Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
[Column] General: PVE vs PVP
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
The next hot and divisive topic in our Player vs Player series is the age-old battle between PvE and PvP. See what Chris Coke and Bill Murphy have to say as they face off on the issue of which one rocks before leaving your own ideas in the comments.
Welcome back to another edition of Player Versus Player, the column where MMORPG writers collide to debate the issues you care about. Every other week, we take to the podium and represent each side of an issue you're talking about, even if that means playing devil's advocate. This week we're stepping into the flames and bringing you a classic. Let's get to it.
Read more of Chris Coke's and Bill Murphy's Player vs Player: PvE vs PvP.
)
Comments
/subscribes to DMKano's newsletter
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The title of this column defines the problem. PvP should be a part of PvE, they aren't competing. The best PvP games have been those that were built around PvE and then had PvP added as server types. The community on these servers is always better because you are forced to work together and you build friends and enemies through PvP.
The problem is that games today separate PvP from PvE and then you just get mindless PvP that serves no purpose other than to get points or gear. The best purpose for PvP is to fight over the PvE content, not over some castle that the other team is going to take back 3 minutes later.
You absolutely have to create good PvE to sustain a game though. That is why things like WAR failed. You can't release shoddy PvE in a MMORPG and expect people to play it. You can just skip the PvE completely but then you don't really have a MMORPG, you just have a MMO like PS2.
I laughed when Bill said that PvE'ers would cry of the A.I was too smart (aka The computer wouldnt let me win Waaaaaaah)
All jokes aside
I agree with Bill, pvp content in an open world setting can be washed & repeated. Battlegrounds and arenas get alittle mundane... the only game that did battlegrounds correctly was Daoc. I also want to add that pve is also important to pvp'ers because it allows us to relax from the pressures of pvp.
Everybody knows being the best at something is stressful...
I agree with Bill on that in my opinion PVP takes more skill and is more challenging than any PVE content. The human mind and cunning will always trump AI, at least for the next several years until Skynet takes over. However, like DMKano was saying, games need to focus on one aspect and do it right. PVP in a PVE game can be fun though, lets be clear. Some of my more memorable open world PVP moments were in WoW before they put in BG's. I also loved their BGs such as AV and AB (my favorite BG to date).
PVE can form community at first, but then it almost always seems to dissolve into rush-rush-elitest-farm-mode. That just makes the gameplay start to turn static for me. I need PVP to keep things interesting and dynamic. The best way to sum up my feelings though is that PVE games need some type of PVP, but true/pure PVP games like Planetside 1/2 just need a little bit of back story or lore. PVE elements are not needed in games like PS.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
Agreed. Were budgets, dev resources, time constraints, and software limitations not factors, then maybe the two could coexist effectively, but in current real world application, focusing on one or the other makes more sense.Some good points about pve content longevity vs the perpetual conflict-based content PvP provides in the article. I consider myself a PvP-oriented player, but part of that is the often repetitive and shallow implementation of pve gameplay in many mmos. A good pvp system keeps me engaged. Even a good pve system loses its luster fairly quickly for me. Then again, that brings up the question of community. I agree that pve players tend to be more pleasant and foster better communities. This is something I think pvp developers should continue looking at. DAoC continues to be a great model for how a pvp-centric game can have a stellar community as well. Granted, much of that community developed in the pve portion of that game as well. It will be telling to see if CU can inspire a comparatively good community in a pvp-only game. Should be a fair litmus test for the potential of that in modern mmorpgs if anything is.
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt
it's fun to do both. PvE is usually more pug friendly as it is a lot easier to do, therefore its usually just as fun to do with total strangers as it is with friends.
PvP is usually a lot harder and pugs can be frustrating. it is ideally done with a core group of friends.
i personally find PvE exclusive games boring. however, a pvp only game also gets stressful after a while, especially when you fail to win for extended periods of time.
the perfect balance is a game where you can do both without neither being forced on you. you can choose to do some relaxing "inland sailing" PvE content for some light hearted fun, or brave the "rough seas" of PvP and see if you survive.
One of the largest gaps in the western market at the moment is a good solid well funded well developed pvp-rvr game.
Developers and funders just focus on chasing Azeroth's success even though Azeroth is in continual decline. Sometimes I still call it home because there is nothing there.
Camelot unchained cannot come fast enough.
Either philosophy is perfectly valid in isolation. See EVE - LOTRO
It's when you try to hybridize two completely mutually exclusive systems that you get failure. Name one; just one; mmo that EVER made a successful go of a 50/50 pvp/pve hybrid.
I haven't seen one that has tried to combine the two. Plenty of games do a 50/50 hybrid successfully by separating them. WoW, GW2 as examples both have huge player bases that are just PvP or just PvE.
The game I want is DAOC with PvE thrown in and nobody has even bothered to try. You take a keep that gives you a spawn point near the big raid mob, you take another that bombards him with siege to suppress his power some and you take a third that drops his force field so you can attack him. While killing the mob it is imperative you hold all 3 keeps as well. Now you have a true mix of PvP and PvE. You have to balance how many players guard the keeps while another group kills the raid mob.
The biggest failing with DAOC was that the best PvE rewards should have been out in the RvR area and contested by all 3 factions. That would have made it such a better game than it actually was.
It is pathetic that to this day EQ was probably the best PvP I have encountered. Fighting off an enemy guild while killing a raid boss is more exciting than anything another game has had to offer from a PvP standpoint.
The one argument that I didn't see here that I totally expected to see with regards to open-world PvP was that of ganking. It completely negates Bill's argument about PvP Skill > PvE skill. In my experience, I've been killed by people at max level in areas that are 10 or 20 levels lower than them 100 times more than I have been in areas where they would encounter a "fair" fight.
Additionally, when I do get killed in an area by someone who is the same level as me, it's generally by surprise in some common area that you wouldn't be expecting it, like while I'm shopping at a vendor, or at a quest giver.
So as far as skill goes, congrats! You've managed to figure out how to pop all your cooldowns and do enough burst damage so I'm dead before I can close the damn vendor window. Is that really skill though? I mean, in open-world PvP, that is just how it is. I'm not complaining about it, but to say that it requires skill is laughable. I think that rated arena matches require a greater deal of skill than that. Then, if we actually try to differentiate skills based on ACTUAL skill level, I think you'd find that highly-skilled PvE players are just as skilled as highly-skilled PvP players. The fact that there is a level of unpredictability to PvP doesn't mean you don't know how a particular battle is going to go down. So, again, this idea of skills due to the need to react to an ever-changing environment actually goes away because if you're good, you ARE actually predicting their moves. It's just as robotic.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I agree, the things I like to do take more skill and that stuff that other guy does is mindless.... oh wait...I think I have this wrong.
I sometimes get the feeling these "columns" are less about an actual issue and more about keeping the pot stirred. Considering how easy it is...and how tired it is, this topic is pretty much a troll.
People need to stop thinking that PvP should be fair and balanced specially in a sand box setting.
oh come on, that myth again?
there really is no PvE vs. PvP
there is "regular people who play everything" vs. PvE-only extremists who are not good at PvP and only shoot easier scripted mobs, running an ideological PvE vs PVP debate for every game.
Amen...
The two elements of gameplay do exist, and have shown that coexistence is problematic. That should be obvious? Also, some people enjoy pve because they don't play games to compete, but to socialize. Different people find different things fun. It's not a chest-thumping match. It's fun. I personally have more fun pvping. Doesn't mean that pve is for idiots. To imply such is not only rude, but inaccurate.http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt
It is all about entertainment at the end. While initially Pen and Paper RPGs were about a group of friends living through a made up world, now it has evolved into a massive online presence where the only thing that really matters is how long a company can keep your interest.
Even Pen and Paper RPGs grew old, and you would move on from them, but companies do NOT want you to move on... they want to keep you in their world for as long as possible... whether that is through PvE or PvP, it doesn't matter a wink to them. It will come down to, how much entertainment can you get out of your money.
I'm on Chris's side, though I think you both only covered just bits and pieces of the issue, like the developer's pov - as a customer, why should I care about that?
Oh, and please don't put CS within the same parantheses of those lame DotA-clones...
I put an /IMO here, because I know there are folks with different views, even among my buddies... so from now on it's in IMO mode:
Rpg's are player-centered games, both at the table and on PC. Mmorpg's are the same only with many players playing together. As I wrote numerous times in other pve vs. pvp threads, the genre is about cooperation and not competition, I believe there's no place for pvp in mmorpg's.
In every other genre both online and offline I love to play against other players, but that's exactly the point, in mmo's you never play against other players. In there it's more like playing chess with one side having 8 queens in the pawn line or going against a group of knifers with full kevlar and AK's - it's pointless. Only a waste of time, from both ends.
The whole point of playing against an another player is the developement of yourself, to adapt and learn. That's only possible if you play against the player, and not against his/her tools as it's the case in mmorpg's. What in earth can you possibly learn from that? That higher level is good, or that teal gear is better than green? Lol. Or even worse, if the devs were stupid enough to implement janken-like mechanics, then you can learn that your class has no chance against X class but can wipe the floor with Y class? Lol again.
(and yep, you can set the in-game characters on even field, I guess I wrote earlier that we tested once a duel with two identical minstrels - it resulted what Chris wrote in the column: "Get that down and PVP is as challenging as the gear your opponent is wearing." and after that, when the gear was the same too, it became a boring stalemate.)
In short, if I'm playing against a fellow player, I want to challenge (based on the actual game) his/her mind, strategy, intelligence or skills, on the same setting. I don't want to simply compare our e-peens / tools as in the case of mmo's...
(characters, gears, levels).
Same goes in groups, that's why I put that line above with CS. I don't know the present state but in the early 2000's CS was maybe the "smartest" shooter I've ever played. The setting was given to both sides, the skills and reflexes cannot be improved above certain levels (and cheating was an issue taken more serously than today), so what decided usually was the teamplay, the coordination, cooperation and tactics. I know there's a trend nowadays to make an e-sport from these cheapskate DotA clones, but... lol. Please don't put them on the same brackets. Thx
That's only my point of view of course, /IMO end.
Ganking & Getting ganked comes with the territory... literally.
Your arguement that open world pvp doesnt take skill is lackluster. Aside from actual combat, it takes skill recognizing potentially bad situations, it takes skill jumping and weaving through terrain escaping 3 or 4 attackers, it takes skill to know when to run and when to stand your ground. There is also alittle (ALOT) of common sense to factor in, if im at a vendor in a pvp active area not paying attention and I get "ganked"... I have only myself to blame.
Oh and then theres combat skills....
This is an irrelevant debate because it depends entirely on the context of the game.
For example, if the AI was good enough, we wouldn't need any PvP at all.
On the other hand, if the PvP organisation was good enough, we wouldn't need any PvE at all.
A combination of PvP and PvE cover for both their strengths and weaknesses.
PVP as an afterthought fails miserably. That is what I have always believed. Sure, you can make it somewhat fun, like WOW has done; but it will never measure up to REAL PVP.
That's what made Shadowbane so much fun for me. It was soloely PvP. Sure, the PVE elements for killing mobs for some loot and leveling existed; but the sole purpose of the game was to wipe the floor with your enemy's spleen.
Raquelis in various games
Played: Everything
Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6
Wants: The World
Anticipating: Everquest Next Crowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
Well it shouldn't be called PvP in an MMO as it is more like CvC (Character Vs Character) as the skill in an MMO is less about the actual players skill and more about the characters power.
In terms of MMO's the debate should be between PvE and CvC.
That is until the day I actually kill another player of course
so true:) been there. finally learned focus pve or pvp... well mainly pve.
i find FPS games more better pvp then mmorpgs.
Only pvp i enjoy in mmorpg is that its MASSIVE PVP. 100-300 player each side, smaller pvp just make it more personal hunt. some of us just want stay in huge army and have that WAR feel.
GW2 failed on massive pvp.
DamonVile nailed, this was an obvious Troll, even the first sentence proves it, "The next hot and divisive topic in our Player vs Player series..." Frankly this topic is cold, dead, and has been done countless times before.