| 81 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
sonicsix
Novice Member
Joined: 4/22/06
If you expect me to tolerate you being gay you must tolerate me being a bigot. |
...the many PvP games out there flounder since they obviously don't have the one feature YOU want. It could be amazing except for [insert your special pvp rule here] so you won't play that one. ...in games that offer both PvE and PvP, PvE population GREATLY outnumbers PvP population. Then you end up trying to balance PvP and end up ruining PvE. ...in Games like Cabal Online where you have 3 PvE servers and 14 or so PvP servers, you can hardly get on a PvE server due to it being full, the PvP servers are sparsely populated and the FFA PvP server is a ghost town. It just seems odd that many people don't realize that PvP is a horrible idea when trying to appeal to the masses. You can make the absolute best game in the world with every feature anyone could dream of and then you add PvP and you kill it. PvE'ers (those that pay the bills) simply won't give the game a second look. Why is this so hard to understand? |
|
2/28/08 2:36:13 PM#2
Pvp is definately necessary to a good MMO, but I agree that games completely based on pvp have an extremely small niche audience. This is not to say that a game based solely on pvp cannot exist (after all, the market is valid even if it is small). It's just that pvp only games will likely not succeed on a grand scale. |
|
|
2/28/08 3:28:12 PM#3
Sorry, the first 4 words of your post don't even make sense.
The PvE<->PvP orientation question is kind of an old theme now, even on these forums. ^^ So, instead of starting yet another thread about how PvE players outnumber PvP players and why this is the reason PvP players should be ignored, you should try to demonstrate how sandbox games will not be able to appeal to both PvP and PvE players. Good luck with that :) --- |
|
|
2/28/08 3:43:21 PM#4
Originally posted by zaxxon23 IMO if they could create a PvP based game like UO back in its early days (darkfall as well but highly doubt it'll happen, still eagerly waiting for it tho) I think there is a big player base that would join. I just dont like people who complain about how easy and unchallenging PvE games are, and yet are afraid to play a PvP based game. If they really want a challenge PvP is the way to go, you'll never find people who have the same playstyle, and you will always have to adapt to each player when you're PvPing. When you're in a PvE based game, you're basically using the same tactics over and over again and thats what makes it boring and unchallenging. Trust me no other game I have ever played compares to UO, every time I duel someone I always get the adrenaline rush, that feeling is great. And no PvE game brings that excitement. I also agree with one of the OP's statement, People dont like to play PvP based games because...There's something that they dont like or the dev's arent going to make it the way they want it. So what I have to say about that is, when you can program and make a game of your own just shut it and move on. I just hope I dont offend anyone, which I is unlikely... |
|
|
2/28/08 3:58:23 PM#5
LoL PvP games? You can't make a PvE game and throw together some PvP servers as an afterthought and call it a PvP game. Yes, we PvPers cry for a PvP game, but we aren't gonna play a piece of crap game. We aren't going to play a game that has empty promises of PvP, and then turns out to be another game catered to the watered down PvE market. PvPers aren't playing Cabal because it sucks. If they made Hello Kitty PvP edition, you can't come whining to us that there are no PvPers playing the game. Of course we aren't going to play that. That's not what we want. We want a GOOD game that is designed from the ground up with PvP in mind. If Blizzard made World of Warcraft 2, and only had PvP rulesets, but with gameplay as polished as WoW, I GUARANTEE you that every PvPer would flock to it, and probably many PvE players would jump ship as well. It's easy to cater to the PvE market. You throw together a dungeon and some monsters and tell some players to go kill it. PvP on the other hand... it's a different story. You can't make a game and just tell us to go kill eachother. There are so many facets and so many factors in PvP. We're picky. We aren't so easily please, and we aren't so quick to buy into a shitty product.
|
|
|
2/28/08 3:59:21 PM#6
Just to add to Admiralnlson's first point, to make your point of "Many PvP" games make sense you would have too look at all PvP games. Pure PvP games are imensly successful by pure PvP I mean counter strike, CoD4 and any other game that is purely PvP (He never said MMORPG) The fact is very few games can balance PvP and PvE since most games build on their PvE first and add PvP second which doesn't make sense for balance terms. Balancing the characters and skills against each class at different levels then generating the monsters / PvE encounters around those numbers would make a much more balanced game. Unfortunately no game has attempted this yet (that has been released to my knowledge.) Looking at APB they kept talking about stats but no grind or leveling so i'm assuming due to the fact it is a Purely PvP game they have the characters and the stats balanced out for how long a person has played / their skill at the game. Now the have the perfect basis for a amazing PvP and PvE game they just don't want PvE (from what I've read).
|
|
|
2/28/08 4:03:40 PM#7
Your idea of "pvp" is not the same pvp the pvpers want. HOGG4LIFE |
|
|
2/28/08 4:05:41 PM#8
And just FYI, PvP is a BIG MARKET. Bigger than most think. We are here. We're all just waiting for something to tickle our fancy. Pre-Ren UO was built on it's PvP foundation. AC was built on it's PvP. Shadowbane was built on it's PvP foundation. Even Star Wars Galaxies was built on it's PvP foundation.
All of these games have changed vastly since they started because gaming companies are sell-outs and drool at the thought of getting a few more subscribers. PvPers are long term players. We build communities and play the game to play against other people. PvE players play the game and then have nothing left to do once they have seen it all. You reach the cap and get all your cool armor and are left wondering what to do. If a single game could capture the PvP market the way WoW has captured the PvE market, it would dominate MMOs, and probably have the most outstanding long-term player base ever. The only problem is that no game company has really figured out how to do it. |
|
|
2/28/08 4:05:57 PM#9
where did you get this idea? take pvp out of wow and guildwars and see what happpens. where did all the fun go? |
|
|
kingbloop
 Novice Member
Joined: 9/27/07
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out. |
2/28/08 4:16:39 PM#10
Originally posted by sonicsix
i hope you arent talking about the North American CABAL. cause well once it hits mid afternoon or so, its packed. both servers and almost every channel is full. need to see for your self? ogplanet.com hosts it. |
|
2/28/08 4:23:50 PM#11
Oh Boy! He dropped the "You People" ------------------------- |
|
|
2/28/08 4:33:23 PM#12
What companies need to do when making a PvE/PvP game is to balance each half separetly. Have each Skill/Ability/Spell setup with stats for each. Before Patch 1.something Heal2 Fireball3 After Patch 1.something Heal2 Fireball3 Also, as others have said, The game needs to be designed with BOTH playstyles in mind at the same time. You can't add one playstyle as an afterthough because it will destroy balance, tick off PvPers/PvEers and scare one group away. If I want to PvP, I do it in a game like TF2, because PvP in MMOs is fubar. Too many rules change, too many nerfs/boosts = too many headaches. Maybe one day they will get MMO PvP right, Until that time, keep posting your thoughts and suggestions. Let developers know that you was PvP as a playstyle, not an afterthought, and not at the expense of the PvE system and vice versa. There are 3 types of people in the world.
|
|
|
2/28/08 4:33:53 PM#13
Originally posted by diabolic Care to back up your claim with some evidence? I don't think I will believe it just because you said so. UO & EQ came out around the same time. EQ has a MUCH larger subscriber base than UO. What is the difference? EQ is more PvE-centric than UO. (Granted the graphics style is also different, but at least PvP is one factor). And I will argue that these games changed (not all successfully) in response to the market. Developers don't just change things drastically. Tell me, did the UO subscription increases AFTER the change? I haven't even pointed the most successful MMO in the history of MMOs, which is also a PvE centric game. Look at Eve Online. It is such a well made game, with lots of critical acclaim. However, it is PvP-centric and while it is making money, it has no where close to the success of WOW, or even Guild Wars. I believe its PvP-centric-ness is a factor. If it has a PvE centric component, it probably will be at least 10x more successful.
|
|
|
2/28/08 4:52:25 PM#14
Originally posted by fyerwall Probably one of the best ideas i`ve ever read, brilliant,. i wish dev`s teams would folow such "easy" advice
|
|
|
2/28/08 4:57:33 PM#15
Originally posted by nariusseldon "UO & EQ came out around the same time. EQ has a MUCH larger subscriber base than UO. What is the difference? EQ is more PvE-centric than UO. (Granted the graphics style is also different, but at least PvP is one factor)." EQ and UO did not come out around the same time. UO was released in 1997, EQ was released in 1999. UO was first of it's kind... Most people didn't even know MMOs back then. And EQ was revolutionary due to the 3d graphics. Trying to compare the two is like apples and oranges. I'm certain that after UO changed its ways it gained subscribers.... That happens anytime there is a major change in game. People want to try something new. But the effect is they lose 1 long term player for every couple of casual subscriptions they gain. "And I will argue that these games changed (not all successfully) in response to the market. Developers don't just change things drastically. Tell me, did the UO subscription increases AFTER the change?" UO changed in response to EQ. When EQ was released, it was the king of the hill. UO compared the two games and though "hey what can we do to get the number of subscriptions they have?" Instead of realizing that EQ wasn't really the better game... It was simply newer and a different style, they pushed away their fans to cater to a market that didn't exist for them. That's why UO isn't a contender anymore. "I haven't even pointed the most successful MMO in the history of MMOs, which is also a PvE centric game." You don't have to point it out because I already did. WoW captured the PvE market. Period. No game has captured the PvP market. Period. Regardless, if you take away the PvP from WoW altogether, you are left with a mediocre game. "Look at Eve Online. It is such a well made game, with lots of critical acclaim. However, it is PvP-centric and while it is making money, it has no where close to the success of WOW, or even Guild Wars. I believe its PvP-centric-ness is a factor. If it has a PvE centric component, it probably will be at least 10x more successful." Not at all. Eve may be a very well made game and be very PvP eccentric, but I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. It's a niche game because of it's content, not because of the PvP. I don't want to fly around on a spaceship and pretend I'm a spaceship and shoot people with my ultra cool thrustermajiggers. To deny that people want to play against other people is like denying that the world is flat. Like I said. No game has captured the PvP market. PvPers are waiting for THE game, not just some other random indie PvP game. I'm not sure what it will take either... or what feature or world needs to be setup to get us to that point. But one day it may happen. |
|
|
2/28/08 6:15:15 PM#16
Originally posted by diabolic The comparison is certainly NOT apple to oranges. When there are two products in the market, it is inevitable that consumers will compare them. In fact, I was one of those. I beta-tested for UO & EQ and I chose EQ precisely because of the better PvE content. I was NOT the only one. The "apple to orange" comparison is a cop-out, IMHO. Whenever consumers have limited time & money, they *will* choose between products & services no matter how different these products may seem. And if the effect is that they lose ONE old player and gain COUPLE, that is a gain and I will chalk it up as a success. Your statement makes my point exactly. They responded to what the market wants and it was NOT PvP. You are only trying to find flaws in my arguments. You still have NOT put out any evidence that there is a big PvP market out there. Certainly no one has captured it now. There is two possibilities. 1) No one has a good enough PvP game to do so yet. 2) There is no such market. There is no evidence to point to (1). There is some, although circumstantial evidence to point to (2). I would put my money on (2). |
|
|
2/28/08 6:39:23 PM#17
How about you learn what "PvP" is before you post. Player vs. player conflict is one gameplay element among many a game needs to succeed. WoW is a PvP game; it has battlegrounds, arenas, and non-consensual, level unrestricted combat on PVP servers. Just about every MMO released... ever... has featured some form of PvP elements. Hell, most multiplayer components of non-MMO games feature... what? PvP? Say it ain't so. PvP is umpopular my ass.
So why is it that 107 out of 224 North American WoW servers are PvP? CUZ 117 IS GREATLY A BIGGAR NUMBAR THAN 107 HUR HUR!
Way to pick some obscure F2P MMO to prove your point. BTW, did you fail to see the hole in your logic there? Hint: 3 is a smaller number than 14.
World of Warcraft is as mass market as they come. ALL servers feature highly popular battlegrounds and arenas, and half of them feature non-consensual, level-unrestricted combat. The concept of player versus player is a just a little more diverse than crying about some eeeevil peekayer stealing your stuff in UO 10 years ago.
All I hear is, "Oh Em Gee teh eeeevvil peekayers are completely worthless and only us respectful and upstanding peeveeeeers have money to pay for gamez. Becuz I said so." So, where is this perfect game "ruined" by PvP, champ?
While I did not make the original claim (PvP is a big market, bigger than people claim), the fact is a market for hardcore UO-style PvP exists. EVE Online, Shadowbane, Lineage, even more obscure games like Runescape (until fairly recently) had these elements. I will agree that the number of people unwilling to play a hardcore PvP game is greater than their opposing counterparts.
PvP may be a factor, but we'll never know how much of one as opposed to, say, 3D graphics. Regardless, UO and EQ are very different games. I dislike the term "MMORPG" as an all encompassing genre, because while UO and EQ are both Massively Multiplayer and Online, they are realized in two very different models and goal structures...
Actually, it's disengenous to call WoW a purely PvE game. Its developers early on established PvP as one of its "Three Pillars", the other two being PvE, and World Interaction. More people participate in battlegrounds, arenas, and world PvP than take part in endgame raids, for example. It is true that WoW is not UO, and in that regard you are correct: more people would rather play WoW than WoW with UO rules.
Before, I mentioned the difference between EQ and UO. Everquest (and WoW) is achievement or progression based. The goal of the game is to advance, be it in levels, equipment, raid dungeons, or PvP ranks. Ultima Online (and EVE) are open ended. Like EQ and WoW, they also feature skills to train, items to collect, "dungeon" areas to clear... but these things are not the object of the game. UO was meant to be a "world sim", where the players make the world, and their own goals. EVE is the same, a "world-building" game, where you can capture, control, build, and influence the world around you. You say EVE is critically acclaimed, and that's why. It provides players the freedom and ability to affect their world. You cannot make EVE Online PvE only. As a purely PvE game, it's at best lacking compared to achievement based games (WoW). At worst, it's meaningless. "Ooooh, I built a new space station in Sector X." Grats? Without the threat of BoB taking it over, what's the point? Likewise, it would be extremely difficult to introduce hardcore PvP elements into achievement-based games. When the object of the game is to spend month after month progressively improving your character (by leveling or PvE raiding), many people don't want to put that on the line. In a game like EVE or Darkfall, where you're expected to die, it makes perfect sense. The goal of the game is world building (or destroying). Things like equipment, resources, currency, are simply the means to that end. A personal setback like losing your items when you die is a part of the game. |
|
|
Brenelael
 Elite Member
Joined: 10/19/06
Pointing out the Obvious to the Oblivious since 2006 |
2/28/08 6:48:18 PM#18
Ever heard of a game called Lineage 2? It was the second largest MMO in the world for 3+ years and before WoW took first place it was second only to Lineage 1 in population, another PvP based MMO and it's predecessor. PvP is staggeringly popular in the mainstream game market and is why almost every game released has it in one form or another. I would also like to agree with another poster in this thread that judging the whole PvP marketplace on PvE games that added PvP as an afterthought is just flawed logic at best as these games while containing a form of PvP or PvP servers are NOT PvP games. They are still PvE based games with PvP as an option.
Bren while(horse==dead) |
|
2/28/08 7:05:32 PM#19
Originally posted by nariusseldon
The "apples to oranges" comparison is valid. EQ and UO are fundamentally different games. You may have chosen EQ for its PvE content, but you hardly represent all the game players in the world, nor do you "know" them all. After all, your taste is no more important than mine, and I find EQ/WoW style "achievement" based games to be boring, static, and inflexible Skinner boxes. Anyway, a PvP (I'll assume you're refering to hardcore UO-style PvP) market most certainly exists. The question as to whether it's "big" or not is meaningless. As "big" as WoW? Probably not. "Big" enough to be viable? Certainly. You gave some examples yourself: EVE, Shadowbane, etc. The question we should be asking is, why are so many MMO games based on progression, or "the grind"? I agree that a UO model of PvP won't work in such a game. Raid for 3 months to get an epic sword, only to have it looted when you die? Most people wouldn't like that. Could the lack of UO-style PvP games be attributed to the lack of UO-style games in general? How many MMO worlds claim to be "open ended", in which you can build your own world as opposed to riding a rollercoaster on rails through its scenery? I'll agree with you that the PvP market is smaller than the non-PvP. Why is that so? Is BF Skinner laughing triumphantly at us from beyond the grave? Do the masses not realize their entire game is a treadmill? Do they enjoy it anyway? |
|
|
2/28/08 7:08:35 PM#20
Well thought out arguments. There is ONE point that I disagree with though. I do not believe PvP is the *only* way to have one player affect another. You can have people cooperating, and also competing in the markets. There is no need to based the interaction based on combat. I do believe you can make Eve a PvE game. You just have to generate the threat through the environment. Take your example, you can easily have a NPC corp trying to take over and generate enough threat so that putting a station in sector x makes sense. This is essentially the concept of a portable town put in a strategic place. I don't see why you need humans on the other side to make the threat real or fun. You can also UP the threat from time to time. You don't need humans to have dynamic content.
|
|
