Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
So PvP only games are ok, but PvE focused games must include PvP also. Why?
Margulis
Member CommonPosts: 1,614
I find it interesting that while PvP players are suposedly in the minority in general, that there are WAY more mmo's that come out focused entirely on PvP then there are mmo's who put their entire focus on PvE. Even PvE heavily focused mmo's still make it a big point to put a lot of effort into their PvP systems. Why? If a new mmo came out that had absolutely ZERO pvp options in the game, and was an amazing game build strictly for the PvE crowd, would it be any less successful than the countless games that forego PvE entirely for PvP? Especially if that crowd is bigger? It's interesting that it seems to be "ok" to have an mmo strictly focused on pvp but for an mmo to have zero pvp options and be strictly pve it's a huge no no.
Comments
I love crafting in mmo, well mostly the business aspecta nd gathering of resources. But can get tiresome. I like to mix it up.
Ill pvp, then go pve, then craft, then go out and explore. Eventualy just chatting with the community.
You have to have all aspects to make a good mmo, not just one or two.
Its fun having a choice in what to do and take part in it. Limiting yourself and the game by not having it only hurts the fun factor.
It doesnt have to, but a mmo without pvp = low sub numbers / lower box sales.
I do pvp alot, and want to chill out when i feel the need for it.
Its not wise to make mmo's without any pvp in it these days as the mmo just doesnt feel complete without one another.
PvP only games dont interest me, so they are not OK.
If I have to fight against other people all the time, I already have a job for that.
You're looking at it as PVP vs PvE, which is not the case. It's Expected Feature. Whether the person needs it or not is irrelevant. The lack of an expected feature colors the view of the game. Consider an MMO where the devs say there will be no crafting. Same thing.
There's a list of expected features. Most people won't use all the features, and many will only use one and dabble in the rest. The complete absence of a feature means it's less for them to even consider doing, let alone choose between.
You also have to keep in mind that just because the majority of MMO gamers enjoy PvE as their primary activity, that doesn't mean they will never PVP. They just don't do it regularly.
As a side note "way more mmo's that come out focused entirely on PVP" is absolute bullshit, and to make that claim on a site where one can easily see it's a ridiculous claim is... well... simply ridiculous. And if you believe that GW2 is a PVP focused game, I have a bridge to sell you.
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
because developers, nay, investors think they are missing out on money if the game doesnt offer pvp.
i win.
/thread
The AI isn't advanced enough to maintain player interest. Someday!
The EQ Next ideas thread: http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=399389
Is this a joke? I haven't had my morning coffee yet, but it's either a joke or I live in an alternate version of your universe (or I'm playing everything wrong, obviously).
Please make a list with 2 columns: on the right mmo with entire focus on pve, on the left mmo entire focus on pvp.
Let's see who's got it bigger: My left side column has 3 titles (daoc, eve, planetside) - what about yours? LOL.
FFXI has no PvP whatsoever and still doing well. This proofs that it's possible to have MMOs that are entierly PvE focussed. Also DDO has no real PvP (aside from a few arena's in some inns for duels) and does very well as well... On the other hand LotRo was meant to be without ANY PvP, but because of the 'demand of the audience' the Ettenmoors was added in a rush and sucks big-time when it comes to PvP (IMO).
Personally, I'm no real PvP player because most PvP-focussed MMO's use the 2-faction system. This is way too limited for me in PvP, and if I want to PvP, I'd rather play a sandbox-PvP game with criminal rules (EVE online / Lineage II). Sadly those MMOs are as rare as pure PvE MMOs
Guild Wars 2 without mists and that other PvP thing.
i try to imagine that,cant do any kind of PvP anywhere not auction house business not mining business not NPC boss business,nothing.
Perfect PvE MMO but does it sound good? well i dont like the sound of that .
Edit: everybody must look the same or someone might get upset because he dont have good looking gear (PvP) ,there cant be cash shops either or if there is then those must be free to use for all.
Let's internet
There is a difference between games without PVP and those with strong PVE
Simple answer from my understanding: money
Embed PVP content into a game without distrurbing PVE and it increases the potential playerbase. There's no off-side to the equation and it's relatively inexpensive to develop if the quality of PVP gameplay isn't of much concern.
Boardgames are also PvP.
In fact, before computers, all PvE was real.
PvE is like counting sandcorns on the beach, it just makes no sense, it has the same value like Television.
PvP is more like Sports, you gotta be active on your opponent (movement for example) even if the newer games try to make NPCs more challanging, in the end you cannot impress a NPC.
PvE is the better TV/Cinema/passive entertainment.
Roleplaying in PvE is nearly always fiction, in PvP it can become virtually real.
For Example, Face of Mankind, the Brotherhood captured a EuroCore player that carried high amounts of valuable goods.
He was Surrounded by 4 younger Brothers. They did bad to him. He had to pull off his clothes. He had to dance
He knew, when he starts shooting, he is death and all the valuable goods he carries, are gone, so he try's to solve this situation diplomatic, just by following the orders from these inexperienced Brothers.
There is full loot, you can take over territories and you can die forever - no respawn.
Thats the reason, why PvE is lame in the view of "gamechangeing", it needs a kick, a effect for the whole game.
Anarchy Online has a great TowerWars, giving additional XP% for the dominating side.
I think a lot of players are just not ready for a game, "where you can".
You just dont meet many people, that can attack but do not - not imidietly - due to maybe a social roleplay or diplomacy.
There is still too many ConterStrike mentality to play a full PvP MMORPG, also, we dont have the game for it yet.
Btw, Pong was also PvP oO
Because we are "sociopaths" in real life, if they don't put pvp in we go round and beat them up
Seriously though pveers have been spoilt rotten in the post wow era, its only very recently that pvp has gotten more resources in big budget mmos. Most of the big games out there are "raiders first" especially the biggest.
I thought this was quite obviouse why they do it.
It's all about money, game studios want to earn as much profit as possible so they design a game for both PVE and PVP crowd.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
Actually..my first death ever in Planetside was pve..i got owned by some spitfire turret
Even games like daoc and eve are 50/50 games.
Even darkfall has some pve.
I think there's a stigma against PvE, and this facade of PvP being cooler. PvP generates more hype, and makes a game seem like its on a whole other level of awesomeness.
Even to people who hate admitting they aren't really PvPers, themselves. It seems pretty obvious to me, there are just way too many newbies. Totally disproportionate to what you'd see, if more players were really into the PvP. Most people don't stick with it long enough to get any good, so these games are more like revolving doors of new players, with a small percentage of real PvP fans, who've enjoyed it enough to keep at it.
I still think back to something I read from the devs of UT2004, years ago. It was basically a full PvP game, that had a bot practice mode - according to their metrics, something like 70% of people who bought the game never played online. 90% only played online very briefly. Most people just loved it for the bot modes. Yet somehow, gaming has evolved in such a way that we don't even get bot modes in PvP games anymore.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
That's right, there are none. All MMOs have some kind of pve, and most of them are heavily focused on pve, pvp being tacked on as a half-assed afterthought so that the devs can include it in the feature list. It's almost always separated from the world, instanced away in BGs or arenas or consequence-free pvp zones.
In short: the op is either trolling or utterly clueless. 99% of the current market is catering to you, so stop crying and go play one of all the countless pve games.
Well, thats not entirely true. Fury had no PvE, Planetside has no PvE...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky