Only PvE , that's why the MMORPGs are here. I totally hate and would never play a MMORPG where the PKs can freely roam, annoy and harass players who have no interest in PvP . If there is a separate server, I don't care because I will never play there anyway provided that the PvP patches have no impact on the PvE servers .
I like to RP too and will choose an RP server if there is one . Of course by RP server I mean a server where meaningful constraints and restrictions are imposed on all players and not just a label which means nothing . For instance people with stupid names, talking about "toons", using hideous SMS language and being ooc all the time have absolutely nothing to do on an RP server . I can accept that people don't RP 24/24 but I can't accept if they RP 0/24 because then they have no reason to be on an RP server either .
It saddens me that most MMOs tend to make FFA PVP an afterthought. FFA PVP is without a doubt the main event of end game content. PvE raiding is good for end game content as well but you usually are limited in some form or fashion (once a week, or other forms of lockout). Also, once a team masters a raid or dungeon it becomes a rinse and repeat action taking away the challenging element. If an MMO balances out classes and has a fairly good PvP system, the challenging aspect is created by the players. Basing your classes around balanced PvP will only keep players playing when the raids get boring. Besides there is nothing better than crushing your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!!!XD
PVP is not everyone's cup of tea when it comes to any mmorpg. There are certain players that thrive on competition in both PvE and PvP. Having a seperate server to incorporate these rulesets is what most publishers and developers tend to go with. You can have your PvE only focused servers to alleviate any stress or grief from PvP and a seperate server with no holds barred like Vanguard SoH did. PvP is necessity as it adds a complexity outside of the base games intentions. Have you ever wanted to farm a world boss but ended up never being able to take part because another guild has it locked down on farm status? What if the rule set allowed for FFA pvp and now that same guild had to not only have a dedicated PvE Raid team but also a dedicated PvP team to fend everyone else off that's interested?
TBH pvp makes MMORPGS more appealing with that aspect. I mean, VGSOH did it right in that everything was open world and not instanced. You could scout enemy guild raids and launch a full scale attack over high points of interest. It made accomplishments more rewarding.
I am all for a pvp server with similar rule sets to previous games such as VGSOH.
Always a fan of some old school Best of the Best tournaments as well :)
TLDR: FFA PVP ALL THE WAY BABY BIRDS
DOOMCHUG said:It saddens me that most MMOs tend to make FFA PVP an afterthought. FFA PVP is without a doubt the main event of end game content. PvE raiding is good for end game content as well but you usually are limited in some form or fashion (once a week, or other forms of lockout). Also, once a team masters a raid or dungeon it becomes a rinse and repeat action taking away the challenging element. If an MMO balances out classes and has a fairly good PvP system, the challenging aspect is created by the players. Basing your classes around balanced PvP will only keep players playing when the raids get boring. Besides there is nothing better than crushing your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!!!XD
Almost all of this is subjective and applies only to those who enjoy PvP.
HaskarMadnome said:I see one guild particularly asking for PVP but most of us came here because Pantheon focused on PVE since the beginning.
Balancing classes has always been hard. Balacing for PVP and PVE has always failed. I hope VR knows that and focuses on only one and that is PVE.
As much as I am a PvPer I am not here for that. I am here for great PvE and I am tired of games balancing classes to try and do both and PvP and PvE game. If you want to have a PvP server, I hope not much is put into balancing the classes as IMO the focus should be on the PvE game. When you try and do both all you end up doing is hurting both sides. Better to make sure the core of PvE is the best PvE game out there.
They are too different balance wise and spending time on one greatly impacts the other(negatively). I think niche PVP servers are cool, the racewars servers in EQ were rad, but the devs should never be expected to balance PVP before PVE. A SMALL team working on PVP would be fine, but in this type of game, no PVP would be better than sacrificing PVE balance, quality and content for PVP.
HaskarMadnome said:I see one guild particularly asking for PVP but most of us came here because Pantheon focused on PVE since the beginning.
Balancing classes has always been hard. Balacing for PVP and PVE has always failed. I hope VR knows that and focuses on only one and that is PVE.
Must echo this.
If you go back to the height of EQ1 popularity, circa Velious/Luclin/PoP, there were 4 servers out of 32 that were some form of PVP. All four had lower server populations on average than the PVE servers. This boils down to ~9-10% of the playerbase wanting some form of PVP in the old school MMO we most associate with Pantheon's design philosophy. Additionally, EQ1 didn't change the classes to accomodate inherently unbalanced mechanics in PVP, which makes sense given the VAST majority of the playerbase wasn't interested in PVP to begin with, so why affect the part of the game (PVE) that they were primarily focused on in order to "balance" something a small minority wanted.
Same thing in the 4 years of Pantheon forums. The "I must have teh PVPz 4lyfe" people are a very small minority compared to the larger "I want teh old school PVEz" population. It would make no sense, therefore, to bother with PVP at all minus having servers that allow for it. No need to "balance" what is inherently unbalanced in a class based game. Different classes are and should be better at some things versus others, one of which would be one on one combat. 1v1, a necromancer toolkit is superior to virtually any other. DoT stack + fear = they sit and watch you die and you have no control over it. Enchanters are the same way. Just absurd power in any 1v1 situation, by design. To "balance" that for PVP, you disable the key tools in their defining toolkit.
No game company has ever done this well, excpet for games where they accept class imbalances in 1v1 and leave them alone. or tey water down PVP by simply disabling damn near everything except DD spells and baseline white melee dmg (how WoW does it) with "diminishing returns" and such.
But again, the vast majority of the playerbase doesn't even want or care about PVP. Why build an entire extra system that 90% of the playerbase neither wants nor needs? have a server that allows PK, change exactly nothing about the class mechanics, and let the chips fall where they may. Chances are good it will be like Rallos Zek, where half the server was necros or enchanters.
HaskarMadnome said:I see one guild particularly asking for PVP but most of us came here because Pantheon focused on PVE since the beginning.
Balancing classes has always been hard. Balacing for PVP and PVE has always failed. I hope VR knows that and focuses on only one and that is PVE.
I must echo that too .
I have absolutely no interest in PvP and I have no intent to be at the same place with the PvPers . However I am tolerant enough to let this very small minority get their fix on a separate server . Provided that Pantheon has money and time to waste on this minority and still have enough ressources left for more important things like PvE, AI , crafting etc .
You could also introduce something like the Dredgion from Aion. It is an instanced raid that allows both factions to join and who ever scores the highest gets to fight the final boss. Points where added for each mob kill or player kill. Probably one of the best raid experinces in my opinion. http://aion.wikia.com/wiki/Dredgion
I just want to briefly comment on a few things.
The developers have stated that abilities will function differently in PvP than they do in PvE and therefore, PvP balance should have no affect on the PvE experience.
On to what I would consider the bigger issue here, is the negativity towards alternate playstyles by some in the community. In this thread it just happens to be those who enjoy PvP or RP vs those that do not, while another thread might have individuals attempt to pit those who enjoy raiding against those who do not. The irony is that the community is not limited to a single choice nor will the inclusion of these mechanics impact the play of anyone who doesn’t wish to participate in them. If someone enjoys a different playstyle than your own, it doesn’t make their style of play any less valid, it just makes it different.
In the spirit of #communitymatters, I’d challenge others to advocate for inclusion not only in Pantheon’s game design but also in how we interact as a community. If a mechanic is added that doesn’t impact your experience but truly enhances someone else’s, you should be happy for them. Similarly to raiding, when a teammate gets a drop and you don’t, be happy for them as it betters the team.
> FFA PVP is without a doubt the main event of end game content.<
I can understand the argument that pvp is a truer and more interesting endgame. Not necessarily agree especially if it boils down to people zerging each other with individual skill and gear being of secondary importance. But understand.
But why would faction-based pvp be less valid as endgame content?
Does limiting any particular pvp group or raid to all Albion, all Midgard, or all Hibernia affect the value or complexity or unpredictability of the pvp that results? (reference to the three factions in Dark Ages of Camelot)
My strong bias is faction pvp over free-for-all but that could be plain ignorance my only year on pvp servers was in DAOC which was strongly faction-based.
dorotea said:> FFA PVP is without a doubt the main event of end game content.<
I can understand the argument that pvp is a truer and more interesting endgame. Not necessarily agree especially if it boils down to people zerging each other with individual skill and gear being of secondary importance. But understand.
But why would faction-based pvp be less valid as endgame content?
Does limiting any particular pvp group or raid to all Albion, all Midgard, or all Hibernia affect the value or complexity or unpredictability of the pvp that results? (reference to the three factions in Dark Ages of Camelot)
My strong bias is faction pvp over free-for-all but that could be plain ignorance my only year on pvp servers was in DAOC which was strongly faction-based.
The way I take FFA PvP is that it removes a, the race restrictions on faction (meaning you can play any race with your friends and guildmates of any race) and b, opens the entire world to PvP instead of having 3 "top guilds" on one server crushing the other faction who has fewer players and thus can get less gear leading to more victories and bosses for the first faction and more people leaving faction b to join faction a - leading to a neverending cycle. That's been my experience with faction-based PvP - one faction inevitably grows much stronger than the other and all PvP dies.
In a FFA situation, the guilds themselves are the checks and balances. It isn't you vs 3 guilds of the other faction, it's all 4 (or more) guilds all competing against each other. It also allows much more intricate inter-guild relationships. If one guild or group presents themselves to be incredibly strong, instead of just giving up and crawling away, other groups can make an alliance to work together against the threat.
Louden said:I just want to briefly comment on a few things.
The developers have stated that abilities will function differently in PvP than they do in PvE and therefore, PvP balance should have no affect on the PvE experience.
On to what I would consider the bigger issue here, is the negativity towards alternate playstyles by some in the community. In this thread it just happens to be those who enjoy PvP or RP vs those that do not, while another thread might have individuals attempt to pit those who enjoy raiding against those who do not. The irony is that the community is not limited to a single choice nor will the inclusion of these mechanics impact the play of anyone who doesn’t wish to participate in them. If someone enjoys a different playstyle than your own, it doesn’t make their style of play any less valid, it just makes it different.
In the spirit of #communitymatters, I’d challenge others to advocate for inclusion not only in Pantheon’s game design but also in how we interact as a community. If a mechanic is added that doesn’t impact your experience but truly enhances someone else’s, you should be happy for them. Similarly to raiding, when a teammate gets a drop and you don’t, be happy for them as it betters the team.
Well said, Louden. <3
Ari
Louden said:In the spirit of #communitymatters, I’d challenge others to advocate for inclusion not only in Pantheon’s game design but also in how we interact as a community. If a mechanic is added that doesn’t impact your experience but truly enhances someone else’s, you should be happy for them.
Thing is...almost every developer who has PVP with PVE ends up wrecking class mechanics for PVE because of all the "developers hate my class, we are unblanaced in PVP #hatethisgame #devsuck" griping that ends up on the forums. Things like root, snare, fear, harm, stun, slow, big alpha attacks like backstab/HT/MB/etc get nerfed.
And every developer says "oh, we won't let PVP decisions affect PVE" but they always do. It isn't the playstyle that people dislike, it's the wrecking of PVE that causes the problem. This story has been played out in too many MMOs with near perfectly reliable and repeatable results. Start off with great intentions, and half a dozen patch cycles later, PVE is whitewashed so that PVP can appear balanced.
#pvematters #classdifferencesmatter #classesareunique
Harmacist - thanks, those are all excellent points which although I hadn't completely ignored I definitely undervalued. I would still prefer faction since I prefer being a soldier for a cause not a murderer for personal gain but I have seen the problems you mention with faction.
Venjenz - what you say is most definitely true. Which leads to the challenge - is there a way to have separate pvp servers that minimizes this risk?
Most games I've seen where pve was crucified on the altar of pvp balance started out with pvp servers which were essentially identical to the pve servers other than allowing players to attack each other directly. Obviously a lot easier for the developers than having a lot of differences and needing to maintain both.
Let us hypothetically assume something that may be totally false. It wouldn't be a *huge* use of resources to start out with a pvp server where many of the combat abilities worked differently. To keep it simpler, each class works the same way and gets the same abilities at the same levels (or via the same quests or discoveries). But the abilities work differently.
Keeping in mind that I am far from knowledgable about what is most important for pvp, assume that players get immunities against stun or mez or other controls that are quite different when the control is used by another player rather than a mob. Or root against another player doesn't work like a root it works like a slow. Or a nuker does less damage (or more) to a player than to a mob. Or a tank gets better resistances/mitigation against players and can hinder their attacks better than when fighting mobs. Or the reverse.
If we start off with the same classes with the same abilities but they work quite differently, is there less incentive for VR to bugger around with the classes and wreck pve and more incentive for them to bugger around with the unique ways the abilities work against other players and leave the classes alone?