Probably not- different mind sets - different world views. PVE people are playing a different game than PVP folks. It just is. Not neccessarily better or worse - just different. Some come close - others, not so much [ArcheGankage comes to mind]. And inevitably, the pve folks will say screw it and leave. At which point, the economy collapses or the population is overran with bots and gold sellers...
And it seems there is no desire to share with the "carebears" who, if they don't like being ganked by max level toons while trying to do some quest planted right in the middle of the "other guys" home word [giggle giggle... all those lowbies ... giggle giggle]... should just get out... and so they do...
Probably naive but I am guessing instanced PVP won't satisfy... I've seen the no "no internal pvp" on "OUR side" and then you run into the asshattery of brainless twits... who you REALLY want to gank...
I liked the Moors in Lotro... and I like the cities in Secret World... and I like being able to gather or whatever if I need to...
Can't get behind anyone saying no to this question... Whatever their reason.
It just takes a game with a little more diversity put into it's purposes and content. SWG is a prime example, it catered to PVE (at the time before raiding/gear grinding became the focus) it catered to RP, it catered to all styles of PVP, it catered to sim type fans as well as pure crafters. It just calls for more put into a game than we typically see any more.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Can't get behind anyone saying no to this question... Whatever their reason.
It just takes a game with a little more diversity put into it's purposes and content. SWG is a prime example, it catered to PVE (at the time before raiding/gear grinding became the focus) it catered to RP, it catered to all styles of PVP, it catered to sim type fans as well as pure crafters. It just calls for more put into a game than we typically see any more.
I would also add that Asheron's Call did the co-exist thing very well. If you wanted to PvP you either rolled on Darktide (pvp server) or you went to the Shrine of Bael'Zharon and became PvP enabled on a PvE server. PvP enabled characters couldn't be helped by PvE characters. At the same time there was friendly fire among the PvPers, so you couldn't just go nuts with friends around, and you could also accidentally heal your enemies as well.
A developer with an ounce of caring can make this type of stuff work within their environment. Unfortunately, the path of least resistance is what's usually taken and we all suffer for it.
Short answer : yes, by seperating a game into two sub-games
Long answer :
Making a sandbox that works for both, hardcore PvPers and PvErs is totaly possible, but quite difficult from a design perspective and really costly, because the amount of content required increases tremedously. The main point is to seperate what the two groups are playing. An example I can give you is how CPP made Dust 514 that would be a completely different game from EVE, but have straight-forward connections. A PvE player, a wealthy merchant ,let's say, spends his cash to hire a squad and that squad in Dust would carry out a PvP battle. (idk how exactly it works, never played it).
Now this is an extreme example, since we are talking about two totaly different games having a connection, however this CAN be done within a single game. You can have both PvP and PvE systems in place that have direct connections, influence each other, however at the same time are seperate and done by seperate people.
There is an absolutely awesome example I can give, which is not widely known and overlooked : Haven&Hearth. To give context : haven is a survival/sandbox game with permadeath and an infinite progression, in the way that every item in the game has a Quality statistic, which can be forever increased to make for a stronger item and at the same time this quality rating is influenced by every single part of the production, whilst making the item. Now what happens in haven is, a group of both PvE and PvP players make a big-ass village, in which they are producing tools/food/gear. Then the PvP players use these items to go and raid another village or just have battles all around the game world. The PvE players, if well defending and always on the lookout, can easily avoid every PvP player ever, they just have to sit behind their walls and do their carebear farming, while the PvPers are bloodbathing with other PvPers and are trying to raid villages that are being sloopily defended.
So what I'm trying to say by these examples is that all you need to do is make it possible for PvE players to coexist with PvP is to make them craftsmen workers, who supply the PvPer and then those PvPers give them strategic resource spots, which they would conquer using those supplies. It's a very specific solution, but that is the most fluid and natural way the two types can coexist. They are playing two different games within a game.
Bottom line : you have to look at like in the real world:
We have a country.
Inside the country there are workers (PvE) and there is the army, which is defending the country and/or expanding the boarder (PvP)
The who coexist and help each other advance.
I'm the hardcore player, the one that rushes lvl cap before you even finish the starting area.
No, not without ruining the game for one or both of the crowds.
A guy wants to kill anyone they want without being restricted while the other guy wants to explore and level up without having to constantly look at his back.
Solution? None I can see, apart of making certain zones pvp free and other are open pvp zones. That is not a solution however. That is trying to make both sides happy but ultimately both crowds will complain.
The PVE crowd will want to reach endgame without being forced to enter the open pvp zones while the PVP crowd want to start killing people from day 1.
Short answer : yes, by seperating a game into two sub-games
Long answer :
Making a sandbox that works for both, hardcore PvPers and PvErs is totaly possible, but quite difficult from a design perspective. The main idea is to seperate what the two groups are playing. An example I can give you is how CPP made Dust 514 that would be a completely different game from EVE, but have straight forward connections. A PvE player, a wealthy merchant ,let's say, spends his cash to hire a squad and that squad in Dust would carry out a PvP battle. (idk how exactly it works, never played it)
Now this is an extreme example, because we are talking about two totaly different games having a connection, however this CAN be done within a single game. You can have PvP and PvE systems in place that have direct connections, influence each other, howrver at the same time are seperate and done by seperate people.
There is an absolutely awesome example I can give, which is not widely known and overlooked : Haven&Hearth. To give context : haven is a survival/sandbox game with permadeath and an infinite progression, in the way that every item in the game has a Quality statistic, which can be forever increased to make for a stronger item. Now what happens in haven is, a PvE player group make a big-ass village, in which they are producing tools/food/gear. Then the PvP players use these items to go and raid another village or just have battles all around the game world. The PvE players, if well defending and always on the lookout, can easily avoid every PvP player ever, they just have to sit behind their walls and do their carebear farming, while the PvPers are bloodbathing with other PvPers and are trying to raid villages that are being sloopily defended.
So what I'm trying to say by these examples is that all you need to do is make it possible for PvE players to coexist with PvP is to make them craftsmen workers, who supply the PvPer and they theygive them strategic resource spots, which they would conquer using those supplies. It's a very specific solution, but that is the most fluid and natural way the two types can coexist. They are playing two different games within a game.
That's the thing isnt it, PVE and PVP players cannot co-exist, you need to separate them or apply game rules to prevent PVP players from attacking PVE players. The root problem can never be resolved without this i.e Player A attacks player B when player B does not want to PVP, Player B's gameplay is ruined by A. Now if a game is marketed as a PVE/PVP game this is an issue, if not then its a PVP game and its up to Player B to decide to either tolerate the discomfort or leave.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Short answer : yes, by seperating a game into two sub-games
Long answer :
Making a sandbox that works for both, hardcore PvPers and PvErs is totaly possible, but quite difficult from a design perspective. The main idea is to seperate what the two groups are playing. An example I can give you is how CPP made Dust 514 that would be a completely different game from EVE, but have straight forward connections. A PvE player, a wealthy merchant ,let's say, spends his cash to hire a squad and that squad in Dust would carry out a PvP battle. (idk how exactly it works, never played it)
Now this is an extreme example, because we are talking about two totaly different games having a connection, however this CAN be done within a single game. You can have PvP and PvE systems in place that have direct connections, influence each other, howrver at the same time are seperate and done by seperate people.
There is an absolutely awesome example I can give, which is not widely known and overlooked : Haven&Hearth. To give context : haven is a survival/sandbox game with permadeath and an infinite progression, in the way that every item in the game has a Quality statistic, which can be forever increased to make for a stronger item. Now what happens in haven is, a PvE player group make a big-ass village, in which they are producing tools/food/gear. Then the PvP players use these items to go and raid another village or just have battles all around the game world. The PvE players, if well defending and always on the lookout, can easily avoid every PvP player ever, they just have to sit behind their walls and do their carebear farming, while the PvPers are bloodbathing with other PvPers and are trying to raid villages that are being sloopily defended.
So what I'm trying to say by these examples is that all you need to do is make it possible for PvE players to coexist with PvP is to make them craftsmen workers, who supply the PvPer and they theygive them strategic resource spots, which they would conquer using those supplies. It's a very specific solution, but that is the most fluid and natural way the two types can coexist. They are playing two different games within a game.
That's the thing isnt it, PVE and PVP players cannot co-exist, you need to separate them or apply game rules to prevent PVP players from attacking PVE players. The root problem can never be resolved without this i.e Player A attacks player B when player B does not want to PVP, Player B's gameplay is ruined by A. Now if a game is marketed as a PVE/PVP game this is an issue, if not then its a PVP game and its up to Player B to decide to either tolerate the discomfort or leave.
But you are forgetting player C in this scenario, the 2nd PvPer who is defending player B from A, because of personal interests. That's the entire point. You make PvE players valuable to PvPers, to give them incentive to defend them.
At the same time, I don't think it's a bad idea to give PvErs a complete immunity from PvP while they're doing their thing, whilst removing it if they want a bonus gain, in my example : to go get a strategic resource, which would be unobtainable, or obtainable, but not of such high quality, if without taking a risk.
Another example I just remembered would be Blade&Soul. Granted, it's not a sandbox, but an mmorpg, it does have a very interesting mechanic to it :
Basicaly PvP in open world only happens if 2 players are wearing 2 special outfits of the opposite factions. Say player A puts on a pirate outfit and player B : a mercenary one. Now the two can pvp ANYWHERE, but have a 5s timer to take the outfit off, in which they must not be in combat. The system works perfectly. Peeps wanting to PvP go around in outfits and those who dont, just wear PvE outfits. Now here is the kicker : you can only get daily PvP quests, which give really good reward, if you are wearing a PvP outfit. So if you wanted a nice boost to your progression, you would take the risk, but if you dont want to : no1 is forcing you to. The PvPers will still have fish to catch, since many WILL take the risk, the quests have an insanely high time/reward ratio.
The only argument against seperation is that PvPers wont have little lambs to gank and those make up a big population. You can counter this by giving those lambs a big incentive to take the risk, but make it optional. If the reward is great enough : enough will take the risk.
I'm the hardcore player, the one that rushes lvl cap before you even finish the starting area.
Can they co-exist? Sure. But for it to work properly 1 of 2 things need to occur, or a good mix of both.
1) In-game mechanics which "protect" the PvE players to an extent without completely removing the desire / purpose to PvP. Things like properly working alignment systems which have real consequences, or even simple faction based PvP where PvP players have a reason to go assist PvE players of their own faction and escort / protect them.
Simplest iteration of this I can think of was in RF Online. 3 way faction based (racial) PvP with open PvP everywhere. You were free to kill enemy factions at any time and doing so earned you 2 forms of PvP points / currency which had 2 effects. 1 was that you gained ranks on the leaderboards for your race which was a part of being able to be voted in as one of the council members who lead the race in weekly elections. The other was an actual currency which was used to buy special PvP gear with bonus stats as well as temporary charms which gave you bonuses to your stats on a timer and needed to purchased frequently.
Such a system resulted in PvE players constantly coming under attack from enemy factions looking to get some kills for their PvP points, which in turn also brought out PvPers (especialy council members / race leaders) from their own faction eager to protect them and a) get PvP points for themselves for killing the attackers and b) earn the respect of the PvErs who they were protecting in order to garner up some extra votes in the weekly elections. There were constant small scale wars breaking out throughout the day as groups of players encountered eachother, fought, called for backup, fought again, back and forth sometimes for hours on end all while the side which was winning for a time was able to have their PvE players go about their business in relative safety.
2) Politics and player self-control.
Aside from in-game mechanics and faction / alignment systems, a lot of it has to do with the playerbase itself. If there are too many wolves eating all the sheep, eventually there will be no sheep left. But if some guard dogs are brought in too protect the sheep, the wolves decline in number and the sheep are able to prosper. Sure some will still get eaten, and the strongest wolves will still get to eat plenty. But the weakest wolves will die of starvation or killed in battle with the guard dogs.
What that means is as long as there is a decent sized playerbase of PvPers (guard dogs) willing to fight off the wolves (PKers / griefers) and help protect the PvErs (sheep), then everyone can thrive without it becoming too one sided. If everyone is just out to grief and / or kill everyone on sight with no hesitation, then there are too many wolves. But guilds / clans do form in some games which have their own ruleset which is imposed on their members with the idea of protecting other players and only killing, or at least killing and looting, if provoked or someone more than capable of defending themselves and with a reputation for PKing. I was a member of such a guild for several months in Darkfall 1.
As I mentioned, either of those 2 systems can go a long way towards the 2 sides co-existing. They are not mutually exclusive though and can both exist in the same game to even further improve conditions.
Unfortunately most sandbox either lack enough of either of these or one of these is taken to extreme, and a huge chunk of the playerbase gets driven away causing the game to decline as the remaining side also loses interest due to the other being gone.
PvP and PvE coexisting is possible but very hard to do right. You must provide good and extensive content and mechanics for both audiences, while making sure both your children (pve and pvp) gets equal opportunities.. this balance is nearly impossible to achieve, as makers and players will eventually turn to either side out of preference and player numbers.
Developers must understand that PvE players and PvP players want very different things, and that they are essentially making two games, where the trick is to share as much as possible for efficiency and as much player interaction possible (between the two groups). Creating one mmo game alone is a insanely huge project, so creating two-in-one is only possible for some extremely organized, talented and well funded people. Not to mention, now there are twice the amount of things that can go wrong, poor design decisions, shallow combat because trying to make standardize and balance PvP and PvE, lack of safety for PvE players, the list goes on.
The traditional mix of PvP and PvE (sandbox) would be relying heavy on crafting and building as PvE and player conflict as PvP. However the core of this type of game is still PvP, and only really hardcore crafter/builder player types will be satisfied with being "peons for the heroes". So far we have yet to see a game truly integrate PvE and PvP so both player types have a good game experience.. maybe Camelot Unchained can deliver that ?
Generally speaking, no. Depends on the "type" of PvP players, though. Full loot open world PvP will NEVER work with PvE players.
Many players enjoy both types of play. But the PvE players that also enjoy PvP want some amount of control over when and where they PvP. That alone makes many PvP players unhappy.
Then you have "class balance" to deal with, or "skills/abilities balance" if your MMO does away with classes.
Again, generally speaking, no. PvE usually does not mix well with PvP, and vice versa
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Yes but it has to be done correctly. I am thinking EVE and SWG to be honest.
First EVE. You have Hi Sec and Null Sec. You don't want to PvP, you stay in Hi Sec but at the same time your limited in what resources are available and generally cannot gain wealth near as fast. So basically they place the best resources out in PvP land so that eventually your going to want/need to venture out there or be forever doomed to be mediocre for your entire game play experience.
SWG. Choice based PvP. You provide two or more PvP factions plus a neutral faction then provide strong incentives for choosing to align with a faction that requires PvP. Players then can choose to PvP or not at will but again if they want some of the best items and equipment, they need to align with a PvP faction to get them.
In both cases, you can choose to play the entire game PvE but there are incentives for choosing to flip the flag and at least be open to PvP combat even if they really don't want to focus on that aspect.
Also lets face facts here, in real life, 95% of the population is neutral just trying to go on about their daily lives. This is true even in a war zone. Generally it is only the soldiers on each side fighting it out while the neutral parties, the civilians move to where there is no fighting. That being the case, aside from players who generally just want to grief and gank people that don't want to or can't fight back, there is no real reason to include the carebears in PVP. In fact forcing it on them just means they won't partispate and I am sorry, the hardcore PvP MMO (RPGer) playerbase just isn't large enough to pay for a good AAA MMO title so you have to accomodate the PvE player.
Originally posted by midnitewolf Yes but it has to be done correctly. I am thinking EVE and SWG to be honest.
First EVE. You have Hi Sec and Null Sec. You don't want to PvP, you stay in Hi Sec but at the same time your limited in what resources are available and generally cannot gain wealth near as fast. So basically they place the best resources out in PvP land so that eventually your going to want/need to venture out there or be forever doomed to be mediocre for your entire game play experience.
SWG. Choice based PvP. You provide two or more PvP factions plus a neutral faction then provide strong incentives for choosing to align with a faction that requires PvP. Players then can choose to PvP or not at will but again if they want some of the best items and equipment, they need to align with a PvP faction to get them.
In both cases, you can choose to play the entire game PvE but there are incentives for choosing to flip the flag and at least be open to PvP combat even if they really don't want to focus on that aspect.
Also lets face facts here, in real life, 95% of the population is neutral just trying to go on about their daily lives. This is true even in a war zone. Generally it is only the soldiers on each side fighting it out while the neutral parties, the civilians move to where there is no fighting. That being the case, aside from players who generally just want to grief and gank people that don't want to or can't fight back, there is no real reason to include the carebears in PVP. In fact forcing it on them just means they won't partispate and I am sorry, the hardcore PvP MMO (RPGer) playerbase just isn't large enough to pay for a good AAA MMO title so you have to accomodate the PvE player.
That does not sound like a fun time to me, a PvE player. Since I will NOT PvP with strangers, I am STUCK with inferior materials for my PvE play in EVE and am "highly encouraged" to join in on PvP in SW:G. What makes this great for a PvE player? How is this "done right" from a PvE player's perspective?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Co-exist? No. Primarily because that is antithetical to what most PvPers want. They don't want co-existence, they want annihilation. If you doubt that, look at the language PvPers use when describing PvEers: sheep, carebears, prey. No where do PvPers say, hey, let's go easy on PvE players so they won't leave. Nope. What you read is: if you don't like it, leave. PvP generates a toxic, hostile, whiney community. PvPers are a lot like greedy leeches, they bleed the community dry and then can't figure out why no one wants to play with them.
You have never been rejected on raid run because you "sucked"?
PVE players are as competitive or casual as are PVP players. You will find elitists and "toxic" players in both groups.
I am deeply disappointed at the unabashed hatred and vitriol aimed towards pvpers. Did someone mention something about toxicity? I'm seeing a lot of it in this forum right now.
I have played both FFXIV and AA extensively and I have not noticed a huge difference in communities in either. Were it not for the hackers and poor monetization (and really any game that gives these players the opportunity, they will take it regardless of what type of game it is) I'd have much preferred to play archeage where the open world is exciting. There's very little that can match the experience of taking down two players equal and slightly above your level when they try to gank you.
I play mobas from time to time but I don't really like them all that much because you don't develop a bond with your character. You don't get immersed. I need both of those, I need to take a break from the competition and just enjoy the calmer aspects of the game. So it's really rude to tell me just to go play a moba or fps if I want to pvp. How non-sensical would I be if I just flippantly told you to go play a rpg co-op if you don't want to deal with pvpers? Totally rude and uncalled for.
Co-exist? No. Primarily because that is antithetical to what most PvPers want. They don't want co-existence, they want annihilation. If you doubt that, look at the language PvPers use when describing PvEers: sheep, carebears, prey. No where do PvPers say, hey, let's go easy on PvE players so they won't leave. Nope. What you read is: if you don't like it, leave. PvP generates a toxic, hostile, whiney community. PvPers are a lot like greedy leeches, they bleed the community dry and then can't figure out why no one wants to play with them.
You have never been rejected on raid run because you "sucked"?
PVE players are as competitive or casual as are PVP players. You will find elitists and "toxic" players in both groups.
I am deeply disappointed at the unabashed hatred and vitriol aimed towards pvpers. Did someone mention something about toxicity? I'm seeing a lot of it in this forum right now.
I have played both FFXIV and AA extensively and I have not noticed a huge difference in communities in either. Were it not for the hackers and poor monetization (and really any game that gives these players the opportunity, they will take it regardless of what type of game it is) I'd have much preferred to play archeage where the open world is exciting. There's very little that can match the experience of taking down two players equal and slightly above your level when they try to gank you.
I play mobas from time to time but I don't really like them all that much because you don't develop a bond with your character. You don't get immersed. I need both of those, I need to take a break from the competition and just enjoy the calmer aspects of the game. So it's really rude to tell me just to go play a moba or fps if I want to pvp. How non-sensical would I be if I just flippantly told you to go play a rpg co-op if you don't want to deal with pvpers? Totally rude and uncalled for.
+ 1
This whole thread iv been reading statements like...
Originally posted by Distopia As others have said SWG...
Flagged OW, even throw in some FFA OW lawless or wilderness areas. It isn't just about the two way division of PvP and PvE drive either. In SWG I would flag up because I knew there was no gray area about who I was attacking while in PvP mode. What kills pure FFA for me isn't the fear of losing in PvP it's the hesitation from the possibility I might be pissing in someones cornflakes that just wants to gather some ore or hides.
SWG was one of the very few games where I felt 100% good about PvP.
Quoted for truth! It *can* be done...it's just not being done at the moment.
For example once a player reached lvl 10 they decided if they would be a pvp flagged character or not. This allowed for the pve and pvp community to operate in the same world without hindering either of them. Once a character was pvp flagged they could never unflag. They had to create a different character if they wanted to run pve only.
and it is implemented in WOW in a slight variation today. You join a pvp server, and you can pve and pvp at the same time. Or you pick to stay in a pve server. The only difference is that you pick at L1, not L10.
The WOW you speak of is doing the same thing every game in the country is doing. The solution that we had in the 90's was to give a player the option to be either pvp or pve. You couldn't just turn the flag on and off. So everyone was on the same server just flagged differently and permanently. Its not really that difficult to deal with these issues I just think the gaming industry doesn't give a crap.
Another problem I see in today's market is they are rewarding douche bags and making it too easy to be a douche bag. For example you got a lvl 90 player killing level 20 players with 1 hit all day. I remember Rift had that problem there was always griefing lvl 60's who would just run around all day and spam kill low level players because it was funny. That problem was solved by not allowing players to attack each other if they weren't within 7 levels. Looting pvp kills was also fun and responsible by limiting what could be looted and how it could be looted. They also had stealing and that actually worked as well.
These are major problems in today's mmo's and the devs cant figure out how to deal with it. Its sad really.
I think they can but you have to enforce certain rules on PVP or it becomes a free for all. Killing players needs to be for a reason other than just the pure joy of it and if you kill other than for those "approved" reasons there needs to be extreme consequences for doing so. Basically force structure to PVP. I think in the early days EVE did this pretty well but over the years those systems and the consequences for breaking them have largely been diminished and the result is things like all out assaults on newbie systems with Corps just ignoring the guards.
But I fear most PVP players wouldn't accept such heavily structured restrictions and would rebel or look for ways around them. Imagine the fury that would erupt if EVE gave Concord super ships to protect high sec space?
I am deeply disappointed at the unabashed hatred and vitriol aimed towards pvpers. Did someone mention something about toxicity? I'm seeing a lot of it in this forum right now.
I have played both FFXIV and AA extensively and I have not noticed a huge difference in communities in either. Were it not for the hackers and poor monetization (and really any game that gives these players the opportunity, they will take it regardless of what type of game it is) I'd have much preferred to play archeage where the open world is exciting. There's very little that can match the experience of taking down two players equal and slightly above your level when they try to gank you.
I play mobas from time to time but I don't really like them all that much because you don't develop a bond with your character. You don't get immersed. I need both of those, I need to take a break from the competition and just enjoy the calmer aspects of the game. So it's really rude to tell me just to go play a moba or fps if I want to pvp. How non-sensical would I be if I just flippantly told you to go play a rpg co-op if you don't want to deal with pvpers? Totally rude and uncalled for.
All true, PvP players do have a bad name among many PvEers. But it isn't that hard to figure out why. PvP players have in many games just use of PvEers as prey and in a FFA PvP game it often takes out the worst of some.
Bad mechanics makes PvP a bad option in many games, whenever you have zero chanse to win or lose in 1 Vs 1 the game is just badly implemented.Even a peasant have felled a knight now and the IRL.
Too make both PvP and PvE to work in the same game you need to get those mechanics to work perfectly for both playstyles as well as you need to have co-operation to both types of players. A merchant PvEer should be able to hire PvP guards to escort his caravan. Combat should always be interesting and fun which means there should never be a fight with a equal number of players that is 100% sure before it even starts.
Most games tend to make the content for PvPers as well as the mechanics and then let the PvPers go out and massacre those PvEers for loot and that doesn't really work.
The WOW you speak of is doing the same thing every game in the country is doing. The solution that we had in the 90's was to give a player the option to be either pvp or pve. You couldn't just turn the flag on and off. So everyone was on the same server just flagged differently and permanently. Its not really that difficult to deal with these issues I just think the gaming industry doesn't give a crap.
There is no difference between this "solution" you describe and what wow does. You have the option of either pvp or pve (by choosing a server). You couldn't just change your option because your toon is tied to the server (well, actually you can with a fee now). The only difference is that not everyone is on the same server.
And there is little reason to put everyone on the same server anyway.
And yes, the gaming industry does not give a crap because most players don't ... they just want an option, and they don't care about mixing pve and pvp.
The op asked if they could co exist not exist on different servers. The solutions I offered allowed them both to exist on the same server. The whole point in this discussion. Just for another example there was a limit to how many times a player could be killed in a day or within a certain time frame. This also prevented even warring factions from overkilling their inferior counterparts. Like I said there's a ton of examples and differences on how the early gaming community dealt with these issues so both PVP and PVE players could exist in the same world and group together and accomplish pve goals without disrupting the integrity of both communities. Just about every modern gaming moderation problems were dealt with back in the 90's.
Originally posted by filmoret The op asked if they could co exist not exist on different servers. The solutions I offered allowed them both to exist on the same server. The whole point in this discussion. Just for another example there was a limit to how many times a player could be killed in a day or within a certain time frame. This also prevented even warring factions from overkilling their inferior counterparts. Like I said there's a ton of examples and differences on how the early gaming community dealt with these issues so both PVP and PVE players could exist in the same world and group together and accomplish pve goals without disrupting the integrity of both communities. Just about every modern gaming moderation problems were dealt with back in the 90's.
And then the vast majority of PvEers moved on to games where they didn't have to deal with PvP.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I am deeply disappointed at the unabashed hatred and vitriol aimed towards pvpers. Did someone mention something about toxicity? I'm seeing a lot of it in this forum right now.
I have played both FFXIV and AA extensively and I have not noticed a huge difference in communities in either. Were it not for the hackers and poor monetization (and really any game that gives these players the opportunity, they will take it regardless of what type of game it is) I'd have much preferred to play archeage where the open world is exciting. There's very little that can match the experience of taking down two players equal and slightly above your level when they try to gank you.
I play mobas from time to time but I don't really like them all that much because you don't develop a bond with your character. You don't get immersed. I need both of those, I need to take a break from the competition and just enjoy the calmer aspects of the game. So it's really rude to tell me just to go play a moba or fps if I want to pvp. How non-sensical would I be if I just flippantly told you to go play a rpg co-op if you don't want to deal with pvpers? Totally rude and uncalled for.
All true, PvP players do have a bad name among many PvEers. But it isn't that hard to figure out why. PvP players have in many games just use of PvEers as prey and in a FFA PvP game it often takes out the worst of some.
Bad mechanics makes PvP a bad option in many games, whenever you have zero chanse to win or lose in 1 Vs 1 the game is just badly implemented.Even a peasant have felled a knight now and the IRL.
Too make both PvP and PvE to work in the same game you need to get those mechanics to work perfectly for both playstyles as well as you need to have co-operation to both types of players. A merchant PvEer should be able to hire PvP guards to escort his caravan. Combat should always be interesting and fun which means there should never be a fight with a equal number of players that is 100% sure before it even starts.
Most games tend to make the content for PvPers as well as the mechanics and then let the PvPers go out and massacre those PvEers for loot and that doesn't really work.
Well, yes, because PvE builds are usually designed for tank 'n' spank metagame which is nothing like PvP. If The two metagames had more resemblance, you'd have much more interesting fights. You'd have easier time balancing the game too.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Comments
Probably not- different mind sets - different world views. PVE people are playing a different game than PVP folks. It just is. Not neccessarily better or worse - just different. Some come close - others, not so much [ArcheGankage comes to mind]. And inevitably, the pve folks will say screw it and leave. At which point, the economy collapses or the population is overran with bots and gold sellers...
And it seems there is no desire to share with the "carebears" who, if they don't like being ganked by max level toons while trying to do some quest planted right in the middle of the "other guys" home word [giggle giggle... all those lowbies ... giggle giggle]... should just get out... and so they do...
Probably naive but I am guessing instanced PVP won't satisfy... I've seen the no "no internal pvp" on "OUR side" and then you run into the asshattery of brainless twits... who you REALLY want to gank...
I liked the Moors in Lotro... and I like the cities in Secret World... and I like being able to gather or whatever if I need to...
Frickin carebear...
Whyspre
Can't get behind anyone saying no to this question... Whatever their reason.
It just takes a game with a little more diversity put into it's purposes and content. SWG is a prime example, it catered to PVE (at the time before raiding/gear grinding became the focus) it catered to RP, it catered to all styles of PVP, it catered to sim type fans as well as pure crafters. It just calls for more put into a game than we typically see any more.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I would also add that Asheron's Call did the co-exist thing very well. If you wanted to PvP you either rolled on Darktide (pvp server) or you went to the Shrine of Bael'Zharon and became PvP enabled on a PvE server. PvP enabled characters couldn't be helped by PvE characters. At the same time there was friendly fire among the PvPers, so you couldn't just go nuts with friends around, and you could also accidentally heal your enemies as well.
A developer with an ounce of caring can make this type of stuff work within their environment. Unfortunately, the path of least resistance is what's usually taken and we all suffer for it.
By "all" you mean the tiny minority no one cares about, right..?
As it was already pointed out, the OP question is fairly a moot point since there is no reason putting those 2 player groups "together".
Short answer : yes, by seperating a game into two sub-games
Long answer :
Making a sandbox that works for both, hardcore PvPers and PvErs is totaly possible, but quite difficult from a design perspective and really costly, because the amount of content required increases tremedously. The main point is to seperate what the two groups are playing. An example I can give you is how CPP made Dust 514 that would be a completely different game from EVE, but have straight-forward connections. A PvE player, a wealthy merchant ,let's say, spends his cash to hire a squad and that squad in Dust would carry out a PvP battle. (idk how exactly it works, never played it).
Now this is an extreme example, since we are talking about two totaly different games having a connection, however this CAN be done within a single game. You can have both PvP and PvE systems in place that have direct connections, influence each other, however at the same time are seperate and done by seperate people.
There is an absolutely awesome example I can give, which is not widely known and overlooked : Haven&Hearth. To give context : haven is a survival/sandbox game with permadeath and an infinite progression, in the way that every item in the game has a Quality statistic, which can be forever increased to make for a stronger item and at the same time this quality rating is influenced by every single part of the production, whilst making the item. Now what happens in haven is, a group of both PvE and PvP players make a big-ass village, in which they are producing tools/food/gear. Then the PvP players use these items to go and raid another village or just have battles all around the game world. The PvE players, if well defending and always on the lookout, can easily avoid every PvP player ever, they just have to sit behind their walls and do their carebear farming, while the PvPers are bloodbathing with other PvPers and are trying to raid villages that are being sloopily defended.
So what I'm trying to say by these examples is that all you need to do is make it possible for PvE players to coexist with PvP is to make them craftsmen workers, who supply the PvPer and then those PvPers give them strategic resource spots, which they would conquer using those supplies. It's a very specific solution, but that is the most fluid and natural way the two types can coexist. They are playing two different games within a game.
Bottom line : you have to look at like in the real world:
We have a country.
Inside the country there are workers (PvE) and there is the army, which is defending the country and/or expanding the boarder (PvP)
The who coexist and help each other advance.
I'm the hardcore player, the one that rushes lvl cap before you even finish the starting area.
No, not without ruining the game for one or both of the crowds.
A guy wants to kill anyone they want without being restricted while the other guy wants to explore and level up without having to constantly look at his back.
Solution? None I can see, apart of making certain zones pvp free and other are open pvp zones. That is not a solution however. That is trying to make both sides happy but ultimately both crowds will complain.
The PVE crowd will want to reach endgame without being forced to enter the open pvp zones while the PVP crowd want to start killing people from day 1.
That's the thing isnt it, PVE and PVP players cannot co-exist, you need to separate them or apply game rules to prevent PVP players from attacking PVE players. The root problem can never be resolved without this i.e Player A attacks player B when player B does not want to PVP, Player B's gameplay is ruined by A. Now if a game is marketed as a PVE/PVP game this is an issue, if not then its a PVP game and its up to Player B to decide to either tolerate the discomfort or leave.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
But you are forgetting player C in this scenario, the 2nd PvPer who is defending player B from A, because of personal interests. That's the entire point. You make PvE players valuable to PvPers, to give them incentive to defend them.
At the same time, I don't think it's a bad idea to give PvErs a complete immunity from PvP while they're doing their thing, whilst removing it if they want a bonus gain, in my example : to go get a strategic resource, which would be unobtainable, or obtainable, but not of such high quality, if without taking a risk.
Another example I just remembered would be Blade&Soul. Granted, it's not a sandbox, but an mmorpg, it does have a very interesting mechanic to it :
Basicaly PvP in open world only happens if 2 players are wearing 2 special outfits of the opposite factions. Say player A puts on a pirate outfit and player B : a mercenary one. Now the two can pvp ANYWHERE, but have a 5s timer to take the outfit off, in which they must not be in combat. The system works perfectly. Peeps wanting to PvP go around in outfits and those who dont, just wear PvE outfits. Now here is the kicker : you can only get daily PvP quests, which give really good reward, if you are wearing a PvP outfit. So if you wanted a nice boost to your progression, you would take the risk, but if you dont want to : no1 is forcing you to. The PvPers will still have fish to catch, since many WILL take the risk, the quests have an insanely high time/reward ratio.
The only argument against seperation is that PvPers wont have little lambs to gank and those make up a big population. You can counter this by giving those lambs a big incentive to take the risk, but make it optional. If the reward is great enough : enough will take the risk.
I'm the hardcore player, the one that rushes lvl cap before you even finish the starting area.
Can they co-exist? Sure. But for it to work properly 1 of 2 things need to occur, or a good mix of both.
1) In-game mechanics which "protect" the PvE players to an extent without completely removing the desire / purpose to PvP. Things like properly working alignment systems which have real consequences, or even simple faction based PvP where PvP players have a reason to go assist PvE players of their own faction and escort / protect them.
Simplest iteration of this I can think of was in RF Online. 3 way faction based (racial) PvP with open PvP everywhere. You were free to kill enemy factions at any time and doing so earned you 2 forms of PvP points / currency which had 2 effects. 1 was that you gained ranks on the leaderboards for your race which was a part of being able to be voted in as one of the council members who lead the race in weekly elections. The other was an actual currency which was used to buy special PvP gear with bonus stats as well as temporary charms which gave you bonuses to your stats on a timer and needed to purchased frequently.
Such a system resulted in PvE players constantly coming under attack from enemy factions looking to get some kills for their PvP points, which in turn also brought out PvPers (especialy council members / race leaders) from their own faction eager to protect them and a) get PvP points for themselves for killing the attackers and b) earn the respect of the PvErs who they were protecting in order to garner up some extra votes in the weekly elections. There were constant small scale wars breaking out throughout the day as groups of players encountered eachother, fought, called for backup, fought again, back and forth sometimes for hours on end all while the side which was winning for a time was able to have their PvE players go about their business in relative safety.
2) Politics and player self-control.
Aside from in-game mechanics and faction / alignment systems, a lot of it has to do with the playerbase itself. If there are too many wolves eating all the sheep, eventually there will be no sheep left. But if some guard dogs are brought in too protect the sheep, the wolves decline in number and the sheep are able to prosper. Sure some will still get eaten, and the strongest wolves will still get to eat plenty. But the weakest wolves will die of starvation or killed in battle with the guard dogs.
What that means is as long as there is a decent sized playerbase of PvPers (guard dogs) willing to fight off the wolves (PKers / griefers) and help protect the PvErs (sheep), then everyone can thrive without it becoming too one sided. If everyone is just out to grief and / or kill everyone on sight with no hesitation, then there are too many wolves. But guilds / clans do form in some games which have their own ruleset which is imposed on their members with the idea of protecting other players and only killing, or at least killing and looting, if provoked or someone more than capable of defending themselves and with a reputation for PKing. I was a member of such a guild for several months in Darkfall 1.
As I mentioned, either of those 2 systems can go a long way towards the 2 sides co-existing. They are not mutually exclusive though and can both exist in the same game to even further improve conditions.
Unfortunately most sandbox either lack enough of either of these or one of these is taken to extreme, and a huge chunk of the playerbase gets driven away causing the game to decline as the remaining side also loses interest due to the other being gone.
PvP and PvE coexisting is possible but very hard to do right. You must provide good and extensive content and mechanics for both audiences, while making sure both your children (pve and pvp) gets equal opportunities.. this balance is nearly impossible to achieve, as makers and players will eventually turn to either side out of preference and player numbers.
Developers must understand that PvE players and PvP players want very different things, and that they are essentially making two games, where the trick is to share as much as possible for efficiency and as much player interaction possible (between the two groups). Creating one mmo game alone is a insanely huge project, so creating two-in-one is only possible for some extremely organized, talented and well funded people. Not to mention, now there are twice the amount of things that can go wrong, poor design decisions, shallow combat because trying to make standardize and balance PvP and PvE, lack of safety for PvE players, the list goes on.
The traditional mix of PvP and PvE (sandbox) would be relying heavy on crafting and building as PvE and player conflict as PvP. However the core of this type of game is still PvP, and only really hardcore crafter/builder player types will be satisfied with being "peons for the heroes". So far we have yet to see a game truly integrate PvE and PvP so both player types have a good game experience.. maybe Camelot Unchained can deliver that ?
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Generally speaking, no. Depends on the "type" of PvP players, though. Full loot open world PvP will NEVER work with PvE players.
Many players enjoy both types of play. But the PvE players that also enjoy PvP want some amount of control over when and where they PvP. That alone makes many PvP players unhappy.
Then you have "class balance" to deal with, or "skills/abilities balance" if your MMO does away with classes.
Again, generally speaking, no. PvE usually does not mix well with PvP, and vice versa
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Yes but it has to be done correctly. I am thinking EVE and SWG to be honest.
First EVE. You have Hi Sec and Null Sec. You don't want to PvP, you stay in Hi Sec but at the same time your limited in what resources are available and generally cannot gain wealth near as fast. So basically they place the best resources out in PvP land so that eventually your going to want/need to venture out there or be forever doomed to be mediocre for your entire game play experience.
SWG. Choice based PvP. You provide two or more PvP factions plus a neutral faction then provide strong incentives for choosing to align with a faction that requires PvP. Players then can choose to PvP or not at will but again if they want some of the best items and equipment, they need to align with a PvP faction to get them.
In both cases, you can choose to play the entire game PvE but there are incentives for choosing to flip the flag and at least be open to PvP combat even if they really don't want to focus on that aspect.
Also lets face facts here, in real life, 95% of the population is neutral just trying to go on about their daily lives. This is true even in a war zone. Generally it is only the soldiers on each side fighting it out while the neutral parties, the civilians move to where there is no fighting. That being the case, aside from players who generally just want to grief and gank people that don't want to or can't fight back, there is no real reason to include the carebears in PVP. In fact forcing it on them just means they won't partispate and I am sorry, the hardcore PvP MMO (RPGer) playerbase just isn't large enough to pay for a good AAA MMO title so you have to accomodate the PvE player.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
lol .. what does that have to do with video games?
"real world"? really?
I am deeply disappointed at the unabashed hatred and vitriol aimed towards pvpers. Did someone mention something about toxicity? I'm seeing a lot of it in this forum right now.
I have played both FFXIV and AA extensively and I have not noticed a huge difference in communities in either. Were it not for the hackers and poor monetization (and really any game that gives these players the opportunity, they will take it regardless of what type of game it is) I'd have much preferred to play archeage where the open world is exciting. There's very little that can match the experience of taking down two players equal and slightly above your level when they try to gank you.
I play mobas from time to time but I don't really like them all that much because you don't develop a bond with your character. You don't get immersed. I need both of those, I need to take a break from the competition and just enjoy the calmer aspects of the game. So it's really rude to tell me just to go play a moba or fps if I want to pvp. How non-sensical would I be if I just flippantly told you to go play a rpg co-op if you don't want to deal with pvpers? Totally rude and uncalled for.
+ 1
This whole thread iv been reading statements like...
I guarantee that PvP players (blank)
PvP players don't like to do (blank)
PvP players get mad when (blank) happens
PvP players always (blank)
Fill in the blanks with PvP stereotypes
Quoted for truth! It *can* be done...it's just not being done at the moment.
The WOW you speak of is doing the same thing every game in the country is doing. The solution that we had in the 90's was to give a player the option to be either pvp or pve. You couldn't just turn the flag on and off. So everyone was on the same server just flagged differently and permanently. Its not really that difficult to deal with these issues I just think the gaming industry doesn't give a crap.
Another problem I see in today's market is they are rewarding douche bags and making it too easy to be a douche bag. For example you got a lvl 90 player killing level 20 players with 1 hit all day. I remember Rift had that problem there was always griefing lvl 60's who would just run around all day and spam kill low level players because it was funny. That problem was solved by not allowing players to attack each other if they weren't within 7 levels. Looting pvp kills was also fun and responsible by limiting what could be looted and how it could be looted. They also had stealing and that actually worked as well.
These are major problems in today's mmo's and the devs cant figure out how to deal with it. Its sad really.
I think they can but you have to enforce certain rules on PVP or it becomes a free for all. Killing players needs to be for a reason other than just the pure joy of it and if you kill other than for those "approved" reasons there needs to be extreme consequences for doing so. Basically force structure to PVP. I think in the early days EVE did this pretty well but over the years those systems and the consequences for breaking them have largely been diminished and the result is things like all out assaults on newbie systems with Corps just ignoring the guards.
But I fear most PVP players wouldn't accept such heavily structured restrictions and would rebel or look for ways around them. Imagine the fury that would erupt if EVE gave Concord super ships to protect high sec space?
All true, PvP players do have a bad name among many PvEers. But it isn't that hard to figure out why. PvP players have in many games just use of PvEers as prey and in a FFA PvP game it often takes out the worst of some.
Bad mechanics makes PvP a bad option in many games, whenever you have zero chanse to win or lose in 1 Vs 1 the game is just badly implemented.Even a peasant have felled a knight now and the IRL.
Too make both PvP and PvE to work in the same game you need to get those mechanics to work perfectly for both playstyles as well as you need to have co-operation to both types of players. A merchant PvEer should be able to hire PvP guards to escort his caravan. Combat should always be interesting and fun which means there should never be a fight with a equal number of players that is 100% sure before it even starts.
Most games tend to make the content for PvPers as well as the mechanics and then let the PvPers go out and massacre those PvEers for loot and that doesn't really work.
There is no difference between this "solution" you describe and what wow does. You have the option of either pvp or pve (by choosing a server). You couldn't just change your option because your toon is tied to the server (well, actually you can with a fee now). The only difference is that not everyone is on the same server.
And there is little reason to put everyone on the same server anyway.
And yes, the gaming industry does not give a crap because most players don't ... they just want an option, and they don't care about mixing pve and pvp.
And then the vast majority of PvEers moved on to games where they didn't have to deal with PvP.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Well, yes, because PvE builds are usually designed for tank 'n' spank metagame which is nothing like PvP. If The two metagames had more resemblance, you'd have much more interesting fights. You'd have easier time balancing the game too.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D