Manouk said:I think the understanding underlyinga PvE vs PvP debate is that all classes are not the same. Because all the classes are not the same does not mean they are imbalanced. If a caster were to get in the ring with a warrior and the warrior got their hands on the caster, the caster will die. If a caster got in the ring with another caster- now that's a fight.
This hold the core of the problems with pvp if it's going to be based on 1v1.
In 1v1, there is absolutely noway to make it perfectly balanced unless you have the exact same skills and abilities and just rename them for the different "classes".
What many games that have different classes and pvp end up with, is that they enter the endless cycle of rebalancing and rebalancing and rebalancing to achieve the impossible in a 1v1 context. What usually also happens is that some skills and abilities are nerfed due to "unfairness" in 1v1 pvp and renders them useless in the pve content as a "side effect" in the hunt for the unachievable.
It's a mmorpg, there need not be perfect balance in 1v1 because it's a meaningless aspect of a mmo. Just accept that there is noway to achieve a perfect balance in 1v1 and forget about trying to balance that aspect of the game (especially true for a game like Pantheon that wants to go back anbd focus on group play).
If you focus the efforts on the group/raid/mass pvp aspects then I would be happy to have pvp. I like pvp in mmos but only the group/mass pvp, 1v1 arenas and **** doesn't interest me at all in MMOs. There are plenty of pvp games that focus on perfectly balanced pvp, FPS and the like.
Although it's not perfect, I think something like GW2's WvW system is a great basis. Provides the optional open-world PvP experience without having to separate the player-base in PvE or PvP specific servers, which is important to me as I know many groups/guilds that have a healthy mix of those who prefer PvE along with those who really enjoy PvP.
Make the Oceans a PVP Area...
One of my old Posts....
Offical disclaimer.. I do not play AA anymore but you have to give credit were credit is due. A hardcore PVE raiding/grind game with some of AA's systems would give Pantheon some long term subs.
-Archeage's Farming/crop system (farmville on crack ..think of the demographics Kilsin)
-Archage's Trade Packing (**** to do for money and use of old zones for off raiding nights and lazy days.. donkeys and beer)
-Archeage's Boat systems/Ocean battles/Shipwrecks/Treasure hunting/Deep Sea Diving /ocean boss mobs.. I know I might take a beating for this.... but this might be a very nice way to integrate a Limited PVP ( dont give me the PVP speech) system into Pantheon. I played Vangard from Beta to the last day (my true love of mmos along with eq1)... what was the most deserted part of the huge world?.. the ocean. We all took our boats out and sailed the 200 empty chunks to fish, how about using them.
Example - What if X distance from shore or Water Depth it became a "Pirate Enviroment". Guidies/Group mates are the only ones that are not attackable.
Sure some chunks are not PVP (raid mobs etc..), but think of the possiblities. There are hundreds of ways to give value to the oceans... but would you dare to go to the deep sea seeking fortune alone with pirates about?
Fear Not Landlubber!! ... Everyone would be safe and sound on land/intercoastals or shallow waters. A game within a game.
Anti Pvp'ers Flame away.. (damn landlubbers! gives you a knot in your stomach just thinking about EXILE in the deep blue sea hunting your scurvy hides.. Earn your Salt)
-Epokk-
The possibilites!!!
Razorbrains said:PVE 100%
I will say that I have played games where you had to PVP and have done my fair share of PVP to get abilities, gear, xp … Pros and cons of adding PVP to a game.
Pro’s – This is the only PRO’s I can think of right now. No other rational reason other than nostalgia by Devs.
- Possibly get more positive game exposure/marketing on large gaming sites as many are PVP friendly.
Con’s
- HUGE net loss of players, although it Adds 2% more people to the game (maybe 5-10% might PVP if enticed, but most will still play game if its PVE only, only 2% will never join due to lack of PVP) , you lose WAY more PVE’ers just by having it which is why I put this under CON.
- Most toxic players
- Loudest most vocal group in forums, always hammering away trying to convince Dev’s to spend more time on PVP.
- Dev’s spend 70% more time just pleasing PVPers with balance and PVP only issues
- Dev’s spend more time coming up with enticements for PVPers to PVP, because few do it without big reward systems in place.
- If you give enticements/advantages to PVPers to keep a healthy PVP population (5-10% max regardless of enticement) then you lose much of your PVE playerbase due to the reward imbalance.
- Unable to have cool PVE spells and abilities for certain classes due to the imbalances it causes MIN/MAXing PVPers.Due to the huge attention Dev’s must give PVP, unable to develop game to full PVE potential, less cool features, encounters...
Hard to understand why Devs feel that one Pro is worth all the Con's just to touch PVP.
I would love to know where you are getting these percentages...
Let's address your cons:
1) None of this is accurate though you present it as fact.
2) By what measure are they the 'most toxic players'? I would argue that hardcore raiding guilds are the most toxic player bases but that's just in my own personal experience. This is another opinion you present as a fact.
3) See previous point.
4) Where are you getting these percentages? It is clear that you hate PvP but making up statistics and assuming things such as this are ridiculous.
5) People who truly like PvP and opt-in to a PvP experience don't do it for rewards. The reward is having fun. PvP rewards entice people who DO NOT enjoy PvP to engage in it because they need an incentive to do something they don't enjoy. I personally hope there are no rewards for PvP so people who don't enjoy it do not feel obligated. This is a win-win since it will avoid all of this type of belly aching.
6) See previous point.
7) True PvP'ers understand that balance is a fluid thing (read: rebalancing is always occuring). There will always be imbalances and an ENORMOUS part of the fun is figuring out ways to deal with all types of characters. The best PvP'ers are adaptable and playing an emergent game allows for this. Have a little faith that your Dev team, who has stated multiple times that the game will be focused on PvE, will be able to provide you with all the cool stuff you want in PvE without having to remove it for PvP. It's been done before and there's no reason to expect anything different with this crew.
Glad devs didn't have to waste time trying to please PvP players back in EQ. They disabled a couple of abilities like charm in pvp, adjusted damage table and just let it ride... and it was amazing. Balancing individual classes for pvp in a massively multiplayer game makes no sense anyway.
Dullahan said:Glad devs didn't have to waste time trying to please PvP players back in EQ. They disabled a couple of abilities like charm in pvp, adjusted damage table and just let it ride... and it was amazing. Balancing individual classes for pvp in a massively multiplayer game makes no sense anyway.
+1 Spot on Dullahan.
Grymmlocke said:Dullahan said:Glad devs didn't have to waste time trying to please PvP players back in EQ. They disabled a couple of abilities like charm in pvp, adjusted damage table and just let it ride... and it was amazing. Balancing individual classes for pvp in a massively multiplayer game makes no sense anyway.
+1 Spot on Dullahan.
+2 I would hope they keep the balancing for the Battle Arena's. Pantheon is a Role Playing Game
Having played both, I can see their draws. PvP servers can be fun if you're fighting people your level, and there can be a back and forth. Me and a buddy leveling a pair of Blood Elves, Mage and Priest, in WoW back in BC kept running across this pair of Gnomes, a Mage and a Warlock. We ran across them in our 30s, 40s, and then in Hellfire when we got to Outland. It was a fun kind of tit for tat where they'd engage us, maybe kill us, we'd come back and return the favor, and so on. When we got to the upper 50s, we were even able to fight off a level 60 Warrior that tried to take us down - the balance of poewr between the two of us and him was close enough to equal that we could actually stand up to him. And we had some fun (and occasionally unexpected) victories of being able to fight off people that tried to gank us (and once or twice, I let my friend "off the leash" and allowed him to log in on his max level PvP geared character if someone was ruthlessly corpse camping us - I have a strong sense of honor, but ganking...that's just dirty pool that deserves it. :p)
I've also been on PvP servers where some max level character just comes and wrecks people. And, yeah, corpse campes people. Ruthlessly. While the occasional "Level 80 druid vs 80 level 1 starter players in the Dwarf/Gnome starter town" can be amusing...ganking is only fun for the gankers, usually. Maybe if there's some kind of scaling that will scale your level/health when attacking people of various levels (where a level 1 characters "fireball" does the same % damage as a max level character's "fireball" does), but outside of something like that, it's just annoying. HOWEVER, it also does occasionally lend to epic fights (Terran Mill vs Hillsbrad...the road to Terran Mill was paved with bodies, ya know?). So it's a mixed bag.
But in the end, while I like PvP when -I- want it - battlegrounds, arenas, PvP zones - it's REALLY annoying when you're just trying to level a character and getting corpse camped by some max level character you have no hope of defeating. And there can be a healthy PvP community even in PvE games (Final Fantasy 14, I think, has a small but dedicated PvP community, even though the game itself is basicaly 100% a PvE game with the PvP just kind of tacked on for those players that want to do it.)
But instanced battlegrounds/arenas (as much as I like Arathi Basin and Alteric Valley) are separate from the world. I don't really like that. (At least those were LOOSELY tied to the world - each supposedly "existing" in a zone [ though I would have liked if a scaled version of them actually WAS in the zone, or the battleground was the zone... ] and had reputation with a faction that existed in the world.) I like the PvP zones to actually be IN the world and feel connected to it, maybe even have some reason for existing in the overall geopolitical sense (a rich magic or oil or whatever field that a couple of factions/empires are fighting for control of), not some separate thing I warp to. And I don't mind if you can get cool stuff from doing PvP - I think it's fair that every gameplay style has some rewards - I don't think it should be required for advancement, just one available path since I know some people love it, and I like partaking from time to time.
.
So I guess I'm mostly PvE (I like cooperative efforts far more than competitive - hence why I make a good healer type ^_^), I do like occasional PvP, as long as it's segregated in such a way that only people who want to take part in it do so, and that even the PvEers can take part, but when they want to, not with it being forced on them from some annoying ganker.
I prefer PvE.
That said, I think a lot of PvP activities can be added in PvE if you do it right: Not in the form of "kill other players" but rather "compete against other players in the world". For example, timed quests where you have to kill as many NPCs as possible in the available time (or collect harvestables, whatever). The results could be displayed on public charts for fame and players to compare. Wasn't it considered for some such charts to be visible via a website? Why not do that ingame and use it for such a form of competition?
Or, a dungeon where two groups start from opposite ends and have to work their way towards the bottom to retrieve the treasure chest...but only the group to arrive there first will get it! Interesting side question: Should the other group get a consolation prize? IMO not (in the context of Pantheon you don't get something for nothing...at least you still got exp on the run)! Another interesting question: Should each group see the other group's progress?
Or overland races (bards not allowed ;). Do I take the road or do I dare jump down that cliff for a shorter path (ingame knowledge helps, if you tried that before)?
There are so many options for competitive games, I wonder why that route isn't explored more by MMOs. Of course it could be that the PvPers just don't want this, and instead just want a way to release their real world aggression in-game: kill, kill, kill! :)
PvP. PvP servers are almost always more dynamic than PvE servers. They are also far more interactive in my experience. People communicate more, people make names for themselves in way or another and the competition pushes other players to keep getting better and better. PvP servers tend to 'evolve' so to speak much faster in my experience.
PVE is the only way to go. You can add PVP in arena's or in duel type scenarios, but after playing many many MMOs, please DO NOT include PVP in any major open world format.
The constant class rebalancing for PVP purposes absolutely ends up destroying and/or penalizing players and their player classes for PVE content.
Manouk said:I think the understanding underlyinga PvE vs PvP debate is that all classes are not the same. Because all the classes are not the same does not mean they are imbalanced. If a caster were to get in the ring with a warrior and the warrior got their hands on the caster, the caster will die. If a caster got in the ring with another caster- now that's a fight.
As one that played a Wizard main in early EQ I can honestly say this is not entirely true. As a matter of fact I never once lost to a Warrior (trust me Larladar wanted to kill me so bad he would duEl me every chance he got) I would start the duel standing toe to toe with him, even giveing him first hit.
I can say it was near impossible for a Wizard to lose to a Warrior unless the we're in an enclosed room.
Shadowstep + Snare = Dead Warrior
Only on a PvE server would a warrior get snared. Innate warrior MR was usually enough to buy you a few snare resists in EQ1. If they had even a few resist pieces and jacinth rings, they were basically unroot/unsnareable.
You're right though, PvP was always about fighting in your element in 1v1. You don't want to fight as a wizard in tight quarters. Outside, you could use elevation to your advantage. A wizard that gets the jump on you from above was hard to kill for any class.
Thats the thing though. It was never meant to be about how well you fight 1v1, it was about bringing everything together in group PvP.
Dullahan said:Only on a PvE server would a warrior get snared. Innate warrior MR was usually enough to buy you a few snare resists in EQ1. If they had even a few resist pieces and jacinth rings, they were basically unroot/unsnareable.
You're right though, PvP was always about fighting in your element in 1v1. You don't want to fight as a wizard in tight quarters. Outside, you could use elevation to your advantage. A wizard that gets the jump on you from above was hard to kill for any class.
Thats the thing though. It was never meant to be about how well you fight 1v1, it was about bringing everything together in group PvP.
Dullahan is 100% on target!
Have made a few posts about PvP vs PvE, talking about
(i) PvP servers fragmenting player population
(ii) small pockets of 'game reserves' are disliked by purist PvP'ers
(iii) PvP flagging in PvE world is pretty awful, and hated by purists.
However, I do feel that this is some merit in a 'linked' PvP/PvE world - much in the way EVE does nul-sec, albeit with more 'black and white' entry points.
Envisage: (something vaguely like)
Ocean areas: Full PvP
Players are intrinsically 'pirates', i.e. outside of the law. The ocean areas have many islands both large and small, settlements, NPCs, quests, dungeons etc.
They have a larger island trading hub, 'Tortuga' if you will, with limited scheduled shipping from the 'lawful lands' (read PvE).
Coastal Settlement areas: Limited PvP
There may be a few coastal settlements that allow pirates to come ashore and deal with them (primarily for trading purposes), perhaps supplying lumber, dry-docks, in-land mail etc. Here there would be some law and order, limiting PvP activities somewhat - though the officials would likely turn a blind eye to minor bar fights between pirates. PvE players would be able to enter these settlements - once certain factions sorted, bribes paid etc. It may be possible to hire guards if you are a merchant... possibly player guards.
Rest of the World: PvE
There would still be areas klike arenas, still be duelling allowed. However, pirates would have to 'obey the law' while in PvE lands so not to be discovered as a hated pirate. It may, perhaps, be possible to break ranks and commit an offence, but this would likely result in a bounty on your head, being KOS to all NPCs etc.
This is really just a large 'game reserve' model, I know. But if it is large enough, and linked to the PvE world at a few select points, it might be more appealing to purist PvP'ers.
The down-side, however, is the problem of a pirate going inland to the PvE world to hunt for exp/gear, then return to the PvP area to overpower those who have slower progression by staying 100% within the PvP area. Unless there was some mechanism (eg exp earned in PvE is added up as you go. If it reaches half exp earned in PvP areas, you either gain no more exp there, or end up changing from pirate to Non-pirate, with no way back. Fixing the gear problem would still be an outstanding issue though.
In EQ1 (my first MMO), I never even tried the PvP servers. The priest of discord (the guy that let you flag for PvP on the PvE servers) had such a bad reputation, I figured a whole server of PvP would only be worse. Misguided, I know.
When Vanguard launched, hesitantly I decided to give the FFA PvP Tharridon server a shot because it was labeled as being more of a challenge. That was the best PvP experience I've ever had in an MMO. The PvP in that game, was an afterthought to the PvE mechanics. There wasn't any special battlegrounds or coordinated PvP activities. It was simple. If you wanted to kill another player for the heck of it, you could. The only penalty for dying in PvP was having to respawn at the nearest alter and run back. For the person doing the killing, the only benefit they got was the infamy stat (which had 0 purpose other than bragging rights).
When the PvE content ran out on a game that was released too early, PvP let the players create their own content. You had guilds that were "evil" and killed everyone. And you had guilds that were "good" who fought to protect the lower level players. This created a lot of social interaction. You knew just about everyone on the server, because you constantly talked with them in order to see if they were friendly, beg for mercy, curse them out, form peaceful pacts, etc.
It also added extra challenge to PvE content, because you had to always be aware of other players trying to gank you while you're killing something.
In more recent MMOs with PvP, I believe the death penalties eliminated the social dynamic. In a game like darkfall, where it is full loot PvP, the penalty of death is far too great to take the risk of befriending a rival player. It's simply kill or be killed, 99% of the time. People are too greedy or scared to risk being killed themselves, in these full-loot games.
That's where I think Vanguard's PvP got it right. Due to lack of PvP rewards for killing players, PvP added a nice social element to the game, instead of it turning into a total grief fest.
TLDR: I think Pantheon should give players the option to kill other players, but not a reason to do it. Let the players attitudes and actions themselves be the reason to kill or not kill.
Dullahan said:Only on a PvE server would a warrior get snared. Innate warrior MR was usually enough to buy you a few snare resists in EQ1. If they had even a few resist pieces and jacinth rings, they were basically unroot/unsnareable.
You're right though, PvP was always about fighting in your element in 1v1. You don't want to fight as a wizard in tight quarters. Outside, you could use elevation to your advantage. A wizard that gets the jump on you from above was hard to kill for any class.
Thats the thing though. It was never meant to be about how well you fight 1v1, it was about bringing everything together in group PvP.
100 percent agree with Dullahan for once. It is about how your group plays and the trinity build. All they need to do is adjust damage tables disable a few spells (Charm and 20 second Mezz) and maybe every now and then adjust that one spell that is so broken its obvious. I remember in EQ2 it was a brig spell called debilitate which would end up reducing every resist and Mitgation to zero and hit 100 percent of the time. OP broken so it was adjusted and life went on.
Sicario said:Although it's not perfect, I think something like GW2's WvW system is a great basis. Provides the optional open-world PvP experience without having to separate the player-base in PvE or PvP specific servers, which is important to me as I know many groups/guilds that have a healthy mix of those who prefer PvE along with those who really enjoy PvP.
Oh please no, as a PVE player I WANT to be sperate.
Keep the PVPers on their server
and the PVE players on theirs
and never the twain shall meet
Sevens said:Sicario said:Although it's not perfect, I think something like GW2's WvW system is a great basis. Provides the optional open-world PvP experience without having to separate the player-base in PvE or PvP specific servers, which is important to me as I know many groups/guilds that have a healthy mix of those who prefer PvE along with those who really enjoy PvP.
Oh please no, as a PVE player I WANT to be sperate.
Keep the PVPers on their server
and the PVE players on theirs
and never the twain shall meet
This is exactly how we will be handling it, I have mentioned this numerous times before but I will keep saying it until it sinks in ;)
Kilsin said:Do you prefer PvE or PvP or Both, and what draws you to that style over the other?
Disclaimer: We have already stated that we will be PvE based and PvP servers will be separate and have no effect on PvE. :)
I have to say Kilsin,
While I am currently playing a PvP orientated game, "Black Desert Online" and have really enjoyed Warhammer online and Dark age of camelot, I have to say it is less headache playing in PvE. PvP, I find can never find a happy medium and leads up to whole class dynamics being changed in the name of "Fairness" and PvP balance.
I also think most of the PvP games I have been playing brings a toxic cancer to the social of games (I love PvP but the individuals, jeez).
Also, Developers tend to relax on the content progression with PvP games, due to player made content being there (People killing each other randomly/ganking for hours). For the most part, while I have played PvP games, I find I tend to stay longer in PvE games or a mix of the two like WOW and SWTOR has.
Kilsin said:Sevens said:Sicario said:Although it's not perfect, I think something like GW2's WvW system is a great basis. Provides the optional open-world PvP experience without having to separate the player-base in PvE or PvP specific servers, which is important to me as I know many groups/guilds that have a healthy mix of those who prefer PvE along with those who really enjoy PvP.
Oh please no, as a PVE player I WANT to be sperate.
Keep the PVPers on their server
and the PVE players on theirs
and never the twain shall meet
This is exactly how we will be handling it, I have mentioned this numerous times before but I will keep saying it until it sinks in ;)
Oh I understand this, known the stance of VR towards servers and rulesets, was just responding to a post
Gomok said:I have to say Kilsin,
While I am currently playing a PvP orientated game, "Black Desert Online" and have really enjoyed Warhammer online and Dark age of camelot, I have to say it is less headache playing in PvE. PvP, I find can never find a happy medium and leads up to whole class dynamics being changed in the name of "Fairness" and PvP balance.
I also think most of the PvP games I have been playing brings a toxic cancer to the social of games (I love PvP but the individuals, jeez).
Also, Developers tend to relax on the content progression with PvP games, due to player made content being there (People killing each other randomly/ganking for hours). For the most part, while I have played PvP games, I find I tend to stay longer in PvE games or a mix of the two like WOW and SWTOR has.
The lack of a social nature is more the problem in PvP mmos than the PvP itself. When an mmo demands more cooperative play to advance, you end up with less toxicity among players. If Pantheon truly becomes that hardcore PvE game, it will create a better environment that will undoubtedly wash over into the realm of PvP. With the exception of DAOC (in some ways) the other games you mentioned allowed players to dwell in anonymity and thus, fostered a toxic environment where player relations and reputation had no bearing on their ability to succeed.
Personally, I prefer pvp but with limits. It's fun to base my skills against another human being and maybe get something for the trouble.
Unfortunately MMOs work in such a way I cant see too many options on how you could realistically reduce cases of people being ganged upon, while promoting friendly player on player action, and still provide rewards.
To me, PVP could be valuable in an MMO, however. You could use it to promote some serious RP value/immersion between races that hate each other, and those that work together as well (working together to take out other players is the same as working together to kill an npc).
With PVP, You could add a whole other dimension to game and environment difficulty, (far as I'm concerned players count as "environment" too). This particular feature works, and works well, in a game i love very much, Dark Souls.
So, how to make it work in a pure MMO, and provide rewards?
I'd say if you are to have pvp in a pure MMO, it needs to take the form of actual events. That way you can come in prepared to fight other people who prepared the same way, no surprises while you are killing the rare named mob that only spawns every 5 hours.
Some light rules may be necessary: PVP If you are grouped or in the same guild? Definately not without both of you consenting. PVP while the same race or racial allies? Probably not without the both of you consenting.
These events could be designated zones that have wars every now and again. For example, a raid with valuables that has several raids fighting over them. This could be on top of a pve situation, (everyone fighting to get a stab at the dragon), in a starting city (rarely please), or "battlegrounds"/"arenas" as found in games like WoW. You could even have local NPCs join in on the fight if you wanted things chaotic or more realistic story wise.
I admit I'm put off slightly you wont turn any eyes to pvp, not even assigning a special mod to make small changes to the PVP servers only, but I get the argument for why not. I'm just happy that between your ever changing environments and world events, and your pvp areas/servers, particularly your rp servers with pvp, I will have the option when I want it.