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.
Absolute rock solid logic here!
This guy nailed it! Those devs are idiots.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
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.
Its a matter of population really. If the game has enough pvp players they don't need any pve players and vice versa. In the setting where they need to be integrated for the sake of server population they very much need each other. How will you kill that area boss or dungeon boss without the 2 pvp players in your group helping you do it? However this is a different discussion entirely if it should even be happening at all. Its also a matter of immersion. Lets face it you're playing SWTOR and instead of being immersed in the game you got dark jedi and light jedi holding hands acting like they are friends. If the pvp is active then you wont see that garbage roleplay happening.
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.
...
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
The thing is that in most games with open PvP the PvEers don't actually need the PvPers for anything. PvPers have very few if any reasons to help you out as PvEers so they are just a bunch of people constantly killing you without any benefit for you.
PvPers and PvEers must benefit if they work together. Like having premade mechanics for player created quests like the caravan escort I talked about. If you want to have both gamestyles work in the same game there must be mechanics and reasons to cooperate.
And yes, I play both styles. Rarely in the same game though since most games seems a lot more fun one way or the other.
As for lower level players getting ganked, that will happen but the reason it is a problem in most games is due to bad mechanics. Every fight in a game between an equal number of players needs to be possible for either side to win. Now I am not saying that all fights should be equal like in most FPS games but a really great low level player should just barely be able to beat a badly playing vet.
And there are several ways to make that work, the simplest is To level you down to the zone like GW2. Another way is to lower the huge silly powergap most MMOs have a lot. Your character need to improve in MMOs but if you start out with 500 HP you should go up to 1000 HP when you maxed out, not 50 000HP.
A game made for both PvP and PvE in the open world needs to be different from a game made for one and the other playstyles If you just beat mobs you can easily start as a peasant and turn into a demi good but that makes for a crappy PvP scenario unless you use the level down mechanics. The reason FPS games have so many PvP players is because any fight in them are exciting and could go either way. In most MMOs many fights are decided before you even start and I just don't see the fun in that.
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.
Exactly. And you get a lot less whining from one or the other sides because a class got nerfed since it steamrolls in one of the playstyles even if it is well balanced for the other.
The problem is of course to make the playstyles more similar and still both be fun. Removing taunting and limiting CCs while focusing more on body blocking is one way to go (you could of course let taunts work in PvP instead but I have the feeling that would be a lot less fun).
Not only is PvP and PvE not compatible in a sandbox, they are not compatible in an MMO.
In WoW, which is neither a sandbox or 'open world' much has been lost by the carebears from the crybabies going to the forums and whining about some build being too powerful in PvP.
Case in point, the mace stun rogue. The carebears loved it. It was a fun build that allowed the rogue to have a crowd control role and it complimented group play.
However, the crybabies hated it in PvP. They got stun locked and they just had to stand there while a smart build beat their inept build. They didn't think it was fair, so they went to the forums. Unfortunately that's where most PvP crybabies end up; on the forums whining about fairness.
So, the carebears ended up losing a beloved build because the crybabies couldn't take losing.
PvP has no place in a PvE game any more than killing a bunch of NPCs has a place in COD or Battlefield.
Carebears don't want crybabies ruining their game and crybabies only want carebears to be in their world to give them easy kills. You would think the lessons learned from the original UO and every mixed MMO since would sink in.
(EVE? Yea, look at all the RULES EVE has to put in place just to have crybabies and carebears in the same game. Rules they wouldn't need if they went one way or the other with their MMO.)
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
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.
In what games are you playing that this is an everyday occurrence? Because from what I'm seeing, most mmos usually offer you a choice via server rule sets, and the ones that don't make it clear that pvp is the focus, and they are few and far between.
And settle down, wow. Talk about taking your gaming way too seriously. That is seriously sad. My anecdotal evidence tells me that I have had just as many bad experiences dealing with buttholes in dungeons as I have had dealing with butthole gankers. The abuse level is the same, the entitlement issues are even on both sides. That's what happens when you interact with human beings.
And yes, it would be great if the pve resembled pvp more. AND my husband and I were always the bodyguard/police type so an encouragement of that playstyle would be a dream come true for us. Bounties are okay, a paid police force would be fantastic! I don't know why it's not implemented more often. It might sway a bigger part of the pvp playerbase into protecting eachother more often.
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.
Not the e-sport pvp only games. Those are popular, and works.
It is quite simple .. just make pve games for pve players, and pvp games for pvp players. Or have different game modes inside a game. There is no need to mix them up.
I think that they COULD so long as a true sandbox game was offered. By that I mean there are true consequences for engaging in PvP. I'm not talking about full loot. I'm talking about people who engage in PvP are truly risking something themselves. That could be a faction shift that bars them from towns or the spawning of NPC bounty hunters or simply not being able to tell if your intended target is lower or higher level.
People talk about true "risk and rewards" PvP when they mention sandbox, but that's not the truth. What they want is the ability to loot the people they gank. They want the victim to take the risk while the ganker reaps the rewards. To have a true sandbox (by that I mean a game that is just a world where the players are left to their own devices) you have to have the risk flow both ways. If the would be ganker is unsure of the level or skill of his intended target, they are running the risk of attacking someone they can't handled, getting mauled and getting their shoes stolen. (By the way, taking someone's great stuff by ganking them has no style. In my gaming group its all about comedy. So when we ganked someone lower level than us, we would loot their pants and then roll on any white items in their pack. Our victims had to run bare-assed for a bit and they lost a bunch of white stuff they could have sold for in game cash, but they weren't really harmed by the experience. Most of the time that was enough to tell them to avoid us and where we were.)
If the risk flowed both ways meaning the attacker risks losing something as well as the victim, then sure they can co-exist. If the attacker's only risk is that the victim might loot him back then all that does is encourage ganking of lowbs or zerging to insure victory. Regardless of protestations to the contrary, most people in games assume risk just like they do in real life. They're going to pick on the 100 lbs geek instead of the 230 lbs linebacker. Also another cautionary function exists in real life in that you don't know everything about that 100 lbs geek. He might be a world class MMA fighter who when you attack him proceeds to smear your ass all over the pavements like so much strawberry jam. Most people aren't going to do ANYTHING that might cause them to lose face and stuff in real life let alone their precious pixelated lewts in game.
Give PvP a real consequence with teeth in it and ganking will piss right out. Then PvP and PvE folks can co-exist in a sandbox because PvP has a true risk/rewards spectrum. Unfortunately that game hasn't been invented yet and I suspect its too close to real life for anyone to enjoy it.
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
I suppose its possible.. but its easier to keep them apart..
PVE players will want to change the game in ways that will annoy the hell out of PVP players and vice versa.. I say best to keep them apart.
Myself I love open world Sandbox PVP games with little or no restrictions.. and no im not a noob ganker or anything I just enjoy the feel of the game more as you dont know whats going to happen the next corner you go around..
Not only is PvP and PvE not compatible in a sandbox, they are not compatible in an MMO.
In WoW, which is neither a sandbox or 'open world' much has been lost by the carebears from the crybabies going to the forums and whining about some build being too powerful in PvP.
Case in point, the mace stun rogue. The carebears loved it. It was a fun build that allowed the rogue to have a crowd control role and it complimented group play.
However, the crybabies hated it in PvP. They got stun locked and they just had to stand there while a smart build beat their inept build. They didn't think it was fair, so they went to the forums. Unfortunately that's where most PvP crybabies end up; on the forums whining about fairness.
So, the carebears ended up losing a beloved build because the crybabies couldn't take losing.
PvP has no place in a PvE game any more than killing a bunch of NPCs has a place in COD or Battlefield.
Carebears don't want crybabies ruining their game and crybabies only want carebears to be in their world to give them easy kills. You would think the lessons learned from the original UO and every mixed MMO since would sink in.
(EVE? Yea, look at all the RULES EVE has to put in place just to have crybabies and carebears in the same game. Rules they wouldn't need if they went one way or the other with their MMO.)
Just because something is hard doesn't mean it is impossible.
The problem with WoW here is that WoW was made for PvE, it is effectively an improved version of Everquest (who itself improved Meridan 59) and all the mechanics are built for PvE. PvP was added as an afterthought, first with PvP servers and then after GWs launch with battlegrounds.
You can't get the 2 to work together unless you make a system that works equally good for both gamestyles. DaoC was closer there, and therefore the 2 playstyles worked better. And you need to make a game for both from the start.
There are several reasons why PvP and PvE usually don't work together ( I mention most of this earlier):
* The 2 types of players have little use for eachothers. PvPers have PvEers as prey and PvE crafters sometimes sell gear to eachother. You must give the PvP people reasons to help PvEers of their own side against enemy PvPers.
*The combat systems are usually very different. You fight one way in PvE with taunting and a rather specific tactics while you use a completely different way to take down other players. That is the reason for some of the conflicts you mentioned. It doesn't work.
*Most guilds are heavily focused on one or another playstyle. Give people a reason to work together, let guilds have fortresses built by the PvEers and defended by the PvP players.The PvP players will then have a reason to escort the PvEers caravans, protect them while they are gathering resources for the guild and so on while the PvEers will have reasons to get good equipment and defences for the PvP guys.
*Everybody needs to have as fun, no matter if you are a crafter, merchant, dungeon raider, caravan/city/castle guard or a raider. You can't make a game that is awesome for one type of player and expect to keep the ones that are put in just to make it fun for the others.
It is indeed easier to make a fun game for one type of players and it is better to skip the other playstyle completelly than just adding a little in hope of attracting more players. But if you do things just right you can make an awesome game.
As for rules it is generally better to use a carrot then a stick. Reward the players to work together instead of just letting the PvEers do their own thing while the PvPers hunt them. You might still need some rules but with the right game mechanics and the right thinking you can keep the rules rather wide.
But that is mainly for games where players belong to a faction, be that a realm or a large guild. Totally FFA PvP is way harder or might even be impossible if you want the PvEers to have as fun as the PvPers.
In my mind, the only way to make them work together (if at all possible) are laws/rules. In the real world, most crimes have consequences. In most PvP MMOs I have seen, crimes have NO consequences. Do crimes forbid crimes? Of course not. But they can provide a means for protection. Are there ways around them? Of course.
In a sandbox game, players could create their own settlements and decide what laws could be present for that settlement. Then Bounty Hunters could be a possibility and Mercenaries, too. Sheriffs could be elected and Deputies deputized to help out. Judges elected and lawyers become feasible. A whole justice system that currently rarely exists in PvP games. Is it Age of Wushu that has some kind of justice system in place?
Anyway, for these 2 very different playstyles to co-exist, PvP players need to be dissuaded from being dicks. It should not be "easy" to gank noobs in any area, which is how PvP is usually handled. Bring back overpowered NPC city guards that will attack anyone who starts a fight.
Open world PvP without consequences (laws/rules) is a recipe for disaster.
- 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
The PVE players I know in MMOs? Either hate PVP with a passion and would quit any game they got ganked in (they would never try out a new game that had both in the first place).
Or scared to death to try it, because they suck and have no interest getting better or complain more PVE is not added when new PVP stuff was introduced.
Better to focus on one group or the other. Now days it can't work.
Maybe 10 years ago. Not now. I can't believe EVE is used as an example. As it has been said it is a niche product and it's cutthroat backstabbing nature is widely known. Anyone attracted to and or plays the game knows this going in. Due to its target audience.
We only need something we have never seen before, a smart Dev. A smart Dev could come up with a set of rules that would ENCOURAGE PVE players to intermingle with PVP players. Maybe a quest that would require a PVE player to HIRE a team of PVP players to provide escort into a PVP area. The quest reward would then pay the PVP players and give a little something to the PVE player.
The PVE players I know in MMOs? Either hate PVP with a passion and would quit any game they got ganked in (they would never try out a new game that had both in the first place).
Or scared to death to try it, because they suck and have no interest getting better or complain more PVE is not added when new PVP stuff was introduced.
Better to focus on one group or the other. Now days it can't work.
Maybe 10 years ago. Not now. I can't believe EVE is used as an example. As it has been said it is a niche product and it's cutthroat backstabbing nature is widely known. Anyone attracted to and or plays the game knows this going in. Due to its target audience.
Eve, SWG and Daoc all did pretty well for themselves and frankly attracted as many players as many PvE only games.
Nah, I think it is still possible.
The thing I know that turns off most PvE players from games with PvP and PvP servers is the fact that high level players comes in and kill the new players all the time. PvP players tend to have easier of dealing with that.
PvE players are used to always have a chanse in any combat they enter, here they will get butchered and the only thing they can do is run.
GW2 would have worked fine with PvP servers as well since it doesn't have that problem. As I stated earlier, you also needs to have mechanics for PvP and PvE players to have use of eachother, like premade mechanics so PvE players can hire bodyguards and caravan guards as well.
One thing that works really badly for PvE players is full body loot. You need to skip that if you want PvEers, PvEers spend a lot of work on dungeons, raids and crafting to get good gear and if a band of PvPers just can jump them and take all they got it wont work no matter what you do. Most people tend to get stuff the easiest way and if going in a big pack to gank PvEers is the easiest way to get good gear you will very soon have close to zero PvE players.
I think there might not be an issue about coexisting but rather would any developer want the problems associated with this type of game.
Correct me if I am wrong but you mainly levelled if you wished in SWG and DAoC in PvE. The PvP in SWG was flagging yourself and for DAoC you had to go the frontiers other zones to participate. It was not like the whole game was PvP. So using these example as working games it would suggest a mechanic where you would need to give the player full choice of deciding when and where they want to engage in PvP.
Even in Everquest you could go to the Priest of Discord and flag yourself.
The PVE players I know in MMOs? Either hate PVP with a passion and would quit any game they got ganked in (they would never try out a new game that had both in the first place).
Or scared to death to try it, because they suck and have no interest getting better or complain more PVE is not added when new PVP stuff was introduced.
Better to focus on one group or the other. Now days it can't work.
Maybe 10 years ago. Not now. I can't believe EVE is used as an example. As it has been said it is a niche product and it's cutthroat backstabbing nature is widely known. Anyone attracted to and or plays the game knows this going in. Due to its target audience.
Eve, SWG and Daoc all did pretty well for themselves and frankly attracted as many players as many PvE only games.
Nah, I think it is still possible.
The thing I know that turns off most PvE players from games with PvP and PvP servers is the fact that high level players comes in and kill the new players all the time. PvP players tend to have easier of dealing with that.
PvE players are used to always have a chanse in any combat they enter, here they will get butchered and the only thing they can do is run.
GW2 would have worked fine with PvP servers as well since it doesn't have that problem. As I stated earlier, you also needs to have mechanics for PvP and PvE players to have use of eachother, like premade mechanics so PvE players can hire bodyguards and caravan guards as well.
One thing that works really badly for PvE players is full body loot. You need to skip that if you want PvEers, PvEers spend a lot of work on dungeons, raids and crafting to get good gear and if a band of PvPers just can jump them and take all they got it wont work no matter what you do. Most people tend to get stuff the easiest way and if going in a big pack to gank PvEers is the easiest way to get good gear you will very soon have close to zero PvE players.
You usually have plenty of great points. But there are some keywords you used. "Did" and "Would Have".
But I will submit the right system in place could work in bringing both sides together. If you build your game around the right niche. It would take the right visionary in Kickstarter for it to be executed in the right way.
I do see some fantastic ideas in this thread that could be put to some very good use.
But even so it could take years. 3-4 years to get built right and if everything went smooth. If you wanted to use advanced graphics at all? Might even take longer. Not that graphics are everything but would be nice.
Who knows what PC gaming will look like in 4+ years? Maybe slightly different, maybe radically different. I think Occulus rift support could be pretty huge. But if it turns out to be flop? You wasted all that development time for nothing.
Th OP's question was if the 2 type of players can co-exist in a SANDBOX. I guess he meant open world FFA PvP...anyone can be attacked anywhere anytime. In that case I'm sure the answer is No....no PvE player will bear with the annoyance of such game and he has no reason to do so. And rules and laws and guards (be it players or NPCs) won't help at all. I'm a PvE player and I can tell you how much PvP I can bear with if it's forced on me...ZERO. It is only acceptable if it doesn't happen. If it happens, no matter if only once a year, no matter if there is loot or no loot, if there is only a CHANCE that I can be killed by another player when I don't feel like PvPing than I will leave that game.
As a PvE player, I have no problem with PvP, I like when there is an option for it in my game. I have problem with forced PvP. In my free time I want to choose how I entertain myself in my game, and I'm not willing to be the entertaining content to another player when I don't feel like that. My free time is much more valueable for me than wasting it on useless annoying fights.
PvPers and PvEers can easily co-exist, as long as PvP is not forced in any way on PvE players. Otherwise it will never work imo.
A good way to avoid forced PvP is making a designated zone (huge one, open world) for it, like the wilderness in RuneScape. If someone wish to play in peace can stay in the peace zone, others looking for some excitements can go to the war zone to find others.
Eve, SWG and Daoc all did pretty well for themselves and frankly attracted as many players as many PvE only games.
Nah, I think it is still possible.
The thing I know that turns off most PvE players from games with PvP and PvP servers is the fact that high level players comes in and kill the new players all the time. PvP players tend to have easier of dealing with that.
PvE players are used to always have a chanse in any combat they enter, here they will get butchered and the only thing they can do is run.
GW2 would have worked fine with PvP servers as well since it doesn't have that problem. As I stated earlier, you also needs to have mechanics for PvP and PvE players to have use of eachother, like premade mechanics so PvE players can hire bodyguards and caravan guards as well.
One thing that works really badly for PvE players is full body loot. You need to skip that if you want PvEers, PvEers spend a lot of work on dungeons, raids and crafting to get good gear and if a band of PvPers just can jump them and take all they got it wont work no matter what you do. Most people tend to get stuff the easiest way and if going in a big pack to gank PvEers is the easiest way to get good gear you will very soon have close to zero PvE players.
You usually have plenty of great points. But there are some keywords you used. "Did" and "Would Have".
But I will submit the right system in place could work in bringing both sides together. If you build your game around the right niche. It would take the right visionary in Kickstarter for it to be executed in the right way.
I do see some fantastic ideas in this thread that could be put to some very good use.
But even so it could take years. 3-4 years to get built right and if everything went smooth. If you wanted to use advanced graphics at all? Might even take longer. Not that graphics are everything but would be nice.
Who knows what PC gaming will look like in 4+ years? Maybe slightly different, maybe radically different. I think Occulus rift support could be pretty huge. But if it turns out to be flop? You wasted all that development time for nothing.
That is indeed right, creating new mechanics like this would take a pretty long alpha/beta to get right. And MMOs tend to take long time to develop.
And I agree that Occulus (or one of it's competitors)probably will be a huge thing in future MMOs which will change some or many mechanics in the MMOs of 2020.
However could you start out with the mechanics, the world, art and similar stuff and once you got that right (not to mention that getting funding will most likely take some time) you would know how the VR thing went or at least have enough hints to make your game.
There is a lot of potential in a game like this because you can attract many groups who currently have few games to play.
But the most important thing is still that the game is fun, and fun for everyone instead of a few players. Many devs seems to focus more on manipulating their players to stay then actually making a game people play because it is fun and I think that will be a misstake in the long run. I would go so far to say that balancing how fun the game is for everyone is far more important then balancing different classes for PvE and PvP (or builds).
Th OP's question was if the 2 type of players can co-exist in a SANDBOX. I guess he meant open world FFA PvP...anyone can be attacked anywhere anytime. In that case I'm sure the answer is No....no PvE player will bear with the annoyance of such game and he has no reason to do so. And rules and laws and guards (be it players or NPCs) won't help at all. I'm a PvE player and I can tell you how much PvP I can bear with if it's forced on me...ZERO. It is only acceptable if it doesn't happen. If it happens, no matter if only once a year, no matter if there is loot or no loot, if there is only a CHANCE that I can be killed by another player when I don't feel like PvPing than I will leave that game.
As a PvE player, I have no problem with PvP, I like when there is an option for it in my game. I have problem with forced PvP. In my free time I want to choose how I entertain myself in my game, and I'm not willing to be the entertaining content to another player when I don't feel like that. My free time is much more valueable for me than wasting it on useless annoying fights.
PvPers and PvEers can easily co-exist, as long as PvP is not forced in any way on PvE players. Otherwise it will never work imo.
A good way to avoid forced PvP is making a designated zone (huge one, open world) for it, like the wilderness in RuneScape. If someone wish to play in peace can stay in the peace zone, others looking for some excitements can go to the war zone to find others.
He did nowhere state if the PvP would be faction based or FFA. Not to mention that the game would be full loot.
I don't see a FFA full loot gam works for PvEers even if there have been plenty of good suggestions in the thread.
The only possibility would be that your game would be so different from everything on the market and so awesome that the PvEers have zero options like UO had at launch. Either you played M59/the realm or you played UO and it got many PvEers just because it was unique.
Or possibly that you were the first one using new technology, like the first VR MMO or something.
Otherwise I would say it is impossible. Faction based PvP on the other hand have far more potential here.
Originally posted by Mavolence As a huge fan of both PVE and PVP i do absolutely believe that both can exist in a sandbox. I co-existed in UO,SWG,EVE quite well had tons of friends on both sides of the spectrum and many more in the middle. Never had an issue not doing my own thing in any of these games.
Unfortunately, I started UO after Felucia and Trammel both existed, but fortunately before the moongates were "moongates for dummies". At that point, UO was no longer a true sandbox, as it did have a PVE - PVP territorial split. I heard that before Felucia and Trammel both existed that UO was one world, holding the same rules as Felucia (PVP). This supposedly created thieves, murderers, as well as vigilantes and murderer hunters. It sounded like a great period in the history of UO, but it was a period I never got to see. UO was a great game from the point I began however, and remained great until the day moongates were made too easy to use. Up until that point, the a$$hats were not that common in Felucia. After that point, those Trammel to Felucia stones became very useful to avoid being gang banged.
Originally posted by Quirhid I haven't seen good open world PvP in a MMORPG yet.
Then you haven't played many MMORPG's. For someone with a registered date of 2005 you're a pretty big noob.
I have played a few that were good but frankly not one that released the last 10 years. And even the ones I really liked could still be better.
But even if you think there have been zero good ones it proves nothing. Noone built a good VR MMO yet and still I don't doubt we will have several 6-7 years from now.
Most PvP games tend to be either PvE games with some fast made PvP things and PvP servers or FFA sandboxes that usually have rather similar mechanics.
Personally I think I liked the open world PvP in Lineage way back. It had plenty of bad things but I spent a lot of times playing both PvP and PvE in it and had really fun. The mechanics there wouldn't work today though.
Originally posted by Jemcrystal PvP doesn't work. There are always hackers that grief everyone.
That is indeed a problem, particularly in low budget MMOs. Many of the larger have done a great job getting rid of hackers though. It was a long time ago I saw someone cheat in GW2 as example and Wow have gotten a few rounds of hackers as well but have fixed it after some time.
Other games have ignored it or not even cared and that kills a game fast. But it is possible to get rid of the problem and it have been done in the past.
Any PvP game must have zero tolerance for cheaters or it is doomed... But FPS games have had the same problem and PvP works fine there.
Comments
Absolute rock solid logic here!
This guy nailed it! Those devs are idiots.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Its a matter of population really. If the game has enough pvp players they don't need any pve players and vice versa. In the setting where they need to be integrated for the sake of server population they very much need each other. How will you kill that area boss or dungeon boss without the 2 pvp players in your group helping you do it? However this is a different discussion entirely if it should even be happening at all. Its also a matter of immersion. Lets face it you're playing SWTOR and instead of being immersed in the game you got dark jedi and light jedi holding hands acting like they are friends. If the pvp is active then you wont see that garbage roleplay happening.
The thing is that in most games with open PvP the PvEers don't actually need the PvPers for anything. PvPers have very few if any reasons to help you out as PvEers so they are just a bunch of people constantly killing you without any benefit for you.
PvPers and PvEers must benefit if they work together. Like having premade mechanics for player created quests like the caravan escort I talked about. If you want to have both gamestyles work in the same game there must be mechanics and reasons to cooperate.
And yes, I play both styles. Rarely in the same game though since most games seems a lot more fun one way or the other.
As for lower level players getting ganked, that will happen but the reason it is a problem in most games is due to bad mechanics. Every fight in a game between an equal number of players needs to be possible for either side to win. Now I am not saying that all fights should be equal like in most FPS games but a really great low level player should just barely be able to beat a badly playing vet.
And there are several ways to make that work, the simplest is To level you down to the zone like GW2. Another way is to lower the huge silly powergap most MMOs have a lot. Your character need to improve in MMOs but if you start out with 500 HP you should go up to 1000 HP when you maxed out, not 50 000HP.
A game made for both PvP and PvE in the open world needs to be different from a game made for one and the other playstyles If you just beat mobs you can easily start as a peasant and turn into a demi good but that makes for a crappy PvP scenario unless you use the level down mechanics. The reason FPS games have so many PvP players is because any fight in them are exciting and could go either way. In most MMOs many fights are decided before you even start and I just don't see the fun in that.
Exactly. And you get a lot less whining from one or the other sides because a class got nerfed since it steamrolls in one of the playstyles even if it is well balanced for the other.
The problem is of course to make the playstyles more similar and still both be fun. Removing taunting and limiting CCs while focusing more on body blocking is one way to go (you could of course let taunts work in PvP instead but I have the feeling that would be a lot less fun).
Not only is PvP and PvE not compatible in a sandbox, they are not compatible in an MMO.
In WoW, which is neither a sandbox or 'open world' much has been lost by the carebears from the crybabies going to the forums and whining about some build being too powerful in PvP.
Case in point, the mace stun rogue. The carebears loved it. It was a fun build that allowed the rogue to have a crowd control role and it complimented group play.
However, the crybabies hated it in PvP. They got stun locked and they just had to stand there while a smart build beat their inept build. They didn't think it was fair, so they went to the forums. Unfortunately that's where most PvP crybabies end up; on the forums whining about fairness.
So, the carebears ended up losing a beloved build because the crybabies couldn't take losing.
PvP has no place in a PvE game any more than killing a bunch of NPCs has a place in COD or Battlefield.
Carebears don't want crybabies ruining their game and crybabies only want carebears to be in their world to give them easy kills. You would think the lessons learned from the original UO and every mixed MMO since would sink in.
(EVE? Yea, look at all the RULES EVE has to put in place just to have crybabies and carebears in the same game. Rules they wouldn't need if they went one way or the other with their MMO.)
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
In what games are you playing that this is an everyday occurrence? Because from what I'm seeing, most mmos usually offer you a choice via server rule sets, and the ones that don't make it clear that pvp is the focus, and they are few and far between.
And settle down, wow. Talk about taking your gaming way too seriously. That is seriously sad. My anecdotal evidence tells me that I have had just as many bad experiences dealing with buttholes in dungeons as I have had dealing with butthole gankers. The abuse level is the same, the entitlement issues are even on both sides. That's what happens when you interact with human beings.
And yes, it would be great if the pve resembled pvp more. AND my husband and I were always the bodyguard/police type so an encouragement of that playstyle would be a dream come true for us. Bounties are okay, a paid police force would be fantastic! I don't know why it's not implemented more often. It might sway a bigger part of the pvp playerbase into protecting eachother more often.
Not the e-sport pvp only games. Those are popular, and works.
It is quite simple .. just make pve games for pve players, and pvp games for pvp players. Or have different game modes inside a game. There is no need to mix them up.
I think that they COULD so long as a true sandbox game was offered. By that I mean there are true consequences for engaging in PvP. I'm not talking about full loot. I'm talking about people who engage in PvP are truly risking something themselves. That could be a faction shift that bars them from towns or the spawning of NPC bounty hunters or simply not being able to tell if your intended target is lower or higher level.
People talk about true "risk and rewards" PvP when they mention sandbox, but that's not the truth. What they want is the ability to loot the people they gank. They want the victim to take the risk while the ganker reaps the rewards. To have a true sandbox (by that I mean a game that is just a world where the players are left to their own devices) you have to have the risk flow both ways. If the would be ganker is unsure of the level or skill of his intended target, they are running the risk of attacking someone they can't handled, getting mauled and getting their shoes stolen. (By the way, taking someone's great stuff by ganking them has no style. In my gaming group its all about comedy. So when we ganked someone lower level than us, we would loot their pants and then roll on any white items in their pack. Our victims had to run bare-assed for a bit and they lost a bunch of white stuff they could have sold for in game cash, but they weren't really harmed by the experience. Most of the time that was enough to tell them to avoid us and where we were.)
If the risk flowed both ways meaning the attacker risks losing something as well as the victim, then sure they can co-exist. If the attacker's only risk is that the victim might loot him back then all that does is encourage ganking of lowbs or zerging to insure victory. Regardless of protestations to the contrary, most people in games assume risk just like they do in real life. They're going to pick on the 100 lbs geek instead of the 230 lbs linebacker. Also another cautionary function exists in real life in that you don't know everything about that 100 lbs geek. He might be a world class MMA fighter who when you attack him proceeds to smear your ass all over the pavements like so much strawberry jam. Most people aren't going to do ANYTHING that might cause them to lose face and stuff in real life let alone their precious pixelated lewts in game.
Give PvP a real consequence with teeth in it and ganking will piss right out. Then PvP and PvE folks can co-exist in a sandbox because PvP has a true risk/rewards spectrum. Unfortunately that game hasn't been invented yet and I suspect its too close to real life for anyone to enjoy it.
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
I suppose its possible.. but its easier to keep them apart..
PVE players will want to change the game in ways that will annoy the hell out of PVP players and vice versa.. I say best to keep them apart.
Myself I love open world Sandbox PVP games with little or no restrictions.. and no im not a noob ganker or anything I just enjoy the feel of the game more as you dont know whats going to happen the next corner you go around..
Just because something is hard doesn't mean it is impossible.
The problem with WoW here is that WoW was made for PvE, it is effectively an improved version of Everquest (who itself improved Meridan 59) and all the mechanics are built for PvE. PvP was added as an afterthought, first with PvP servers and then after GWs launch with battlegrounds.
You can't get the 2 to work together unless you make a system that works equally good for both gamestyles. DaoC was closer there, and therefore the 2 playstyles worked better. And you need to make a game for both from the start.
There are several reasons why PvP and PvE usually don't work together ( I mention most of this earlier):
* The 2 types of players have little use for eachothers. PvPers have PvEers as prey and PvE crafters sometimes sell gear to eachother. You must give the PvP people reasons to help PvEers of their own side against enemy PvPers.
*The combat systems are usually very different. You fight one way in PvE with taunting and a rather specific tactics while you use a completely different way to take down other players. That is the reason for some of the conflicts you mentioned. It doesn't work.
*Most guilds are heavily focused on one or another playstyle. Give people a reason to work together, let guilds have fortresses built by the PvEers and defended by the PvP players.The PvP players will then have a reason to escort the PvEers caravans, protect them while they are gathering resources for the guild and so on while the PvEers will have reasons to get good equipment and defences for the PvP guys.
*Everybody needs to have as fun, no matter if you are a crafter, merchant, dungeon raider, caravan/city/castle guard or a raider. You can't make a game that is awesome for one type of player and expect to keep the ones that are put in just to make it fun for the others.
It is indeed easier to make a fun game for one type of players and it is better to skip the other playstyle completelly than just adding a little in hope of attracting more players. But if you do things just right you can make an awesome game.
As for rules it is generally better to use a carrot then a stick. Reward the players to work together instead of just letting the PvEers do their own thing while the PvPers hunt them. You might still need some rules but with the right game mechanics and the right thinking you can keep the rules rather wide.
But that is mainly for games where players belong to a faction, be that a realm or a large guild. Totally FFA PvP is way harder or might even be impossible if you want the PvEers to have as fun as the PvPers.
In my mind, the only way to make them work together (if at all possible) are laws/rules. In the real world, most crimes have consequences. In most PvP MMOs I have seen, crimes have NO consequences. Do crimes forbid crimes? Of course not. But they can provide a means for protection. Are there ways around them? Of course.
In a sandbox game, players could create their own settlements and decide what laws could be present for that settlement. Then Bounty Hunters could be a possibility and Mercenaries, too. Sheriffs could be elected and Deputies deputized to help out. Judges elected and lawyers become feasible. A whole justice system that currently rarely exists in PvP games. Is it Age of Wushu that has some kind of justice system in place?
Anyway, for these 2 very different playstyles to co-exist, PvP players need to be dissuaded from being dicks. It should not be "easy" to gank noobs in any area, which is how PvP is usually handled. Bring back overpowered NPC city guards that will attack anyone who starts a fight.
Open world PvP without consequences (laws/rules) is a recipe for disaster.
- 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
eve is (no matter how good it is) a niche product.
it has like 500k users online in general, that's NOTHING a company aiming to copy WoW is satisfied with.
how they survived? ccp was smart enough to offer PLEX (acc subs, ingame money and more) for realmoney which you can sell ingame, legaly.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
No.
The PVE players I know in MMOs? Either hate PVP with a passion and would quit any game they got ganked in (they would never try out a new game that had both in the first place).
Or scared to death to try it, because they suck and have no interest getting better or complain more PVE is not added when new PVP stuff was introduced.
Better to focus on one group or the other. Now days it can't work.
Maybe 10 years ago. Not now. I can't believe EVE is used as an example. As it has been said it is a niche product and it's cutthroat backstabbing nature is widely known. Anyone attracted to and or plays the game knows this going in. Due to its target audience.
Eve, SWG and Daoc all did pretty well for themselves and frankly attracted as many players as many PvE only games.
Nah, I think it is still possible.
The thing I know that turns off most PvE players from games with PvP and PvP servers is the fact that high level players comes in and kill the new players all the time. PvP players tend to have easier of dealing with that.
PvE players are used to always have a chanse in any combat they enter, here they will get butchered and the only thing they can do is run.
GW2 would have worked fine with PvP servers as well since it doesn't have that problem. As I stated earlier, you also needs to have mechanics for PvP and PvE players to have use of eachother, like premade mechanics so PvE players can hire bodyguards and caravan guards as well.
One thing that works really badly for PvE players is full body loot. You need to skip that if you want PvEers, PvEers spend a lot of work on dungeons, raids and crafting to get good gear and if a band of PvPers just can jump them and take all they got it wont work no matter what you do. Most people tend to get stuff the easiest way and if going in a big pack to gank PvEers is the easiest way to get good gear you will very soon have close to zero PvE players.
I think there might not be an issue about coexisting but rather would any developer want the problems associated with this type of game.
Correct me if I am wrong but you mainly levelled if you wished in SWG and DAoC in PvE. The PvP in SWG was flagging yourself and for DAoC you had to go the frontiers other zones to participate. It was not like the whole game was PvP. So using these example as working games it would suggest a mechanic where you would need to give the player full choice of deciding when and where they want to engage in PvP.
Even in Everquest you could go to the Priest of Discord and flag yourself.
You usually have plenty of great points. But there are some keywords you used. "Did" and "Would Have".
But I will submit the right system in place could work in bringing both sides together. If you build your game around the right niche. It would take the right visionary in Kickstarter for it to be executed in the right way.
I do see some fantastic ideas in this thread that could be put to some very good use.
But even so it could take years. 3-4 years to get built right and if everything went smooth. If you wanted to use advanced graphics at all? Might even take longer. Not that graphics are everything but would be nice.
Who knows what PC gaming will look like in 4+ years? Maybe slightly different, maybe radically different. I think Occulus rift support could be pretty huge. But if it turns out to be flop? You wasted all that development time for nothing.
Th OP's question was if the 2 type of players can co-exist in a SANDBOX. I guess he meant open world FFA PvP...anyone can be attacked anywhere anytime. In that case I'm sure the answer is No....no PvE player will bear with the annoyance of such game and he has no reason to do so. And rules and laws and guards (be it players or NPCs) won't help at all. I'm a PvE player and I can tell you how much PvP I can bear with if it's forced on me...ZERO. It is only acceptable if it doesn't happen. If it happens, no matter if only once a year, no matter if there is loot or no loot, if there is only a CHANCE that I can be killed by another player when I don't feel like PvPing than I will leave that game.
As a PvE player, I have no problem with PvP, I like when there is an option for it in my game. I have problem with forced PvP. In my free time I want to choose how I entertain myself in my game, and I'm not willing to be the entertaining content to another player when I don't feel like that. My free time is much more valueable for me than wasting it on useless annoying fights.
PvPers and PvEers can easily co-exist, as long as PvP is not forced in any way on PvE players. Otherwise it will never work imo.
A good way to avoid forced PvP is making a designated zone (huge one, open world) for it, like the wilderness in RuneScape. If someone wish to play in peace can stay in the peace zone, others looking for some excitements can go to the war zone to find others.
That is indeed right, creating new mechanics like this would take a pretty long alpha/beta to get right. And MMOs tend to take long time to develop.
And I agree that Occulus (or one of it's competitors)probably will be a huge thing in future MMOs which will change some or many mechanics in the MMOs of 2020.
However could you start out with the mechanics, the world, art and similar stuff and once you got that right (not to mention that getting funding will most likely take some time) you would know how the VR thing went or at least have enough hints to make your game.
There is a lot of potential in a game like this because you can attract many groups who currently have few games to play.
But the most important thing is still that the game is fun, and fun for everyone instead of a few players. Many devs seems to focus more on manipulating their players to stay then actually making a game people play because it is fun and I think that will be a misstake in the long run. I would go so far to say that balancing how fun the game is for everyone is far more important then balancing different classes for PvE and PvP (or builds).
He did nowhere state if the PvP would be faction based or FFA. Not to mention that the game would be full loot.
I don't see a FFA full loot gam works for PvEers even if there have been plenty of good suggestions in the thread.
The only possibility would be that your game would be so different from everything on the market and so awesome that the PvEers have zero options like UO had at launch. Either you played M59/the realm or you played UO and it got many PvEers just because it was unique.
Or possibly that you were the first one using new technology, like the first VR MMO or something.
Otherwise I would say it is impossible. Faction based PvP on the other hand have far more potential here.
I don't think you understand what a sandbox is.
Then you haven't played many MMORPG's. For someone with a registered date of 2005 you're a pretty big noob.
I have played a few that were good but frankly not one that released the last 10 years. And even the ones I really liked could still be better.
But even if you think there have been zero good ones it proves nothing. Noone built a good VR MMO yet and still I don't doubt we will have several 6-7 years from now.
Most PvP games tend to be either PvE games with some fast made PvP things and PvP servers or FFA sandboxes that usually have rather similar mechanics.
Personally I think I liked the open world PvP in Lineage way back. It had plenty of bad things but I spent a lot of times playing both PvP and PvE in it and had really fun. The mechanics there wouldn't work today though.
That is indeed a problem, particularly in low budget MMOs. Many of the larger have done a great job getting rid of hackers though. It was a long time ago I saw someone cheat in GW2 as example and Wow have gotten a few rounds of hackers as well but have fixed it after some time.
Other games have ignored it or not even cared and that kills a game fast. But it is possible to get rid of the problem and it have been done in the past.
Any PvP game must have zero tolerance for cheaters or it is doomed... But FPS games have had the same problem and PvP works fine there.