if the features 1-4 dont work without feature 5, then they were just tossed in to support feature 5 and feature 5 is a focus of a game. it isnt a sandbox then (game which supports different playstyles), it is a game (e.g. pvp game)
"interdependence."
in·ter·de·pend·ent - (of two or more people or things) Dependent on each other.
This does not mean "dependant on one but the other is ok to take it or leave it" or "Its really all about the second one and the first one is just kinda there to make the second happen." It means every single aspect of the system must be present or the system will fail.
If a game has only 2 features and the game will not work without EITHER feature your logic fails to explain which feature is the focus and which one is just there to support the other. Your logical breaks down.
describe the scenario or game design where PvE will not work without Pvp.
Here's the quick and dirty example I gave earlier
"Take Darkfall as an example. The game is built with pvp in mind. You build cities, you siege cities, you raid cities. All of these things are based around pvp. If you take out pvp everybody will just build a city and then sit there.... doing nothing. Tell me how a game like this would exist with out pvp?"
the same exact thing could be accomplishes through PVE(mobs can destroy Cities, raid cities all entirely possible without PvP
Mobs are completely scripted, it's one of the reasons I enjoy player vs player interaction. When I play against another player anything can happen, when it's a scripted mob, I know there is a limit and a pattern to the mob. Yay for defending against scripted mobs for the hundredth time; instead I would like to defend some awesome Shadowbane guilds that took different approaches to each siege, came in from a different angle for the attack, or tried different group mechanics because it was not the right way to make a group. Human player interaction gives you the unknown and it's that excitement that you can't script for. PvE is just not as exciting as pitting wills/minds against another human.
.... and you are saying immersion for you is being able to kill me at any time and in any place. Round and round we go.
My argument is the same my words change.
As to your latest this thread is titled "PvP versus PvE compromise", that suggests we are discussing a virtual world that would allow both styles of play. By your instance that PvP can only be "immersive" for you if it is non-consensual I guess you are conceding that no compromise is possible.
Thanks for that.
I did not argue or say ANY of that. Again you're throwing up misdirections to take attention away from the fact that you don't know what immersion is.
Oh and since you still have not stated how a compromise between a PvP versus PvE compromise could work, I accept your concession.
The question you're not asking yourself is immersion in WHAT? You say you do not regard pvp as part of the game world, but it IS part of the game world (if the game has PvP) by design. So like I said before, it's not a game that you want to be immersed in, not that the game isn't immersive. Allowing pvp is just simply NOT setting up a fake unrealistic restriction, that's it. This is completely different from a bad piece of geography or bad graphics which are unintended mistakes.
Still no compromise and still round and round. You want OW FFA PvP, I say that is not a compromise as it destroys immersion for PvE players and you say I am wrong I really am immersed when I know I am not.
OW FFA PvP is not simply a game I would not want to be immersed in it is one I could not be immersed in. You are so blinkered in your view that you cannot accept another perspective. I get that you like PvP, I understand the game world would not be immersive for you without PvP but not everyone shares your perspective for a lot of us PvP is not immersive it does break immersion.
And that is precisely where you are off base time and time again in this particular thread.
Lets just take an even more simplified example:
The point of PVE is to create equipment.
The point of PVP is to destroy equipment.
sorry but not at all - PVE means player vs environment, it has nothing to do with creating equipment. crafting is NOT pve, its a third separate sphere. PVE means you fight (or otherwise overcome) obstacles nonplayer part of games throws at you.
It is the prerogative of a PVE player to put as much equipment on the market as possible so PVP players will buy it.
It is the prerogative of a PVP player to buy as much equipment from the market as possible.
again, in pve you are talking about crafters - crafters should actually support both pve and pvp
Now, you are telling me that by this system, this is a pvp game designed for only pvp?
if the crafters create eq that only (or mostly) pvpers need and not the pvers then from POW of crafter this is pvp game
I disagree. If the PVE players all leave the PVP players will have no gear and their goal of "purchase as much equipment as possible" cannot be fulfilled.
If the PVP players all leave the PVE players will have no market to sell their goods.
The system breaks if either group leave.
if both pve and pvp groups leave, then most of the crafters would leave too and game would be ruin, yeah, but it is mostly because mmorpg crafting is made simply to support pvp or pve (or both). if you look on properly done crafting/building sphere (wurm, haven & hearth, tale in the desert), then people playing those games would survive without both pve and pvp (ataitd dont have neither)
edit: i am off to bed, will read any potential response(s) tomorrow
No response, but agreement. To add - PvP is not about destroying equipment, at least not to me. The point of PvP is to elevate one guild over another, in the form of territory control/asset destruction. Sure you destroy things in the process, but even without destruction you could have successful territory control or even successful sieges. Instead of destruction it would be more of a capture the flag system.
More people need to read what you wrote about the crafting. Crafters get short changed in too many games both PvP and PvE. They could be one of the things that brings both playstyles together. Also without PvE players there would not be much of an economy. It is my opinion that PvE players bring the wealth into the world, by killing mobs and looting the money. The PvP players help spread that wealth around. Crafters create goods with both money and resources from PvE events as in raiding and PvP events like in mine fights from Shadowbane. PvE and PvP can exist in the same game but it would take effort on both parts; some PvP players need to learn to not be jerks and don't just randomly kill, while PvE players could loosen up a bit and realize that dying to a person is not the end of the world. Until we have a mindset that both groups can co-exist there will be no harmony. If anything I would like to see more of EvEs example where players step up to protect the PvE players and thus form a symbiotic relationship.
Taunt and agro are needed and serve a great purpose in modern day mmorpgs.
Without agro and agro control you have a zerg festival with totally random mob movements and attacks that make no sense. You might as well not have a trinity system and let everyone heal and everyone dodge and everyone revive.....oh wait...this has been done already--->(see GW2)
If a dps related class gets over the tank agro they need to slow down damage or die. Then the tank must use taunt to regain agro. Same with heals. Healer can't over heal or they draw agro and take a dirt nap if the tank isn't fast enuff with taunt. Part of this dynamic also factors in with crowd control, kiting,etc. Basically all these serve purpose well in PvE.
In PvP taunt could maybe be used to switch the target to the tank when tank hits it which would mess with enemy players who had targeted others for heals, buffs, nukes, cc etc.
So taunt would be fun and usable in both PvE and PvP.
Next we have the Age old worry....**they are blocking my PvE with a bunch of people that want to hurt me**
The point of putting dungeons and good crafting nodes out in PvP territory is to make focus spots for PvP to take place as groups battle for the opportunity to hunt in that area. If there are 20 dungeons on release then there will obviously be lots of areas for both PvE and PvP to take place. Even a tough group that was able to kill others and then start into the dungeon may run into another group deeper inside or perhaps a raid. They can choose to fight again or call a truce to get some PvE done or form an alliance for just that session and kick out others that try to come in together.
The outcomes of PvP are up to the players themselves. The game may lay down a ruleset but it's up to us how we work within it.
No response, but agreement. To add - PvP is not about destroying equipment, at least not to me. The point of PvP is to elevate one guild over another, in the form of territory control/asset destruction. Sure you destroy things in the process, but even without destruction you could have successful territory control or even successful sieges. Instead of destruction it would be more of a capture the flag system.
More people need to read what you wrote about the crafting. Crafters get short changed in too many games both PvP and PvE. They could be one of the things that brings both playstyles together. Also without PvE players there would not be much of an economy. It is my opinion that PvE players bring the wealth into the world, by killing mobs and looting the money. The PvP players help spread that wealth around. Crafters create goods with both money and resources from PvE events as in raiding and PvP events like in mine fights from Shadowbane. PvE and PvP can exist in the same game but it would take effort on both parts; some PvP players need to learn to not be jerks and don't just randomly kill, while PvE players could loosen up a bit and realize that dying to a person is not the end of the world. Until we have a mindset that both groups can co-exist there will be no harmony. If anything I would like to see more of EvEs example where players step up to protect the PvE players and thus form a symbiotic relationship.
You guys took my example and far removed it from the point.
They asked for an example of a game that functions in a particular way. Everything you guys are talking about may be true but has nothing to do with my post.
My example would still work if the players killing the dragons instantly crafted the items themselves with a 1 button macro.
It had nothing to do with sieges, guild territory control, or crafting.
you are agreeing with someone who is countering arguments that were never made. You're arguing against phantoms.
.... and you are saying immersion for you is being able to kill me at any time and in any place. Round and round we go.
My argument is the same my words change.
As to your latest this thread is titled "PvP versus PvE compromise", that suggests we are discussing a virtual world that would allow both styles of play. By your instance that PvP can only be "immersive" for you if it is non-consensual I guess you are conceding that no compromise is possible.
Thanks for that.
I did not argue or say ANY of that. Again you're throwing up misdirections to take attention away from the fact that you don't know what immersion is.
Oh and since you still have not stated how a compromise between a PvP versus PvE compromise could work, I accept your concession.
The question you're not asking yourself is immersion in WHAT? You say you do not regard pvp as part of the game world, but it IS part of the game world (if the game has PvP) by design. So like I said before, it's not a game that you want to be immersed in, not that the game isn't immersive. Allowing pvp is just simply NOT setting up a fake unrealistic restriction, that's it. This is completely different from a bad piece of geography or bad graphics which are unintended mistakes.
Still no compromise and still round and round. You want OW FFA PvP, I say that is not a compromise as it destroys immersion for PvE players and you say I am wrong I really am immersed when I know I am not.
OW FFA PvP is not simply a game I would not want to be immersed in it is one I could not be immersed in. You are so blinkered in your view that you cannot accept another perspective. I get that you like PvP, I understand the game world would not be immersive for you without PvP but not everyone shares your perspective for a lot of us PvP is not immersive it does break immersion.
1. In a single sentence can you explain what breaks immersion for you? What kind of PvP breaks the immersion?
2. If you are out in the world and a mob jumps you does that break immersion? What if players had mob tags on them, would that then not break the immersion?
3. Is it only in the open world that immersion would be broken, or is it in instanced dungeons (which totally don't break immersion)?
I'm serious about the questions, because it seems that fighting other players is what breaks the immersion for you. But I personally can't see how fighting other players breaks immersion when the middle ages (where fantasy sword and board type games are heavily influenced from) were filled with combat.
Taunt and agro are needed and serve a great purpose in modern day mmorpgs.
Without agro and agro control you have a zerg festival with totally random mob movements and attacks that make no sense.
Do you really hold the position that it makes no sense to attack the weakest opponent? That it makes no sense to attack the one doing the most damage to them?
Are you really saying that having mobs attack the lowest threat with the most impenetrable armor is the most sensible attack for a mob?
If you like taunt and the trinity, that's fine, but your arguments as to why it is the only way combat should be done in an MMO are... odd.
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
No response, but agreement. To add - PvP is not about destroying equipment, at least not to me. The point of PvP is to elevate one guild over another, in the form of territory control/asset destruction. Sure you destroy things in the process, but even without destruction you could have successful territory control or even successful sieges. Instead of destruction it would be more of a capture the flag system.
More people need to read what you wrote about the crafting. Crafters get short changed in too many games both PvP and PvE. They could be one of the things that brings both playstyles together. Also without PvE players there would not be much of an economy. It is my opinion that PvE players bring the wealth into the world, by killing mobs and looting the money. The PvP players help spread that wealth around. Crafters create goods with both money and resources from PvE events as in raiding and PvP events like in mine fights from Shadowbane. PvE and PvP can exist in the same game but it would take effort on both parts; some PvP players need to learn to not be jerks and don't just randomly kill, while PvE players could loosen up a bit and realize that dying to a person is not the end of the world. Until we have a mindset that both groups can co-exist there will be no harmony. If anything I would like to see more of EvEs example where players step up to protect the PvE players and thus form a symbiotic relationship.
You guys took my example and far removed it from the point.
They asked for an example of a game that functions in a particular way. Everything you guys are talking about may be true but has nothing to do with my post.
My example would still work if the players killing the dragons instantly crafted the items themselves with a 1 button macro.
It had nothing to do with sieges, guild territory control, or crafting.
you are agreeing with someone who is countering arguments that were never made. You're arguing against phantoms.
Your right, because I'm not trying to fight for PvP player ganking, nor and I fighting against PvE player raids. Instead I am trying to show good ways that both can develop together. My response was to his post only and not everything he responded to.
The OP started with an idea of how PvP and PvE could exist on the same server. It's not a bad idea, but too many players want to look at the negatives of each side instead of the positives that both bring to the table.
For instance: I am not affected in EQ2 by players that love to design houses and decorate them. However I would be missing out on some pretty cool stuff if I didn't acknowledge that a heavy PvE portion of the game has had impact on my measily little house. I as a PvP player can appreciate the advancements that decorators have pushed for and devs have responded. It makes it a richer deeper world; but I still like PvP.
Originally posted by NagelRitter High fantasy and medieval times have very little in common in that sense, tbh. You're thinking low fantasy.
Low Fantasy and High Fantasy are both in the same realm compared to um, space/sci-fi, modern day, westerns etc. How about shows like Merlin or Sword of Truth, they are in my opinion high fantasy. They reflect the real world a lot more than normal high fantasy, but they still have elements of it.
My point still stands that low and high fantasy are melee combat and magic; not missiles, rockets, laser beams, tommy guns, cars etc.
*Edit - To elaborate, Vampire the Masquerade is a modern day setting, Werewolf the Apocolypse had a modern day and western theme. D&D was heavily influenced by the middle ages.
Punishment only works if people care about the consequences.
Even real life have criminals, but unlike MMOs, they can go to jail for a long time for their crimes or even be executed (permadeath). Too few MMOs have justice system or at least tools.
Oh dear the real life argument, yes real life has criminals. Guess what we do not want to play with them in real life either.
Your right, because I'm not trying to fight for PvP player ganking, nor and I fighting against PvE player raids. Instead I am trying to show good ways that both can develop together. My response was to his post only and not everything he responded to.
The OP started with an idea of how PvP and PvE could exist on the same server. It's not a bad idea, but too many players want to look at the negatives of each side instead of the positives that both bring to the table.
For instance: I am not affected in EQ2 by players that love to design houses and decorate them. However I would be missing out on some pretty cool stuff if I didn't acknowledge that a heavy PvE portion of the game has had impact on my measily little house. I as a PvP player can appreciate the advancements that decorators have pushed for and devs have responded. It makes it a richer deeper world; but I still like PvP.
I saw a comment about how PVP wasn't about gear destruction and I thought it was a response to what I wrote where I had created a model of a simple little game for them where PVP was about gear destruction. Coincidence maybe.
My misunderstanding no doubt.
As for the rest of what you said above, more power to ya. I'll not disagree, that all makes sense.
Taunt and agro are needed and serve a great purpose in modern day mmorpgs.
They're not needed. They're only needed for the Trinity to function. 95% of RPG's out there do not use the Trinity.Most RPGs have a fairly wide variety of ways to deal with the enemy, ranging from shared damage to damage avoidance through glass cannon setups to healing setups to. See any MOBA for team encounters, they don't follow the Trinity yet they have clear roles and lots of strategy. Don't try to claim that only the Trinity works because only someone who never ever played anything outside of a handful of MMO's could possibly claim such ignorance.
Without agro and agro control you have a zerg festival with totally random mob movements and attacks that make no sense.
If you have a zerg festival you die. Your job is to make sure it's not a zerg festival. And why should mob attacks make no sense? Imagine that instead of your group meeting a dumb AI mob, your group met a player controlling the mob. How would that player act? So should a mob act. It makes perfect sense. It sure as hell makes a lot more sense than the Trinity, which is an artificial concept whether you like it or not.
You might as well not have a trinity system and let everyone heal and everyone dodge and everyone revive.....oh wait...this has been done already--->(see GW2)
GW2 has its own system that has little to do with many other non-Trinity RPG systems. GW2 does not have clearly defined roles at all. GW2 is not the only way you can do things, just one of the many ways. Like another poster said, broaden your horizons. Play some RPG's besides MMO's, for God's sake.
If a dps related class gets over the tank agro they need to slow down damage or die. Then the tank must use taunt to regain agro. Same with heals. Healer can't over heal or they draw agro and take a dirt nap if the tank isn't fast enuff with taunt. Part of this dynamic also factors in with crowd control, kiting,etc. Basically all these serve purpose well in PvE.
You're just describing the Trinity. None of this exists outside of Trinity games. Nobody "needs" to do anything, unless you are trying to say that real-life encounters between armies are impossible according to the laws of physics or something.
You can argue for Trinity being a good possible implementation but you can't argue that it's in any way realistic, sensible, or necessary. It isn't. Precisely because it falls apart completely in PvP.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW Currently playing: GW2, EVE Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
About balance between PvP and PvE, how you can have it in a FFA open world PvP?...if EQN will have public dungeon and open raid how can you have a challenging PvE content if you can be attacked by the other faction players when you are raiding...if you re fighting a difficult boss, how can you handle it and simoultaneously manage an heavy enemy players attack?
I see 2 possible solutions:
1) make a really easy PvE
2) make all PvE istanced
I dont like these solutions.
Or you just make the rewards for PvE that much greater, giving you an incentive to take the risk. Not just the incentive to take the risk, but if the reward is higher, you can even hire mercenaries to guard you while you pve!
I dont think that a mercenary system can be a valid solution.
Well ok.....? Mercenaries exist in games like UO and Darkfall but I guess you just don't want to believe that.
Either way, I also said that if the rewards were great enough, it would be worth the risk of farming them.
UMM I thing Gholos was referring to EQ2 style mercenaries ( an NPC hireling) and your are referring to players. Not a question of belief but one of definition.
As to hiring players, from a PvE players perspective this is just enabling bad behavior, encouraging more PvP not less.
Low Fantasy and High Fantasy are both in the same realm
In the context of this discussion, which is about PvP, they are not in the same realm at all. A dog-eat-dog world is very logical for low fantasy, while generally makes no sense for high fantasy, because that's kinda the point of the word "low".
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW Currently playing: GW2, EVE Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
Taunt and agro are needed and serve a great purpose in modern day mmorpgs.
Without agro and agro control you have a zerg festival with totally random mob movements and attacks that make no sense.
Do you really hold the position that it makes no sense to attack the weakest opponent? That it makes no sense to attack the one doing the most damage to them?
Are you familiar with the term agro? Agro in EQ worked that way. If a player did to much damage or healed to much or got very low health, they would jump up on the agro list and get attacked. Only way to switch attack off them was for tanks to taunt the mob back.
Are you really saying that having mobs attack the lowest threat with the most impenetrable armor is the most sensible attack for a mob?
Watch a bull, or bear or snake or whatever. If you get in it's face, or poke at it in a taunting manor, you become the target. To me this taunt in games makes sense and adds more depth to a virtual world.
If you like taunt and the trinity, that's fine, but your arguments as to why it is the only way combat should be done in an MMO are... odd.
It is not the only mechanic. It is just the best I have been exposed to in the past 17 years I have been goofing off with mmorpg's.
what pve crowd afaik wants is to have option to have their own pve servers where they can play pve in "peace" (meaning without looking over shoulder for pvpers).
its the pvpers who i see again and again being against idea of separate servers for those who prefer pvp and those who prefer pve
The main problem being, you and a few others are simply not accepting our explanation on why this is as it is.
The story goes something like:
Player1: I want a game where PVP and PVE are interconnected to the point where the game would not function without either.
Player2: I want that game without the PVP
Player1: The game wouldn't really work as I described it without PVP. Notice the key words "not function."
Player2: Why are you being so unreasonable?
Most of us are admitting maybe a great game can work with separate PVE and PVP. Some of us are just trying to say we aren't interested in your version of online gaming utopia. We have our own views and sadly, they are simply incompatible and for whatever reason many of you aren't understanding why no matter how clearly we try to explain it.
Rama, I accept your point of view. I believe you accept my point of view. Those that do not accept our (quite divergent) points of view are on both sides, some PvP some PvE.
Rama, I accept your point of view. I believe you accept my point of view. Those that do not accept our (quite divergent) points of view are on both sides, some PvP some PvE.
This is true. I never intended to say ignorance was only on one side of the fence. If I did I was in error.
Originally posted by Aelious Darkfall is a great example of a PvP centric game but there's only one problem: PvEers won't play it. So come back to the question if there can be a compromise between PvP and PvE. There can be but it involves compromise from both sides and inevitably both will complain I think.
We'll have to see what SoE has in store.
Darkfall was brought up as an example of a game that is reliant on pve, pvp, crafting, harvesting to show that games like that do in fact exist. Games that simply won't work as a "PVE" server.
I think we've lost sight of the fact that this entire discussion stems from someone saying they did not understand why we don't want separate PVE and PVP servers.
This has been explained now, I don't think we should have to prove that such a game is possible to validate the desire. That seems sort of ludicrous to me. I don't see why such a thing is so hard to believe but if we have to go that far to "win the thread" i'll go ahead and concede my point. I'm not really here to win anything.
This happens every time. Every single time. One of the PvE-only proponent says something that is inaccurate or dishonest, we spend pages and pages trying to explain why they're wrong, and during those pages and pages they either change their argument, or just start to ignore you.
I don't think it's that, I just think you'll never convince a PvE player that if this or that is changed they'll like it. It makes perfect sense that a PvP focused game can't have seperate PvE servers. That wasn't the only point of this thread though, it was whether a compromise between the two can be reached. Aparently it can't. I'm not sure what you are referring to that was "dishonest or inaccurate" but any explainations you may have will never change the will of PvE-only players.
"Take Darkfall as an example. The game is built with pvp in mind. You build cities, you siege cities, you raid cities. All of these things are based around pvp. If you take out pvp everybody will just build a city and then sit there.... doing nothing. Tell me how a game like this would exist with out pvp?"
Darkfall is a good example, as a PvE player it is a game I would never play.
Originally pant to just say "hey that sort of game isn't possible" then that is fine, we will disagree and all go on our merry ways believing each other to be incorrect.
And that is precisely where you are off base time and time again in this particular thread.
Lets just take an even more simplified example:
The point of PVE is to create equipment.
The point of PVP is to destroy equipment.
It is the prerogative of a PVE player to put as much equipment on the market as possible so PVP players will buy it.
It is the prerogative of a PVP player to buy as much equipment from the market as possible.
Now, you are telling me that by this system, this is a pvp game designed for only pvp?
I disagree. If the PVE players all leave the PVP players will have no gear and their goal of "purchase as much equipment as possible" cannot be fulfilled.
If the PVP players all leave the PVE players will have no market to sell their goods.
The system breaks if either group leave.
Unfortunately a good portion of that replacement equipment would be sold to PvE players who got ganked by the PKers.
Sorry Rama a world with FFA PvP is just not fun for those of us that prefer PvE.
I don't understand why some people are saying a game is either PvP or PvE focused...
If a game world is large enough both should be able to exist without one infringing upon the other. To me it seems that myself and a large portion of the PvP proponents simply want PvP to actually matter within the game world as a whole, instead of just being a little mini game within the game.
Again someone wants to tell me what my subjective experience is. It is not just a game that I would not want to be immersed in, it would be a game I would be being jerked out of my immersion by jerks.
I'm really not interested in entering the world of "it's my opinion and nothing you say can change my mind." It's childish really and has no place in debate. You know you're wrong and have now resorted to sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to reason.
No I accept that other people have different preferences, you seem to be opposed to me having my preference. I am listening and responding, not sticking my fingers in my ears. Can you say the same?
Nobody is talking about preferences! We're saying that just because you don't like a game, doesn't mean it's not immersive. And game continuity is NOT subjective.
OK game continuity? You were saying immersion. Shifting the word does make some difference, however PvP is not part of continuity at all. Continuity is about what the Devs do not about what the players do.
They go hand-in-hand. Something that is out of place in the game breaks game continuity and immersion. Things that break immersion are unintended unfortunate shortcomings like game crashes, graphics, etc. If a purposeful feature of the game is working perfectly, it doesn't break continuity and shouldn't reduce immersion. Saying something is immersive isn't a 100% subjective statement, which is what you're trying to turn it into. It's like if you put somebody in a flight simulator at NASA, probably one of the most immersive virtual experiences a person can have, you can't simply say it's not immersive because you don't like to fly.
Originally pant to just say "hey that sort of game isn't possible" then that is fine, we will disagree and all go on our merry ways believing each other to be incorrect.
And that is precisely where you are off base time and time again in this particular thread.
Lets just take an even more simplified example:
The point of PVE is to create equipment.
The point of PVP is to destroy equipment.
It is the prerogative of a PVE player to put as much equipment on the market as possible so PVP players will buy it.
It is the prerogative of a PVP player to buy as much equipment from the market as possible.
Now, you are telling me that by this system, this is a pvp game designed for only pvp?
I disagree. If the PVE players all leave the PVP players will have no gear and their goal of "purchase as much equipment as possible" cannot be fulfilled.
If the PVP players all leave the PVE players will have no market to sell their goods.
The system breaks if either group leave.
Unfortunately a good portion of that replacement equipment would be sold to PvE players who got ganked by the PKers.
Sorry Rama a world with FFA PvP is just not fun for those of us that prefer PvE.
My game was an example of interdependence. It was not created as an example of what a fun game should look like. It is just a simplified example of something I posted earlier to maybe help explain to some confused posters what the terms "interdependence" or "integrated systems" means. I never expected anyone to take it seriously as a suggestion for a working game system.
My stance on compromise is that the only true compromise we will find between people who refuse to participate in PVP and those who want integrated PVE/PVP is that we all play separate games that cater to our desires. That or we some day change our minds about what we want.
Still no compromise and still round and round. You want OW FFA PvP, I say that is not a compromise as it destroys immersion for PvE players and you say I am wrong I really am immersed when I know I am not.
OW FFA PvP is not simply a game I would not want to be immersed in it is one I could not be immersed in. You are so blinkered in your view that you cannot accept another perspective. I get that you like PvP, I understand the game world would not be immersive for you without PvP but not everyone shares your perspective for a lot of us PvP is not immersive it does break immersion.
1. In a single sentence can you explain what breaks immersion for you? What kind of PvP breaks the immersion?
2. If you are out in the world and a mob jumps you does that break immersion? What if players had mob tags on them, would that then not break the immersion?
3. Is it only in the open world that immersion would be broken, or is it in instanced dungeons (which totally don't break immersion)?
I'm serious about the questions, because it seems that fighting other players is what breaks the immersion for you. But I personally can't see how fighting other players breaks immersion when the middle ages (where fantasy sword and board type games are heavily influenced from) were filled with combat.
PvP itself does not break my immersion, I simply do not participate in it happy to let others do so though. Being randomly attacked by one or more PKers does break my immersion. I am fine with a MOB jumping me, not with a player actively hunting me.
While I often have fun in instanced dungeons I prefer the open world. I agree instances are not immersive although some may find them so.
As to the middle ages, your are just wrong. At no time in human history was the world filled with combat, combat and warfare occurred but the overwhelming majority of people lead their lives without encountering it or encountering only on a few occasions.
Comments
Mobs are completely scripted, it's one of the reasons I enjoy player vs player interaction. When I play against another player anything can happen, when it's a scripted mob, I know there is a limit and a pattern to the mob. Yay for defending against scripted mobs for the hundredth time; instead I would like to defend some awesome Shadowbane guilds that took different approaches to each siege, came in from a different angle for the attack, or tried different group mechanics because it was not the right way to make a group. Human player interaction gives you the unknown and it's that excitement that you can't script for. PvE is just not as exciting as pitting wills/minds against another human.
Still no compromise and still round and round. You want OW FFA PvP, I say that is not a compromise as it destroys immersion for PvE players and you say I am wrong I really am immersed when I know I am not.
OW FFA PvP is not simply a game I would not want to be immersed in it is one I could not be immersed in. You are so blinkered in your view that you cannot accept another perspective. I get that you like PvP, I understand the game world would not be immersive for you without PvP but not everyone shares your perspective for a lot of us PvP is not immersive it does break immersion.
No response, but agreement. To add - PvP is not about destroying equipment, at least not to me. The point of PvP is to elevate one guild over another, in the form of territory control/asset destruction. Sure you destroy things in the process, but even without destruction you could have successful territory control or even successful sieges. Instead of destruction it would be more of a capture the flag system.
More people need to read what you wrote about the crafting. Crafters get short changed in too many games both PvP and PvE. They could be one of the things that brings both playstyles together. Also without PvE players there would not be much of an economy. It is my opinion that PvE players bring the wealth into the world, by killing mobs and looting the money. The PvP players help spread that wealth around. Crafters create goods with both money and resources from PvE events as in raiding and PvP events like in mine fights from Shadowbane. PvE and PvP can exist in the same game but it would take effort on both parts; some PvP players need to learn to not be jerks and don't just randomly kill, while PvE players could loosen up a bit and realize that dying to a person is not the end of the world. Until we have a mindset that both groups can co-exist there will be no harmony. If anything I would like to see more of EvEs example where players step up to protect the PvE players and thus form a symbiotic relationship.
On taunt....
Taunt and agro are needed and serve a great purpose in modern day mmorpgs.
Without agro and agro control you have a zerg festival with totally random mob movements and attacks that make no sense. You might as well not have a trinity system and let everyone heal and everyone dodge and everyone revive.....oh wait...this has been done already--->(see GW2)
If a dps related class gets over the tank agro they need to slow down damage or die. Then the tank must use taunt to regain agro. Same with heals. Healer can't over heal or they draw agro and take a dirt nap if the tank isn't fast enuff with taunt. Part of this dynamic also factors in with crowd control, kiting,etc. Basically all these serve purpose well in PvE.
In PvP taunt could maybe be used to switch the target to the tank when tank hits it which would mess with enemy players who had targeted others for heals, buffs, nukes, cc etc.
So taunt would be fun and usable in both PvE and PvP.
Next we have the Age old worry....**they are blocking my PvE with a bunch of people that want to hurt me**
The point of putting dungeons and good crafting nodes out in PvP territory is to make focus spots for PvP to take place as groups battle for the opportunity to hunt in that area. If there are 20 dungeons on release then there will obviously be lots of areas for both PvE and PvP to take place. Even a tough group that was able to kill others and then start into the dungeon may run into another group deeper inside or perhaps a raid. They can choose to fight again or call a truce to get some PvE done or form an alliance for just that session and kick out others that try to come in together.
The outcomes of PvP are up to the players themselves. The game may lay down a ruleset but it's up to us how we work within it.
You guys took my example and far removed it from the point.
They asked for an example of a game that functions in a particular way. Everything you guys are talking about may be true but has nothing to do with my post.
My example would still work if the players killing the dragons instantly crafted the items themselves with a 1 button macro.
It had nothing to do with sieges, guild territory control, or crafting.
you are agreeing with someone who is countering arguments that were never made. You're arguing against phantoms.
1. In a single sentence can you explain what breaks immersion for you? What kind of PvP breaks the immersion?
2. If you are out in the world and a mob jumps you does that break immersion? What if players had mob tags on them, would that then not break the immersion?
3. Is it only in the open world that immersion would be broken, or is it in instanced dungeons (which totally don't break immersion)?
I'm serious about the questions, because it seems that fighting other players is what breaks the immersion for you. But I personally can't see how fighting other players breaks immersion when the middle ages (where fantasy sword and board type games are heavily influenced from) were filled with combat.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
Do you really hold the position that it makes no sense to attack the weakest opponent? That it makes no sense to attack the one doing the most damage to them?
Are you really saying that having mobs attack the lowest threat with the most impenetrable armor is the most sensible attack for a mob?
If you like taunt and the trinity, that's fine, but your arguments as to why it is the only way combat should be done in an MMO are... odd.
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
Your right, because I'm not trying to fight for PvP player ganking, nor and I fighting against PvE player raids. Instead I am trying to show good ways that both can develop together. My response was to his post only and not everything he responded to.
The OP started with an idea of how PvP and PvE could exist on the same server. It's not a bad idea, but too many players want to look at the negatives of each side instead of the positives that both bring to the table.
For instance: I am not affected in EQ2 by players that love to design houses and decorate them. However I would be missing out on some pretty cool stuff if I didn't acknowledge that a heavy PvE portion of the game has had impact on my measily little house. I as a PvP player can appreciate the advancements that decorators have pushed for and devs have responded. It makes it a richer deeper world; but I still like PvP.
Low Fantasy and High Fantasy are both in the same realm compared to um, space/sci-fi, modern day, westerns etc. How about shows like Merlin or Sword of Truth, they are in my opinion high fantasy. They reflect the real world a lot more than normal high fantasy, but they still have elements of it.
My point still stands that low and high fantasy are melee combat and magic; not missiles, rockets, laser beams, tommy guns, cars etc.
*Edit - To elaborate, Vampire the Masquerade is a modern day setting, Werewolf the Apocolypse had a modern day and western theme. D&D was heavily influenced by the middle ages.
Oh dear the real life argument, yes real life has criminals. Guess what we do not want to play with them in real life either.
I saw a comment about how PVP wasn't about gear destruction and I thought it was a response to what I wrote where I had created a model of a simple little game for them where PVP was about gear destruction. Coincidence maybe.
My misunderstanding no doubt.
As for the rest of what you said above, more power to ya. I'll not disagree, that all makes sense.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
UMM I thing Gholos was referring to EQ2 style mercenaries ( an NPC hireling) and your are referring to players. Not a question of belief but one of definition.
As to hiring players, from a PvE players perspective this is just enabling bad behavior, encouraging more PvP not less.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
It is not the only mechanic. It is just the best I have been exposed to in the past 17 years I have been goofing off with mmorpg's.
Rama, I accept your point of view. I believe you accept my point of view. Those that do not accept our (quite divergent) points of view are on both sides, some PvP some PvE.
This is true. I never intended to say ignorance was only on one side of the fence. If I did I was in error.
I don't think it's that, I just think you'll never convince a PvE player that if this or that is changed they'll like it. It makes perfect sense that a PvP focused game can't have seperate PvE servers. That wasn't the only point of this thread though, it was whether a compromise between the two can be reached. Aparently it can't. I'm not sure what you are referring to that was "dishonest or inaccurate" but any explainations you may have will never change the will of PvE-only players.
Edit
Darkfall is a good example, as a PvE player it is a game I would never play.
Unfortunately a good portion of that replacement equipment would be sold to PvE players who got ganked by the PKers.
Sorry Rama a world with FFA PvP is just not fun for those of us that prefer PvE.
I don't understand why some people are saying a game is either PvP or PvE focused...
If a game world is large enough both should be able to exist without one infringing upon the other. To me it seems that myself and a large portion of the PvP proponents simply want PvP to actually matter within the game world as a whole, instead of just being a little mini game within the game.
They go hand-in-hand. Something that is out of place in the game breaks game continuity and immersion. Things that break immersion are unintended unfortunate shortcomings like game crashes, graphics, etc. If a purposeful feature of the game is working perfectly, it doesn't break continuity and shouldn't reduce immersion. Saying something is immersive isn't a 100% subjective statement, which is what you're trying to turn it into. It's like if you put somebody in a flight simulator at NASA, probably one of the most immersive virtual experiences a person can have, you can't simply say it's not immersive because you don't like to fly.
My game was an example of interdependence. It was not created as an example of what a fun game should look like. It is just a simplified example of something I posted earlier to maybe help explain to some confused posters what the terms "interdependence" or "integrated systems" means. I never expected anyone to take it seriously as a suggestion for a working game system.
My stance on compromise is that the only true compromise we will find between people who refuse to participate in PVP and those who want integrated PVE/PVP is that we all play separate games that cater to our desires. That or we some day change our minds about what we want.
PvP itself does not break my immersion, I simply do not participate in it happy to let others do so though. Being randomly attacked by one or more PKers does break my immersion. I am fine with a MOB jumping me, not with a player actively hunting me.
While I often have fun in instanced dungeons I prefer the open world. I agree instances are not immersive although some may find them so.
As to the middle ages, your are just wrong. At no time in human history was the world filled with combat, combat and warfare occurred but the overwhelming majority of people lead their lives without encountering it or encountering only on a few occasions.