Developers Corner

That is right.  I want no PvP servers, no PvP option at all.  I use to be open minded.  But, if you allow PvP servers, the peoples over there will keep asking you to "rebalance" the game.  I've seen it and experience it too often, when PvP concerns ruins PvE...in games where PvE is 95% of what is happening.

PvP cannot be tolerated in any form if your are serious about PvE.  It take away from the cooperation between players and shouldn't be encouraged in any form.

Want a proof?  WAR, EvE and AoC have no PvE servers where you are totally free from PvP, yet, they have PvP-focused servers.  They hold to the same logic, but reversed.  If they don't make a 100% PvE surrounding available, why do you think it is the case?  Because they don't want to divert any effort toward these aspects.  Why should games that are supposedly centered at PvE divert any effort toward PvP concerns?  5 minutes more thinked toward PvE is something I can't afford to lose, in any game.

I am tired of class abilities changed for PvP (check at CoV), I am tired of all the variations of PvP rulesets in games who are supposedly PvE (check EQ and Vanguard, they have no variations for PvE except roleplaying, yet many for PvP!!!!  That isn't normal, they didn't think hard enought), we could have used these specific servers variation in the ruleset, in PvE.  I am tired of temporary powers/unique rewards that you have to go in a PvP zone.

The time for compromises is over.  Remove, all PvP servers, just as they remove all PvE 100% surrounding.  The logic is the same, the players deserve a total and unconditional commitment from their devs, just like these PvP games are totally commited to their PvPers crowds and not caring at all about other players pool.

Found my arguments silly?  Well, EvE, WAR, AoC and many other PvP games are applying it, totally...reversed.  If I am silly, I am not alone.

hey u got my vote. when i wanna pvp i break out quakewarsenemyterritory. when i wanna pve i play ageofconan.

but then, pve servers would barely recieve any patches, which could be good and bad...and after a while there would be a huge difference between pve servers and pvp servers. would almost be 2 different games. so that means no server transfers. if ive been playing pvp and i wanna try out pve, well u probably can't now. that could suck for alot of ppl.

then the complication of 2 different versions of a main patch would probably be very taxing on a company.

i don't know...good idea but not viable. can't please every1.

You have to look at this from NCSoft point-of-view (publisher)

You got City of Heroes, Lineage 2, and Guild Wars in your lineup.

Both Lineage 2 and even non-subscriber based Guild Wars outdo City of Heroes in every way across the board in the Quarterly reports. L2 had sick profits around then and so did GW

So then I would look at City Of Heroes and think to myself how to appeal to more gamers? Add PVP

PRoblem is you cant just go add PVP to a PVE based game. That game wasnt balanced at all for it. CoH/V is so bad you have healers outdamaging offensive builds. Not good for PVP.

So lesson learned for NCSoft. Tabula Rasa seems to be PVE focused and I'm sure the sales are pretty lackluster. Even World of Warcraft had the good sense to aim for both audiences

Even if a lot of people hate PVP. They still engage in it (hence why even PVE servers in WoW has strong PVP activity)

<edit> Grr, did Issue 4 predate Guild Wars? I'm thinking about quarterly reports from Issue 7 (post City of Villains)

---

i don't know...good idea but not viable. can't please every1.

---

Exactly - you can't please everyone. I don't think the OP was talking about not patching the PvE servers the same as the PvP servers. I'm pretty sure the OP is proposing that PvE games have NO option for PvP whatsoever. This allows 100% of dev time to focus on PvE players, 100% of patches to be geared toward this one set of players, etc.

I think there is a valid point in there, in that trying to make a game cater to both PvE and PvP is basically impossible. The balance just doesn't match up between the two styles, so trying to mix the two in the same game is a minefield. And as was mentioned, the balance in PvP is very important, requiring constant modifications that annoy people who don't PvP. If you limit this balance to PvP servers, then you are splitting your focus even more. PvE players will become irritated if they feel that the PvP servers get more updates; and the reverse could be true also (although in general PvP would have more updates).

On the other hand, I prefer PvE but don't mind participating in some casual PvP now and then. A lot of other people feel the same way. Many players like to play PvE to learn the basics, the control, the skills etc; and then take some of that knowledge into PvP - rather than having to learn everything while being ganked every 5 minutes. And then there are the financial concerns. Would you pick up as many "pure" PvE players by focusing on PvE as you would lose if you leave PvP out? I have not done any research, but I expect the result would be a smaller player base.

you know what an all PVE based MMO might be okay but dont be like City of Heroes. It had no end game just like what 2-3 end game dungeons for small groups? No crafting, no sandbox, no activites, just grind, grind, and grind to end game. Once you reach the end it was pretty much over

You can start over on a new avatar but still, most like to play with their concept they're attached too. I know my friends in World of Warcraft pretty much stick to their mains. Rarely logging unto alts.

I can see making a linear MMO I do. But at end game, PVE based MMOs NEED Sandbox content
<edit> correction, World of Warcraft provides raiding so yeah, I'm just flat out wrong. But City of Heroes needed something for their end game.

guys dont forget we are talking bout City of Heroes/Villains the most unbalanced MMORPG known to man

The developers will tell you on the forums they built avatars for CONCEPT, not min.max

Their math was not optimal. You had many sets that got nerfed so bad they totally blew. Ths was pre-PVP too. You had Tanks soloing the whole map single handedly too. It was very unbalanced.

The reasons Statesman gave for the most severe nerfs were PVE-related. He said it himself, the game was unbalanced and the PVE was way too easy

Funny thng even post-PVE nerfs we were still 2-manning content built for entire teams lol

bad balance, crap

You could maybe do something like A Tale in the Desert, where when everybody "wins" they come out with a sequel or "retelling". Change the quests and mobs up, alter the terrain a bit, add a new story or something, and have everyone start over. The biggest issue is the people who join near the end, and don't have enough time to "finish" - and this is a problem. The nice thing about this approach, is if you get it wrong, you can try something else the next time around and hopefully fix it. The bad thing is, people leave if they don't like one of your experiments, and there's no guarantee they'll come back :)

Suppose I had the money to create my ultimate game.  I would have a pve server for those pve players and a pvp for the pvpers.  It would be different than you might imagine.

First, to provide a psychological separation between the two types (or more types) each style would have it's own world.   The idea of pasting PVP on top of a PVE world or visa versa doesn't make sense.  To get the most out of the experience, you would want a PVP world laidout to make it as interesting as possible.  That layout would be different from a pure PVE layout.

Second, class/skill systems would be different.  To keep is simple, pretend it has a class-level scheme.  A fighter type, might be called a warrior on PVE and a gladiator in a PVP environment rather than both being fighters.  The reason for this is IF you need to make a change to the system, you will be keeping the adjustment to the appropraite separation.  I hate when PVE is affected due to a change cause by PVP.

Finally, there would be special purpose servers.  These would be fun limited severs with some point in mind.  For example, you might have a PVP server where N countries have 30 days to fight it out over control of the world.  At the end, it is scored and wiped clean.  For PVE, you might have a starter server where you get to play for 30 days and then get a free transfer to a long term server.

Originally posted by vajuras

guys dont forget we are talking bout City of Heroes/Villains the most unbalanced MMORPG known to man

The developers will tell you on the forums they built avatars for CONCEPT, not min.max

Their math was not optimal. You had many sets that got nerfed so bad they totally blew. Ths was pre-PVP too. You had Tanks soloing the whole map single handedly too. It was very unbalanced.

The reasons Statesman gave for the most severe nerfs were PVE-related. He said it himself, the game was unbalanced and the PVE was way too easy

Funny thng even post-PVE nerfs we were still 2-manning content built for entire teams lol

bad balance, crap

It is/was unbalanced, but the game was also fun.  I love CoH.