Originally posted by AdamTM

Do you think the remedy would be to create separate, more niche games instead of trying to be everything for everyone?

That is my preference.  Focus on one thing and do it really well.

Originally posted by Cephus404

I hate PvP with a passion, I want nothing whatsoever to do with it, ever.  That said, so long as I can entirely ignore it, I don't care if people want to go do PvP somewhere I don't have to watch the childish dickwaving.

But given a choice, I'll take pure PvE with no PvP whatsoever.

So you're against games with an economy?

don't like PVP because it usually ends up in ganking, I like PVE that is balanced, where you're challenged but also stand a chance, PVP in MMO tends to end up being one big gank and grieving fest, I have no desire to play games like that

I also like classes that are weak at soloing, in PVP everyone always complains that their class can't solo in PVP, so you end up with all classes being able to solo in PVE.  PVP would be much more exciting if people didn't complain that their class is underpowered every 2 minutes. MMO should have weak solo classes that are able to fulfill a support role, like tanks and healers, but in PVP games everyone expect to be able to solo everything.

Originally posted by AdamTM

I'm asking the question because we have seen time and time again that games that feature both PVE and PVP rarely do both right. 

It seems that whenever a MMORPG tries to do both, it ends up neglecting one or the other, which is unsurprising as the two stand in a somewhat oposite place (one is directly competitive with other players while the other is cooperative).

Thats not to say that cooperative-competitition doesn't exist (for example high level competitition in raiding), but its not the same competition that dominating other players directly ingame is.

Now i enjoy both PVP and PVE, but rarely do I enjoy it in the same game.

Do you think the remedy would be to create separate, more niche games instead of trying to be everything for everyone?

PvE can be extremely competitive and dominating. Just look at Maplestory where leveling competition were extremely fierce for a long time.

lets look to where its going:

Cant share a dungeon--->remove the dungeon make instances...dont fix the dungeons...

Cant share a resource node--->make sire everyone has their own resource nodes..

Cant make a decent group---> make is so you dont have to group, just show up.

you cannot even sell an item you have equipped anymore to another player.

im not saying some of these things dont have their place, but its getting crazy.

whats becoming painfully obvious is that the pve aspect is purifying itself of any and every sense of pvp, also known as player interaction. You see, pvp is not only killing players, its coexistance. As pve games progress the interaction aspect is bleached to the point where future pve game will be how they started out:

Single player rpgs,and lets face it, mmo's dont do it as well. Why there arent 100 skyrim or oblivion clones around is beyond me.

Originally posted by Zylaxx

Originally posted by AdamTM

I'm asking the question because we have seen time and time again that games that feature both PVE and PVP rarely do both right. 

It seems that whenever a MMORPG tries to do both, it ends up neglecting one or the other, which is unsurprising as the two stand in a somewhat oposite place (one is directly competitive with other players while the other is cooperative).

Thats not to say that cooperative-competitition doesn't exist (for example high level competitition in raiding), but its not the same competition that dominating other players directly ingame is.

Now i enjoy both PVP and PVE, but rarely do I enjoy it in the same game.

Do you think the remedy would be to create separate, more niche games instead of trying to be everything for everyone?

I think its pretty obvious fromn the poll so far that the average MMO gamer is not a Forced PvP fan.  I myself put both but there needs to be clear lines of demarcations and PvP should never be forced. 

If you play in a world at war, it should be forced, but there should also be heavily fortified areas where players can feel safe.

Originally posted by Thorbrand
FYI...Plenty of game do PvE and PVP just fine and on levels beyone what most AAA games do either at. These game even have PvP dungeons and such. They are just not over hyped AAA NA games marketed to be the best game on the planet.

 please list them for us so we can check them out.

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by AdamTM

I'm asking the question because we have seen time and time again that games that feature both PVE and PVP rarely do both right. 

It seems that whenever a MMORPG tries to do both, it ends up neglecting one or the other, which is unsurprising as the two stand in a somewhat oposite place (one is directly competitive with other players while the other is cooperative).

Thats not to say that cooperative-competitition doesn't exist (for example high level competitition in raiding), but its not the same competition that dominating other players directly ingame is.

Now i enjoy both PVP and PVE, but rarely do I enjoy it in the same game.

Do you think the remedy would be to create separate, more niche games instead of trying to be everything for everyone?

 

PvE can be extremely competitive and dominating. Just look at Maplestory where leveling competition were extremely fierce for a long time.

Thats why i said -directly- competitive.

I.e. what the abrevation means.

Player versus Player, not player vs proxy

Originally posted by AdamTM

Originally posted by Asuran24

Originally posted by AdamTM

Originally posted by Asuran24
For pve and pvp balance to exit you need to have a method of balancing each independently, with out the balancing of one breaking the other. Which would mean a dual value system which each ability have one set of value for each (pve, and pvp.) that only influence that playstyle. After you can independently balance the systems for pvp an pve, you can start working on the sytems to govern the pvp in the game with risks, and rewards, and meaningful reasons for pvping, since the op/imbalance issues would not be there now. It is a matter of how well the game is balanced, and how well you re-balance it when it get out fo control. alot of the rest is just bonuses that wear off when you relise how limited an imbalanced it is.

Yes but that gives you exactly what I was implying in my OP.

Two separate games.

Not completely, but merely two differnt game experince within a single game, just like a single player adventure game will have a different feel from a multi-player varient of the same game. Having two seperate games would be more like wow bgs, arenas, and such that only effect a small degree of the world, and having stats that you can stack to influence that one style of play over another like resilence. Where as making the abilities having seperate values that influence differing playstyles allows the game to be balanced better from a dev side as players can not influence these values, and allow for them to work largely in the same manner with differing degrees of power without breaking the other style playy. Though in the end pvp an pve will alway be seperate gaming experinces, from the fact a mob will always be less unpredicatable then another player will be, but not completely seperate game that can not be merged with into a singular game. You could also call it more of a game with seperate rule-ssets to govern oppossing styles of play, but the  game would still be the ssame at it's heart as you would not have to make game altering change to it to keep balance, as the game from the launch wa built to be balanced seperately behind the scene/under the hood.

Mechanically they would be however two separate games.

Sure, you could try and weave them together in the world, but they always be separate, like you said.

Thats why I implied that it would be better to separate them entirely.

There is more to PVP than just stats. Maps, level-design and objectives can play a big role in PVP as well.

The developer would need to dedicate resources to track both gameplay styles and cater to both audiences, which often ends in one being neglected over the other.

[EDIT] I think that most developers actually considered this system long ago but thought it not worth their effort and resources and opted instead to have separate "zones" or contained instances for PVP, simply because they are easier to control. At least in "modern" MMORPG design.

It is true that there is vastly more to pvp than just stats, but in the end the fundamental fact of having the stats balanced will always trump the later additions like maps, objectives an such since if the game is unbalanced an it takes game shifting changes to keep it balanced (which alot of the time happened in pvp/pve mixed games) the pvp will feel tacked on over being part of the actual game. Also by using a system like this you are allowng for pve content in the world to be used as fuel for pvp content as well, with also allow for abilities that are not normally used in pvp in a pve game set up to have an effect in pvp too (such a taunts, as well as more tanky based abilities. In other games that combined pvp with pve like now tanky abilities were largely useless in pvp outside of survival.).

Being easier to do not sure as you will have the issue that the game will feel divided kinda, by having the world segragated into pvp, pvp/pve, and pve only areas which leads to needing to create content in a world that should be one fluid world into chucks of content that ha a smaller degree of use for thoe that do not like that style of play creating a disconnect in the world' feel.  Though also when is taking the eassier route the better option as we have seen alot of player like a more pvp/pve game set that allows for playing both games, over only having access to one pla style alone. Yet both sides hate to see their play style influenced by apect or change that come from the other side they do not normally play, such  as the nerfing or buffing of under or over proforming speccs/layouts in pvp or pve content. Thi fact of having only one base rule-set actually creates alot more work, as you need to largely find out every way your nerf/buff will affect character in all aspects of the game (pvp, and pve wise.), and then make a counter buff/nerf to bring it into line which brings it into being a huge cycle of buffs/nerfs that syphon off alot f content creation time/resources. Yet having a dual system of abbility values halves the amoount of variables you need to concider when making adjutments, while also making pvp an pve content play less of a jarring experince when you tranition between them.

Personally I would like to see more games that have both, but done properly, and both need to have value. These instanced arena style PvP matches in most MMOs are downright garbage. "oh yay, we won our highly rule-bound match against a force of equal numbers so that we can get some points and shiny new swords slightly better than what we currently have, wheeee"...ugh.

The one and only MMO I have ever seen that has really interwoven both PvP and PvE well is Eve Online. As much of a hardcore fan of Eve as I am, I will admit that the PvE can be rather boring and repetitive and there is no big overall storyline PvE-wise with a final ultimate big baddie to try and crush with your friends in the end. However, there are several aspects of Eve's PvE that utterly fuse it with PvP and make it a vital part of the game:

-PvE is the only core method in Eve for creating more of its in-game currency ISK. Sure, you can gain ISK by mining, trading, scamming etc but that is simply moving ISK from one player to another. To actually CREATE more ISK in the game world, a player needs to get NPC bounties or mission rewards (this includes Incursion payoffs)

-There are several critical resources for industry that can only (or mostly only) be harvested from the wrecks of destroyed NPC ships (standard NPC salvage, as well as Sleeper loot), and those resources are vital for the production of equipment (rigs) and in some cases whole ships (tech III strategic cruisers)

-Some ship/equipment blueprints can only be obtained through PvE (the new capital-class equipment BPCs

-Because of the full loot PvP system, many players absolutely must do safe (ish) PvE to be able to afford replacement ships, equipment and ammo.

As for the PvP, well...if you know anything about Eve you know that its PvP is completely on another planet compared to other MMOs.

That forced linkage between the two systems in Eve makes both vital and worthwhile. And that actually highlights something that might be why a good blend of the two isn't often done: a full-loot PvP system where everything on you can be either stolen or destroyed is actually quite an effective method of maintaining a healthy, flowing in-game economy which meshes well with a strong industrial PvE system. Most MMOs these days don't have full-loot PvP, and even the non-Eve ones that do don't destroy items; they simply get taken by someone else instead to be sold/used etc. Combined with the fact that most non-Eve MMOs have NPC merchants that will buy absolutely anything and create more money in the world doing so means most MMOs have rampant growth of "worth" of stuff without adequate methods for destroying that worth. It's all gain gain gain gain gain, more more more, everyone getting more stuff without really losing anything except what they choose to toss, and the stuff they toss gives them some cash anyways.

CCP is constantly monitoring the ISK sink vs faucet balance in Eve, i.e. the things that can destroy ISK or net worth in the game vs the things that create ISK or net worth, making sure they stay balanced. Without the PvE system players would not have been able to buy skillbooks and blueprints from NPC merchants, since there are no NPC merchants to sell stuff to (I think they got rid of NPC trade goods buyers in return for PI, so I believe this may be true). Without the full loot and destructable PvP system, the faucets would completely overpower the sinks and the market would snowball out of control in no time flat.

In summary, I want more games to have a good blend of both PvP and PvE (which is what I voted for), but to make it really work you'll probably have to have a much harsher PvP system than average.

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by Cephus404

I hate PvP with a passion, I want nothing whatsoever to do with it, ever.  That said, so long as I can entirely ignore it, I don't care if people want to go do PvP somewhere I don't have to watch the childish dickwaving.

But given a choice, I'll take pure PvE with no PvP whatsoever.

So you're against games with an economy?

You can have an economy without people going out and hitting each other with swords, which is what you know we're talking about.

Try again.

Originally posted by Kiljaedenas

In summary, I want more games to have a good blend of both PvP and PvE (which is what I voted for), but to make it really work you'll probably have to have a much harsher PvP system than average.

The pve system in eve could be replaced by a different mechanic at a moments notice and it wouldnt change the game in the slightest (except for people that enjoy ratting, apparently those exist).

Actually mining is creating ISK as well, there is nothing different (mechanically) between between mining asteroids and "mining" NPCs, except one requires a slight bit of attention (the mining).

Originally posted by AdamTM

Originally posted by Kiljaedenas

In summary, I want more games to have a good blend of both PvP and PvE (which is what I voted for), but to make it really work you'll probably have to have a much harsher PvP system than average.

The pve system in eve could be replaced by a different mechanic at a moments notice and it wouldnt change the game in the slightest (except for people that enjoy ratting, apparently those exist).

Actually mining is creating ISK as well, there is nothing different (mechanically) between between mining asteroids and "mining" NPCs, except one requires a slight bit of attention (the mining).

If you paid attention, mining does not create ISK unless you're doing a mining mission and get an ISK reward for completing it. You can gain ISK by selling the ore you mine to other players, but that does not generate new units of ISK in the game world; you are simply trading them with another player.

And from the sounds of it, when you think Eve PvE you're thinking purely missions and belt/plex ratting. Have you not had experience with wormholes and incursions? They are quite different from regular missions in many ways, the main one being that you MUST do them in groups to get a good steady income from them without having a high chance of dying.

And as for your quip about mining being the one that needs a slight bit of attention, I would absolutely love to see you fully AFK run any mission with more than one room, potential drone aggro from spawns or high potential incoming damage (I dare you to AFK run the level 4 Worlds Collide Serpentis room or any level 4 Blockade mission).

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by Cephus404

I hate PvP with a passion, I want nothing whatsoever to do with it, ever.  That said, so long as I can entirely ignore it, I don't care if people want to go do PvP somewhere I don't have to watch the childish dickwaving.

But given a choice, I'll take pure PvE with no PvP whatsoever.

So you're against games with an economy?

You can have an economy without people going out and hitting each other with swords, which is what you know we're talking about.

Try again.

Not a good one though. Yes, it could be possible to make a purely PvE MMO with a strong economy but to help prevent massive inflation of everything or rampant, uncontrolled creation of "stuff" and money you would need destructable equipment, no NPC vendors to sell stuff to and a fully player-run industry for everything in the game except for the basic tools to at least get started (i.e., Eve's system). I know of ways that this could be done, but PvP or not it would still have to be a much harsher PvE environment than pretty much anything that has been seen in the standard themepark MMOs. Personally I think that could be a very awesome game and I even know some ways how it could be implemented, but good luck finding a game producer that would have the balls to do that.

Originally posted by Kiljaedenas

Not a good one though. Yes, it could be possible to make a purely PvE MMO with a strong economy but to help prevent massive inflation of everything or rampant, uncontrolled creation of "stuff" and money you would need destructable equipment, no NPC vendors to sell stuff to and a fully player-run industry for everything in the game except for the basic tools to at least get started (i.e., Eve's system). I know of ways that this could be done, but PvP or not it would still have to be a much harsher PvE environment than pretty much anything that has been seen in the standard themepark MMOs. Personally I think that could be a very awesome game and I even know some ways how it could be implemented, but good luck finding a game producer that would have the balls to do that.

About the only part I can agree with is the need to balance money sinks and means to move currency around.

That however barely dents longterm inflation, and PvP does not really change much of that because most quotable PvP games actually prevent item degradation from PvP encounters (I think gw2 lets it happen though, but haven't seen the results of using a worn out item).

If you want to address economy you need finite resources, which most people will disagree with that being a part of a game on rinciple that unless you start getting socialist, hoarders will screw that up too. Fact is the only way for a digital economy to work is to indeed get a tad socialist and strongarm people into keeping the money/resources moving around.

As for the OP. I say both. I value what PvP brings to games at least in theory and I generally have most enjoyable moments from competitive shooters, so I have a fair assumption my preference of play lies in that field. However I am also not what I call a particularly competitive player, I prefer PvP mostly due to shortcomings in PvE challenge.

I do also however love the mechanics that PvE tends to entail and would like to see more game mechanics that ae not directly PvP but influence PvP implemented. Spore-like tools to tailor equipment, building, and vehicles using resources gathered to improve and modify them into custom machines. RTS type elements to give overarching strategy to player actions. Flow of resources for management of territories and support of players. There's many ideas that can be used to feed into one another.

It's a matter of concept and implementation though. I still look forward to a good implementation of such concepts.

Originally posted by Kiljaedenas

Not a good one though. Yes, it could be possible to make a purely PvE MMO with a strong economy but to help prevent massive inflation of everything or rampant, uncontrolled creation of "stuff" and money you would need destructable equipment, no NPC vendors to sell stuff to and a fully player-run industry for everything in the game except for the basic tools to at least get started (i.e., Eve's system). I know of ways that this could be done, but PvP or not it would still have to be a much harsher PvE environment than pretty much anything that has been seen in the standard themepark MMOs. Personally I think that could be a very awesome game and I even know some ways how it could be implemented, but good luck finding a game producer that would have the balls to do that.

I'm sorry, but when people talk about PvP, they're not talking about competing with other players economically, they're talking about ganking, backstabbing losers who go around and kill other players for fun.  You can absolutely have a player-driven economy in an entirely PvE game. 

Well i am ok with both as long as the effort is there for both.I guess if we are asking if developers continue to do such a bad job with pvp ,then a big no,i only want PVE.

If we are going to have pvp,we need variant types of damage....melee/mid range/long range/splash damage.I feel in a rpg it has to go well beyond a typical fps,it should contain elemental attacks and resistances.it should also make  the types of melee damage very noticeable ,example piercing/slashing/blunt ect.Armor needs to carry offensive and defensive melee and magical properties.We need "strategic" areas on maps,this means rocks or forts or many trees to hide behind.Also trees take away long rang and mid range and basically force melee type combat.

The game needs realistic penalties for killing.If you killed someone in the real world you are in jail or hunted down.

The bottom line is in rpg's the design does not make for realistic pvp.The reason is because of levels and tiered spells/abilities.Example my fire5 spell will greatly outdamage your fire2 spell.

The other big problem was talked about in the Planetside2 chat room with Pockett.eventuall ywith too many players on screen the game is a mush,so you need really dumb ed down graphics and viewing.IMO once you start to lose view scope and graphics and effects are turned way down,the whole excitement factor is lost.

The other problem is people expect some kind of reward/loot,either from the losing player ir from some game system that rewards pvp kills.In FPS games everyone is there to pvp,you know it and are prepared as such,in a rpg games there is a LOT more to gaming than just enter and kill each other,so obviously players will not be ready to pvp.