that taunt is necessary and absolute. On that I side with you absolutely. Logic dictates that because a thing is not known to me, is not proof the thing does not exist.
First, you don't need taunts to work in PvP. Second, you could just make them an interrupt.
Having class abilities that just don't work in PvP is fine.
I have played GW2 too, that is a mmorpg without trinity, aggro managment and a taunt skill and i have find PvE not challenging, without the need of strategy and coordination between players. This is why a prefer a more traditional approach.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
There seems to be a confused point here. Is your statement that you prefer the trinity system and WOW style taunt/aggro mechanics, or is your statement that you feel that is the only possible way PVE combat can function properly?
Earlier it sounded as if you were saying that was the only possibility, which is illogical. Now it is sounding like you are just making a claim on your personal tastes -- which everyone should agree is a perfectly valid statement.
Even so, the fact that you found GW2 unchallenging and boring is in no way proof that the lack of a trinity or WOW style taunt/aggro makes PVE boring and unchallenging. Even as far as your personal tastes are concerned.
There is really only one way of making that happen. You would have to make the taunts actually work on other players as well.
When you taunt someone they will have to have their target locked on you for as long as a mob locks on you.
ftb>I am not so sure people will like that but for a game to succeed at both PvE and PvP they will have to be a lot more similar than in games which is heavily focused on one or the other.
Personally I think that making the tanks closer to GW1s warriors instead and kill of the taunting altogether would work better. Make tanking about body blocking while making the difference between actual tanks and DPS smaller.
But then again, someone here might have a much better idea, I just havn't seen one yet.
I don't really agree. I think you're all too deep in the mindset that certain classes HAVE to do certain things. Why would a tank NEED to have a taunt in PvE? In DFUW battlebrand warriors are extremely tanky, they work well in pve and in pvp and have no taunt.
In my game experience the only system that works well in PvE is the HOLY TRINITY, it imply an aggro managment and a taunt skill. Without a tank with a taunt skill the traditional classes (pure healers, pure dps) cant do their job, cause if they are attacked by mobs and bosses they will probably die, without the healer the tank will be killed as well, without dps you will probably dont be able to kill your enemy (a strong boss for example).
This system is the only one that need a real coordination and interdependence between classes in a party, all classes are important and fondamental for the others due their specic skills and role.
The only alternative system i have tested in another game is the one used in GW2 and i think that is a real fail. Every classes are supposed to do pratically the same things (stay alive, heal themself and do dps) so every class in a group can be replaced by another.
You really didn't say much about the necessity of a taunt ability. Just that without the taunt, the healers and dps would die... why? Many many games exist with tanks that don't have a taunt ability. Id suggest you broaden your horizons....because they will probably take the aggro (healing and dps generate many aggro) of the mobs or boss and they will be killed if there is no tank that can take the aggro on himself.
I have played all the most famous MMORPG released since 1999 and i have find in trinity a perfect system for my taste so i really dont need to broaden my horizons...maybe you need if you make this kind of questions.
Why would I need to broaden my horizons exactly? Do you understand what youre saying or are you just trying to clumsily throw it back in my face? You're the one making the claim that pve won't work without a taunt. I'm not making the claim that you cant have pve WITH a taunt. I'm merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities and that games exist that have good pve and no taunts. If you've never played those games, broaden your horizons.Why would i need to broaden my orizon exactly?
Cause if you ask me why healers and dps will die without a tank that take aggro in a trinity mmorpg, you probably have not played an istance or a raid in EQ or WoW (just to mention the more famous) .
I m merely saying you can have good pve without taunt abilities...
If we talking about a MMORPG i disagree.
Dear lord.... just because you have played games that require things like taunts, that doesn't mean you need them. Again, you're making the claim here. You're saying good pve can't exist without taunts. I'm not here to teach you basic logic.I have played GW2 too, that is a mmorpg without trinity, aggro managment and a taunt skill and i have find PvE not challenging, without the need of strategy and coordination between players. This is why a prefer a more traditional approach.
Taunts dont promote coordination, they discourage it. Its a lazy way to design a game. Without taunts you'd have to coordinate with your team more regarding who needs heals, resses, peels, etc. Taunts do the opposite of what you say they do."I think everyone can agree it would not.
The crux of the matter being though, if the game is in fact designed for and dependent on pve/pvp integration and the removal of one game mode would be disastrous -- the developers should know that and are not going to give you a PVE server.
I want everyone to be happy playing games, but if and only if a game is designed with integration in mind -- it would be detrimental to the game and an injustice to all players if they were not playing the game in its working state. The population would be split and a large portion of it would be watching their PVE server fail and would then leave the game having never taken the opportunity to try the working state of the game. Maybe that is their choice to play on the proverbial "sinking ship" but it isn't a choice developers are likely to offer, and for good reason."
I think if the PvP and PvE were good and important in an MMO then it wouldn't matter. In fact I think EQN will do this via different progression paths. Hypothetically, if the PvE was so bad by itself that having a PvE only server would die off, why would the PvE players play it in the first place? I think designing an MMO that makes both PvE and PvP equally important is possible it's just that not everyone wants to do both at the same time.
Have a great PvP system installed and have one server type. Just allow people to choose PvP and don't give more valuable rewards to those that do. If the PvP is that good and that popular then people will do it regardless, they don't need incentives.
Maybe an example would help? Let's say there is a game where all the gear is crafted by players and every time a player died half or so of their gear would be ruined and half would stay on their corpse. Lets also say for example, 100 people played the game out of which 30 were constantly PVPing. All the while the PVE players would be running dungeons and finding expensive crafting materials to sell and make gear, because high end dungeons are a way to get some of the best possible crafting materials in the game.
How much gear destruction do you think those PVE players running dungeons would be seeing?
How much gear loss/destruction do you think those PVP players would be seeing?
I argue that the vast majority of gear production would be coming from those doing PVE, running dungeons, mining, lumberjacking, hunting, etc.. to get materials and crafting with it.
I argue that the vast majority of gear loss would come from those few players participating in PVP.
What could happen to this very simple economy I have outlined if suddenly the majority of gear loss were no longer lost? The results could be disastrous for the economy. I'm not wise on economics but it could get to the point where dungeons weren't really worth running as there is just no real market for the mats?
My point was never that the PVE should be "so bad" that it couldn't entertain and carry the game, my point was only that it could possibly exist as an integral part of a larger overarching system, intertwined with PVP economically or perhaps in other ways?
I think the game you wish for is a definite possibility and i'm not going to say your thoughts on design are wrong, but given some certain and specific game design mechanisms it is possible to make a game where separation is not so simple. This is not at all to say there are no PVE solutions to gear destruction and economic issues, I am only speaking to those game systems where these things are in fact handled with PVP.
This is the mistake almost every pve only advocate makes. Its not that we want pvp and you want pve. We want pvp and pve, and you just want pve. So when we say we want a game that is built on both, we're saying we want a game that is designed in such a way that both are important. You can't dimly take one or the other out. It's not that the pve would be "bad by itself", it's that you're removing entire chunks of the game at that point.For instance, say you have a game where city building and sieging is a major feature. Maybe you farm certain mobs to get a specific kind of building material that your clan is low on. If you take out the pvp, you have no reason to pve because the main drop from that mob was a certain kind of building material that you no longer need because nobody sieges cities.
Most gameplay, when removed from their game and used as a standalone element would seem incomplete. That doesn't mean that particular type of gameplay was bad, rather that it has lost its relevance and context. Resource gathering is a great example of this.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
SOE isn't good at PvP, so keep that in mind when talking about PvP in EQN. I don't see SOE doing something that we don't already see in popular MMO's. I fully expect to see EQN to follow WoW's model of having contested zones vs safe zones, and having Battlegrounds and arenas. Like it or not, it's a big part of WoW, and it has made Blizzard a lot of money. SOE will want a slice of that pie.
So this whole territorial control, open vs instanced, specific server PvP ruleset, etc.. I just don't see SOE pulling any of that off. PvP servers in EQ2 are pretty much nightmares, they are loosely supported and developed, and battlegrounds in EQ2 pretty much is the worst BG implementation I've seen in MMO's. So while I'm cautiously optimistic about EQN in terms of PvE, I've got no confidence in SOE on doing PvP right.
SOE's history on handling PvP is to hype the PvP servers up, then once people started enjoying them, they drop support and started to only care about their PvE playerbase. They'll offer bad PvP balance tweaks, and they'll do little to make sure PvP stays viable and awesome. Then PvP servers slowly die down, get merged, heck they even removed the PvP server completely in Vanguard.
So yeah, I want PvP to be good, but it's SOE so I don't see it happening. I'm expecting to see a WoW model with mixed contested zones vs safe zones, and instanced BG's.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
oh really? You must of missed the locked thread that was started last month comparing PVPers to rapist then. Or the numerous other comments about PVPers wanting to arbitrarily abuse other players and get off on it. Yes your 'research' into this matter must have been extensive.
The specific reason why PVPers don't want separate servers isn't because they want to gank PVEers. They're saying a separate server won't work if PVP is integral to game design. Which is what many on that side wish/hope is in place for EQN.
If you can have a game design function by removing PVP from the equation, then that means PVP is not a factor in core game design. It's like looking at crafting and saying I don't like crafting in a game. Then demanding that there be separate servers for crafting and non-crafting. But you can't do that in most games because crafting is an integral part in game design, especially a sandbox. It would break the game to completely remove it, even if you personally choose to craft or not. The understanding is that in many of these games crafting is the best gear, so you could say that you are being 'forced' to craft then if you want the best gear.
PVEers are basically charging that they don't mind there being PVP as long as its not an important factor in the game. They do this by broad statements of not being forced to PVP. Being forced? Just be on the look out for people. Avoid them. It should be easier to do in a sandbox because there's no set quests or 'hunting grounds' for you to be stalked. Again, Themepark mentality is so pervasive in these forums that most PVEers are worried about situations that will never come to pass in a properly executed Sandbox.
The PVE community here is blatantly ignoring the dozen upon dozens of posts that people that like PVP have responded. They do this for one simple reason. To keep perpetuating a false narrative, while slandering a sub-sect group of players as gankers and griefers or even worse.
So who's being unreasonable again? Because the PVP folks in here have been far more reasonable and in touch with reality than those taking up the charge on the other side of the issue.
I'm with you. Historically we've seen a lot of bad ideas with SOE and PvP.
My hope is though that they aren't trying to emulate WOW (or EQ). My hope is since they are going for a sandbox they are either going to emulate the most successful sandbox model we actually have seen work (Eve) or they have something new and interesting in mind that will actually work (longshot I know).
And still, as you allude -- even if they get it right out of the box they could always run it poorly and drive it into the ground.
My hopes are about as high as dirt that it is going to pan out.
Still, I gotta have some hope -- as an MMO addict I will always be chasing that dragon.
Not to be rude, but could you at least do a little research about EQN before posting?
Considering they specifically said that they went back to the drawing board with game design two years ago because they didn't want to be a 'me too' game. They also said that EQN is going to be something we've never seen before.
So yeah....
actually from all the discussions i did read on pve vs pvp, its actually completely opposite - pvpers are the unreasonable ones.
oh really? You must of missed the locked thread that was started last month comparing PVPers to rapist then. Or the numerous other comments about PVPers wanting to arbitrarily abuse other players and get off on it. Yes your 'research' into this matter must have been extensive.
The specific reason why PVPers don't want separate servers isn't because they want to gank PVEers. They're saying a separate server won't work if PVP is integral to game design. Which is what many on that side wish/hope is in place for EQN.
If you can have a game design function by removing PVP from the equation, then that means PVP is not a factor in core game design. It's like looking at crafting and saying I don't like crafting in a game. Then demanding that there be separate servers for crafting and non-crafting. But you can't do that in most games because crafting is an integral part in game design, especially a sandbox. It would break the game to completely remove it, even if you personally choose to craft or not. The understanding is that in many of these games crafting is the best gear, so you could say that you are being 'forced' to craft then if you want the best gear.
PVEers are basically charging that they don't mind there being PVP as long as its not an important factor in the game. They do this by broad statements of not being forced to PVP. Being forced? Just be on the look out for people. Avoid them. It should be easier to do in a sandbox because there's no set quests or 'hunting grounds' for you to be stalked. Again, Themepark mentality is so pervasive in these forums that most PVEers are worried about situations that will never come to pass in a properly executed Sandbox.
The PVE community here is blatantly ignoring the dozen upon dozens of posts that people that like PVP have responded. They do this for one simple reason. To keep perpetuating a false narrative, while slandering a sub-sect group of players as gankers and griefers or even worse.
So who's being unreasonable again? Because the PVP folks in here have been far more reasonable and in touch with reality than those taking up the charge on the other side of the issue.
Wow... well said.I've seen a few posts in this thread that made me wish we had a "like" button of some sort, this jdnyc just made one of them.
This crafting being integral to game design explanation should be framed and hung on the front page for all those who don't understand what "integration" means when we are trying to explain why we are hoping there aren't separate PVE/PVP servers.
Not to be rude but could you go back in time and follow SOE, play their games, and see what they've done? Rather than assume all the best based on empty hype and no details? I've played SOE games since 1999, I know full on well what SOE does, is capable of, and the type of bait & switch they pull with PvP.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO