Originally posted by Bladestrom GW2 has the right idea, there is no concept of PVP and PVE gear, and there is no ridiculous power curve that makes balancing impossible.
And the fact that there's no taunt or aggro manipulation is a step in the right direction too.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Large worlds, regions that can be taken over for conquest.
Three Factions
PVEers are the citizens, workers, resource gatherers, citybuilders, miners and crafters. They are also the ones who clear newly conquered wild regions of monsters.
PVPers are nation armies, military and mercenaries dependent on the PVErs for resources
Countries are dictated on "country morale" scores. Military not getting enough resources? Military mght be able to stage a coup. Citizens might be able to leave and join another nation, or worse yet call in another nation's military or hire mercs to help them take their country from an oppresive national military.
Make the game skills based. No classes
PVP specific skills and PVE specific skills. Everyone can do both types of skills but a PVEr trying to go for PVP skills will always suffer a 10% exp hit due to using skills that are not part of their initial package.
At character creation you pick whether you are going to be PVE or PVP.
Best specialist guilds get voted in as the countrie's top companies by the playerbase to give incentives to players who genuinely care about helping their nations. Bonuses are given to guilds and players who contribute the most "country morale" to their nation's cause.
Countries with best morale scores over a certain period of time get to unlock better skills for pvp and pve and perhaps get a new tech epoch ala an RTS: "Oh now you can make Sunbird fighters! and have the ability to get spy skills!"
This is a simple design. Simply combine RTS, MMORPG and 4X genre design types together. Make this a Risk like game like the boardgame perhaps even Sci Fi?
Any mmo worth its salt should be like a good prostitute when it comes to its game world- One hell of a faker, and a damn good shaker!
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.
Of course PvEers are competitive, and often rudely so. Had a node ninja'd out from beneath you while you're fighting a mob? Everyone has. Trade wars in chat? Of course. Bounced because you're not elite enough? Sure. Everyone has. If it seemed I was saying the PvE community was pure as the driven snow, let me just say no. However, while that ninja stole my node and pissed me off, he didn't kill me and take my stuff, then take the node. And let's not go into how competitive PvE players are about mounts and costumes and festival goodies.
Rude? I can only assume you misread my comment that PvPers often will say that if you don't like PvP, then leave the game, as saying that PvPers should leave the game. And really, I hate it when raiders comment that solo players should go play SP games because they don't raid or group, and if it seemed like I was saying PvPers don't deserve a good MMO, then I'm getting sloppy in my sentence structure. Because my dislike of OW non-consensual PvP is that everyone should be free to play the game they want. To me that is the core of gaming and my enjoyment of gaming. Which is why I don't think PvP and PvE can co-exist; not that PvP shouldn't exist. The goal of PvPers is dramatically different than that of PvE players. That can never be reconciled.
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.
The second to last sentence. Read it carefully. I believe it says both pve and pvp players existed together in harmony. So why would they leave if they never had to deal with pvp in the first place?
Like hell pvp and pve players get along on EVE i dont pvp and get blown out of space on a daily basis. i have lost more isk on ships then i care to remember due to some overly bored PVPer (or in this case dick) blowing me up while i was attempting to mine. I honestly cant see pvper and pvers getting along due to the fact that pvpers see pvers as easy prey and pvers see pvpers as douchbags.
free 7 day sub and unlocks for swtor new accounts and 90+ day inactive subs click here to get it!
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...
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
Sounds like you're both implying that it is undeserved. What a crock of bull shit that is.
Perhaps it is backlash for 15 years of solid abusive hate/rage, in game and out, by PKs against 'motherfucking carebear assholes'?
And particularly, this: "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."
WTF? Being told to "STFU and go play pretty pony, this is a PvP game..." is almost an everyday thing for a PvE'er to be told. I can't believe anyone that reads forums doesn't already know that.
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.
which is moot ... because there is no compelling reason to force them into a single game. So whatever solution you propose is not needed.
Depends on the game I guess. In Lineage 2 years ago I loved the open world PVP. I was doing a quest and a guy came up to me and killed me. I have no idea what lvl he was because you could not click on him and see any info but his name. I was a mid lvl character at the time. When I died I had a chance to randomly dropped a item which happened of course. I was pissed so I told the guild his name and for the next few days I kept seeing in world chat and guild chat he was here(X city or zone) and then in guild chat they have killed him again. Poor guy I bet ether quit or made a new character. Back then it was not easy or quick to make a new toon.
Back then MMos were communities. People helped each other and looked out for everyone. If you had a bad apple there were guild and people that would go after the bad apples. In the new MMo's people don't act as a community as much any more. You hear people say all the time that they don't want to group they want to be able to Solo the hole game. This make the pvp players have an easier time and less consequences in killing players. So you have more of them and a bigger problem for the solo players and the MMo in general.
If a MMo builds a good community then it will not matter that you have Open World PvP. The mind set of these people that want to SOLO needs to stop if you want Open World PvP. If a MMo wants to keep the solo players happy then you have to make the PvP seperate from the rest of the game.
Maybe the question should be changed. There are sandbox games with both pvp and pve players in them which means they are co-existing. So the answer to that one is yes. Perhaps the question should be which sandbox games have been the most successful integrating pvp and pve.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Going to answer no and specifically because pvp tends to be basic pking not pvp in sandbox. I personally find pvp to be a joke in mmo's. People who can't handle real pvp run to mmo's to prey on lower competition provided by the pve populations. So typically devs ruin their games when they mix pvp and pve as both just become half assed versions of what a dedicated dev time to either would have been
Large worlds, regions that can be taken over for conquest.
Three Factions
PVEers are the citizens, workers, resource gatherers, citybuilders, miners and crafters. They are also the ones who clear newly conquered wild regions of monsters.
PVPers are nation armies, military and mercenaries dependent on the PVErs for resources
Countries are dictated on "country morale" scores. Military not getting enough resources? Military mght be able to stage a coup. Citizens might be able to leave and join another nation, or worse yet call in another nation's military or hire mercs to help them take their country from an oppresive national military.
Make the game skills based. No classes
PVP specific skills and PVE specific skills. Everyone can do both types of skills but a PVEr trying to go for PVP skills will always suffer a 10% exp hit due to using skills that are not part of their initial package.
At character creation you pick whether you are going to be PVE or PVP.
Best specialist guilds get voted in as the countrie's top companies by the playerbase to give incentives to players who genuinely care about helping their nations. Bonuses are given to guilds and players who contribute the most "country morale" to their nation's cause.
Countries with best morale scores over a certain period of time get to unlock better skills for pvp and pve and perhaps get a new tech epoch ala an RTS: "Oh now you can make Sunbird fighters! and have the ability to get spy skills!"
This is a simple design. Simply combine RTS, MMORPG and 4X genre design types together. Make this a Risk like game like the boardgame perhaps even Sci Fi?
Best possible scenario in my eyes, we have games that come close to it in some sence, like UWO, just no turn-based elements.
I'm the hardcore player, the one that rushes lvl cap before you even finish the starting area.
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.
which is moot ... because there is no compelling reason to force them into a single game. So whatever solution you propose is not needed.
So you just want to ignore the op and instead of contributing to the conversation you are saying everyone's statements are useless because they shouldn't even be trying to put them in the same population. Why? Because you don't see how it can happen yet there's a ton of posts showing different examples of how it can be done and done correctly. And yes there is a reason that's why we are having this conversation. Just because you have nullified the conversation doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees with you. There is a great need to put them together. You could actually make them rely on each other in good ways. But you'd rather put your head in the sand and sing songs ignoring everyone around you.
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.
The second to last sentence. Read it carefully. I believe it says both pve and pvp players existed together in harmony. So why would they leave if they never had to deal with pvp in the first place?
Because PvE players, in large numbers, took the first chance to jump into games which separated PvE and PvP. Then they really didn't have to deal with PvP.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
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.
I don't get how PvE'ers could personalize being killed in a PvP game. PvP'ers aren't doing anything that isn't within the parameters of the game. As a PvP'er I assume anybody playing in a (PvP) game knows that eventually there will be conflict with another player at some point of time.
Well, what about the players that kill low level players?
Probably the most prominent stereotype regarding PvP and probably least common occurrence in a PvP game. Secondly, I would like to add that the players that engage such activities do not represent us. Can you imagine if a "self proclaimed" hunter took you into his home to show off the all the game he's hunted around the world and you look upon his wall expecting to see the most monstrous of beast, instead you see a bunch of squirrel and rat heads mounted on the wall...
I don't get how PvE'ers could personalize being killed in a PvP game. PvP'ers aren't doing anything that isn't within the parameters of the game. As a PvP'er I assume anybody playing in a (PvP) game knows that eventually there will be conflict with another player at some point of time.
but it isn't about pve'ers join a pvp game. Its about the theory of a game that is for both crowds.
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.
I don't get how PvE'ers could personalize being killed in a PvP game. PvP'ers aren't doing anything that isn't within the parameters of the game. As a PvP'er I assume anybody playing in a (PvP) game knows that eventually there will be conflict with another player at some point of time.
Well, what about the players that kill low level players?
Probably the most prominent stereotype regarding PvP and probably least common occurrence in a PvP game. Secondly, I would like to add that the players that engage such activities do not represent us. Can you imagine if a "self proclaimed" hunter took you into his home to show off the all the game he's hunted around the world and you look upon his wall expecting to see the most monstrous of beast, instead you see a bunch of squirrel and rat heads mounted on the wall...
I agree with text in blue
i completely agree
so pls, NEVER again call ffa pvp game a sandbox, because it is just a pvp game, nothing more
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.
The second to last sentence. Read it carefully. I believe it says both pve and pvp players existed together in harmony. So why would they leave if they never had to deal with pvp in the first place?
Because PvE players, in large numbers, took the first chance to jump into games which separated PvE and PvP. Then they really didn't have to deal with PvP.
Because gaming companies haven't tried to implement systems that allows them to coexist happily. That's why they have separated and have such a bad taste in their mouth. The whole reason for this thread is to talk about how they can exist and what games have actually tried the correct set of ideas to make it happen. The answer is not very many so naturally the pve players are not enjoying any pvp mixture.
The problem is you and many others don't think its even possible. Just because the modern gaming industry isn't doing it very well doesn't mean it cannot or will not ever be done well. They did it well in the 90's and we dealt with every possible situation and style of griefing. And yes we made it so they could coexist but the industry dropped the ball and never picked it back up.
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.
The second to last sentence. Read it carefully. I believe it says both pve and pvp players existed together in harmony. So why would they leave if they never had to deal with pvp in the first place?
Because PvE players, in large numbers, took the first chance to jump into games which separated PvE and PvP. Then they really didn't have to deal with PvP.
Because gaming companies haven't tried to implement systems that allows them to coexist happily. That's why they have separated and have such a bad taste in their mouth. The whole reason for this thread is to talk about how they can exist and what games have actually tried the correct set of ideas to make it happen. The answer is not very many so naturally the pve players are not enjoying any pvp mixture.
The problem is you and many others don't think its even possible. Just because the modern gaming industry isn't doing it very well doesn't mean it cannot or will not ever be done well. They did it well in the 90's and we dealt with every possible situation and style of griefing. And yes we made it so they could coexist but the industry dropped the ball and never picked it back up.
Pretend I am a PVE player who doesn't want to PVP. From that viewpoint, I don't need PVP players. But if there is just me and another PVP player, he needs me. That is one sided and a problem. PVE players don't need PVP players.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I don't get how PvE'ers could personalize being killed in a PvP game. PvP'ers aren't doing anything that isn't within the parameters of the game. As a PvP'er I assume anybody playing in a (PvP) game knows that eventually there will be conflict with another player at some point of time.
but it isn't about pve'ers join a pvp game. Its about the theory of a game that is for both crowds.
Im aware of the thread Topic...
I was responding to Loke666 statement regarding why PvE'ers are so nasty toward PvP in forums.
Pretend I am a PVE player who doesn't want to PVP. From that viewpoint, I don't need PVP players. But if there is just me and another PVP player, he needs me. That is one sided and a problem. PVE players don't need PVP players.
This is very true. So a PvE player is not really interested in any compromise, he/she can only lose things (peaceful gameplay, good skill system, friendly community) and in return gains nothing.
This is very true. So a PvE player is not really interested in any compromise, he/she can only lose things (peaceful gameplay, good skill system, friendly community) and in return gains nothing.
Why does one need to "compromise" in using an entertainment product? I don't compromise in my games. If a game is not fun to me for any reason (for example, forced pvp), i play something else. There are plenty of fun entertainment out there.
This is very true. So a PvE player is not really interested in any compromise, he/she can only lose things (peaceful gameplay, good skill system, friendly community) and in return gains nothing.
Why does one need to "compromise" in using an entertainment product? I don't compromise in my games. If a game is not fun to me for any reason (for example, forced pvp), i play something else. There are plenty of fun entertainment out there.
That is like asking why I can't I play spades while using hearts rules.
PVP and PVE can coexist IF the PVE players adjust to to PVP rules. That never works out tho.
The PVE players wan't to solo and end up dead. They only group up to do raids or stand around talking. They never join a guild and ask a fellow guild person to give them cover in a bad area. They never ask for help from a PVP player. They just go to the forums and scream CHANGE THE RULES TO WHAT I LIKE OR I WILL QUIT!!!
They always get their way. So many good PVP games have gone to shit becasue the dumb ass Devs always listen to the PVE players becasue the PVE players spend the most time and money in games.
It can be done, but it has consequences and trade-offs, neither of which appeal to developers that are aiming for a large player base.
It takes a lot more work to create a game which has the features and mechanics required by both PVP and PVE players. Unless there's some form of rigid separation, those that want to PVP all the time will eventually drive off everyone else.
This is very true. So a PvE player is not really interested in any compromise, he/she can only lose things (peaceful gameplay, good skill system, friendly community) and in return gains nothing.
Why does one need to "compromise" in using an entertainment product? I don't compromise in my games. If a game is not fun to me for any reason (for example, forced pvp), i play something else. There are plenty of fun entertainment out there.
Hmm that's what I'm trying to say Why would a PvE player compromise only to please PvP players ? They won't, they will go and find another game without forced PvP, and that's why they will never co-exist in a sandbox with forced PvP- because it's a one sided trade, PvPers need the PvE players but not vica versa.
Comments
And the fact that there's no taunt or aggro manipulation is a step in the right direction too.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I'll say it again
Large worlds, regions that can be taken over for conquest.
Three Factions
PVEers are the citizens, workers, resource gatherers, citybuilders, miners and crafters. They are also the ones who clear newly conquered wild regions of monsters.
PVPers are nation armies, military and mercenaries dependent on the PVErs for resources
Countries are dictated on "country morale" scores. Military not getting enough resources? Military mght be able to stage a coup. Citizens might be able to leave and join another nation, or worse yet call in another nation's military or hire mercs to help them take their country from an oppresive national military.
Make the game skills based. No classes
PVP specific skills and PVE specific skills. Everyone can do both types of skills but a PVEr trying to go for PVP skills will always suffer a 10% exp hit due to using skills that are not part of their initial package.
At character creation you pick whether you are going to be PVE or PVP.
Best specialist guilds get voted in as the countrie's top companies by the playerbase to give incentives to players who genuinely care about helping their nations. Bonuses are given to guilds and players who contribute the most "country morale" to their nation's cause.
Countries with best morale scores over a certain period of time get to unlock better skills for pvp and pve and perhaps get a new tech epoch ala an RTS: "Oh now you can make Sunbird fighters! and have the ability to get spy skills!"
This is a simple design. Simply combine RTS, MMORPG and 4X genre design types together. Make this a Risk like game like the boardgame perhaps even Sci Fi?
Any mmo worth its salt should be like a good prostitute when it comes to its game world- One hell of a faker, and a damn good shaker!
Of course PvEers are competitive, and often rudely so. Had a node ninja'd out from beneath you while you're fighting a mob? Everyone has. Trade wars in chat? Of course. Bounced because you're not elite enough? Sure. Everyone has. If it seemed I was saying the PvE community was pure as the driven snow, let me just say no. However, while that ninja stole my node and pissed me off, he didn't kill me and take my stuff, then take the node. And let's not go into how competitive PvE players are about mounts and costumes and festival goodies.
Rude? I can only assume you misread my comment that PvPers often will say that if you don't like PvP, then leave the game, as saying that PvPers should leave the game. And really, I hate it when raiders comment that solo players should go play SP games because they don't raid or group, and if it seemed like I was saying PvPers don't deserve a good MMO, then I'm getting sloppy in my sentence structure. Because my dislike of OW non-consensual PvP is that everyone should be free to play the game they want. To me that is the core of gaming and my enjoyment of gaming. Which is why I don't think PvP and PvE can co-exist; not that PvP shouldn't exist. The goal of PvPers is dramatically different than that of PvE players. That can never be reconciled.
The second to last sentence. Read it carefully. I believe it says both pve and pvp players existed together in harmony. So why would they leave if they never had to deal with pvp in the first place?
Like hell pvp and pve players get along on EVE i dont pvp and get blown out of space on a daily basis. i have lost more isk on ships then i care to remember due to some overly bored PVPer (or in this case dick) blowing me up while i was attempting to mine. I honestly cant see pvper and pvers getting along due to the fact that pvpers see pvers as easy prey and pvers see pvpers as douchbags.
free 7 day sub and unlocks for swtor new accounts and 90+ day inactive subs click here to get it!
Click here for trove referral, bonuses to both!
Sounds like you're both implying that it is undeserved. What a crock of bull shit that is.
Perhaps it is backlash for 15 years of solid abusive hate/rage, in game and out, by PKs against 'motherfucking carebear assholes'?
And particularly, this: "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."
WTF? Being told to "STFU and go play pretty pony, this is a PvP game..." is almost an everyday thing for a PvE'er to be told. I can't believe anyone that reads forums doesn't already know that.
which is moot ... because there is no compelling reason to force them into a single game. So whatever solution you propose is not needed.
Depends on the game I guess. In Lineage 2 years ago I loved the open world PVP. I was doing a quest and a guy came up to me and killed me. I have no idea what lvl he was because you could not click on him and see any info but his name. I was a mid lvl character at the time. When I died I had a chance to randomly dropped a item which happened of course. I was pissed so I told the guild his name and for the next few days I kept seeing in world chat and guild chat he was here(X city or zone) and then in guild chat they have killed him again. Poor guy I bet ether quit or made a new character. Back then it was not easy or quick to make a new toon.
Back then MMos were communities. People helped each other and looked out for everyone. If you had a bad apple there were guild and people that would go after the bad apples. In the new MMo's people don't act as a community as much any more. You hear people say all the time that they don't want to group they want to be able to Solo the hole game. This make the pvp players have an easier time and less consequences in killing players. So you have more of them and a bigger problem for the solo players and the MMo in general.
If a MMo builds a good community then it will not matter that you have Open World PvP. The mind set of these people that want to SOLO needs to stop if you want Open World PvP. If a MMo wants to keep the solo players happy then you have to make the PvP seperate from the rest of the game.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Best possible scenario in my eyes, we have games that come close to it in some sence, like UWO, just no turn-based elements.
I'm the hardcore player, the one that rushes lvl cap before you even finish the starting area.
So you just want to ignore the op and instead of contributing to the conversation you are saying everyone's statements are useless because they shouldn't even be trying to put them in the same population. Why? Because you don't see how it can happen yet there's a ton of posts showing different examples of how it can be done and done correctly. And yes there is a reason that's why we are having this conversation. Just because you have nullified the conversation doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees with you. There is a great need to put them together. You could actually make them rely on each other in good ways. But you'd rather put your head in the sand and sing songs ignoring everyone around you.
Because PvE players, in large numbers, took the first chance to jump into games which separated PvE and PvP. Then they really 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 don't get how PvE'ers could personalize being killed in a PvP game. PvP'ers aren't doing anything that isn't within the parameters of the game. As a PvP'er I assume anybody playing in a (PvP) game knows that eventually there will be conflict with another player at some point of time.
Well, what about the players that kill low level players?
Probably the most prominent stereotype regarding PvP and probably least common occurrence in a PvP game. Secondly, I would like to add that the players that engage such activities do not represent us. Can you imagine if a "self proclaimed" hunter took you into his home to show off the all the game he's hunted around the world and you look upon his wall expecting to see the most monstrous of beast, instead you see a bunch of squirrel and rat heads mounted on the wall...
I agree with text in blue
but it isn't about pve'ers join a pvp game. Its about the theory of a game that is for both crowds.
i completely agree
so pls, NEVER again call ffa pvp game a sandbox, because it is just a pvp game, nothing more
Because gaming companies haven't tried to implement systems that allows them to coexist happily. That's why they have separated and have such a bad taste in their mouth. The whole reason for this thread is to talk about how they can exist and what games have actually tried the correct set of ideas to make it happen. The answer is not very many so naturally the pve players are not enjoying any pvp mixture.
The problem is you and many others don't think its even possible. Just because the modern gaming industry isn't doing it very well doesn't mean it cannot or will not ever be done well. They did it well in the 90's and we dealt with every possible situation and style of griefing. And yes we made it so they could coexist but the industry dropped the ball and never picked it back up.
Pretend I am a PVE player who doesn't want to PVP. From that viewpoint, I don't need PVP players. But if there is just me and another PVP player, he needs me. That is one sided and a problem. PVE players don't need PVP players.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Im aware of the thread Topic...
I was responding to Loke666 statement regarding why PvE'ers are so nasty toward PvP in forums.
This is very true. So a PvE player is not really interested in any compromise, he/she can only lose things (peaceful gameplay, good skill system, friendly community) and in return gains nothing.
Why does one need to "compromise" in using an entertainment product? I don't compromise in my games. If a game is not fun to me for any reason (for example, forced pvp), i play something else. There are plenty of fun entertainment out there.
That is like asking why I can't I play spades while using hearts rules.
PVP and PVE can coexist IF the PVE players adjust to to PVP rules. That never works out tho.
The PVE players wan't to solo and end up dead. They only group up to do raids or stand around talking. They never join a guild and ask a fellow guild person to give them cover in a bad area. They never ask for help from a PVP player. They just go to the forums and scream CHANGE THE RULES TO WHAT I LIKE OR I WILL QUIT!!!
They always get their way. So many good PVP games have gone to shit becasue the dumb ass Devs always listen to the PVE players becasue the PVE players spend the most time and money in games.
It can be done, but it has consequences and trade-offs, neither of which appeal to developers that are aiming for a large player base.
It takes a lot more work to create a game which has the features and mechanics required by both PVP and PVE players. Unless there's some form of rigid separation, those that want to PVP all the time will eventually drive off everyone else.
Hmm that's what I'm trying to say
Why would a PvE player compromise only to please PvP players ? They won't, they will go and find another game without forced PvP, and that's why they will never co-exist in a sandbox with forced PvP- because it's a one sided trade, PvPers need the PvE players but not vica versa.