Originally posted by Bladin I have to say BS to the person saying that players are much smarter and harder then npcs. That is SO untrue. No matter the game, no matter the class. There are only so many ways to play. So many ways to react to different situations. Even in games like magic the gathering you can not know ALOT of the cards, but play enough to know how to handle different decks after the first few rounds, say a black deck, you could expect fear, life drains, penalties, the like, there really aren't any cards that stray too far from the norm, there are overly exceptional ones sure, but they still follow the same rules.And have you played with the CS bots on the hardest difficulties, those things really can do some serious damage, and ARE harder then most players.
So what you are telling me is, in fact, that computer opponents are more difficult than human players? I don't know how to put this without sounding a bit harsh, but what games do you play, and why do you not play multiplayer? You're right, with limited options there's only so much a human player can do, but this is also true of the computer. The computer has the ability to do things faster, and to "cheat", this does not make it better, only mildly more efficient. The computer, however, is all but incapable of strategy (In MMO's that is), yes there are a few exceptions to this rule but not many.
When was the last time you had the computer kite you? When was the last time you saw computer controlled ranged mobs attack you from an area that was all but impossible to get to? When was the last time you saw the computer use a "Skill" in a way that you've never seen before? And for some of you WoW fans, when was the last time you saw the computer Feign Death/Frost Trap? The answer to all of these questions is (almost) never. How often do human players do this? Chances are good to excellent that it's everyday.
In conclusion, only human players can offer players the challenge they require to keep the game fresh and interesting.
Sidebar: Quite frankly, people who are afraid of True (Read OPEN) PvP are the same people who want an easy game. What's the point if anyone with the time can achieve maximum level/best gear/best rank? Even if you spend all your life devoted to something, say a sport, or chess, or your job, you still may not be the best, why should this be any different? Disclaimer below.
Disclaimer: This does not prevent "Easy Games" from having PvP *cough* WoW *cough*. At least it's a step in the right direction. Yeah, the system is flawed: it rewards time, not skill/ability/knowledge/tactics/intelligence. Secondly, the "it's game, it's supposed to be fun" defense is old and tired. Yes, it is a game. Yes, it should be fun, but it should also have purpose and competition. No, getting ganked ISN'T fun, but the thrill of knowing you have achieved something despite the competition is a FAR more satisfying feeling than winning it because you put X hours into it.
Originally posted by Tinybina Lets be real here.. With the exception of EQ and FFXI (which had a built in Player base) what PVE only MMORPG has really had any success....But lets flip that on the other side look at how many MMORPG's that have done well and the ones that do well today have alot of PVP elements to there game. I think this just speaks volumes about the direction that Devs need to take in there games. Just like PVE, PVP needs to be included in your games. Its a must.
Successful PVE only games: EQ - Over 500k subs in it's prime Asheron's Call - Over 150k subs in it's prime... not stellar, but definitely successful, especially at that time. EQ2 - Over 500k subs prior to adding PVP. Per NYT Article in September. PVP went live in EQ a few weeks later. FFXI - Over 700k subs currently. WoW - Over 4.5 million subs. Remember that PVP wasn't fully implemented in WoW till this past summer.
I agree that PVP adds depth and fun to any MMORPG if properly done. But anyone who thinks it's somehow "mandatory" to add PVP to a game needs to re-think their logic. There's ample proof that a well executed PVE game can thrive in this market.
As to your overall premise I will say this:
Most truely successful games on the market, including WoW, have VOLUNTARY PVP as their pvp mode. Lineage II is the noteable exception to this statement but over 90% of their userbase is in Korea and the rest of Asia. In the US and Europe combined they have less than 100k players.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
PvP should be opt-in. SWG for all it's flaws handled this in a very good way. PvP should however NOT be instanced as I feel it makes the world artificial and this is against the basic concept of a mmorpg.
Personally I hate this concept. I'd rather be harassed by kill stealers all day than play a heavily instanced game.
While I'm not a PvP zealot like some people on these forums... I do feel that a game is lacking if it doesn't include at least _some_ form of PvP... even if it's only duels.
DUDE FREAKIN QUIT LYING. EQ 1 had PvP and its FOUR great PvP servers were fun as hell.Sullon Zek had NO RULES.Quit sayin it had no PVP.Freakin idiot. ALSO WOW had PVP from the FIRST DAY of release not mid summer or whatever the heck your talkin about.GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT
Originally posted by Joliust I still like how SWG handled PvP. PvP was open everywhere but you could chose when you wanted to PvP and when not too. I am still waiting for a game to impliment PvP so it actually has an effect other than just killing each other for fun.
well as a person that tends not to like PVP options in games here are my reasons...
1: There are times when I just want to mines or fish or what ever... I don't alwats want to kill stuff when In a game. So if I'm fishing I don't want to be constantly moving becouse another character is there. I left one game becouse I was constantly being attacked and I couldn't even train to a level to play the game.
2: Low level characters need time and places to train. I hate it when you have open PVP in all areas of the game world all of the time! If you just start playing a game and you cant even lvl why play! There should be a reason to kill other player not just becouse you can. War breaking out for example or guild war or what ever. This makes it a more enjoyable experience and people who don't want to be involved or not apart of the guild etc can stay out of it.
Well that about sums it up let there be consequences for killing other players outside certain set situations and everyone can have there fun...
PvP has to have consequences. That is why full looting and land ownership(real land ownership not like WoW) is a good idea. Only works with games built to have it(player skill=win instead of character/equipment/level/class). There is then a chance to lose your items. Also, the red system UO had was good. So many people today want to be able to pk whoever they want and still be able to waltz into town and buy items. When player skill=win then newbs can come in and train and still win once they get the hang of it.
Full looting puts consequences all the time which is needed. In a faction based game then you will still have people that kill just for fun with no consequence because the people they kill are in the other faction.
Low level characters should join guilds. One of the big reasons for playing a MMORPG instead of an offline RPG is to play with OTHER people.
I think the best idea, if you are trying to appeal to everyone, make facets like UO had later on. Fel was lots of fun(I am a avid pvper). I know people still had fun in tram where it wasn't open pvp and you could still have guild wars. Just make sure you build the game to utilize full looting. And if you have factions have it like UO where you could still kill faction members.
EDIT: To the couple of morons that said "what pure pvp game has lots of players?" The OP didn't say pure pvp games. I can't think of any pure PvM game that have many players at all.
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open. Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
Originally posted by Tithrielle While I'm not a PvP zealot like some people on these forums... I do feel that a game is lacking if it doesn't include at least _some_ form of PvP... even if it's only duels.And btw EQ1 does have PvP.
EQ1 has DUELS. It also had the voluntary "Chaos" flag that hardly anyone ever used. There are some specific PVP SERVERS (Actually I think it merged back down to 1 server) but the main game is PVE only other than the chaos flaggers or duelers... And if you're going to count duels as a form of PVP then I'd be hard pressed to name ANY MMORPG that doesn't have "some form" of PVP other than DDO... and I wouldn't be surprised to see dueling make it's way into DDO.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
Originally posted by neckleather DUDE FREAKIN QUIT LYING. EQ 1 had PvP and its FOUR great PvP servers were fun as hell.Sullon Zek had NO RULES.Quit sayin it had no PVP.Freakin idiot. ALSO WOW had PVP from the FIRST DAY of release not mid summer or whatever the heck your talkin about.GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT
Obviously you didn't play EQ at release. I did.
PVP servers were added later and even then were the vast *minority* of the subscriber base of the game and very few people that I knew actually played on them as their 'primary' server. Many of us had characters on them that we played when we WANTED PVP but for the most part we played on the blue servers. Though there was a decent core of pvp'ers that played exclusively on the PVP servers when they opened.
At release EQ had duels and a a "Chaos flag" that you could use from day 1. A *handful* (literally less than like 10 players on any given server usually) actually used it. And once they added methods for them to un-flag NOBODY was chaos flagged.
I believe the 4 PVP servers that were added have been merged down to 1 at this point but I could be incorrect on that. I haven't played EQ in a while. But yes, EQ had little to no PVP at all for a very very long time on the vast majority of the servers. The main game, where the most subscribers played, were the "BLUE" servers, as we called them in the game.
I'm a 7 year vet of EQ. Don't try to twist my words. I know more about EQ than I care to remember.
Also I didn't say WoW didn't have PVP, I said it wasn't fully implemented till summer. Don't call me a liar. Everything I posted was 100% true.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
"And if you're going to count duels as a form of PVP then I'd be hard pressed to name ANY MMORPG that doesn't have "some form" of PVP other than DDO... and I wouldn't be surprised to see dueling make it's way into DDO."
EQ 1 had PvP Servers as well, Sullon Zek (sp?) was FFA PvP and was one of the most populated servers. Sure, not every game has viable PvP, but all games should, at the very least, have servers that allow for a good PvP rule set.
I agree with you on at least one thing, however, duels are NOT (true) PvP...
Bottom line, PvP is necessary for an engaging end game. Time has proven that Raiding does not mean fun, nor does it keep players coming back. It is simply a lack of alternatives that keeps players Raiding, not the fact that it is fun.
Disclaimer: Raiding can be fun if it's part of a balanced end-game, and is even fun earlier. If the only option a high level player has is raiding, however, the game quickly becomes stagnant and becomes a breeding ground for Overpowered Items, simply because the developers have nothing to add to new items except more +HP and Damage.
EQ1 has DUELS. It also had the voluntary "Chaos" flag that hardly anyone ever used. There are some specific PVP SERVERS (Actually I think it merged back down to 1 server) but the main game is PVE only other than the chaos flaggers or duelers... And if you're going to count duels as a form of PVP then I'd be hard pressed to name ANY MMORPG that doesn't have "some form" of PVP other than DDO... and I wouldn't be surprised to see dueling make it's way into DDO.
EQ 1 had PvP Servers as well, Sullon Zek (sp?) was FFA PvP and was one of the most populated servers. Sure, not every game has viable PvP, but all games should, at the very least, have servers that allow for a good PvP rule set.
I agree with you on at least one thing, however, duels are NOT (true) PvP...
Bottom line, PvP is necessary for an engaging end game. Time has proven that Raiding does not mean fun, nor does it keep players coming back. It is simply a lack of alternatives that keeps players Raiding, not the fact that it is fun.
Disclaimer: Raiding can be fun if it's part of a balanced end-game, and is even fun earlier. If the only option a high level player has is raiding, however, the game quickly becomes stagnant and becomes a breeding ground for Overpowered Items, simply because the developers have nothing to add to new items except more +HP and Damage.
Gray Shadow
I'm sorry, I don't count Sullon Zek (edit: ANY of the "Zek" servers) when considering whether EQ had PVP or not because it was an alternate TYPE of server (and didn't even exist when the game first came out) that accounted for less than 10% of the subscriber base of the game. Yes, it was most crowded, but even then it was still less than 10% of the total people playing the game. EQ's end game was raid content, not PVP.
JFYI: RALLOS Zek (and shortly after, TALLON ZEK) were not added for months after the game released. If I recall correctly they were added the following fall/winter, shortly after Hate and Fear went in. Sullon Zek didn't get created till much later. When they were added they jumped IMMEDIATELY to HUGE populations but within 2 months both were below 1000 players at peak time (EQ used to show player counts on the servers, they took that out a few years back).
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
I dont have to twist your words you do a good job yourself.I played WoW from day 1 on Burning Legion a PVP server.How is that not fully implemented?THANK YOU!! And I never said EQ1 had Pvp at launch but it did have PvP which you FAILED to mention in your OP.The carebears on this board amaze me.Go play a PvP game and quit being so BLUE
Let us assume game XXX with a great PvP system and require skill (not like the standard mmorpg which auto-attack):
A pick-up group hunting mobs, when another group of the same level came up to them and attack them. The pick-up group defended themselves and started typing their strategy. The pick-up group were slaughtered like sheep. The pick-up group never stood a chance even tho the other group was the same level as them.
The attacking group was well organized. They are used to play together, they have good communication using TeamSpeak (or Ventrillo or other voice chat system).
Most of these unorganized new comer to the game keep getting slaughtered. Thankfully they are only playing in Open Beta and will never pay to subscribe for this game.
Typing while being hit by other players isn't a good idea. Maybe they should have a general strategy before they went out hunting after forming their group. If game XXX like you said came about then people would adapt and take an extra 20 seconds to type a general plan.
Also, something like this could happen in WoW(not player skill based and doesn't have good pvp system but, still the scenario could take place) and other games.
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open. Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
Originally posted by Tinybina Lets be real here.. With the exception of EQ and FFXI (which had a built in Player base) what PVE only MMORPG has really had any success....But lets flip that on the other side look at how many MMORPG's that have done well and the ones that do well today have alot of PVP elements to there game. I think this just speaks volumes about the direction that Devs need to take in there games. Just like PVE, PVP needs to be included in your games. Its a must.
Successful PVE only games- PVE only games are games that DO NOT HAVE ANY FORMS OF PVP AT ALL. Toon Town and Maple Story come to mind not these games you listed below that have a FORM OF PVP.. PLAYER VS PLAYER!
EQ - Over 500k subs in it's prime-- Wrong it did have PVP. I was wrong originaly when I first started this thread. PVP was later implemented..Wonder why? *looks to the top of the thread*
Asheron's Call - Over 150k subs in it's prime... not stellar, but definitely successful, especially at that time.- AC didnt have PVP? ROFL I guess the most populated server Darktide was a figment of the imagination.
EQ2 - Over 500k subs prior to adding PVP. Per NYT Article in September.Wonder why the saw the need to add PVP? Hmmmmm *looks to the top of the thread*
FFXI - Over 700k subs currently-Built in player base never dominated..Still 700subs is not bad. But I would bet my left arm it does not have 700k subs now..Maybe when it first started, but as many have said hardly anyone plays the game anymore. Wonder why?
WoW - Over 4.5 million subs. Remember that PVP wasn't fully implemented in WoW till this past summer.-I remember playing in Beta on test server 7,11, and 3.. I also remember PVP nonstop as a alliance Hunter(lanphear).. Trying to kill teh horde that were ganking us in Lakeshire, Darkshire, BB at all times of the day.. What the hell are you talking about?
------------------------------ You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
Originally posted by amappala Let us assume game XXX with a great PvP system and require skill (not like the standard mmorpg which auto-attack): A pick-up group hunting mobs, when another group of the same level came up to them and attack them. The pick-up group defended themselves and started typing their strategy. The pick-up group were slaughtered like sheep. The pick-up group never stood a chance even tho the other group was the same level as them. The attacking group was well organized. They are used to play together, they have good communication using TeamSpeak (or Ventrillo or other voice chat system). Most of these unorganized new comer to the game keep getting slaughtered. Thankfully they are only playing in Open Beta and will never pay to subscribe for this game.
I fail to see what is wrong with this, the other group is obviously better organized, and assuming equal level, they should probably win a great deal more than they lose.
I'm afraid I don't understand your example. What I *think* you're trying to say is that Open PvP isn't something you want. In truth, a well implemented PvP Ruleset will be one that includes Law: NPC and Player Enforced via bounties and KOS Lists. So this means that ganking w/o purpose will be stupid and will more likely than not make you an outlaw in civilized society.
Even if not, superior players with superior tactics/communication all other things equal *should* win. In short, join a guild, get TS, and be the "other" group.
Why are you all debating this topic? What's fun to one player is not necessarily fun to the next. If we all found the same game fun, there would only be one MMO out there for us all. We all like different games for different reasons. Some prefer PVP over PVE and some don't. It's just personal preference.
Originally posted by Indo Why are you all debating this topic? What's fun to one player is not necessarily fun to the next. If we all found the same game fun, there would only be one MMO out there for us all. We all like different games for different reasons. Some prefer PVP over PVE and some don't. It's just personal preference.
That's the problem.
Most MMO's include PvP of some form and many also link it to special content.
Now, a PvP enthused player can and will happily involve themselves in both sides of play. So they get the special 'stuff' from both PvP and PvE play and get nice shiny items and character boosts for that. The PvE player gets excluded from general play benefits because they don't like - and won't participate in - PvP.
PvP zones/area/content also allow pro PvP players to impose their personal preference on others who don't like that PvP. Even with flagging systems and so on there are often places where this is the case.
Either PvP should give no tangible benefits or the styles of play need to be much more widely divided, completely seperate servers, one with no PvP whatsoever at all (save perhaps consensual duels) and the other with completely open PvP. Keep people's tastes apart.
Another part of the problem is this concept of an 'end game', which seems to mostly stem from the levels system being used for so many games. When you've got all the levels, where do you go?
In a tabletop game you would either keep going (Even D&D can level indefinately) with the DM providing more and more cosmic level foes to deal with, or you would start a new campaign. Those can't be done very well in a persistent world, though you can create new characters and run through, you're pretty much accessing the same 'content'.
I think you can alleviate some of the problem by eliminating the concept of the endgame and ditching levels. Level divisions also cause problems for the PvP anyway.
PvP in lots of MMOs results in lower server populations. Old die hards Everquest and Dark Age of Camelot come to mind. That said other thrive on it like *cough* Shadowbeta and Lineage II. Everquest did implement a pvp server or two and they remained the lowest pop servers. Same with DAoC the pvp servers(not just rvr) are the lowest.
Most pvp is rewarding people with no life who can do it hour after hour and in the end their rewards in gear and abilities will beat the people with real lifes jobs and familys who have skill. I dont know how you would fix it tho.
Also trouble with pvp being forced (ffa) is that you find those who CAN player kill HAVE to player kill. They see others fighting npcs and jump the player. They grief.They camp corpses. They act like imature kiddies who think pking ingame is like being a big man irl.
As for OP and his/her subject. Bullshit.A game does not NEED pvp to survive. If you NEED pvp go play battlefield etc. WoW has many pvp servers that caters for the kiddies,like everyone always rants about that WOW community is immature in general,well guess where they mainly play . But without pvp in the battlegrounds form WoW would still be booming. People do enjoy pve, taking down the last dragon, taking on the huge mofo boss in the dungeon. Team work and strategies and loot are things people enjoy.
I agree with the original poster. Players WANT PvP, even if some of them don't know it. Some players may get killed repeatedly in a PvP environment and rage and cry, and say to themselves, "whaaaa, I was killed again! Now I have to go through collecting all my widgets again and look for a blue healer, whaaaa." However, what they don't realize is that subconciously they NEED to be killed. Without the challenge that only an intelligent and crafty player can bring to staying alive, players will eventually become board. Not only will they figure out how to outsmart every computer controlled monster, but there's just something visceral and engaging about knowing that "JohnnyTwoTows" killed you and you need to plan for REVENGE. It keeps a game lively, realistic, emotional, and fun.
I may have overstated by saying that ALL players need challange. There's the Sims Online housewife crowed that is just all too happy to sit in their house and make chairs and grow plants. But i believe that 90 percent of gamers desire the challenge of PvP conflict.
In my opinion, not adhearing to this basic desire for competition is what killed The Sims Online from the get go and is what is currently putting the last nails in the coffin of Ultima Online. EA, you're deranged and your SImmy world sucks, RIP.
Originally posted by Indo Why are you all debating this topic? What's fun to one player is not necessarily fun to the next. If we all found the same game fun, there would only be one MMO out there for us all. We all like different games for different reasons. Some prefer PVP over PVE and some don't. It's just personal preference.
That's the problem.
Most MMO's include PvP of some form and many also link it to special content.
Now, a PvP enthused player can and will happily involve themselves in both sides of play. So they get the special 'stuff' from both PvP and PvE play and get nice shiny items and character boosts for that. The PvE player gets excluded from general play benefits because they don't like - and won't participate in - PvP.
PvP zones/area/content also allow pro PvP players to impose their personal preference on others who don't like that PvP. Even with flagging systems and so on there are often places where this is the case.
Either PvP should give no tangible benefits or the styles of play need to be much more widely divided, completely seperate servers, one with no PvP whatsoever at all (save perhaps consensual duels) and the other with completely open PvP. Keep people's tastes apart.
Another part of the problem is this concept of an 'end game', which seems to mostly stem from the levels system being used for so many games. When you've got all the levels, where do you go?
In a tabletop game you would either keep going (Even D&D can level indefinately) with the DM providing more and more cosmic level foes to deal with, or you would start a new campaign. Those can't be done very well in a persistent world, though you can create new characters and run through, you're pretty much accessing the same 'content'.
I think you can alleviate some of the problem by eliminating the concept of the endgame and ditching levels. Level divisions also cause problems for the PvP anyway.
We are not talking about a pvp only game or a pve only game. We are also(at least I am) talking about a game where it is your player skill not your character. So it won't matter how much you sit in front of your monitor if you can't think quickly.
In your example about special content well perhaps the pvper doesn't like pvm but, he does it for the special content. Why can't the pve person do some pvp for the special content. If you don't participate in all aspects of a game then you shouldn't expect to experience all the content.
If you create seperate servers like the ones you stated then you are cutting out the largest portion of customers. People who like both pvp and pvm. (game mechanic duels arn't pvp)
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open. Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
Originally posted by Darktongue PvP in lots of MMOs results in lower server populations. Old die hards Everquest and Dark Age of Camelot come to mind. That said other thrive on it like *cough* Shadowbeta and Lineage II. Everquest did implement a pvp server or two and they remained the lowest pop servers. Same with DAoC the pvp servers(not just rvr) are the lowest.
Most pvp is rewarding people with no life who can do it hour after hour and in the end their rewards in gear and abilities will beat the people with real lifes jobs and familys who have skill. I dont know how you would fix it tho. Also trouble with pvp being forced (ffa) is that you find those who CAN player kill HAVE to player kill. They see others fighting npcs and jump the player. They grief.They camp corpses. They act like imature kiddies who think pking ingame is like being a big man irl.
As for OP and his/her subject. Bullshit.A game does not NEED pvp to survive. If you NEED pvp go play battlefield etc. WoW has many pvp servers that caters for the kiddies,like everyone always rants about that WOW community is immature in general,well guess where they mainly play . But without pvp in the battlegrounds form WoW would still be booming. People do enjoy pve, taking down the last dragon, taking on the huge mofo boss in the dungeon. Team work and strategies and loot are things people enjoy.
That is definately wrong. First of all DAOC and EQ1 were very popular, just because now popular means 3 million subscribers or whatefer dose not mean that they were not popular in there prime.
And now the MMO market has changed, A large Minority of people love PvP.
I guess you had a bad experience with some kid greifing you as you were trying to get your corpse from like Runnyeye or somthing but that dosent mean everyone dose it.
And if you dont like PvP stay on a PVE server, its not that big of an issue.
Comments
So what you are telling me is, in fact, that computer opponents are more difficult than human players? I don't know how to put this without sounding a bit harsh, but what games do you play, and why do you not play multiplayer?
You're right, with limited options there's only so much a human player can do, but this is also true of the computer. The computer has the ability to do things faster, and to "cheat", this does not make it better, only mildly more efficient. The computer, however, is all but incapable of strategy (In MMO's that is), yes there are a few exceptions to this rule but not many.
When was the last time you had the computer kite you? When was the last time you saw computer controlled ranged mobs attack you from an area that was all but impossible to get to? When was the last time you saw the computer use a "Skill" in a way that you've never seen before? And for some of you WoW fans, when was the last time you saw the computer Feign Death/Frost Trap? The answer to all of these questions is (almost) never. How often do human players do this? Chances are good to excellent that it's everyday.
In conclusion, only human players can offer players the challenge they require to keep the game fresh and interesting.
Sidebar: Quite frankly, people who are afraid of True (Read OPEN) PvP are the same people who want an easy game. What's the point if anyone with the time can achieve maximum level/best gear/best rank? Even if you spend all your life devoted to something, say a sport, or chess, or your job, you still may not be the best, why should this be any different? Disclaimer below.
Disclaimer: This does not prevent "Easy Games" from having PvP *cough* WoW *cough*. At least it's a step in the right direction. Yeah, the system is flawed: it rewards time, not skill/ability/knowledge/tactics/intelligence. Secondly, the "it's game, it's supposed to be fun" defense is old and tired. Yes, it is a game. Yes, it should be fun, but it should also have purpose and competition. No, getting ganked ISN'T fun, but the thrill of knowing you have achieved something despite the competition is a FAR more satisfying feeling than winning it because you put X hours into it.
Thanks for listening,
Gray Shadow
Successful PVE only games:
EQ - Over 500k subs in it's prime
Asheron's Call - Over 150k subs in it's prime... not stellar, but definitely successful, especially at that time.
EQ2 - Over 500k subs prior to adding PVP. Per NYT Article in September. PVP went live in EQ a few weeks later.
FFXI - Over 700k subs currently.
WoW - Over 4.5 million subs. Remember that PVP wasn't fully implemented in WoW till this past summer.
I agree that PVP adds depth and fun to any MMORPG if properly done. But anyone who thinks it's somehow "mandatory" to add PVP to a game needs to re-think their logic. There's ample proof that a well executed PVE game can thrive in this market.
As to your overall premise I will say this:
Most truely successful games on the market, including WoW, have VOLUNTARY PVP as their pvp mode. Lineage II is the noteable exception to this statement but over 90% of their userbase is in Korea and the rest of Asia. In the US and Europe combined they have less than 100k players.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
PvP should be opt-in. SWG for all it's flaws handled this in a very good way. PvP should however NOT be instanced as I feel it makes the world artificial and this is against the basic concept of a mmorpg.
Personally I hate this concept. I'd rather be harassed by kill stealers all day than play a heavily instanced game.
While I'm not a PvP zealot like some people on these forums... I do feel that a game is lacking if it doesn't include at least _some_ form of PvP... even if it's only duels.
And btw EQ1 does have PvP.
The new EQ2, better than ever befor !
don't click this link...
asd
well as a person that tends not to like PVP options in games here are my reasons...
1: There are times when I just want to mines or fish or what ever... I don't alwats want to kill stuff when In a game. So if I'm fishing I don't want to be constantly moving becouse another character is there. I left one game becouse I was constantly being attacked and I couldn't even train to a level to play the game.
2: Low level characters need time and places to train. I hate it when you have open PVP in all areas of the game world all of the time! If you just start playing a game and you cant even lvl why play! There should be a reason to kill other player not just becouse you can. War breaking out for example or guild war or what ever. This makes it a more enjoyable experience and people who don't want to be involved or not apart of the guild etc can stay out of it.
Well that about sums it up let there be consequences for killing other players outside certain set situations and everyone can have there fun...
Just my 2 cents...
Alcanan
"The True North Strong and Free"
"Faith Manages"
PvP has to have consequences. That is why full looting and land ownership(real land ownership not like WoW) is a good idea. Only works with games built to have it(player skill=win instead of character/equipment/level/class). There is then a chance to lose your items. Also, the red system UO had was good. So many people today want to be able to pk whoever they want and still be able to waltz into town and buy items. When player skill=win then newbs can come in and train and still win once they get the hang of it.
Full looting puts consequences all the time which is needed. In a faction based game then you will still have people that kill just for fun with no consequence because the people they kill are in the other faction.
Low level characters should join guilds. One of the big reasons for playing a MMORPG instead of an offline RPG is to play with OTHER people.
I think the best idea, if you are trying to appeal to everyone, make facets like UO had later on. Fel was lots of fun(I am a avid pvper). I know people still had fun in tram where it wasn't open pvp and you could still have guild wars. Just make sure you build the game to utilize full looting. And if you have factions have it like UO where you could still kill faction members.
EDIT: To the couple of morons that said "what pure pvp game has lots of players?" The OP didn't say pure pvp games. I can't think of any pure PvM game that have many players at all.
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open.
Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
Well, we all have our little fantasies.
Chris Mattern
EQ1 has DUELS. It also had the voluntary "Chaos" flag that hardly anyone ever used. There are some specific PVP SERVERS (Actually I think it merged back down to 1 server) but the main game is PVE only other than the chaos flaggers or duelers... And if you're going to count duels as a form of PVP then I'd be hard pressed to name ANY MMORPG that doesn't have "some form" of PVP other than DDO... and I wouldn't be surprised to see dueling make it's way into DDO.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
Obviously you didn't play EQ at release. I did.
PVP servers were added later and even then were the vast *minority* of the subscriber base of the game and very few people that I knew actually played on them as their 'primary' server. Many of us had characters on them that we played when we WANTED PVP but for the most part we played on the blue servers. Though there was a decent core of pvp'ers that played exclusively on the PVP servers when they opened.
At release EQ had duels and a a "Chaos flag" that you could use from day 1. A *handful* (literally less than like 10 players on any given server usually) actually used it. And once they added methods for them to un-flag NOBODY was chaos flagged.
I believe the 4 PVP servers that were added have been merged down to 1 at this point but I could be incorrect on that. I haven't played EQ in a while. But yes, EQ had little to no PVP at all for a very very long time on the vast majority of the servers. The main game, where the most subscribers played, were the "BLUE" servers, as we called them in the game.
I'm a 7 year vet of EQ. Don't try to twist my words. I know more about EQ than I care to remember.
Also I didn't say WoW didn't have PVP, I said it wasn't fully implemented till summer. Don't call me a liar. Everything I posted was 100% true.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
"And if you're going to count duels as a form of PVP then I'd be hard pressed to name ANY MMORPG that doesn't have "some form" of PVP other than DDO... and I wouldn't be surprised to see dueling make it's way into DDO."
EQ 1 had PvP Servers as well, Sullon Zek (sp?) was FFA PvP and was one of the most populated servers. Sure, not every game has viable PvP, but all games should, at the very least, have servers that allow for a good PvP rule set.
I agree with you on at least one thing, however, duels are NOT (true) PvP...
Bottom line, PvP is necessary for an engaging end game. Time has proven that Raiding does not mean fun, nor does it keep players coming back. It is simply a lack of alternatives that keeps players Raiding, not the fact that it is fun.
Disclaimer: Raiding can be fun if it's part of a balanced end-game, and is even fun earlier. If the only option a high level player has is raiding, however, the game quickly becomes stagnant and becomes a breeding ground for Overpowered Items, simply because the developers have nothing to add to new items except more +HP and Damage.
Gray Shadow
I'm sorry, I don't count Sullon Zek (edit: ANY of the "Zek" servers) when considering whether EQ had PVP or not because it was an alternate TYPE of server (and didn't even exist when the game first came out) that accounted for less than 10% of the subscriber base of the game. Yes, it was most crowded, but even then it was still less than 10% of the total people playing the game. EQ's end game was raid content, not PVP.
JFYI: RALLOS Zek (and shortly after, TALLON ZEK) were not added for months after the game released. If I recall correctly they were added the following fall/winter, shortly after Hate and Fear went in. Sullon Zek didn't get created till much later. When they were added they jumped IMMEDIATELY to HUGE populations but within 2 months both were below 1000 players at peak time (EQ used to show player counts on the servers, they took that out a few years back).
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
asd
Let us assume game XXX with a great PvP system and require skill (not like the standard mmorpg which auto-attack):
A pick-up group hunting mobs, when another group of the same level came up to them and attack them. The pick-up group defended themselves and started typing their strategy. The pick-up group were slaughtered like sheep. The pick-up group never stood a chance even tho the other group was the same level as them.
The attacking group was well organized. They are used to play together, they have good communication using TeamSpeak (or Ventrillo or other voice chat system).
Most of these unorganized new comer to the game keep getting slaughtered. Thankfully they are only playing in Open Beta and will never pay to subscribe for this game.
Typing while being hit by other players isn't a good idea. Maybe they should have a general strategy before they went out hunting after forming their group. If game XXX like you said came about then people would adapt and take an extra 20 seconds to type a general plan.
Also, something like this could happen in WoW(not player skill based and doesn't have good pvp system but, still the scenario could take place) and other games.
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open.
Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
Successful PVE only games- PVE only games are games that DO NOT HAVE ANY FORMS OF PVP AT ALL. Toon Town and Maple Story come to mind not these games you listed below that have a FORM OF PVP.. PLAYER VS PLAYER!
EQ - Over 500k subs in it's prime-- Wrong it did have PVP. I was wrong originaly when I first started this thread. PVP was later implemented..Wonder why? *looks to the top of the thread*
Asheron's Call - Over 150k subs in it's prime... not stellar, but definitely successful, especially at that time.- AC didnt have PVP? ROFL I guess the most populated server Darktide was a figment of the imagination.
EQ2 - Over 500k subs prior to adding PVP. Per NYT Article in September.Wonder why the saw the need to add PVP? Hmmmmm *looks to the top of the thread*
FFXI - Over 700k subs currently-Built in player base never dominated..Still 700subs is not bad. But I would bet my left arm it does not have 700k subs now..Maybe when it first started, but as many have said hardly anyone plays the game anymore. Wonder why?
WoW - Over 4.5 million subs. Remember that PVP wasn't fully implemented in WoW till this past summer.-I remember playing in Beta on test server 7,11, and 3.. I also remember PVP nonstop as a alliance Hunter(lanphear).. Trying to kill teh horde that were ganking us in Lakeshire, Darkshire, BB at all times of the day.. What the hell are you talking about?
------------------------------
You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
I fail to see what is wrong with this, the other group is obviously better organized, and assuming equal level, they should probably win a great deal more than they lose.
I'm afraid I don't understand your example. What I *think* you're trying to say is that Open PvP isn't something you want. In truth, a well implemented PvP Ruleset will be one that includes Law: NPC and Player Enforced via bounties and KOS Lists. So this means that ganking w/o purpose will be stupid and will more likely than not make you an outlaw in civilized society.
Even if not, superior players with superior tactics/communication all other things equal *should* win. In short, join a guild, get TS, and be the "other" group.
Cheers,
Gray Shadow
That's the problem.
Most MMO's include PvP of some form and many also link it to special content.
Now, a PvP enthused player can and will happily involve themselves in both sides of play. So they get the special 'stuff' from both PvP and PvE play and get nice shiny items and character boosts for that. The PvE player gets excluded from general play benefits because they don't like - and won't participate in - PvP.
PvP zones/area/content also allow pro PvP players to impose their personal preference on others who don't like that PvP. Even with flagging systems and so on there are often places where this is the case.
Either PvP should give no tangible benefits or the styles of play need to be much more widely divided, completely seperate servers, one with no PvP whatsoever at all (save perhaps consensual duels) and the other with completely open PvP. Keep people's tastes apart.
Another part of the problem is this concept of an 'end game', which seems to mostly stem from the levels system being used for so many games. When you've got all the levels, where do you go?
In a tabletop game you would either keep going (Even D&D can level indefinately) with the DM providing more and more cosmic level foes to deal with, or you would start a new campaign. Those can't be done very well in a persistent world, though you can create new characters and run through, you're pretty much accessing the same 'content'.
I think you can alleviate some of the problem by eliminating the concept of the endgame and ditching levels. Level divisions also cause problems for the PvP anyway.
Postmortem Studios
Roleplaying games to DIE for
Shop here
PvP in lots of MMOs results in lower server populations. Old die hards Everquest and Dark Age of Camelot come to mind. That said other thrive on it like *cough* Shadowbeta and Lineage II. Everquest did implement a pvp server or two and they remained the lowest pop servers. Same with DAoC the pvp servers(not just rvr) are the lowest.
Most pvp is rewarding people with no life who can do it hour after hour and in the end their rewards in gear and abilities will beat the people with real lifes jobs and familys who have skill. I dont know how you would fix it tho.
Also trouble with pvp being forced (ffa) is that you find those who CAN player kill HAVE to player kill. They see others fighting npcs and jump the player. They grief.They camp corpses. They act like imature kiddies who think pking ingame is like being a big man irl.
As for OP and his/her subject. Bullshit.A game does not NEED pvp to survive. If you NEED pvp go play battlefield etc. WoW has many pvp servers that caters for the kiddies,like everyone always rants about that WOW community is immature in general,well guess where they mainly play . But without pvp in the battlegrounds form WoW would still be booming. People do enjoy pve, taking down the last dragon, taking on the huge mofo boss in the dungeon. Team work and strategies and loot are things people enjoy.
I agree with the original poster. Players WANT PvP, even if some of them don't know it. Some players may get killed repeatedly in a PvP environment and rage and cry, and say to themselves, "whaaaa, I was killed again! Now I have to go through collecting all my widgets again and look for a blue healer, whaaaa." However, what they don't realize is that subconciously they NEED to be killed. Without the challenge that only an intelligent and crafty player can bring to staying alive, players will eventually become board. Not only will they figure out how to outsmart every computer controlled monster, but there's just something visceral and engaging about knowing that "JohnnyTwoTows" killed you and you need to plan for REVENGE. It keeps a game lively, realistic, emotional, and fun.
I may have overstated by saying that ALL players need challange. There's the Sims Online housewife crowed that is just all too happy to sit in their house and make chairs and grow plants. But i believe that 90 percent of gamers desire the challenge of PvP conflict.
In my opinion, not adhearing to this basic desire for competition is what killed The Sims Online from the get go and is what is currently putting the last nails in the coffin of Ultima Online. EA, you're deranged and your SImmy world sucks, RIP.
That's the problem.
Most MMO's include PvP of some form and many also link it to special content.
Now, a PvP enthused player can and will happily involve themselves in both sides of play. So they get the special 'stuff' from both PvP and PvE play and get nice shiny items and character boosts for that. The PvE player gets excluded from general play benefits because they don't like - and won't participate in - PvP.
PvP zones/area/content also allow pro PvP players to impose their personal preference on others who don't like that PvP. Even with flagging systems and so on there are often places where this is the case.
Either PvP should give no tangible benefits or the styles of play need to be much more widely divided, completely seperate servers, one with no PvP whatsoever at all (save perhaps consensual duels) and the other with completely open PvP. Keep people's tastes apart.
Another part of the problem is this concept of an 'end game', which seems to mostly stem from the levels system being used for so many games. When you've got all the levels, where do you go?
In a tabletop game you would either keep going (Even D&D can level indefinately) with the DM providing more and more cosmic level foes to deal with, or you would start a new campaign. Those can't be done very well in a persistent world, though you can create new characters and run through, you're pretty much accessing the same 'content'.
I think you can alleviate some of the problem by eliminating the concept of the endgame and ditching levels. Level divisions also cause problems for the PvP anyway.
We are not talking about a pvp only game or a pve only game. We are also(at least I am) talking about a game where it is your player skill not your character. So it won't matter how much you sit in front of your monitor if you can't think quickly.
In your example about special content well perhaps the pvper doesn't like pvm but, he does it for the special content. Why can't the pve person do some pvp for the special content. If you don't participate in all aspects of a game then you shouldn't expect to experience all the content.
If you create seperate servers like the ones you stated then you are cutting out the largest portion of customers. People who like both pvp and pvm. (game mechanic duels arn't pvp)
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open.
Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
That is definately wrong. First of all DAOC and EQ1 were very popular, just because now popular means 3 million subscribers or whatefer dose not mean that they were not popular in there prime.
And now the MMO market has changed, A large Minority of people love PvP.
I guess you had a bad experience with some kid greifing you as you were trying to get your corpse from like Runnyeye or somthing but that dosent mean everyone dose it.
And if you dont like PvP stay on a PVE server, its not that big of an issue.
The new EQ2, better than ever befor !
don't click this link...