Originally posted by Crusades I would pvp all day if there wasnt a gear grind associated with it. Balance it out and I'm all good.
You want Call of Duty then
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
It is a well known fact that it is a very small niche group of gamers who prefer MMORPGs with OW PvP. Anyone disputing this is either in denial or simply not knowledgeable. The answer to the OPs concern has nothing to do with what developers like to play or whether they are aware, or even interested, in what the majority of gamers want. The answer to the OPs concern lies in endgame.
From a developer's standpoint it is much easier, and cheaper, to fund a game that revolves around endgame PvP. This is what is better known as "cheap player created content." So they will entice and reel in the PvE base with a PvE based game in the beginning, and then after so many levels (and your money), do a "bait & switch" into OW PvP. This is the new concept and why you are seeing all of these recent "OW PvP after this level " games popping up.
Developers are, in a sense, "conspiring" to force the paradigm shift into making OW PvP the default end game option in MMORPGs. In this way all developers would need to worry about is developing the odd PvP map update every 6 months or so and stocking the cash shop with the plethora of goodies, Ie., boosts, potions, skins, mounts etc., that will keep the money flowing. They can then chill out and "cha-ching" watch the bottom line swell.
Remember, the reason behind every business decision is grounded in money. All you need do is follow the trail, and therein lies your answer. Your mission, should you chose to accept it, is to not allow this paradigm shift to take hold by refusing to buy, play, or spend in any of these games that force you into a game style preference that you do not want. You are being tested and tried. If you do not make a stand now, do not blame anyone but yourself when the entire genre leaves you behind.
It is a well known fact that it is a very small niche group of gamers who prefer MMORPGs with OW PvP. Anyone disputing this is either in denial or simply not knowledgeable. The answer to the OPs concern has nothing to do with what developers like to play or whether they are aware, or even interested, in what the majority of gamers want. The answer to the OPs concern lies in endgame.
From a developer's standpoint it is much easier, and cheaper, to fund a game that revolves around endgame PvP. This is what is better known as "cheap player created content." So they will entice and reel in the PvE base with a PvE based game in the beginning, and then after so many levels (and your money), do a "bait & switch" into OW PvP. This is the new concept and why you are seeing all of these recent "OW PvP after " games popping up.
Developers are, in a sense, "conspiring" to force the paradigm shift into making OW PvP the default end game option in MMORPGs. In this way all developers would need to worry about is developing the odd PvP map update every 6 months or so and stocking the cash shop with the plethora of goodies, Ie., boosts, potions, skins, mounts etc., that will keep the money flowing. They can then chill out and "cha-ching" watch the bottom line swell.
Remember, the reason behind every business decision is grounded in money. All you need do is follow the trail, and therein lies your answer. Your mission, should you chose to accept it, is to not allow this paradigm shift to take hold by refusing to buy any of these games that force you into a game style preference that you do not want. You are being tested and tried. If you do not make a stand now, do not blame anyone but yourself when the entire genre leaves you behind.
So you think there is a conspiracy behind it? If your opinion was the right one a game like Archeage would not be selling at all but Trion's founders program for the game has been successful. The market is shifting because younger players are more pvp orientated these days.
It is a well known fact that it is a very small niche group of gamers who prefer MMORPGs with OW PvP. Anyone disputing this is either in denial or simply not knowledgeable. The answer to the OPs concern has nothing to do with what developers like to play or whether they are aware, or even interested, in what the majority of gamers want. The answer to the OPs concern lies in endgame.
From a developer's standpoint it is much easier, and cheaper, to fund a game that revolves around endgame PvP. This is what is better known as "cheap player created content." So they will entice and reel in the PvE base with a PvE based game in the beginning, and then after so many levels (and your money), do a "bait & switch" into OW PvP. This is the new concept and why you are seeing all of these recent "OW PvP after " games popping up.
Developers are, in a sense, "conspiring" to force the paradigm shift into making OW PvP the default end game option in MMORPGs. In this way all developers would need to worry about is developing the odd PvP map update every 6 months or so and stocking the cash shop with the plethora of goodies, Ie., boosts, potions, skins, mounts etc., that will keep the money flowing. They can then chill out and "cha-ching" watch the bottom line swell.
Remember, the reason behind every business decision is grounded in money. All you need do is follow the trail, and therein lies your answer. Your mission, should you chose to accept it, is to not allow this paradigm shift to take hold by refusing to buy any of these games that force you into a game style preference that you do not want. You are being tested and tried. If you do not make a stand now, do not blame anyone but yourself when the entire genre leaves you behind.
So you think there is a conspiracy behind it? If your opinion was the right one a game like Archeage would not be selling at all but Trion's founders program for the game has been successful. The market is shifting because younger players are more pvp orientated these days.
PvP is not a recent phenomena. Gamers have always been PvP oriented. PvP is not the problem. Non-consensual PvP is the problem.
Archeage has not even been released. No one is doubting its early success or questioning that it has potential. To attribute its early success or its potential to the fact that its OW PvP in later stages, however, is being highly presumptive. There are many PvEers playing the game that do not like the OW PvP aspect of the game in later stages. So the question is, where will the game be 6 months or a year down the road when many of them leave for that same reason?
You may not be aware, but there have been other games that tried this in the past. They also experienced some initial success. That success, however, was fleeting.
As I said, we are being tried and tested. The outcome is yet to be determined. The majority of MMORPG players simply do not want to be forced into non-consesual PvP. My guess is that 6 months to a year down the road, Archeage will have a PvE server. Only time will tell.
In almost all games, including Wildstar and others ( other than the games that are specifically geared towards PVP such as EVE), the majority of all players stay away from PVP.
That's because it's usually done really poorly. Whereas games that do it well, tend to be huge success stories. (DayZ, Rust, DAoC, Eve)
In almost all games, including Wildstar and others ( other than the games that are specifically geared towards PVP such as EVE), the majority of all players stay away from PVP.
That's because it's usually done really poorly. Whereas games that do it well, tend to be huge success stories. (DayZ, Rust, DAoC, Eve)
DayZ and Rust are huge success stories?
DAoC ... bygone era.
Eve ... 500K player base at height currently closer to 300K.
In almost all games, including Wildstar and others ( other than the games that are specifically geared towards PVP such as EVE), the majority of all players stay away from PVP.
That's because it's usually done really poorly. Whereas games that do it well, tend to be huge success stories. (DayZ, Rust, DAoC, Eve)
DayZ and Rust are huge success stories?
DAoC ... bygone era.
Eve ... 500K player base at height currently closer to 300K.
Is that the best you can come up with?
/not impressed
Camelot Unchained got kickstarted and will be solely pvp/rvr game, the npc's provide no xp.
Pathfinder Online base off the rpg books is going to be like Eve online.
The Repopulation is a sandbox game with open world pvp.
Warhammer 40k Eternal Crusade is open world pvp with a npc faction and dungeons
WoW has made big changes to the classes for pvp and now has a world pvp zone with city hubs place by it in the new expansion.
ESO is now putting in pvp into the game itself and it will no longer be contained in the campaign box of Cyrodil.
EQ Next will have world pvp as well according to Smedley.
These are just a few examples, there are more being made with world pvp. In fact I look through the games in development on mmorpg.com, very few of them have the no pvp mark. Only Eternal Crusade and Camelot Unchained is pvp mandatory, the rest of this list is optional in the game.
When Eve started it was pre-wow time period when the market was small and its steep learning curve and spreadsheet game play is not for everyone.
In almost all games, including Wildstar and others ( other than the games that are specifically geared towards PVP such as EVE), the majority of all players stay away from PVP.
That's because it's usually done really poorly. Whereas games that do it well, tend to be huge success stories. (DayZ, Rust, DAoC, Eve)
DayZ and Rust are huge success stories?
DAoC ... bygone era.
Eve ... 500K player base at height currently closer to 300K.
Is that the best you got?
/not impressed
DayZ and Rust both sold millions of copies and haven't even been released yet.
DAoC being old is not relavent.
Eve CURRENTLY has 550k subscribers, and has been continuously growing over the years. It is currently the second biggest subscription game in the west.
Every study shows that the majority of online gamers don't want PVP.
Could you provide a link to an actual study done by a university and not just a poll done by a forum/company?
Think of it this way.
You get up in the morning, have your breakfast and get ready for work.
As you walk out the front door you are attacked by a gang of thugs.
You wake up in the hospital, your home has been destroyed, and everything you have worked for in your life is gone.
Yes, this is the type of game that the majority of people wish to play.
What does that have to do with gaming ? I get up every day and go to work...that's the last thing I'm looking for in a game.
The "majority" of people want optional pvp. The groups that want all of one or the other are pretty small. Even on this site if you hold a poll the results will be 70%+ mostly pve with pvp as a option. That seems pretty clear as long as it's not forced people are happy to have it in the game.
Every study shows that the majority of online gamers don't want PVP.
Could you provide a link to an actual study done by a university and not just a poll done by a forum/company?
Think of it this way.
You get up in the morning, have your breakfast and get ready for work.
As you walk out the front door you are attacked by a gang of thugs.
You wake up in the hospital, your home has been destroyed, and everything you have worked for in your life is gone.
Yes, this is the type of game that the majority of people wish to play.
What does that have to do with gaming ? I get up every day and go to work...that's the last thing I'm looking for in a game.
The "majority" of people want optional pvp. The groups that want all of one or the other are pretty small. Even on this site if you hold a poll the results will be 70%+ mostly pve with pvp as a option. That seems pretty clear as long as it's not forced people are happy to have it in the game.
This is basically the nutshell answer to OP. People are happy with it as an option, for them to PVP when they want to and when they want to. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but not everyone wants it completely removed either.
Its time for a revotution and revolution now! forget steam charts its a fake,forget xfires and such ,fake fake fake.People dont want to play with or against other players,its a fact.
PvE Mobas,where people does something and does not if they dont want to.
PvE multiplayer shooters,where people buys weapons and who has the best weapons gets one weapon more .
PvE MMO's, PvE mobas + multiplayer shooters combined in a world!
Co op games ,that way ---->
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Originally posted by FelixMajor Play on a PvE server? I am confused...I have never felt forced to PvP in a game other than Darkfall and my unlucky encounters as a noob in 0sec space in EVE.
I play on a PVE server but WoW for instance, forces PVP in a quest chain for a legendary PVE cloak.
Comments
You want Call of Duty then
It is a well known fact that it is a very small niche group of gamers who prefer MMORPGs with OW PvP. Anyone disputing this is either in denial or simply not knowledgeable. The answer to the OPs concern has nothing to do with what developers like to play or whether they are aware, or even interested, in what the majority of gamers want. The answer to the OPs concern lies in endgame.
From a developer's standpoint it is much easier, and cheaper, to fund a game that revolves around endgame PvP. This is what is better known as "cheap player created content." So they will entice and reel in the PvE base with a PvE based game in the beginning, and then after so many levels (and your money), do a "bait & switch" into OW PvP. This is the new concept and why you are seeing all of these recent "OW PvP after this level " games popping up.
Developers are, in a sense, "conspiring" to force the paradigm shift into making OW PvP the default end game option in MMORPGs. In this way all developers would need to worry about is developing the odd PvP map update every 6 months or so and stocking the cash shop with the plethora of goodies, Ie., boosts, potions, skins, mounts etc., that will keep the money flowing. They can then chill out and "cha-ching" watch the bottom line swell.
Remember, the reason behind every business decision is grounded in money. All you need do is follow the trail, and therein lies your answer. Your mission, should you chose to accept it, is to not allow this paradigm shift to take hold by refusing to buy, play, or spend in any of these games that force you into a game style preference that you do not want. You are being tested and tried. If you do not make a stand now, do not blame anyone but yourself when the entire genre leaves you behind.
So you think there is a conspiracy behind it? If your opinion was the right one a game like Archeage would not be selling at all but Trion's founders program for the game has been successful. The market is shifting because younger players are more pvp orientated these days.
PvP is not a recent phenomena. Gamers have always been PvP oriented. PvP is not the problem. Non-consensual PvP is the problem.
Archeage has not even been released. No one is doubting its early success or questioning that it has potential. To attribute its early success or its potential to the fact that its OW PvP in later stages, however, is being highly presumptive. There are many PvEers playing the game that do not like the OW PvP aspect of the game in later stages. So the question is, where will the game be 6 months or a year down the road when many of them leave for that same reason?
You may not be aware, but there have been other games that tried this in the past. They also experienced some initial success. That success, however, was fleeting.
As I said, we are being tried and tested. The outcome is yet to be determined. The majority of MMORPG players simply do not want to be forced into non-consesual PvP. My guess is that 6 months to a year down the road, Archeage will have a PvE server. Only time will tell.
Or keep PvP out of MMORPG's....
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/show/development/MMORPG-Games-in-Development.html
Not happening anytime soon.
Think of it this way.
You get up in the morning, have your breakfast and get ready for work.
As you walk out the front door you are attacked by a gang of thugs.
You wake up in the hospital, your home has been destroyed, and everything you have worked for in your life is gone.
Yes, this is the type of game that the majority of people wish to play.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I'd like to see the citation to back this up.
That's because it's usually done really poorly. Whereas games that do it well, tend to be huge success stories. (DayZ, Rust, DAoC, Eve)
DayZ and Rust are huge success stories?
DAoC ... bygone era.
Eve ... 500K player base at height currently closer to 300K.
Is that the best you got?
/not impressed
Camelot Unchained got kickstarted and will be solely pvp/rvr game, the npc's provide no xp.
Pathfinder Online base off the rpg books is going to be like Eve online.
The Repopulation is a sandbox game with open world pvp.
Warhammer 40k Eternal Crusade is open world pvp with a npc faction and dungeons
WoW has made big changes to the classes for pvp and now has a world pvp zone with city hubs place by it in the new expansion.
ESO is now putting in pvp into the game itself and it will no longer be contained in the campaign box of Cyrodil.
EQ Next will have world pvp as well according to Smedley.
These are just a few examples, there are more being made with world pvp. In fact I look through the games in development on mmorpg.com, very few of them have the no pvp mark. Only Eternal Crusade and Camelot Unchained is pvp mandatory, the rest of this list is optional in the game.
When Eve started it was pre-wow time period when the market was small and its steep learning curve and spreadsheet game play is not for everyone.
DayZ and Rust both sold millions of copies and haven't even been released yet.
DAoC being old is not relavent.
Eve CURRENTLY has 550k subscribers, and has been continuously growing over the years. It is currently the second biggest subscription game in the west.
What does that have to do with gaming ? I get up every day and go to work...that's the last thing I'm looking for in a game.
The "majority" of people want optional pvp. The groups that want all of one or the other are pretty small. Even on this site if you hold a poll the results will be 70%+ mostly pve with pvp as a option. That seems pretty clear as long as it's not forced people are happy to have it in the game.
This is basically the nutshell answer to OP. People are happy with it as an option, for them to PVP when they want to and when they want to. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but not everyone wants it completely removed either.
ATTENTION: NEW GAME DEVELOPERS
Its time for a revotution and revolution now! forget steam charts its a fake,forget xfires and such ,fake fake fake.People dont want to play with or against other players,its a fact.
PvE Mobas,where people does something and does not if they dont want to.
PvE multiplayer shooters,where people buys weapons and who has the best weapons gets one weapon more .
PvE MMO's, PvE mobas + multiplayer shooters combined in a world!
Co op games ,that way ---->
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
I play on a PVE server but WoW for instance, forces PVP in a quest chain for a legendary PVE cloak.
MSI GE70 - i7-4700MQ, GeForce GT 750M, 8gb ram, 750gb 7200RPM HDD and 128gb SSD