PvPrs dont mind and often enjoy boss fight, raids, and dungeons. Most hate questing as the only source of XP.
I don't believe it's ever been said on these forums, or anywhere else "I refuse to do any pve". Please correct me if I'm wrong.
On the other hand, daily we see pve only people refuse pvp and demand it be removed. Imho these people have damaged tlhe mmorpg beyond repair.
I refuse to do any pve.
Not even if it's in a W3, NFT. blockchain, decentralized, cloud-native metaverse where you earn $0.013 / hour doing that PvE?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
<skip> On the other hand, daily we see pve only people refuse pvp and demand it be removed. Imho these people have damaged tlhe mmorpg beyond repair.
I'll disagree with this part. PvE players who refuse PvP are numerous, and frequently demand it be removed. While removal is an unlikely circumstance, at best a mix of PvPvE doesn't cater to PvP only players or PvE only players exclusively. Removal (and zone isolation) is a function of the game's design.
The biggest issue that PvE players have with a PvPvE approach is that PvP can happen without notice. The PvE only player doesn't want to engage in PvP, and if found, will be forced into a fight for their life (occasionally a very short fight). The PvP player always dictates the nature and time of a fight. Now, if a developer wants to add a way for the PvE player to unilaterally interject their preferred play style on others (and can envision/code such a mechanic), then I'll consider PvPvE as a viable option.
It's far more likely that the damage done to MMORPGs have been done by developers who have cautiously stuck to older ideas, and have effectively failed to innovate how we think of multiplayer role playing games.
When I think about this, I am reminded of the D&D spell, where no combat can happen within the area of the spell, forgot what it was called, perhaps something like Pacifism or what have you.
But I think it would be wild if that kind of spell/ability was open to a game where PvE players could in fact remove the PvP flag from an Area around them, and see how much PvP players liked being at their whim.
Perhaps have it be a fixed Flag, called Pacifism, or Pacifist, were they could just stop all ongoing PvP in an AOE around them, perhaps a quite large AOE, and it grew in size the more Pacifist that gathered together, as opposed to just being stacking AOE, where each one added their AOE, each Pacifist would increase the size of the AOE they were in, by say 50%.
I swear the trolling would be legendary, I am thinking like in GW2, WvW, someone starts a siege on Stonemist in ETB, and a bunch of pacifist show up, and turn what was a PvP Siege Event, into a PvE event.
That would be epic... I would pay money to be in that game.. and I would roll a Pacifist, just to do things like that.
A problem with that approach is that it only prevents the PvP player from engaging in PvP. A true equal situation would be a Pacifist spell to force the PvP player to stop what they are doing *and* participate in the PvE activity. Stop killing and help out with my wolf spleen hunt. Or stop killing and sit down to share a drink and listen to a bard.
I like your Pacifist idea; it just doesn't truly balance the scales.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
<skip> On the other hand, daily we see pve only people refuse pvp and demand it be removed. Imho these people have damaged tlhe mmorpg beyond repair.
I'll disagree with this part. PvE players who refuse PvP are numerous, and frequently demand it be removed. While removal is an unlikely circumstance, at best a mix of PvPvE doesn't cater to PvP only players or PvE only players exclusively. Removal (and zone isolation) is a function of the game's design.
The biggest issue that PvE players have with a PvPvE approach is that PvP can happen without notice. The PvE only player doesn't want to engage in PvP, and if found, will be forced into a fight for their life (occasionally a very short fight). The PvP player always dictates the nature and time of a fight. Now, if a developer wants to add a way for the PvE player to unilaterally interject their preferred play style on others (and can envision/code such a mechanic), then I'll consider PvPvE as a viable option.
It's far more likely that the damage done to MMORPGs have been done by developers who have cautiously stuck to older ideas, and have effectively failed to innovate how we think of multiplayer role playing games.
When I think about this, I am reminded of the D&D spell, where no combat can happen within the area of the spell, forgot what it was called, perhaps something like Pacifism or what have you.
But I think it would be wild if that kind of spell/ability was open to a game where PvE players could in fact remove the PvP flag from an Area around them, and see how much PvP players liked being at their whim.
Perhaps have it be a fixed Flag, called Pacifism, or Pacifist, were they could just stop all ongoing PvP in an AOE around them, perhaps a quite large AOE, and it grew in size the more Pacifist that gathered together, as opposed to just being stacking AOE, where each one added their AOE, each Pacifist would increase the size of the AOE they were in, by say 50%.
I swear the trolling would be legendary, I am thinking like in GW2, WvW, someone starts a siege on Stonemist in ETB, and a bunch of pacifist show up, and turn what was a PvP Siege Event, into a PvE event.
That would be epic... I would pay money to be in that game.. and I would roll a Pacifist, just to do things like that.
A problem with that approach is that it only prevents the PvP player from engaging in PvP. A true equal situation would be a Pacifist spell to force the PvP player to stop what they are doing *and* participate in the PvE activity. Stop killing and help out with my wolf spleen hunt. Or stop killing and sit down to share a drink and listen to a bard.
I like your Pacifist idea; it just doesn't truly balance the scales.
Imagine the gnashing of teeth if a PvPer dying in PvP meant they had to complete a PvE quest before they could reflag for PvP.
If devs truly wanted to, they can do a myriad of things to help alleviate the imbalance. CCP did it with the EVE security system. Albion did it, too, though I argue their solution is a little draconian and not very immersive. Those that do an exceedingly poor job of alleviating that imbalance fare poorly (i.e. Mortal Online and its sequel). I do think there's a lot of room for innovation in balancing those scales in a way that's fun, but devs don't seem to want to take that risk.
<skip> On the other hand, daily we see pve only people refuse pvp and demand it be removed. Imho these people have damaged tlhe mmorpg beyond repair.
I'll disagree with this part. PvE players who refuse PvP are numerous, and frequently demand it be removed. While removal is an unlikely circumstance, at best a mix of PvPvE doesn't cater to PvP only players or PvE only players exclusively. Removal (and zone isolation) is a function of the game's design.
The biggest issue that PvE players have with a PvPvE approach is that PvP can happen without notice. The PvE only player doesn't want to engage in PvP, and if found, will be forced into a fight for their life (occasionally a very short fight). The PvP player always dictates the nature and time of a fight. Now, if a developer wants to add a way for the PvE player to unilaterally interject their preferred play style on others (and can envision/code such a mechanic), then I'll consider PvPvE as a viable option.
It's far more likely that the damage done to MMORPGs have been done by developers who have cautiously stuck to older ideas, and have effectively failed to innovate how we think of multiplayer role playing games.
When I think about this, I am reminded of the D&D spell, where no combat can happen within the area of the spell, forgot what it was called, perhaps something like Pacifism or what have you.
But I think it would be wild if that kind of spell/ability was open to a game where PvE players could in fact remove the PvP flag from an Area around them, and see how much PvP players liked being at their whim.
Perhaps have it be a fixed Flag, called Pacifism, or Pacifist, were they could just stop all ongoing PvP in an AOE around them, perhaps a quite large AOE, and it grew in size the more Pacifist that gathered together, as opposed to just being stacking AOE, where each one added their AOE, each Pacifist would increase the size of the AOE they were in, by say 50%.
I swear the trolling would be legendary, I am thinking like in GW2, WvW, someone starts a siege on Stonemist in ETB, and a bunch of pacifist show up, and turn what was a PvP Siege Event, into a PvE event.
That would be epic... I would pay money to be in that game.. and I would roll a Pacifist, just to do things like that.
A problem with that approach is that it only prevents the PvP player from engaging in PvP. A true equal situation would be a Pacifist spell to force the PvP player to stop what they are doing *and* participate in the PvE activity. Stop killing and help out with my wolf spleen hunt. Or stop killing and sit down to share a drink and listen to a bard.
I like your Pacifist idea; it just doesn't truly balance the scales.
Imagine the gnashing of teeth if a PvPer dying in PvP meant they had to complete a PvE quest before they could reflag for PvP.
If devs truly wanted to, they can do a myriad of things to help alleviate the imbalance. CCP did it with the EVE security system. Albion did it, too, though I argue their solution is a little draconian and not very immersive. Those that do an exceedingly poor job of alleviating that imbalance fare poorly (i.e. Mortal Online and its sequel). I do think there's a lot of room for innovation in balancing those scales in a way that's fun, but devs don't seem to want to take that risk.
I think the developers, in general, put too much weight on the voices of the PvP player. That AGS listened to the PvE players for New World is the exception. It has been demonstrated on many occasions that the PvE player population almost always determines the financial success of any MMORPG (emphasis on the RPG part). PvP can and is successful, but more often in other game genres.
I honestly think many developers are simply trying to build the wrong type of games, trying to force a FPS into an MMORPG framework.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
<skip> On the other hand, daily we see pve only people refuse pvp and demand it be removed. Imho these people have damaged tlhe mmorpg beyond repair.
I'll disagree with this part. PvE players who refuse PvP are numerous, and frequently demand it be removed. While removal is an unlikely circumstance, at best a mix of PvPvE doesn't cater to PvP only players or PvE only players exclusively. Removal (and zone isolation) is a function of the game's design.
The biggest issue that PvE players have with a PvPvE approach is that PvP can happen without notice. The PvE only player doesn't want to engage in PvP, and if found, will be forced into a fight for their life (occasionally a very short fight). The PvP player always dictates the nature and time of a fight. Now, if a developer wants to add a way for the PvE player to unilaterally interject their preferred play style on others (and can envision/code such a mechanic), then I'll consider PvPvE as a viable option.
It's far more likely that the damage done to MMORPGs have been done by developers who have cautiously stuck to older ideas, and have effectively failed to innovate how we think of multiplayer role playing games.
When I think about this, I am reminded of the D&D spell, where no combat can happen within the area of the spell, forgot what it was called, perhaps something like Pacifism or what have you.
But I think it would be wild if that kind of spell/ability was open to a game where PvE players could in fact remove the PvP flag from an Area around them, and see how much PvP players liked being at their whim.
Perhaps have it be a fixed Flag, called Pacifism, or Pacifist, were they could just stop all ongoing PvP in an AOE around them, perhaps a quite large AOE, and it grew in size the more Pacifist that gathered together, as opposed to just being stacking AOE, where each one added their AOE, each Pacifist would increase the size of the AOE they were in, by say 50%.
I swear the trolling would be legendary, I am thinking like in GW2, WvW, someone starts a siege on Stonemist in ETB, and a bunch of pacifist show up, and turn what was a PvP Siege Event, into a PvE event.
That would be epic... I would pay money to be in that game.. and I would roll a Pacifist, just to do things like that.
A problem with that approach is that it only prevents the PvP player from engaging in PvP. A true equal situation would be a Pacifist spell to force the PvP player to stop what they are doing *and* participate in the PvE activity. Stop killing and help out with my wolf spleen hunt. Or stop killing and sit down to share a drink and listen to a bard.
I like your Pacifist idea; it just doesn't truly balance the scales.
It would be enough to get the point across so much so, PvP players would lose their shit... the tears and gnashing of teeth would be the stuff of legend.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Having PvP simply enabled in an online open world while you're doing PvE game loops that exist irrelevant of any PvP system is a far different situation, and that's the one most prevalent in Albion and EVE. That's not really PvPvE so much as open world PvP in a game with PvE content.
They are PvPvE gameloops. The objective is to gather the resource/farm the mob for the rewards and players contest that resource/mob through PVP.
Saying that it is PVE content irrelevant of PVP in a PVP open world is ignoring completely the context that the world and ruleset impose.
That's also the whole point of territory control in these games.
It is decidedly not the same as Alterac Valley.
Anytime one contestant is actually looking to avoid or flee PvP, it's fundamentally different than a game system that requires a player *engage* in both PvP and PvE simultaneously. Running away or standing there absorbing a gank is not engaging in PvP. It's avoiding or ignoring it.
Those resources are also essentially infinite regardless of any PvP activity. The ore in EVE will be there whether it's fought over or not. Not so in a PvPvE loop like The Hunt: Showdown, where the bounty targets are intentionally scaled to force the player teams to have to compete every time to achieve their goal, and you can steal a bounty by killing a player holding a trophy. Additionally, no player has to suffer a massive disadvantage just to kill NPC mobs in-game- the tools that do monsters in also kill players. Holding a bounty actually gives you a buff, because you become a target. That's is exactly the opposite of the philosophy used by the vast majority of MMORPGs.
At best, the miner in EVE is given tools to run, at which point he has surrendered his game loop to the mercy of the PvPer, who is engaging in his preferred gameplay by chasing another player. The PvE player may not immediately be turned off by this event, and the small chance of it happening might actually enhance his experience. If it starts happening reliably, though, he'll just quit. This is a problem created by the inherent nature of EVE's RPG systems- ships not fitted specifically for combat are at a massive disadvantage. It's the reason for the sec rating system. It's alsp one reason small group PvP is incredibly inferior to games like Halo, too. The gear advantage is magnified the smaller the competing PvP groups. The overwhelming majority of gamers do not see a pre-farmed advantage like that to be a plus. Take a look at the most popular competitive games, and you'll find a distinct lack of gear advantage compared to MMORPGs.
Of course there are differences. Different games, different designs. You are comparing OW with instanced PvPvE. Both are still PvPvE gameloops.
Resources are not infinite just because they respawn, there is contesting. (matches also restart in AV). Otherwise guilds would not be craving to control territory, so they can have a stranglehold over those resources and fame/silver /ISK farms (fame = XP in Albion and used for skilling up).
Both ganker and gatherer/miner have specialized gear and strats with a single objective, victor brings the farmed mats home. Gatherer "wins" by evading, ganker "wins" by catching.
The "guy fleeing makes things different" is the perspective of a PvE'er that misses, or wants to complain about, the context. Those players will naturally quit, since they are not the target audience. Players that engage PVE content in open-world in EVE or Albion recognize that they engage it in a PvP context, hence they engage in PvPvE content.
This is full of a lot of assumptions that just aren't really supported by which PvP-focused MMORPGs have been successful, and which haven't.
PvP MMORPGs that have been successful have generally included harsh and/or extensive controls over when and where PvP is even reliably possible. This idea that PvEers are just confused and should get with it is simply not supported by the reality of which PvP-focused MMORPGs have been successful. This has happened over and over so many times it's become meme material. The last time it wasn't the case, internet gaming itself was in its infancy and there were, like, 5 MMORPGs even on the market, and the smaller multiplayer games weren't utilizing technology to basically make their PvP systems and balance objectively superior to what's even possible in an MMORPG.
As I said: PvEers will endure periodical interruptions by PvPers, but will not endure numerous interruptions. They'll simply quit. From Trammel to New World's last minute switcheroo, the idea that you'll have an epic PvP MMORPG gankfest that's successful is slim to none and everyone in the market seems to know it, even if some very stubborn folks insist the next one is the one that will show us all!
MMORPG PvP is just not good enough to usurp games like Fortnite, Battlefield/CoD, and others. So without the PvE side of it, there's little to no reason for even PvPers to stick with an MMORPG. PvPers would do well to remember this.
From what I see, the pve group is vastly larger in number, so I find developers much more in the pve realm with their dipped in the pvp, than the reverse. It would be a great thing for there to be more synergy between the two. People complain that developers don't listen to the player base, but I disagree. PVE players, with their vast majority scream louder and generally get MMOs that plan for a larger pvp aspect, to reduce it instead.
From what I see, the pve group is vastly larger in number, so I find developers much more in the pve realm with their dipped in the pvp, than the reverse. It would be a great thing for there to be more synergy between the two. People complain that developers don't listen to the player base, but I disagree. PVE players, with their vast majority scream louder and generally get MMOs that plan for a larger pvp aspect, to reduce it instead.
The PvE group is only vastly larger in numbers in this genre, though.
Compare it to, say, the FPS genre, and you'll see a far larger number of PvP-happy players there. You'll also see a lot more games that completely remove PvE. There's entire genres of PvP only games, actually.
That comparison can and does speak loudly and clearly to what consumers want. Mostly, they want to reliably choose what type of content they engage in, even if they'll allow periodic interruptions to heighten the adrenaline rush.
Edit: Getting back on topic, I actually agree MMORPG devs could better utilize PvPvE. Simply offering up static resource nodes to fight over is old and tired. Regional control, too, is a tired and over-utilized attempt to meld the two. They both also have the unfortunate effect of attracting deeply different player types. Why not look at the new genres emerging and try to borrow something from one of these other games?
Maybe mix it up. Instead of territory control, PvP-Specific open world resources such as Hunt's bounties that would act as an organic opt-in feature. Those bounties could be elite-level NPC mobs that were hidden away in the world and carried the resource. Players pursuing bounties can track any other player carrying a bounty in the same region, and bounties can be stolen by killing those players. Those players would compete over clues strewn about the world to help them find the bounty, as well. Include penalties for killing a bounty hunter as a non-bounty hunter and vice versa, and you've basically built in a way to include a bounty hunting PvPvE game loop that exists completely in the open game world, alongside PvEers. Scale bounty mobs dynamically based on the number of flagged bounty hunters to ensure the resource is scarce at any time of day.
Might as well try. What have you got to lose, Star Vault? Try something wild and more involved than passive NPCs congregating in different spots in the game world.
Was responding to your EVE/Albion argument specifically, re PvPvE. Other games, or the success or not of PVP games, or whether PVEers will quit or not, is irrelevant. Tired old arguments. ^o^
My original reply was in the context of differentiating open world PvP in a game with PvE and what the OP meant by PvPvE, which is different. PvPvE here is used specifically to describe more intimately intertwined PvP and PvE game loops than merely including open world PvP in a game with PvE content.
I would agree with the OP's inclination that, to retain usefulness, the term PvPvE should be applied in that context, but that's a different discussion too.
Comments
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
If devs truly wanted to, they can do a myriad of things to help alleviate the imbalance. CCP did it with the EVE security system. Albion did it, too, though I argue their solution is a little draconian and not very immersive. Those that do an exceedingly poor job of alleviating that imbalance fare poorly (i.e. Mortal Online and its sequel). I do think there's a lot of room for innovation in balancing those scales in a way that's fun, but devs don't seem to want to take that risk.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Anytime one contestant is actually looking to avoid or flee PvP, it's fundamentally different than a game system that requires a player *engage* in both PvP and PvE simultaneously. Running away or standing there absorbing a gank is not engaging in PvP. It's avoiding or ignoring it.
Those resources are also essentially infinite regardless of any PvP activity. The ore in EVE will be there whether it's fought over or not. Not so in a PvPvE loop like The Hunt: Showdown, where the bounty targets are intentionally scaled to force the player teams to have to compete every time to achieve their goal, and you can steal a bounty by killing a player holding a trophy. Additionally, no player has to suffer a massive disadvantage just to kill NPC mobs in-game- the tools that do monsters in also kill players. Holding a bounty actually gives you a buff, because you become a target. That's is exactly the opposite of the philosophy used by the vast majority of MMORPGs.
At best, the miner in EVE is given tools to run, at which point he has surrendered his game loop to the mercy of the PvPer, who is engaging in his preferred gameplay by chasing another player. The PvE player may not immediately be turned off by this event, and the small chance of it happening might actually enhance his experience. If it starts happening reliably, though, he'll just quit. This is a problem created by the inherent nature of EVE's RPG systems- ships not fitted specifically for combat are at a massive disadvantage. It's the reason for the sec rating system. It's alsp one reason small group PvP is incredibly inferior to games like Halo, too. The gear advantage is magnified the smaller the competing PvP groups. The overwhelming majority of gamers do not see a pre-farmed advantage like that to be a plus. Take a look at the most popular competitive games, and you'll find a distinct lack of gear advantage compared to MMORPGs.
PvP MMORPGs that have been successful have generally included harsh and/or extensive controls over when and where PvP is even reliably possible. This idea that PvEers are just confused and should get with it is simply not supported by the reality of which PvP-focused MMORPGs have been successful. This has happened over and over so many times it's become meme material. The last time it wasn't the case, internet gaming itself was in its infancy and there were, like, 5 MMORPGs even on the market, and the smaller multiplayer games weren't utilizing technology to basically make their PvP systems and balance objectively superior to what's even possible in an MMORPG.
As I said: PvEers will endure periodical interruptions by PvPers, but will not endure numerous interruptions. They'll simply quit. From Trammel to New World's last minute switcheroo, the idea that you'll have an epic PvP MMORPG gankfest that's successful is slim to none and everyone in the market seems to know it, even if some very stubborn folks insist the next one is the one that will show us all!
MMORPG PvP is just not good enough to usurp games like Fortnite, Battlefield/CoD, and others. So without the PvE side of it, there's little to no reason for even PvPers to stick with an MMORPG. PvPers would do well to remember this.
Compare it to, say, the FPS genre, and you'll see a far larger number of PvP-happy players there. You'll also see a lot more games that completely remove PvE. There's entire genres of PvP only games, actually.
That comparison can and does speak loudly and clearly to what consumers want. Mostly, they want to reliably choose what type of content they engage in, even if they'll allow periodic interruptions to heighten the adrenaline rush.
Edit: Getting back on topic, I actually agree MMORPG devs could better utilize PvPvE. Simply offering up static resource nodes to fight over is old and tired. Regional control, too, is a tired and over-utilized attempt to meld the two. They both also have the unfortunate effect of attracting deeply different player types. Why not look at the new genres emerging and try to borrow something from one of these other games?
Maybe mix it up. Instead of territory control, PvP-Specific open world resources such as Hunt's bounties that would act as an organic opt-in feature. Those bounties could be elite-level NPC mobs that were hidden away in the world and carried the resource. Players pursuing bounties can track any other player carrying a bounty in the same region, and bounties can be stolen by killing those players. Those players would compete over clues strewn about the world to help them find the bounty, as well. Include penalties for killing a bounty hunter as a non-bounty hunter and vice versa, and you've basically built in a way to include a bounty hunting PvPvE game loop that exists completely in the open game world, alongside PvEers. Scale bounty mobs dynamically based on the number of flagged bounty hunters to ensure the resource is scarce at any time of day.
Might as well try. What have you got to lose, Star Vault? Try something wild and more involved than passive NPCs congregating in different spots in the game world.
I would agree with the OP's inclination that, to retain usefulness, the term PvPvE should be applied in that context, but that's a different discussion too.