I don't play open PVP games. That's lost money. No one in my gaming circle does either. More lost money.
Poor PvPvE game design means lost money. Every designer seems to think their concept will be the exception. Lost money. SWG seems to have done it best, but iirc Koster argued against the flagging, showing that even the top theorists run afoul of 'my design will be the exception' trope.
Interestingly, I've recently read two of koster's books - a theory of fun for game design and selected essays. In that second one, he talks a hell of a lot about the games he worked on, the original designs he wanted to do, then about how things actually turned out and what he thought of it.
On the subject of PvP, he talks a lot about how it is basically impossible to remove PvP from an MMO. Even if you remove the possibility of pvp combat, players will still find ways to "fight" each other - things like mob-tagging to deny you kills, or economic fighting through the AH, or blocking players paths if there is collision detection.
As you probably also know, Koster is a massive proponent of the virtual worlds idea. In his book, he talks a lot about how if you are going to try to make a virtual world with a virtual society, you need to include a diverse range of players. Without such diversity, you cannot create a stable virtual society. This means including player killers.
What sociology has taught us is that group identities are often formed initially by shared interests, but are strongest when the group is also clearly not something. In otherwords, we are defined just as much by the other as we are by ourselves.
Thats where player killers come in.
When you have player killers in the game, it actually improves the identity of those who aren't killers. Groups who oppose something, as well as have shared interests, are much tighter and stay in the game longer. The whole community becomes stronger due to these diverse interests.
What Koster says he got "wrong", or at least, didn't figure out, what how to let the community police itself.
In real life, we have killers and criminals. But, we also have laws, organisations that enforce the laws, institutions that set and judge the laws, and ways to punish those who transgress the law. All of this is within the control of society. In an MMO, those structures just don't exist. The devs set the physical rules (through code) but they don't really give us the tools to police ourselves. If there is an obnoxious ganker on your server, but who isn't breaking any rules of the game, what can you do? We could form groups to kill the ganker, but then they'll just respawn and come back. We can't ban them from towns, prevent them from using traders, or lock them up in a prison in game.
Koster experimented in UO with all sorts of ways of trying to curb disruptive ganking/pking, but none of them worked out. Then EQ was released and showed that you could still have a profitable MMO without free-for-all pvp, and that seemed to put an end to Koster's attempts at letting communities police themselves. So, we never reached the point where it could be free-for-all and still enjoyable for everyone.
This also makes me very excited to see what Koster's new MMO is going to be like. Will he continue his experiments into virtual societies? What PvP rules will he go for? What will be the balance of content between sandbox and themepark? Will procedural generation be part of it? Will there be defined factions, or can we form our own?!
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
the problem you guys are missing is one of content. For any game the content update is always split between the number of activities offered. Thus if you have a large raiding community they will want content skewed toward that activity. If you have a large pvp community it will go the other way.
If you want either to be successful its best to just choose one. If you choose both you risk alienating one or even both groups.
As long as the PVP is voluntary, then no problem, it only becomes a problem if the PVP can be forced.
I'm ok with zones, server types, or even open world PvP that has good character escape and stealth skills but putting a mandatory PvE quest in the middle of a PvP zone or having a setup that allows camping is not good.
"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
As long as the PVP is voluntary, then no problem, it only becomes a problem if the PVP can be forced.
As long as they have PvE and PvP servers it is just fine as far as I am concerned.
Segregation isn't co-existing, according to the US Supreme Court. Hasn't been for some while now.
Well technically a PVP server is really a PVE/PVP server or a "complete" server. You do as much PVE on a PVP server as on a PVE server. Only difference is now everyone can gank you while you PVE.
As long as the PVP is voluntary, then no problem, it only becomes a problem if the PVP can be forced.
As long as they have PvE and PvP servers it is just fine as far as I am concerned.
Segregation isn't co-existing, according to the US Supreme Court. Hasn't been for some while now.
Well technically a PVP server is really a PVE/PVP server or a "complete" server. You do as much PVE on a PVP server as on a PVE server. Only difference is now everyone can gank you while you PVE.
In order to do this and play comfortably you need a large game.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I just view PVP servers as having enemies with a more challenging AI like many clamor for in games these days.
Most players really dont want more challenge I've found, not if it means there are scenarios they can never win.
While I do think there are people who don't want challenge (and that's fine really, I've met a number of people who just enjoy games to relax) part of the problem is that some players don't know howto play nice in a pvp enviroment. Instead of it being a game it's a forum for them to inflict themselves on others.
That's what a lot of people don't like.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
PvP trashes PvE when allowed to gank PvE players. PvE doesn't affect PvP players at all, other than a few psychotic individuals who gnash their teeth in frustration that they can't grief the low level noob collecting herbs or whatever.
If PvP and PvE exist on the same server, but can't attack the other group, that's the best situation for both types. That way those that want to fight each other can, while those that want to deal with the world instead of griefers can as well.
Sure, there are PvPers that ignore those obviously not involved in combat exist, it doesn't matter since it only takes a few of the griefers to wreck things. Don't try to pretend those people don't exist, because they definitely do. In games where you can attack anyone, I've never been killed by a player in a fair fight when I'm not in a known battlefield/conflict area. They usually are much higher level, with much better gear, tend to travel in groups and kill solos, and almost only attack when you are either heavily wounded from fighting a mob, or when you are stuck in some other interaction and can't respond immediately. That kind of activity is NOT the work of someone that wants a fair fight, a challenge, or have an opponent that's more intelligent than a computer script. (It doesn't matter how intelligent and trained in strategy and tactics you are, if you are massively overpowered or one-shotted by a sneak attack, there's not chance for intelligence to be involved. They obviously just want an easy and hollow victory, or to piss you off.)
Yeah, I sound like I don't like PvP. In general, it gets in the way of my having fun. If I feel like it, I'll turn off my duel blocker and accept a reasonable duel, or just go into the battlefields or arena, depending on game. But most of the time I don't bother with it since I don't usually find it fun, even when it is consensual.
If PvP is non-consensual, you drive away most of the PvE. Not to mention that games built with such a thing are rather weak when it comes to PvE content anyway. I guess they just assume that with people killing everyone else, they won't get a chance to do actual adventuring.
Also, a small note on PvP only games and success. Ever notice that most of the ones that are really successful, are those where you rely on the equipment you get that match or there's little difference in power between them, and there's no leveling or other things that make your character better than anyone else? Pubg, Fortenight, etc.
Yes, I talked a fair amount on this subject, but I guess some people still don't get it that most PvErs don't like getting randomly ganked in unfair and unwanted fights. Worse yet, they never seem to realize their whining that they should be able to kill anyone without restriction is rather pathetic.
I just view PVP servers as having enemies with a more challenging AI like many clamor for in games these days.
Most players really dont want more challenge I've found, not if it means there are scenarios they can never win.
While I do think there are people who don't want challenge (and that's fine really, I've met a number of people who just enjoy games to relax) part of the problem is that some players don't know howto play nice in a pvp enviroment. Instead of it being a game it's a forum for them to inflict themselves on others.
That's what a lot of people don't like.
Well, developers have full responsibility to control the actions/rules. People will always use any means necessary to do everything given to them..... Can't blame them really.
I just view PVP servers as having enemies with a more challenging AI like many clamor for in games these days.
Most players really dont want more challenge I've found, not if it means there are scenarios they can never win.
While I do think there are people who don't want challenge (and that's fine really, I've met a number of people who just enjoy games to relax) part of the problem is that some players don't know howto play nice in a pvp enviroment. Instead of it being a game it's a forum for them to inflict themselves on others.
I don't play open PVP games. That's lost money. No one in my gaming circle does either. More lost money.
Poor PvPvE game design means lost money. Every designer seems to think their concept will be the exception. Lost money. SWG seems to have done it best, but iirc Koster argued against the flagging, showing that even the top theorists run afoul of 'my design will be the exception' trope.
On the subject of PvP, he talks a lot about how it is basically impossible to remove PvP from an MMO. Even if you remove the possibility of pvp combat, players will still find ways to "fight" each other - things like mob-tagging to deny you kills, or economic fighting through the AH, or blocking players paths if there is collision detection.
This really can't be overstated enough. There is always PVP. It's just a matter of function.
In EQ, people trained NPCs on each other or raced for dragons, etc.
In WoW, people raced to tag mobs first, etc.
In games with housing, you compete for the property/estates.
The list goes on.
Which, actually, is a reason that a lot of regular (read: non-griefer) people like PVP being available.
There are benefits to being able to just attack the jerks who would exploitatively "grief" you in a PVE-locked environment.
It often gives you a means to retaliate against the scummier folks.
Of course, as has been noted, most PVP systems are badly designed and create new exploitations of their own.
Even in most games that are pure "co-op" you can be griefed. I'm thinking non-MMO even.
In purely "friendly" type games, people can throw games/matches among other things.
I still remember back in the day while playing Halo with my brother. He was driving the Warthog and I was in the gunner's turret.
We were at a broken bridge or something. He starts backing up since it was a dead end. It seemed normal.
Then he floors it and sends it racing over the edge as he leaps out at the last second.
There have been games that got it right, but there was always a way to keep them separate. DAoC had a HUGE world for PvE and a HUGE world with meaningful PvP. Eve Online is massive and has different security ratings, from 1 to -1, for the sector your in. Warhammer Online didn't have a huge world but it had Small PvP zones mixed in to the PvE areas.
The people that wanted to PvP could do so. The people who don't like PvP (AKA, big crybabies ), didn't have to.
I just view PVP servers as having enemies with a more challenging AI like many clamor for in games these days.
Most players really dont want more challenge I've found, not if it means there are scenarios they can never win.
Well, it's well-known amongst developers that you can't really give players any serious challenge. People are sore losers, in general.
What people really want is not challenge but the feeling of winning. They want the illusion of challenge without the actual effort required to accomplish it.
I'm going to say no... at least in the sense that I don't believe it is possible for one game to be great at both PvE and PvP.
Looking at the design of successful PvP games (e.g. Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, Unreal Tournament, even Fortnite) they are relatively simple; i.e. not too many stats to track; and tightly balanced; i.e. you always have a chance to 'win' via skill, even if the odds are against you.
Looking at the design of successful PvE games (e.g. World of Warcraft up to WotLK, Final Fantasy series, many CRPGs and JPRGs) they are relatively complex; i.e. lots of stats; and typically asymmetrical in 'balance'; i.e. the players have lots of tools while the enemies have raw strength.
These two designs don't fit well together, and forcing one onto the other results in either a boring PvE game; i.e. balanced for PvP but without good enough AI to keep it interesting; or a wildly unbalanced PvP game; i.e. where most fights are determined by gear / class / spec before they even start and 'skill' is rarely perceived as the deciding factor.
Now of course there is some middle ground, some of which has seen a degree of success, and there is an audience that enjoys a bit of both, so I'm not saying MMOs shouldn't ever include both PvE and PvP... they do however need to pick a side (and stick to it) as attempting to do both is more than likely to result in neither being particularly good.
Of course PVP/PVE can coexist. I played a number of old MMOs with open world PVP, where you'd be killing mobs and always had the fear of some "bandits" from other factions (players) coming to kill you and take your gear.
That's not the point. The point is can all type of mmorpg players play on the same server. Weather you are a pure pve players, pure pvp, somewhere in between.
Not to mention some people only want to pvp when there is very few power gap. So some people may want to pvp but don't want to get gank when they are leveling.
Or like you said, there need to be separate type of mmorpg or seperate server type for everyone.
No PvP in mmorpg please keep PvP in FPS. I never gave a shot to Aion, Archeage, Black Desert Online and I always wanted to play them but forcing PvP in them they are stupid enough to push away possible customers.
Good FPS PvP games work because players are equal, in game terms. They have the same health with equipment that changes their damage output and resistance. They are all about "player skill."
MMORPGs are not about static avatars that never improve and only get better than others either by player skill or gear acquired. They are all about avatar progression.
As long as there is "roleplaying mechanics", like character levels or skill/ability game mechanically improved are involved, no, PvE cannot co-exist with PvP very well, for me.
Do they co-exist? Of course they do. 99.9% of all MMOs have both. Do they exist well? That's up to the players. Not for me.
- 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
Most of us want to have good income but don't know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get best result best Of Luck for new Initiative...Here For MORE INFO PLEASE just check this SITE....................https://bit.ly/2XHEWoU
the bottom of human intelligence looks something like the above. All that's left is the will to deceive.
I’ve been playing mmo’s for over twenty years. I’ve played on a myriad of server types over scores of different genre. It’s not whether they can co-exist, it’s more about the mindset of the player, and the choices they make.
I’ve been playing mmo’s for over twenty years. I’ve played on a myriad of server types over scores of different genre. It’s not whether they can co-exist, it’s more about the mindset of the player, and the choices they make.
Same.
I just want one set of BIS gear.
By the time I finish farming separate sets for PvE and PvP, they are already outdated by whatever DLC/Update/Expansion.
PvP trashes PvE when allowed to gank PvE players. PvE doesn't affect PvP players at all, other than a few psychotic individuals who gnash their teeth in frustration that they can't grief the low level noob collecting herbs or whatever.
(...)
Yes, I talked a fair amount on this subject, but I guess some people still don't get it that most PvErs don't like getting randomly ganked in unfair and unwanted fights. Worse yet, they never seem to realize their whining that they should be able to kill anyone without restriction is rather pathetic.
I think open world PVP suits mature games where an open world PVP setting makes sense. For example, a cyberpunk world full of criminals and completely lawless. Or a medieval world. I think optimally you'd have a "regular server" (open world pvp with a few safe zones) and a "PVE" server where you can't attack any other player.
One good old game I liked in terms of PVP mechanics was DAOC (Dark Age of Camelot). Basically this is a massive open world MMO like Skyrim world, divided into three factions that fight each other. You cannot attack members of your own faction, only those of the other faction. And what's really well designed is that all three factions are on the same extremely large map, however like in the real world, the three factions only met at the borders of their territory. Meaning that the heart of each territory is still largely safe for players.
This just brings great memories, when you play a Norseman/Viking, leave your ice cold land, and go down south to the lands of the Knights, start attacking them.
This kind of PVP game and world really creates AMAZING immersion.
The problem is the care bear crowd which spawned the Theme Park MMOs which destroyed such immersion (everything is zoned, everything is controlled, its a theme park).
Comments
If you want either to be successful its best to just choose one. If you choose both you risk alienating one or even both groups.
"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
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
You do as much PVE on a PVP server as on a PVE server.
Only difference is now everyone can gank you while you PVE.
Most players really dont want more challenge I've found, not if it means there are scenarios they can never win.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
PvE doesn't affect PvP players at all, other than a few psychotic individuals who gnash their teeth in frustration that they can't grief the low level noob collecting herbs or whatever.
If PvP and PvE exist on the same server, but can't attack the other group, that's the best situation for both types. That way those that want to fight each other can, while those that want to deal with the world instead of griefers can as well.
Sure, there are PvPers that ignore those obviously not involved in combat exist, it doesn't matter since it only takes a few of the griefers to wreck things. Don't try to pretend those people don't exist, because they definitely do.
In games where you can attack anyone, I've never been killed by a player in a fair fight when I'm not in a known battlefield/conflict area. They usually are much higher level, with much better gear, tend to travel in groups and kill solos, and almost only attack when you are either heavily wounded from fighting a mob, or when you are stuck in some other interaction and can't respond immediately.
That kind of activity is NOT the work of someone that wants a fair fight, a challenge, or have an opponent that's more intelligent than a computer script.
(It doesn't matter how intelligent and trained in strategy and tactics you are, if you are massively overpowered or one-shotted by a sneak attack, there's not chance for intelligence to be involved. They obviously just want an easy and hollow victory, or to piss you off.)
Yeah, I sound like I don't like PvP. In general, it gets in the way of my having fun.
If I feel like it, I'll turn off my duel blocker and accept a reasonable duel, or just go into the battlefields or arena, depending on game. But most of the time I don't bother with it since I don't usually find it fun, even when it is consensual.
If PvP is non-consensual, you drive away most of the PvE. Not to mention that games built with such a thing are rather weak when it comes to PvE content anyway. I guess they just assume that with people killing everyone else, they won't get a chance to do actual adventuring.
Also, a small note on PvP only games and success.
Ever notice that most of the ones that are really successful, are those where you rely on the equipment you get that match or there's little difference in power between them, and there's no leveling or other things that make your character better than anyone else? Pubg, Fortenight, etc.
Yes, I talked a fair amount on this subject, but I guess some people still don't get it that most PvErs don't like getting randomly ganked in unfair and unwanted fights.
Worse yet, they never seem to realize their whining that they should be able to kill anyone without restriction is rather pathetic.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
Looking at the design of successful PvP games (e.g. Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, Unreal Tournament, even Fortnite) they are relatively simple; i.e. not too many stats to track; and tightly balanced; i.e. you always have a chance to 'win' via skill, even if the odds are against you.
Now of course there is some middle ground, some of which has seen a degree of success, and there is an audience that enjoys a bit of both, so I'm not saying MMOs shouldn't ever include both PvE and PvP... they do however need to pick a side (and stick to it) as attempting to do both is more than likely to result in neither being particularly good.
Not to mention some people only want to pvp when there is very few power gap. So some people may want to pvp but don't want to get gank when they are leveling.
Or like you said, there need to be separate type of mmorpg or seperate server type for everyone.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
MMORPGs are not about static avatars that never improve and only get better than others either by player skill or gear acquired. They are all about avatar progression.
As long as there is "roleplaying mechanics", like character levels or skill/ability game mechanically improved are involved, no, PvE cannot co-exist with PvP very well, for me.
Do they co-exist? Of course they do. 99.9% of all MMOs have both. Do they exist well? That's up to the players. Not for me.
- 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
I just want one set of BIS gear.
By the time I finish farming separate sets for PvE and PvP, they are already outdated by whatever DLC/Update/Expansion.
I think open world PVP suits mature games where an open world PVP setting makes sense.
For example, a cyberpunk world full of criminals and completely lawless. Or a medieval world.
I think optimally you'd have a "regular server" (open world pvp with a few safe zones) and a "PVE" server where you can't attack any other player.
One good old game I liked in terms of PVP mechanics was DAOC (Dark Age of Camelot). Basically this is a massive open world MMO like Skyrim world, divided into three factions that fight each other. You cannot attack members of your own faction, only those of the other faction. And what's really well designed is that all three factions are on the same extremely large map, however like in the real world, the three factions only met at the borders of their territory. Meaning that the heart of each territory is still largely safe for players.
This just brings great memories, when you play a Norseman/Viking, leave your ice cold land, and go down south to the lands of the Knights, start attacking them.
This kind of PVP game and world really creates AMAZING immersion.
The problem is the care bear crowd which spawned the Theme Park MMOs which destroyed such immersion (everything is zoned, everything is controlled, its a theme park).