I don't play PvP oriented games.  Tried to play Aion and when I was doing some questing out in the PvP area, it wasn't really fun having level 50s gank you when you're level 30.  I did some BGs in WoW for fun because I was playing with some friends, but the majority of my time spent playing that game was either questing or raiding.

FFXIV is the only MMO I plan on playing for the long term.  It's planned to have some PvP elements, but they're not supposed to shape the game in any major way.  I'll probably treat it like WoW and dabble in PvP some, but I'll stick to the PvE elements more.

I grew up as a console RPGer with the Final Fantasies and Dragon Quests, so that's probably why I'm more influenced by PvE.  I mostly care about the stories that games have to offer.

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by Madimorga

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by SQTO

So what are these pvp centric mmorpgs ? I would love to try them.

 

I'm still trying to figure that out.  I asked about that earlier in the thread and didn't get much of an answer.  According to this site's game list, there have been about 250 games released since Jan 2008.  Of those which ones force PvP on the players... the only answer given was Aion.  That's 0.4% of the population.

How can anyone complain when they own 99% of the market share?

Eve Online has forced PvP.  Darkfall is forced PvP so is Mortal Online, Archeage seems like it will be (sad to say, otherwise I'd play it in a heartbeat), Age of Wushu/Wulin is forced PvP, and many games have PvP servers.

 

Personally, I'm not interested in either getting ganked all the time when out in the open world or having to run around with 20 people everywhere I go to not get ganked, so these games don't remotely appeal to me even though I love being able to go to an area with large scale PvP if and when I choose to.

 

 

Don't forget about Anarchy Online end game being all about PvP or Warhammer Online.  There were also Lineage and Lineage II and now there is Planetside 2, Mechwarrior Online, Dust 514 and Hawken Online.  I'm sure if I did more research or you guys did a little yourselves (dave & SQTO), I'd find more or you'd realize you haven't a clue about what you're saying.

I'll do more research when you learn to read.  I said forced PvP in the last 5 years.

Anarchy Online is 12 years old.

Warhammer Online has PvE servers.

Planetside 2 I already counted.

Mechwarrior Online is not an mmorpg.

Dust 514 is console game.

Lineage 1 & 2 are older than 5 years.

I've never heard of Hawken until right now.  I'll count it.

That brings us up to 5 games out of 250.

PvE game 98% vs PvP games 2%.

Those PvP game are sure dominating the market.

I'm sorry, why does it have to be only within the last 5 years?  These games are still running are they not?  Dust 514 is still an MMO, doesn't matter that it is for a console.  Mechwarrior is labeled as an MMO, doesn't matter if you don't agree with it.  Warhammer was a PvP focused game, all the servers were the same.  The point I was making is that there are a good number of PvP focused games considering that PvP is a very niche game style, so yes, you are more than amply represented in the MMO genre.

The 5yr limit is logical enough, otherwise it's like saying that plate armour is well represented in warfare. Dust514 is an FPS, Mechwarrior is not an MMO, how can a PVE server of Warhammer be PvP focused?

if you are including FPSs then PvE is the niche play style as they are far more popular than MMOs.

So now you are changing the argument so that it can only be over RPG style MMOs?  Limiting the style doesn't change the principle of the argument, you are still amply represented for such a small audience.  Did you ever play Warhammer Online?  The whole game funneled you into PvP in order to progress and end game was nothing other than instance runs and PvP, but I guess you're going to change the guidelines of the argument no matter what I say.  I was inducted into the Mechwarrior Online beta and they called it an MMO, I don't give a crap if you don't agree.  MMOs are MMOs whether they are RPGs, FPSs or RTSs and you aren't convincing me or anyone else that PvP is being shafted in their representation in the genre.  Whether it is forced or not, just about every single MMO has it as an option.

I believe you think I am Dave6660 from your reply.

Originally posted by Vorthanion

I'm sorry, why does it have to be only within the last 5 years?  These games are still running are they not?  Dust 514 is still an MMO, doesn't matter that it is for a console.  Mechwarrior is labeled as an MMO, doesn't matter if you don't agree with it.  Warhammer was a PvP focused game, all the servers were the same.  The point I was making is that there are a good number of PvP focused games considering that PvP is a very niche game style, so yes, you are more than amply represented in the MMO genre.

Why not 5 years?  It's a nice round number.  It's long enough to represent a large chunk of games.  They're mostly games with which most current players would be familiar.

Whether or not the PvP players are adequately represented isn't the point.  The premise of this thread is that players of today are all about "ganking and pvp".  How could that be if PvP is so rarely forced on anyone?  You don't seem to agree with the OP either if you think PvP is a "very niche" play style.

While I disagree with the plate armor analogy because for that to work plate armor would still have to be worn on the body in modern warfare (could be an argument for this with some body armor though), I do agree with the 5 year span.

It may not represent the entire MMO market, but it does represent the type of games that are being produced.

I do not limit to MMORPG, but consider all MMO.

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by Vorthanion

So now you are changing the argument so that it can only be over RPG style MMOs?  Limiting the style doesn't change the principle of the argument, you are still amply represented for such a small audience.  Did you ever play Warhammer Online?  The whole game funneled you into PvP in order to progress and end game was nothing other than instance runs and PvP, but I guess you're going to change the guidelines of the argument no matter what I say.  I was inducted into the Mechwarrior Online beta and they called it an MMO, I don't give a crap if you don't agree.  MMOs are MMOs whether they are RPGs, FPSs or RTSs and you aren't convincing me or anyone else that PvP is being shafted in their representation in the genre.  Whether it is forced or not, just about every single MMO has it as an option.

I believe you think I am Dave6660 from your reply.

Yeah but I think he's mad at you. 

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

While I disagree with the plate armor analogy because for that to work plate armor would still have to be worn on the body, I do agree with the 5 year span.

It may not represent the entire MMO market, but it does represent the type of games that are being produced.

I do not limit to MMORPG, but consider all MMO.

I'm going to wear plate armor to Comic-Con this year :)

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by Vorthanion

So now you are changing the argument so that it can only be over RPG style MMOs?  Limiting the style doesn't change the principle of the argument, you are still amply represented for such a small audience.  Did you ever play Warhammer Online?  The whole game funneled you into PvP in order to progress and end game was nothing other than instance runs and PvP, but I guess you're going to change the guidelines of the argument no matter what I say.  I was inducted into the Mechwarrior Online beta and they called it an MMO, I don't give a crap if you don't agree.  MMOs are MMOs whether they are RPGs, FPSs or RTSs and you aren't convincing me or anyone else that PvP is being shafted in their representation in the genre.  Whether it is forced or not, just about every single MMO has it as an option.

I believe you think I am Dave6660 from your reply.

Yeah but I think he's mad at you. 

I feel ganked

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

While I disagree with the plate armor analogy because for that to work plate armor would still have to be worn on the body, I do agree with the 5 year span.

It may not represent the entire MMO market, but it does represent the type of games that are being produced.

I do not limit to MMORPG, but consider all MMO.

I'm going to wear plate armor to Comic-Con this year :)

edited to indicate warfare :)

Originally posted by ikarrian

Originally posted by ShakyMo
for me I won't play a mmo that doesn't have robust pvp endgame. I like some aspects if pve like crafting and exploring, even small scale dungeons.

But I hate hate hate being forced to raid to progress. Raiding sucks, raiding isn't fun, raiding is 2nd job - you have to turn up at a fixed time and deal with a whole mess of "office politics"

Good post, And i think this is how many of us older gamers feel. We certainly dont have time for the silly raids (Atleast most of us) 

 

Isn't that what LFD/LFR is for? No more commitment, and politics. Click a button and you have a group. Just join with a few friends and have fun.

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

While I disagree with the plate armor analogy because for that to work plate armor would still have to be worn on the body, I do agree with the 5 year span.

It may not represent the entire MMO market, but it does represent the type of games that are being produced.

I do not limit to MMORPG, but consider all MMO.

I'm going to wear plate armor to Comic-Con this year :)

Gah, I don't go to Comicon anymore, too crowded, even though I get in for free.  Now, I'm more of a Wondercon kind of guy, already have my tickets for this year.  No, not wearing plate armor.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Loktofeit

I think it's sad that 200 people argued what the OP presented without checking to see if it was factual or if it even made logical sense.

Now that's unfair. A fair number just showed up to add a snark to the general rabblerabble.

These is "GroupX the Problem?" threads always turn out so well.

Good point. It definitely does have some decent entertainment value.

Then the purpose of the thread is complete it was ment for good entertainment value. After all is that what we are gaming for is entertainment?

Originally posted by Vonatar

The poll is coming out pretty much as expected. As has been said, pvpers are like all vocal minorities - you think there are a lot more of them than there actually are.

 

Also I think in this era of lazy devs and money-hungry suits, companies have worked out that pvp is the cheapest way to achieve longevity in a game. No need to design tons of content if you can have people pvping in the same area over and over....

 The poll is biased keep in mind... its like asking "Is Obama a good president?" on the huffington post.

How many recent games have open world ganking mixed with PVE content anyway?  People on WoW complain about getting ganked on a PVP server.... seems like a silly issue in reality.  PVP IMO is just more interesting.