In a heartbeat. As Esther-Chan mentioned above, PvP brings out the absolute worst in a game community. I'm sick of the factional "us vs. them" mentality. It's an old, worn-out concept that developers use to substitute player conflict for real content.
"Soloists and those who prefer small groups should never have to feel like they''re the ones getting the proverbial table scraps, as it were." - Scott Hartsman, Senior Producer, Everquest II "People love groups. Its a fallacy that people want to play solo all the time." - Scott Hartsman, Executive Producer, Rift
competative PvP isnt always just killing other players, any form of competition between players/groups/clans would count. i would love to see a territorial or economical PvP game, even if killing/combat wasnt the main path to conflict.
but i would not play a pure PvE game. conflict with other players is how i define my MMO enjoyment. Pure PvE is nothing more than single player with FB chat on in the back ground as far as im concerned....
I'm fine with PvP as long as it's consensual. For instance, Guild vs. Guild or Faction vs. Faction PvP in certain regions - I know that if I enter those areas, I'm going to (most likely) engage in PvP. I'm also okay with instanced PvP like battlegrounds, though I prefer open world/sieges.
On the other hand, if a game had no PvE, I think the PvE would have to be very varied and polished if it was going to keep my attention. Either that or the world would have to be "alive", believable, and immersive.
this is why i loved Shadowbane so much, even your allies were your competitors, both for guild loot, rank, and for killshots. i would consider this tier two PvP, when you are fighting with your allies to be better at killing your mutual enemies.
played EQOA for years (longest stay in any game i've played actually) and it had no pvp at they did eventually add dueling a year or so after launch but that was it. every game i've play since with PvP all you ever see is nerf and OP you never seen it in games where its all pve. but i do like pvp alot but if the game is great i could live without it.
I'm "middle of the road" when it comes to pvp in games. I dont like the break in the immersive "4th wall" that happens after a while with games where everything is run by the game's AI, but i'm not sure how i would feel about games advertised as "heavily pvp" either.
I buy games based on a. budget, b. story, c. features. I was going to add 'repeat playabiltiy' but that i think goes under "features", esp. since these boards are based around MMO's anyway, and in many ways MMO's typify repeat/sustainable playability more than many (not all) console games do. I want both pve and pvp features to be story-immersive, and well constructed. If this isn't true in both cases, it will influence my decision to buy a game.
Yes, I would but... it would need to be extremely engaging, one of the reasons I found WoW to be an enormously dull game in the first instance was my own failure to get involved in the PvP aspects of the game.
And I think the balance of PvP in WoW is about right, the lack of serious death penalties and full loot, makes it easy to get involved with no need to spend a year sulking about losing, and gives minimal bragging rights to winners too. So it is just fun, I wouldn't swap the AV arguments (rush/don't rush/who's defending/def is for losers) for any other part of the game to be honest.
And WoW can be played almost purely as PvE with very little (or no) PvP if you don't want to, I think your solution is already available.
Yes, because then the developer wouldn't need to waste time on battlefields or 2 seperate advancement systems to make the game work. Things would be much simpler for them.
Yes, because then the developer wouldn't need to waste time on battlefields or 2 seperate advancement systems to make the game work. Things would be much simpler for them.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. If so, good job.
If not, then I will have to point out that most PvP balancing is just a matter of code changes (not rewrites), and battlegrounds are far more simple in scope than a raid instance. Making new PvE content is incredibly more time-consuming than that for PvP.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
I would definitely play a game that was all PVE. I like the idea of dueling with other players but I don't mind fighting humanoid NPCs instead. I like Ryzom because it gives me the option of whether or not I want to engage in PVP or play 100% PVE.
YES i would love to see a game with NO pvp A game i didn't have to worry about being changed every week because someones Epeen got steped on A game where no bunny jumping LEET speakers are running around challenging everyone to duels A game where theres no chance of being attacked while your trying to get something done by someone much higher lvl then you A game where the general antisocial pvp attitude isnt abounding sounds like a great game to me
I'd play too, for the same exact reasons. These are all the things I hate about pvp. People sure do turn into a bunch of asshats during pvp.....I'd rather have fun together rather than hearing people bitching at each other or bloating their self esteem.
I can't honestly say that I would play a game that had absolutely no pvp.
I don't see a game that has no type of pvp what so ever being a very popular game. Sure it might get off to a good start especially if the devs had a solid team and made the world huge but eventually players will reach endgame and get the best gear and basically have nothing to do until more content is released. MMOs that incorporate some type of pvp give additional option to gamers that imo keep them going strong while waiting for more content.
I played FFXI more then any other game I did like PvP in WAR WoW had good PvP during vanilla but all in all I would much rather play a pure PvE game then a mixed game.
I like PvP in general. I play TF2 for the FPS action, I play League of Legends for a bit of PvP with RP, and I play MTGO and Civ4 for the strategical challenge to duel it out with human opponents.
But in MMORPGs? Pffff.... In WAR it's some kinda fun, but in all others MMORPGs I played it never was of any importance for me. It's basically like the games I just mentioned, just with the difference that you can replace "skill" with "invested time". The dude who grinded the best equipment for his char wins over a player with worse equipment, no matter whom is actually the better one. The equipment decides and not the player. And so PvP in MMORPGs could be renamed "PvsG" (player vs grind) and is not really a challenge who is the best PvP player, but who has the nerves and time to grind the longest for the best equipment.
I prefer equal battles where people enter an arena and have roughly the same changes, while in MMORPGs people always cry for "more open world PvP" which basically means "more ganking". And ganking is for me no PvP. It's rather "PvPB" (player vs punching bag) or "PvHV" (player vs helpless victim). Yes there are exceptions blablabla. Most PvPers I met in MMORPGs want to simply pwnz everyone with their uberleet equipment (if possible the same player a dozen times in a row) which has for me nothing to do with skill but is rather with another form of harassment.
Not to mention that I think PvP in MMORPGs really turns the atmosphere to the worse. People constantly insult each other because someone killed someone else a dozenth time in a row, or someone ganks someone which is unfair, that the classes ain't balanced and everyone using this and that build is just facerolling ftw and whatnot. Duh...
If I play solo PvE or grou PvE, and one class gets patched to become stronger, then I just think "nice, then we can finally kill that one Boss we were having problems with". The PvP player just complains and shouts how one class gets nerfed and others gets buffed and it's all unfair etcetcetc.
In short: I like PvP and I try some PvP when I play MMORPGs simply to see how it's done in that game. But for actual PvP I prefer other games than MMORPGs.
Asheron's Call was the best PvE experience I ever had and have yet to find that same "spark" that the world of Dereth had. I say "PvE" because I played on a 'white' server; Darktide was the 'red' pvp server. I feel as though since World of Warcraft, the PvE experience has been simplied in a way unlike it used to be.
I have to admit i usually stay away from pvp elements in games but i can think of two that i really enjoyed:
Guild Wars I Wintersday snowball fights. those were awesome, and everyone was very respectful
Champions Online's zombie scenario pvp...I have personal gripes about the game, but the zombie pvp scenario was very cool , at least the half dozen times i tried it.
I'm lookng forward to the sandbox style pvp they are touting in DCU Online. Heroes and other heroes, and heroes and villains run into each other randomly in comics all the time. As long as i dont have to deal w/ too many ganking cranky 12 yr olds, it promises to be fun...i hope so...
It all depends. If the game play is solid and the community is great then sure. I'd at least give it a try.
It should be noted that I do enjoy pvp for reasons I'm not going to get into. I realize it's not everyone's cup of tea and don't go around demanding that PVP be part of the game play. I go where there's pvp, I don't go where there's none and ask to have it put in.
I think once people start making choices instead of whining and complaining this genre will be better off. Instead of bitching, leave, go somewhere else, find what you like and play it. I always figured finding an existing product that fits your preference is easier then changing something to fit your preference.
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-
I could play a PvE game as when i first start out, i'm usually PvE but i did duel/pk in diablo 2 hardcore servers, so it's in my blood. It's just that i can do both.
When a game has options of PvP, i usually choose the server with PvP on it just for the fun of it. I'm not sure i like the full loot pvp thing. For me it's important to work hard for something and then you get lucky or you get a lucky drop or you use your head to get massive resources and then you can purchase a nice item. But if you can lose all that you put work into, it kind of sucks.
yes, diablo 2 was like that, but diablo 2 hardcore server, i didn't use hacks and i didn't lose all that much and plus a lot of was easily replaceable and i'm not a perfectionist, so my duelers were cheap.
But i could play a PvE game but i'd probably get bored. But i do realize one thing about PvE games/servers is that they usually have a higher population and more population = a ton of fun.
I just started playing SWG on farstar and i'm starting to hate it cuz i see no one, it's the reason i didn't sub when i tried it out last july . . . Population is so important.
Cryomatrix
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Yup I would paly a 100% PvE game...I'd also play a 100% PvP game but isn't it nice when you have a viable choice to do either in one game?The real important thing is the game be good.
For sure. FFXI was the best game I ever played and it pretty much had no PvP at all. For this to work for me I need no instancing, huge world, open world dungeons, almost forced cooperation, and a game that isn't a lame recycled quest grind like WoW.
A sandbox/themepark PvE game with an open world, freely placed player structures, dynamic quests with a dynamically changing world, and a number of other things could be one of my favorite games ever made and I could care less about PvP honestly.
If I really want to PvP and test my skill I will play something like CoD where I can dominate an entire game entirely based on skill vs. skill (and a bit of luck), and not simply who has the most amount of time to dump into a character. The current PvP system in MMO's is flawed and requires next to no skill, and is almost entirely based on no lifers dominating with mind numbingly simple combat.
For sure. FFXI was the best game I ever played and it pretty much had no PvP at all. For this to work for me I need no instancing, huge world, open world dungeons, almost forced cooperation, and a game that isn't a lame recycled quest grind like WoW. A sandbox/themepark PvE game with an open world, freely placed player structures, dynamic quests with a dynamically changing world, and a number of other things could be one of my favorite games ever made and I could care less about PvP honestly. If I really want to PvP and test my skill I will play something like CoD where I can dominate an entire game entirely based on skill vs. skill (and a bit of luck), and not simply who has the most amount of time to dump into a character. The current PvP system in MMO's is flawed and requires next to no skill, and is almost entirely based on no lifers dominating with mind numbingly simple combat.
This... Minus the red
I cant stand seeing player worlds that have been taken over by people with billions of houses. Im ok though with it in setelment like settings like in Vanguard though.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Samuel Adams
Comments
In a heartbeat. As Esther-Chan mentioned above, PvP brings out the absolute worst in a game community. I'm sick of the factional "us vs. them" mentality. It's an old, worn-out concept that developers use to substitute player conflict for real content.
"Soloists and those who prefer small groups should never have to feel like they''re the ones getting the proverbial table scraps, as it were." - Scott Hartsman, Senior Producer, Everquest II
"People love groups. Its a fallacy that people want to play solo all the time." - Scott Hartsman, Executive Producer, Rift
Definatly.
I have no interest in PvP anywa, so would actually prefer the game not to have it.
competative PvP isnt always just killing other players, any form of competition between players/groups/clans would count. i would love to see a territorial or economical PvP game, even if killing/combat wasnt the main path to conflict.
but i would not play a pure PvE game. conflict with other players is how i define my MMO enjoyment. Pure PvE is nothing more than single player with FB chat on in the back ground as far as im concerned....
I'm fine with PvP as long as it's consensual. For instance, Guild vs. Guild or Faction vs. Faction PvP in certain regions - I know that if I enter those areas, I'm going to (most likely) engage in PvP. I'm also okay with instanced PvP like battlegrounds, though I prefer open world/sieges.
On the other hand, if a game had no PvE, I think the PvE would have to be very varied and polished if it was going to keep my attention. Either that or the world would have to be "alive", believable, and immersive.
this is why i loved Shadowbane so much, even your allies were your competitors, both for guild loot, rank, and for killshots. i would consider this tier two PvP, when you are fighting with your allies to be better at killing your mutual enemies.
played EQOA for years (longest stay in any game i've played actually) and it had no pvp at they did eventually add dueling a year or so after launch but that was it. every game i've play since with PvP all you ever see is nerf and OP you never seen it in games where its all pve. but i do like pvp alot but if the game is great i could live without it.
I'm "middle of the road" when it comes to pvp in games. I dont like the break in the immersive "4th wall" that happens after a while with games where everything is run by the game's AI, but i'm not sure how i would feel about games advertised as "heavily pvp" either.
I buy games based on a. budget, b. story, c. features. I was going to add 'repeat playabiltiy' but that i think goes under "features", esp. since these boards are based around MMO's anyway, and in many ways MMO's typify repeat/sustainable playability more than many (not all) console games do. I want both pve and pvp features to be story-immersive, and well constructed. If this isn't true in both cases, it will influence my decision to buy a game.
Yes, I would but... it would need to be extremely engaging, one of the reasons I found WoW to be an enormously dull game in the first instance was my own failure to get involved in the PvP aspects of the game.
And I think the balance of PvP in WoW is about right, the lack of serious death penalties and full loot, makes it easy to get involved with no need to spend a year sulking about losing, and gives minimal bragging rights to winners too. So it is just fun, I wouldn't swap the AV arguments (rush/don't rush/who's defending/def is for losers) for any other part of the game to be honest.
And WoW can be played almost purely as PvE with very little (or no) PvP if you don't want to, I think your solution is already available.
Yes, because then the developer wouldn't need to waste time on battlefields or 2 seperate advancement systems to make the game work. Things would be much simpler for them.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. If so, good job.
If not, then I will have to point out that most PvP balancing is just a matter of code changes (not rewrites), and battlegrounds are far more simple in scope than a raid instance. Making new PvE content is incredibly more time-consuming than that for PvP.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
I would definitely play a game that was all PVE. I like the idea of dueling with other players but I don't mind fighting humanoid NPCs instead. I like Ryzom because it gives me the option of whether or not I want to engage in PVP or play 100% PVE.
www.ryzom.com
YES
i would love to see a game with NO pvp
A game i didn't have to worry about being changed every week because someones Epeen got steped on
A game where no bunny jumping LEET speakers are running around challenging everyone to duels
A game where theres no chance of being attacked while your trying to get something done by someone much higher lvl then you
A game where the general antisocial pvp attitude isnt abounding
sounds like a great game to me
I'd play too, for the same exact reasons. These are all the things I hate about pvp. People sure do turn into a bunch of asshats during pvp.....I'd rather have fun together rather than hearing people bitching at each other or bloating their self esteem.
I can't honestly say that I would play a game that had absolutely no pvp.
I don't see a game that has no type of pvp what so ever being a very popular game. Sure it might get off to a good start especially if the devs had a solid team and made the world huge but eventually players will reach endgame and get the best gear and basically have nothing to do until more content is released. MMOs that incorporate some type of pvp give additional option to gamers that imo keep them going strong while waiting for more content.
I played FFXI more then any other game I did like PvP in WAR WoW had good PvP during vanilla but all in all I would much rather play a pure PvE game then a mixed game.
Sure any time.
I like PvP in general. I play TF2 for the FPS action, I play League of Legends for a bit of PvP with RP, and I play MTGO and Civ4 for the strategical challenge to duel it out with human opponents.
But in MMORPGs? Pffff.... In WAR it's some kinda fun, but in all others MMORPGs I played it never was of any importance for me. It's basically like the games I just mentioned, just with the difference that you can replace "skill" with "invested time". The dude who grinded the best equipment for his char wins over a player with worse equipment, no matter whom is actually the better one. The equipment decides and not the player. And so PvP in MMORPGs could be renamed "PvsG" (player vs grind) and is not really a challenge who is the best PvP player, but who has the nerves and time to grind the longest for the best equipment.
I prefer equal battles where people enter an arena and have roughly the same changes, while in MMORPGs people always cry for "more open world PvP" which basically means "more ganking". And ganking is for me no PvP. It's rather "PvPB" (player vs punching bag) or "PvHV" (player vs helpless victim). Yes there are exceptions blablabla. Most PvPers I met in MMORPGs want to simply pwnz everyone with their uberleet equipment (if possible the same player a dozen times in a row) which has for me nothing to do with skill but is rather with another form of harassment.
Not to mention that I think PvP in MMORPGs really turns the atmosphere to the worse. People constantly insult each other because someone killed someone else a dozenth time in a row, or someone ganks someone which is unfair, that the classes ain't balanced and everyone using this and that build is just facerolling ftw and whatnot. Duh...
If I play solo PvE or grou PvE, and one class gets patched to become stronger, then I just think "nice, then we can finally kill that one Boss we were having problems with". The PvP player just complains and shouts how one class gets nerfed and others gets buffed and it's all unfair etcetcetc.
In short: I like PvP and I try some PvP when I play MMORPGs simply to see how it's done in that game. But for actual PvP I prefer other games than MMORPGs.
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
PVE always, PVP is just so fake, hate to have to chase a guy all over the field
Asheron's Call was the best PvE experience I ever had and have yet to find that same "spark" that the world of Dereth had. I say "PvE" because I played on a 'white' server; Darktide was the 'red' pvp server. I feel as though since World of Warcraft, the PvE experience has been simplied in a way unlike it used to be.
I have to admit i usually stay away from pvp elements in games but i can think of two that i really enjoyed:
Guild Wars I Wintersday snowball fights. those were awesome, and everyone was very respectful
Champions Online's zombie scenario pvp...I have personal gripes about the game, but the zombie pvp scenario was very cool , at least the half dozen times i tried it.
I'm lookng forward to the sandbox style pvp they are touting in DCU Online. Heroes and other heroes, and heroes and villains run into each other randomly in comics all the time. As long as i dont have to deal w/ too many ganking cranky 12 yr olds, it promises to be fun...i hope so...
It all depends. If the game play is solid and the community is great then sure. I'd at least give it a try.
It should be noted that I do enjoy pvp for reasons I'm not going to get into. I realize it's not everyone's cup of tea and don't go around demanding that PVP be part of the game play. I go where there's pvp, I don't go where there's none and ask to have it put in.
I think once people start making choices instead of whining and complaining this genre will be better off. Instead of bitching, leave, go somewhere else, find what you like and play it. I always figured finding an existing product that fits your preference is easier then changing something to fit your preference.
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-
I could play a PvE game as when i first start out, i'm usually PvE but i did duel/pk in diablo 2 hardcore servers, so it's in my blood. It's just that i can do both.
When a game has options of PvP, i usually choose the server with PvP on it just for the fun of it. I'm not sure i like the full loot pvp thing. For me it's important to work hard for something and then you get lucky or you get a lucky drop or you use your head to get massive resources and then you can purchase a nice item. But if you can lose all that you put work into, it kind of sucks.
yes, diablo 2 was like that, but diablo 2 hardcore server, i didn't use hacks and i didn't lose all that much and plus a lot of was easily replaceable and i'm not a perfectionist, so my duelers were cheap.
But i could play a PvE game but i'd probably get bored. But i do realize one thing about PvE games/servers is that they usually have a higher population and more population = a ton of fun.
I just started playing SWG on farstar and i'm starting to hate it cuz i see no one, it's the reason i didn't sub when i tried it out last july . . . Population is so important.
Cryomatrix
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Yup I would paly a 100% PvE game...I'd also play a 100% PvP game but isn't it nice when you have a viable choice to do either in one game?The real important thing is the game be good.
For sure. FFXI was the best game I ever played and it pretty much had no PvP at all. For this to work for me I need no instancing, huge world, open world dungeons, almost forced cooperation, and a game that isn't a lame recycled quest grind like WoW.
A sandbox/themepark PvE game with an open world, freely placed player structures, dynamic quests with a dynamically changing world, and a number of other things could be one of my favorite games ever made and I could care less about PvP honestly.
If I really want to PvP and test my skill I will play something like CoD where I can dominate an entire game entirely based on skill vs. skill (and a bit of luck), and not simply who has the most amount of time to dump into a character. The current PvP system in MMO's is flawed and requires next to no skill, and is almost entirely based on no lifers dominating with mind numbingly simple combat.
Yes, I would.
PvP really does bring out the worst in people.
Also, MMO developers will balance the game around PvP even if its PvE centric.
Lastly, if the MMO is good enough people will play it. FF11 didnt have any sort of PvP for years and it has done quite well.
This... Minus the red
I cant stand seeing player worlds that have been taken over by people with billions of houses. Im ok though with it in setelment like settings like in Vanguard though.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams