well i dont know how 4e goes, but if it's anything like the last 30 years...
Wizard wins. With the right build you might draw your sword before he wail of the banshee's your face into dirt.
To clarify: i don't mind pvp being in the game. I mind changing the game for the sake of pvp. "nerf wizard" coming to a forum near you. If The developers ignore this, then good.
Speaking primarily from a 3.X dnd perspective:
Actually dnd fights tend to come down to who has time to prepare and such. A fully buffed wizard is a scary thing, but an unbuffed wizard is a fragile sack of fluids that spray everywhere when anyone sneezes at them.
In 4e, the wizard became a lot less OP in general. (aside from one perma-stun oversight that they errata'ed early on) They had much bigger issues with the fighter and ranger being OP. Both were pretty ridiculous just in the PHB, and they broke those classes several more times each with their extra content.
Can't say anything to this game's balance, because I've been avoiding the Beta weekends so that I get a fresh experience when I get to play "fro realz dawg."
the terms aren't used, but... okay.. i know one example for fact.
Combat chapter, 2nd ed advanced:
The scene described talks about initative and how it works. the dm controls all monsters, the players control a cooperative party.
Combat chapter, 4th:
Multiple scenes, but in every one, dm controlled monsters are putting status effects on cooperatively played PCs.
Combat chapter, 3rd:
Grapple is between a dm controlled monster and a player.
None of the examples i can think of in any books involves a player v. player confrontation....
When describing how to play, the examples always have players working together...
that's not to say one doesn't exist... but, honestly, i'd be surprised if there was 1 example of a pvp confrontation for every 100 examples of a pve confrontation in all books, expanded OGL included.
That said, if you want to play pvp tabletop, have fun (just make sure to make a caster or get destroyed lol) its true that the ultimate goal is to play it your way, but the *design* of the game does not reflect a leinance towards pvp. You have your tanks, you have your wizards, you have your clerics. Their roleplaying skills all reflect different backgrounds and are designed to be complementary.
You need a theif for traps
you need a fighter for his HP
you need a cleric of druid for CLW
you need a wizard for POWAH OVERWHELMING
if we were having this argument over say, WoD, i'd concede to you, that game seems much more balanced for player v. player engagements. Hell, even a <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> normal can take some supernaturals if built properly.
Again, you are just using your opinion to state there is not PvP in DnD and/or it is not meant for PvP when that is not true. The exampes you give are not HOW to play but are "examples" of a group so that people that have never played before can see how it generally goes. Not one thing in that is saying this is how you should play the game at all, so do not allude to that.
BTW you do not need a mage to win in PvP and never did, only a PvE person would say that. An archer, thief, ranger, warrior, cleric can all destroy mages, much less barbarians or cavaliers!
Once you relate a video game argument to racism, your rights to talk about who is and isn't being ridiculous are hereby revoked. It's like some tangential clause of godwin's law or something.
If you really can't understand the comparison of racism to an irrational hatred of a minority population then your rights to engage in any logical discussion are hereby revoked.
My question to you is then: Why are you choosing to play a dungeons and dragons game, knowing full well the ruleset was not ever intended to balance for player v. player?
30 years of co-op balance does not an e-sport make.
As others have stated, you're stating an opinion as fact. The way you play PnP D&D does not reflect the developers' intention, or any majority. Just you.
And what "co-op" balance are you talking about, exactly? Your own next post cites the fact that before 4th Edition the classes were never balanced.
Oh and uh, just to repeat the clarifcation: i have nothing against pvp in this game. have at it.
Just don't go changing things around in the pve portion of the game to balance pvp. It'll be like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Further, i'd rather pvp reflect the pve differences. Fireball flinging wizards *should* toast swordsmen. That's how it would work in the real world. *cause people can cast fireballs in the real world...
I do find pvp arenas in neverwinter, a city underseige for the last 100 years by various wars/devil invasions/horrible <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> happening/apperances of undead armies lead by an ancient elven evil to be a bit of a stretch.
I just don't buy that the citizens of this city would want bloodsport for a form of entertainment. Seems to me they'd be in shock. :P
Bold text: I don't know if PVM was intended, and if so what it means, but I assume you meant PVE since that's what this whole thread is about.
The fact that spellcasters (particularly Wizards) were so massively OP compared to Fighters or really any other class was a problem that the developers have tried hard to fix for 4th Edition and the upcoming D&D Next. Trying to say "PvP shouldn't be balanced because 3.X wasn't balanced" is an absurd assertion.
As for the arenas in the setting: It's not some spectator blood-sport. It's two factions of "heroes" fighting for control of a portion of Neverwinter. There are no official "factions" in the same way as SWTOR or WoW, but Neverwinter is always under siege/duress because various interests are vying for control. Each PvP arena is an opportunity for the players to feel like a part of that ongoing struggle. It may be slightly immersion-breaking for an RPer to suss out his motivation for doing so, but given that the game doesn't tell you when you join a PvP session "You are fighting for X faction" you can decide for yourself if you're fighting for Neverwinter, the Ashmadai, the Thayans, etc.
There's a tangental relation.. i guess? but when a policeman harasses you based on how you play a video game, then call me and we can talk about how pvp/pve is racism. *rolleyes* seriously dude, you KNOW that's a silly hyperbole.
PVM is interchangeable with PVE with old school folks "player versus monster" as i understand it. sorry for getting old up in here.
It's not an opinion. Go watch pvp on a 3.0 server. That's balanced for pvp? how? Where's the nwn1 e-sport pvp ladder? OH IT DOESNT EXIST? GEE I WONDER WHY. If it did then i could point to how mages are the top 1-1000 players as an illustration of how imbalanced the system is for pvp.
I know that pve isn't balanced. I cited this with recent whining on the wizard's forums about recent splatbooks. Whatever problem pve has with imbalance, pvp accentuates it to the umpteenth degree.
I see i need a direct quote.. time to dig through my mancave.
It's not an opinion. Go watch pvp on a 3.0 server. That's balanced for pvp? how? Where's the nwn1 e-sport pvp ladder? OH IT DOESNT EXIST? GEE I WONDER WHY. If it did then i could point to how mages are the top 1-1000 players as an illustration of how imbalanced the system is for pvp.
I know that pve isn't balanced. I cited this with recent whining on the wizard's forums about recent splatbooks. Whatever problem pve has with imbalance, pvp accentuates it to the umpteenth degree.
If a lack of PvP balance means D&D shouldn't even have PvP, then it shouldn't have PvE/PvM because that's not balanced either.
Fact is, D&D has both. Fact is, people want both. Fact is, stop whining about PvP and just play your PvE. Don't poke us and we won't poke you.
The real issue of this whole debate, and this whole thread, is the idea that PvP balance <censored> PvE balance. PvE players just need to get over it. If you see an imbalance in your gameplay then by all means notify the devs so maybe they'll fix it. There's nothing wrong with that. But trying to get PvP removed from the game just to avoid this inconvenience is selfish and hugely detrimental to the survival of the game.
If a lack of PvP balance means D&D shouldn't even have PvP, then it shouldn't have PvE/PvM because that's not balanced either.
Fact is, D&D has both. Fact is, people want both. Fact is, stop whining about PvP and just play your PvE. Don't poke us and we won't poke you.
The real issue of this whole debate, and this whole thread, is the idea that PvP balance f**ks up PvE balance. PvE players just need to get over it. If you see an imbalance in your gameplay then by all means notify the devs so maybe they'll fix it. There's nothing wrong with that. But trying to get PvP removed from the game just to avoid this inconvenience is selfish and hugely detrimental to the survival of the game.
2 points:
1. i have said over and over again have all the pvp fun you want.
2. No, i'm not going to "get over it" class homogenization exists in many, many games for the sake of e-sports style pvp. Go play one of those. I don't want it removed. I never said i want it removed. I said that when the two inevitably butt heads, i hope development ignore the pvp whining entirely.
1. i have said over and over again have all the pvp fun you want.
2. No, i'm not going to "get over it" class homogenization exists in many, many games for the sake of e-sports style pvp. Go play one of those. I don't want it removed. I never said i want it removed. I said that when the two inevitably butt heads, i hope development ignore the pvp whining entirely.
1. You aren't the one I'm talking to when I say "Don't try to remove PvP."
2. Whether you get over it or not is irrelevant anyway. PvE and PvP each will be affected by the other.
We're both playing this game, we both deserve our time/money's worth. Can you at least agree to that?
So, this baffles me. And I don't mean to offend anyone, I am honestly looking for serious answers.
If you are one of the people looking forward to PvP in this game, or are mostly planning to play this game for the PvP or feel that PvP is a really big concern when it comes to whether or not you play this game...I have to ask, Why?
To put it simply - what drew me to this game was its combat system - most specifically the shift-dodge mechanic and action targeting. I've also been a huge D&D fan for many years as well, so that was a great plus as well that a good D&D MMO may finally be coming out.
Other things that drew me to the game were the DotA style abilities, i.e. no more than 4 or 5 attacks plus mouseclick autoattacks. The only other MMO where such a combat system seems to exist is TESO which is still in development. I played WoW for a good 3 years, and one of the most disappointing features was the utter failure of class balance. Every class had upwards of 20 abilities, and 3 specializations. This was a lot of fun, but hell for Blizzard to balance. I think what makes balance in, say, LoL so much better is that each character will have 5 abilities (4 actives and a passive) and is much easier to balance, yet isn't necessarily less robust than WoW PvP. However, LoL is not an MMO, and I really do enjoy the MMORPG setting of having a persistent character in a persistent world, which is not something LoL or Dota offer (although I highly enjoy those games regardless).
So long story short - what drew me to this game even though I'm looking for hardcore PvP? The action combat system in a setting that I enjoy.
To put it simply - what drew me to this game was its combat system - most specifically the shift-dodge mechanic and action targeting. I've also been a huge D&D fan for many years as well, so that was a great plus as well that a good D&D MMO may finally be coming out.
Other things that drew me to the game were the DotA style abilities, i.e. no more than 4 or 5 attacks plus mouseclick autoattacks. The only other MMO where such a combat system seems to exist is TESO which is still in development. I played WoW for a good 3 years, and one of the most disappointing features was the utter failure of class balance. Every class had upwards of 20 abilities, and 3 specializations. This was a lot of fun, but hell for Blizzard to balance. I think what makes balance in, say, LoL so much better is that each character will have 5 abilities (4 actives and a passive) and is much easier to balance, yet isn't necessarily less robust than WoW PvP. However, LoL is not an MMO, and I really do enjoy the MMORPG setting of having a persistent character in a persistent world, which is not something LoL or Dota offer (although I highly enjoy those games regardless).
So long story short - what drew me to this game even though I'm looking for hardcore PvP? The action combat system in a setting that I enjoy.
This guy.
Little Red Cap and the Bad Wolf
ID: NW-DC42XFJ5B Author: @Fugln Quest Tag: #Combat, #story, #GROUP
As long as pvp doesn't start getting classes nerf cause of the OP crying pvpers i am perfectly fine with PvP, only a VERY small percentage of any games community are pvpers and they shouldnt get to dictate how the majority of us enjoy our classes. So i say to the developers, let the pvpers cry about OP all they want, but don't punish the majority cause the minority thinks something is OP.
To put it simply - what drew me to this game was its combat system - most specifically the shift-dodge mechanic and action targeting. I've also been a huge D&D fan for many years as well, so that was a great plus as well that a good D&D MMO may finally be coming out.
Other things that drew me to the game were the DotA style abilities, i.e. no more than 4 or 5 attacks plus mouseclick autoattacks. The only other MMO where such a combat system seems to exist is TESO which is still in development. I played WoW for a good 3 years, and one of the most disappointing features was the utter failure of class balance. Every class had upwards of 20 abilities, and 3 specializations. This was a lot of fun, but hell for Blizzard to balance. I think what makes balance in, say, LoL so much better is that each character will have 5 abilities (4 actives and a passive) and is much easier to balance, yet isn't necessarily less robust than WoW PvP. However, LoL is not an MMO, and I really do enjoy the MMORPG setting of having a persistent character in a persistent world, which is not something LoL or Dota offer (although I highly enjoy those games regardless).
So long story short - what drew me to this game even though I'm looking for hardcore PvP? The action combat system in a setting that I enjoy.
I think this, right here illustrates the main source of the disconnect here.
Less powers, less options, equals better balance. For you this is a good thing. For others, its not. D&D, to some, is ALL about the powers, the options, the ability to min/max and theory craft. Reducing this, for any reason, can only be seen as diminishing.
If your DM told you, you'd only get to use half your abilities of your class. Or that you are limited to only certain classes. For the sake of balance. You would most likely whap him with a rolled up battle mat. Less, is rarely better. Even if it makes over all balance easier. Mind you, not better...only easier.
And lets face it, its not just D&D that is an obstacle here. Its Cryptic itself. Some things they do rather well some things they clearly fail at. PVP is one of those. All the hope, potential, and expectations in the world is meaningless to the hard reality of two complete failures, of PVP, in their other two games. How any reasonable person can look at whats been done, and the lack of whats been done, in both CO and STO. In regards to PVP. And expect better results here. Is simply being delusional. So, to see effort wasted, in what will most likely be another PVP train wreck. Is just a little infuriating.
Hardcore pvpers are the worse kind of people anyway, they only play to make other peoples day miserable and they get their kicks out of that cause most of them are losers in RL.
You confuse Hardcore with Griefers. This statement is a huge generalization. Why must this subject always come down to this? It is extremely hard to balance classes around both PvE and PvP. I hope the developers can find a way to deal with both without sacrificing either.
Again, throwing your opinion as fact. Where is the data backing up your claims of majority and minority? The game same box you are talking about does not say it is PVE either, so you are making more assumptionsandcstating that as fact. You are inccorect in your assessments. Thank you!
Hey don't take my word for it, go check it out yourself. Go look at all of the forums and count up the number of people that are in my corner and the number that make up your minority...you probably won't even have to count , it will be obvious to you. Then you can realize it is fact and not opinion
0
direcrowBanned Users, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
There are dozens, hundreds of games out there designed for PvE. Skyrim and other games like it are a perfect example off the top of my head.
The assumption that a game can't have PvP for players to truly enjoy PvE is ridiculous. The assumption that PvPers are some plague minority that go from game to game making demands that devs buckle to is even more ridiculous.
The MMORPG genre has come to the firm decision that PvP is an standard feature, as evidence by its prevalence. The fact that you don't want it does not reflect the feelings of the genre, or even a majority portion. Just you.
Look at this particular line:
"There are tons of PVP based mmorpgs, and very few PVE exclusive ones anymore."
Note the difference in the bold words?
You call PvP fans selfish for wanting to be included in a genre, and your motivation is that you want a genre all to yourself. That's called hypocrisy.
1. I said online gaming. Single players games are irrelevant. Online RPGs are the only PVE option around.
2. There are few, if not zero mmorpgs that are strictly PVE. Almost all if not all, include PVP. PVPrs thus have mmorpgs, RTS, and FPS games, and those uninterested have...Skyrim?
3. I don't assume a game can't have PVP for players to enjoy PVE. I said it's ridiculous to choose a PVE based game, while having no interest in PVE.
For many people, its ok to demand PVP in the one genre designed from the ground up for PVE, but if I did so on an FPS game you'd most likely be there, telling to shut up. Hell just look up any forum post wanting more story and role playing options in Borderlands for crying out loud!
This isn't about being excluded. This game is free to have PVP, and you're right, I don't want it, but its here and I'll deal with it. I just don't want to log in, and see all value drained from my character because too many people get killed by that class. I saw it in SWTOR, and WoW, etc. and I'm sick of it.
Yeah, it is selfish to expect every online game to cater to you. I don't do that. Like my point that you ignored, I don't go to Mechwarrior, Gunz: The Duel, League of Legends, Lineage, DaoC, Camelot Unchained, or Eve Online and demand PVE content. PVP-based MMORPGs are perfectly fine.
Hell "PVE-based mmorpg" isn't even a term. Why? Because MMORPGs are designed for PVE. You have to actually add "PVP based" to the genre label to identify it as different.
I have no problem with PVP-based mmorpgs. Which is why I don't play them, or go there and demand they be changed. There should be options out there, but don't come to one of the few mmorpgs that still have a focus on PVE and demand PVP, and don't tell me my character needs to become weaker because your character's face isn't knife proof, or as flame retardant as you want.
To clarify the poster's (poorly stated) point: There's not much co-op rpg that you can do anymore, its all about pvp, and pvp balance has an adverse effect on a team role-based game, namely, class homogenization.
Yes it was worded awful. I was tired and I'm currently suffering from shingles, which is making it harder to concentrate and type, as well as making me more agitated. Thank you for elaborating for me.
Mindflayer Shard - @direcrow
The Dire Crow - Tiefling TR
Alice L'ddell - Human GF
Ludovique - Tiefling DC
0
direcrowBanned Users, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I think this, right here illustrates the main source of the disconnect here.
Less powers, less options, equals better balance. For you this is a good thing. For others, its not. D&D, to some, is ALL about the powers, the options, the ability to min/max and theory craft. Reducing this, for any reason, can only be seen as diminishing.
If your DM told you, you'd only get to use half your abilities of your class. Or that you are limited to only certain classes. For the sake of balance. You would most likely whap him with a rolled up battle mat. Less, is rarely better. Even if it makes over all balance easier. Mind you, not better...only easier.
And lets face it, its not just D&D that is an obstacle here. Its Cryptic itself. Some things they do rather well some things they clearly fail at. PVP is one of those. All the hope, potential, and expectations in the world is meaningless to the hard reality of two complete failures, of PVP, in their other two games. How any reasonable person can look at whats been done, and the lack of whats been done, in both CO and STO. In regards to PVP. And expect better results here. Is simply being delusional. So, to see effort wasted, in what will most likely be another PVP train wreck. Is just a little infuriating.
True, especially on the Cryptic note.
It's amazing people coming here expecting amazing PVP.
All you have to do is say the words "Klingon faction" (the supposed PVP-based faction) to elicit nothing but rage from STO players.
Better they stick to what they know they can do well.
Mindflayer Shard - @direcrow
The Dire Crow - Tiefling TR
Alice L'ddell - Human GF
Ludovique - Tiefling DC
0
turkman84Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 22Arc User
There should be options out there, but don't come to one of the few mmorpgs that still have a focus on PVE and demand PVP, and don't tell me my character needs to become weaker because your character's face isn't knife proof, or as flame retardant as you want.
I'm all against balancing classes solely around pvp and certainly don't expect this game to have outstanding PVP. The combat looks fun and I'll definitely have a go at it every once in a while. But, I'm here because of the foundry and the options to create your own stories or play other player's stories.
However, to say that this is one of the few MMORPGS that still have a focus on PVE is simply not true. I can think of 2 AAA fantasy MMORPGs that truly have a PVP focus: DAoC and Warhammer Online. Warhammer at least was really pretty much centered about the whole faction war and didn't really offer boatloads of PVE content. Can't say anything about DAoC's PVE content, because I haven't played it.
All the other MMORPGs out there have both PVE and PVP, true. However, in none of these is PVP anywhere near being the focus of development. WoW, despite having multiple PVP options is still most predominently a PVE game. There are new raids and dungeons every other month. PVP sees hardly any change from addon to addon besides minor class balancing acts.
Same goes for other major titles of the recent past. Even GW2 is predominently a PVE game (and a very casual one at that...). WvW has seen one minor patch since the release, which was 8 months ago. sPVP/tPVP has also only recently received some attention, or rather will receive some in the upcoming patch. All the rest of the content updates (FotM, seasonal stuff) was predominantly PVE updates. And they are of course right to do it so, because PVE players are by far the majority of the market (Also, not all PVP players play only pvp. Most play PVE too, or even to a greater extent).
And I must say that I can't really understand all the whining about balance. So, your beloved class got a nerf, because it was too strong in PVP? So what? If that really breaks the game for you, then you're either playing the game wrongly or you're obviously playing with the wrong people. Because in every game I've played so far, classes I've played have suffered from nerfs from time to time. And I still had my fun with them. You just need to adapt to it.
And to the killer argument, "I can't take part in Raids/Dungeons anymore, cuz nobody wants class x since the nerf!" This is a community problem, where the PVE players are being idiots. I've never had a big problem to find a spot on a raid/dungeon just because my class was recently nerfed and not considered en vogue anymore. I mean it's not as if PVE was that challenging once you figured out an encounter. Sure, there'll always be some elitist jerk around that will judge people based on class/gearmetrics etc. But it's generally advisable to not group with such people anyway. If your friends won't play with you anymore because you play class x and class x was nerfed and is now only the second best dd/healer/tank in the game, then I suggest you look for better friends.
If you never PvP'd on table top then your DM sucks.
Menzoberranzan, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape & Birthright were 4 settings ripe for inter group turmoil. Those aside, if a member of your group was never cloned, enthralled, charmed or enticed into betraying his party... you're a terribad DM. If your party has never lost it's cool and just started wailing on one another from IRL anger or possibly IC rivalries (pally vs. rogue)... you're a terribad DM. If you never allowed a player to concoct his own henchman for the parties antagonist and allowed him to RP that character against his own group... you're a terribad DM.
I pity so many of you for not having DMs either experienced enough or clever enough to introduce you to the finer aspects of betrayal, intrigue or just plain ole raucous fun from player vs player competition.
ALL of that aside, this is an MMO and MMOs are known for having PvP elements. PvPers are a broad base of the MMO community. To not include them or work with them in maintaining a balanced PvP experience is folly. The last company that did that paid for it. You may have heard of them? BioWare. A little game called SWTOR. BW publicly apologized and stated flatly, "we grossly underestimated the popularity of PvP".
Look where that got them. They've been desperately trying to play catch up ever since.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
dixa1Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 4Arc User
Because this is being advertised as an MMO and all MMOs have PvP of some sort - and thus draw that crowd.
I'm largely in agreement with you, though. It really has no place in a FR D&D setting.
everquest had no pvp at launch. pvp servers were added later, but pvp was never introduced to the base game.
pvp wasn't considered mainstream until daoc and then later world of warcraft. an mmoRPG does not need pvp to be successful and in fact unless pvp is the sole focus of said mmoRPG, the overwhelming majority of it's playerbase will not participate in it. you can google that data on your own i'm too lazy to do it again.
0
dixa1Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 4Arc User
...an mmoRPG does not need pvp to be successful and in fact unless pvp is the sole focus of said mmoRPG, the overwhelming majority of it's playerbase will not participate in it. you can google that data on your own i'm too lazy to do it again.
You're too "lazy" because that data doesn't exist. Pulling fabricated data out of thin air then "playing it cool" by saying you're "too lazy" to google the data is a common forum ploy to aid in substantiating unsubstantiated data. However allow me to show you some real data.
Here are subscription data points for the top 6 mainstream MMO's on the market:
And here are subscription data points for the remainder of the top 20:
Note anything interesting? How about the fact that the majority of those games have a significant PvP focus and none of the PvE only games come anywhere near contending with the top 5 which all include PvP or are PvP centric. The only non-PvP inclusive game that comes anywhere close is Second Life which is an anomaly in and of itself, on so many levels, in regards to MMO's in general.
The interesting thing about facts is you don't have to dig for them. Facts are right out in the open. You don't have to scour obscure corners of the interwebs to find facts. Facts sit right on your front door; a mere 15 seconds away from linkage. So next time you want to talk about facts give me a hollar because I have a whole slew of actual facts to discuss any time you wish.
because pvp balance issues always result in nerfs that drastically alter pve effectiveness.
Hyperbolic nonsense.
This is akin to saying rain storms always result in flooding. It's rhetorical drivel. The early days of CO are fantastic examples of how PvE nerfs/buffs completely obliterated any semblance of PvP balance. CoPD alone, all by it's lonesome, smashed PvP into bits for CO for a, wait for it, whopping THREE MONTHS before it was ever addressed. And that was just one power.
You want an example of PvE balancing ruining PvP to a nigh unplayable state? Look no further than the first year of Champions Online. Done sir done.
TL;DR
Do you have to have PvP in order to be a successful MMO? That depends on your definition of "successful". But the FACTS are if you want to contend with the big dogs... you **** well better have PvP in your game somewhere or prepare for an MMO lifespan of mediocrity.
And while I'm at it, why don't you take a look at the most popular XBox Live & PS3 Online games.
I'll save you the time.
The only two items on the top 20 list that make an appearance which are not PvP centric games are Skyrim & Minecraft. The rest of them are PvP games. All of them. That alone should tell you how popular PvP is in the gaming world.
You know the graphs are all well and good. But are honestly meaningless here. It means nothing if it adds something to other games if it ends up being done poorly in this one.
Cryptic came close to abandoning PVP totally in STO. Even coming out and stating the PVP player base was so small as to be, and I quote "Insignificant". Granted they have been slowly trying to repair the damage that statement caused, but most will agree the mishandling and neglect have poisoned STO PVP beyond repair.
And when you look over to CO, you'll find STO is actually in better shape.
I have no issue with PVP as it is. As long as it brings something to the table, it will enhance the over all total package. But a little common sense should be a factor. Asking for PVP simply for the sake of having PVP. And doing so in the face of a demonstrated track record of failure. Seems just a little absurd.
0
kimonagiMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited April 2013
Cant agree more with Trickshaws posts but battleground PvP is really not my thing. There is so much more to PvP then being confined in a small map and kill other players.
You know the graphs are all well and good. But are honestly meaningless here.
They're only meaningless if said person wishes to keep their head in the proverbial sand.
If tomorrow morning Gallup released a spreadsheet illustrating that if politicians want to win a presidential race in the United States of America they have to appeal to the Hispanic population of said United States of America, you would see every politician scrambling to make headway with that demographic.
Oh wait...
FunFact#1:
Guess how many MMO's that released in the last 10 years without PvP broke the 1 million subscriber mark? If you guessed Z-E-R-0... you win +1 internets.
FunFact#2:
The MMO industry is about making money. If you want to make big bucks you appeal to the masses. If you don't appeal to the masses... you don't make the big bucks. This is simple arithmetic. If Cryptic wants to make headway into the finite pie that is the MMO market they better start doing what EVERY other company that is succeeding is doing:
If you never PvP'd on table top then your DM sucks.
let me stop you right there. I've had several dms. The one who wanted us to fight each other the most? he's the one that sucked. He kept telling us to get into fights. Yes, this was dark sun, but he was *telling us* to fight.
You've got a real, real broad definition of "pvp" a better statement would be "if you had no party turmoil, then your dm sucked, if you were playing in <settings>" My dark sun druid mistrusted the preserver in the party because arcane magic destroyed athas. They even got into little fights!
I wouldn't consider that "pvp" because no one broke out a ladder our tournament system. No one was rating us on our crit percentage. We argued and i tried to kill him, and he crowd controlled me to calm me down enough to show me the error of my ways. PLayers were rolling against players int he most literal sense, but I never had to capture the flag, and in mmorpgs, that's kind of what "pvp" is. its a tournament thing.
The argument ive made, over and over again, is that dnd is not written with that as its *main focus* The charmed pc that becomes an enemy? That's one instance. Turmoil in the party during Dark sun? sure. tha'ts a thing.
Is fighting each other the primary thing you do around the table? is the game designed for this? no. Simply, no. Wizards in editions 1-3 were so **** powerful, it was evident that the design of the game was not for pvp. A wizard would utterly destroy everyone else in the party. at the same time. given time to prepare spells. If the game was designed for compettative pvp tournament play, then this class would not be availible to players, point blank and period.
Because the focus of dnd is not primarily pvp, i'd like it if, just this once, pvp had to take a backseat to pve. I don't want it gone, i just don't want you kids screaming for nurfs.
as you have demonstrated with your graphs: there are plenty of succsessful pvp focused mmorpgs on the market. If you have to have pvp be the *priamry driving force* for development, go play one of them. If you're okay with pvp as an afterthought, well, that's what this game is doing.
The context is exactly the same that you use. You said that if, around the table, you did not pvp, your dm sucked. My experience is totally opposite. the more there was "pvp" the less the game was any fun. I'm making the point that you're doing a fallacious bit about personal experience.
If it's meant to be only a joke in context, then why do you follow up with emperical data and go on and on about FACTS?
Here's a fact: almost every example of play in the books reference co-op play.
despite disagreeing with your position, i gave you the respect of reading your posts in full. Your argument about the health of a mmorpg without a pvp option is accurate, and thus, why I don't advocate for no pvp, i only advocate for no pvp-driven balancing decisions. The strength of this argument begs the question: why use the weak argument i quoted? Why appeal to personal preference? You have data. use it instead.
However, your shield from your detractors is "i don't care" so i don't really know why i'm bothering. Enjoy life as an unlikable troglodyte that stamps his feet and cries -rather than actually discuss- when challenged.
honestly, i thought that the community for this game wouldn't be the same collection of internet tough guys. I guess i'm too optimistic.
Comments
Speaking primarily from a 3.X dnd perspective:
Actually dnd fights tend to come down to who has time to prepare and such. A fully buffed wizard is a scary thing, but an unbuffed wizard is a fragile sack of fluids that spray everywhere when anyone sneezes at them.
In 4e, the wizard became a lot less OP in general. (aside from one perma-stun oversight that they errata'ed early on) They had much bigger issues with the fighter and ranger being OP. Both were pretty ridiculous just in the PHB, and they broke those classes several more times each with their extra content.
Can't say anything to this game's balance, because I've been avoiding the Beta weekends so that I get a fresh experience when I get to play "fro realz dawg."
Again, you are just using your opinion to state there is not PvP in DnD and/or it is not meant for PvP when that is not true. The exampes you give are not HOW to play but are "examples" of a group so that people that have never played before can see how it generally goes. Not one thing in that is saying this is how you should play the game at all, so do not allude to that.
BTW you do not need a mage to win in PvP and never did, only a PvE person would say that. An archer, thief, ranger, warrior, cleric can all destroy mages, much less barbarians or cavaliers!
If you really can't understand the comparison of racism to an irrational hatred of a minority population then your rights to engage in any logical discussion are hereby revoked.
As others have stated, you're stating an opinion as fact. The way you play PnP D&D does not reflect the developers' intention, or any majority. Just you.
And what "co-op" balance are you talking about, exactly? Your own next post cites the fact that before 4th Edition the classes were never balanced.
Bold text: I don't know if PVM was intended, and if so what it means, but I assume you meant PVE since that's what this whole thread is about.
The fact that spellcasters (particularly Wizards) were so massively OP compared to Fighters or really any other class was a problem that the developers have tried hard to fix for 4th Edition and the upcoming D&D Next. Trying to say "PvP shouldn't be balanced because 3.X wasn't balanced" is an absurd assertion.
As for the arenas in the setting: It's not some spectator blood-sport. It's two factions of "heroes" fighting for control of a portion of Neverwinter. There are no official "factions" in the same way as SWTOR or WoW, but Neverwinter is always under siege/duress because various interests are vying for control. Each PvP arena is an opportunity for the players to feel like a part of that ongoing struggle. It may be slightly immersion-breaking for an RPer to suss out his motivation for doing so, but given that the game doesn't tell you when you join a PvP session "You are fighting for X faction" you can decide for yourself if you're fighting for Neverwinter, the Ashmadai, the Thayans, etc.
PVM is interchangeable with PVE with old school folks "player versus monster" as i understand it. sorry for getting old up in here.
It's not an opinion. Go watch pvp on a 3.0 server. That's balanced for pvp? how? Where's the nwn1 e-sport pvp ladder? OH IT DOESNT EXIST? GEE I WONDER WHY. If it did then i could point to how mages are the top 1-1000 players as an illustration of how imbalanced the system is for pvp.
I know that pve isn't balanced. I cited this with recent whining on the wizard's forums about recent splatbooks. Whatever problem pve has with imbalance, pvp accentuates it to the umpteenth degree.
I see i need a direct quote.. time to dig through my mancave.
If a lack of PvP balance means D&D shouldn't even have PvP, then it shouldn't have PvE/PvM because that's not balanced either.
Fact is, D&D has both. Fact is, people want both. Fact is, stop whining about PvP and just play your PvE. Don't poke us and we won't poke you.
The real issue of this whole debate, and this whole thread, is the idea that PvP balance <censored> PvE balance. PvE players just need to get over it. If you see an imbalance in your gameplay then by all means notify the devs so maybe they'll fix it. There's nothing wrong with that. But trying to get PvP removed from the game just to avoid this inconvenience is selfish and hugely detrimental to the survival of the game.
2 points:
1. i have said over and over again have all the pvp fun you want.
2. No, i'm not going to "get over it" class homogenization exists in many, many games for the sake of e-sports style pvp. Go play one of those. I don't want it removed. I never said i want it removed. I said that when the two inevitably butt heads, i hope development ignore the pvp whining entirely.
1. You aren't the one I'm talking to when I say "Don't try to remove PvP."
2. Whether you get over it or not is irrelevant anyway. PvE and PvP each will be affected by the other.
We're both playing this game, we both deserve our time/money's worth. Can you at least agree to that?
To put it simply - what drew me to this game was its combat system - most specifically the shift-dodge mechanic and action targeting. I've also been a huge D&D fan for many years as well, so that was a great plus as well that a good D&D MMO may finally be coming out.
Other things that drew me to the game were the DotA style abilities, i.e. no more than 4 or 5 attacks plus mouseclick autoattacks. The only other MMO where such a combat system seems to exist is TESO which is still in development. I played WoW for a good 3 years, and one of the most disappointing features was the utter failure of class balance. Every class had upwards of 20 abilities, and 3 specializations. This was a lot of fun, but hell for Blizzard to balance. I think what makes balance in, say, LoL so much better is that each character will have 5 abilities (4 actives and a passive) and is much easier to balance, yet isn't necessarily less robust than WoW PvP. However, LoL is not an MMO, and I really do enjoy the MMORPG setting of having a persistent character in a persistent world, which is not something LoL or Dota offer (although I highly enjoy those games regardless).
So long story short - what drew me to this game even though I'm looking for hardcore PvP? The action combat system in a setting that I enjoy.
ID: NW-DC42XFJ5B
Author: @Fugln
Quest
Tag: #Combat, #story, #GROUP
NWS-DA213JHNY - The Shadows of the Sword Coast
NW-DE6UU7ZQA - Chapter One - A Fool's Errand.
Author: @Fugln
Tag: #Story #Solo #Group #Humor.
This guy.
ID: NW-DC42XFJ5B
Author: @Fugln
Quest
Tag: #Combat, #story, #GROUP
NWS-DA213JHNY - The Shadows of the Sword Coast
NW-DE6UU7ZQA - Chapter One - A Fool's Errand.
Author: @Fugln
Tag: #Story #Solo #Group #Humor.
I think this, right here illustrates the main source of the disconnect here.
Less powers, less options, equals better balance. For you this is a good thing. For others, its not. D&D, to some, is ALL about the powers, the options, the ability to min/max and theory craft. Reducing this, for any reason, can only be seen as diminishing.
If your DM told you, you'd only get to use half your abilities of your class. Or that you are limited to only certain classes. For the sake of balance. You would most likely whap him with a rolled up battle mat. Less, is rarely better. Even if it makes over all balance easier. Mind you, not better...only easier.
And lets face it, its not just D&D that is an obstacle here. Its Cryptic itself. Some things they do rather well some things they clearly fail at. PVP is one of those. All the hope, potential, and expectations in the world is meaningless to the hard reality of two complete failures, of PVP, in their other two games. How any reasonable person can look at whats been done, and the lack of whats been done, in both CO and STO. In regards to PVP. And expect better results here. Is simply being delusional. So, to see effort wasted, in what will most likely be another PVP train wreck. Is just a little infuriating.
You confuse Hardcore with Griefers. This statement is a huge generalization. Why must this subject always come down to this? It is extremely hard to balance classes around both PvE and PvP. I hope the developers can find a way to deal with both without sacrificing either.
1. I said online gaming. Single players games are irrelevant. Online RPGs are the only PVE option around.
2. There are few, if not zero mmorpgs that are strictly PVE. Almost all if not all, include PVP. PVPrs thus have mmorpgs, RTS, and FPS games, and those uninterested have...Skyrim?
3. I don't assume a game can't have PVP for players to enjoy PVE. I said it's ridiculous to choose a PVE based game, while having no interest in PVE.
For many people, its ok to demand PVP in the one genre designed from the ground up for PVE, but if I did so on an FPS game you'd most likely be there, telling to shut up. Hell just look up any forum post wanting more story and role playing options in Borderlands for crying out loud!
This isn't about being excluded. This game is free to have PVP, and you're right, I don't want it, but its here and I'll deal with it. I just don't want to log in, and see all value drained from my character because too many people get killed by that class. I saw it in SWTOR, and WoW, etc. and I'm sick of it.
Yeah, it is selfish to expect every online game to cater to you. I don't do that. Like my point that you ignored, I don't go to Mechwarrior, Gunz: The Duel, League of Legends, Lineage, DaoC, Camelot Unchained, or Eve Online and demand PVE content. PVP-based MMORPGs are perfectly fine.
Hell "PVE-based mmorpg" isn't even a term. Why? Because MMORPGs are designed for PVE. You have to actually add "PVP based" to the genre label to identify it as different.
I have no problem with PVP-based mmorpgs. Which is why I don't play them, or go there and demand they be changed. There should be options out there, but don't come to one of the few mmorpgs that still have a focus on PVE and demand PVP, and don't tell me my character needs to become weaker because your character's face isn't knife proof, or as flame retardant as you want.
Yes it was worded awful. I was tired and I'm currently suffering from shingles, which is making it harder to concentrate and type, as well as making me more agitated. Thank you for elaborating for me.
The Dire Crow - Tiefling TR
Alice L'ddell - Human GF
Ludovique - Tiefling DC
True, especially on the Cryptic note.
It's amazing people coming here expecting amazing PVP.
All you have to do is say the words "Klingon faction" (the supposed PVP-based faction) to elicit nothing but rage from STO players.
Better they stick to what they know they can do well.
The Dire Crow - Tiefling TR
Alice L'ddell - Human GF
Ludovique - Tiefling DC
I'm all against balancing classes solely around pvp and certainly don't expect this game to have outstanding PVP. The combat looks fun and I'll definitely have a go at it every once in a while. But, I'm here because of the foundry and the options to create your own stories or play other player's stories.
However, to say that this is one of the few MMORPGS that still have a focus on PVE is simply not true. I can think of 2 AAA fantasy MMORPGs that truly have a PVP focus: DAoC and Warhammer Online. Warhammer at least was really pretty much centered about the whole faction war and didn't really offer boatloads of PVE content. Can't say anything about DAoC's PVE content, because I haven't played it.
All the other MMORPGs out there have both PVE and PVP, true. However, in none of these is PVP anywhere near being the focus of development. WoW, despite having multiple PVP options is still most predominently a PVE game. There are new raids and dungeons every other month. PVP sees hardly any change from addon to addon besides minor class balancing acts.
Same goes for other major titles of the recent past. Even GW2 is predominently a PVE game (and a very casual one at that...). WvW has seen one minor patch since the release, which was 8 months ago. sPVP/tPVP has also only recently received some attention, or rather will receive some in the upcoming patch. All the rest of the content updates (FotM, seasonal stuff) was predominantly PVE updates. And they are of course right to do it so, because PVE players are by far the majority of the market (Also, not all PVP players play only pvp. Most play PVE too, or even to a greater extent).
And I must say that I can't really understand all the whining about balance. So, your beloved class got a nerf, because it was too strong in PVP? So what? If that really breaks the game for you, then you're either playing the game wrongly or you're obviously playing with the wrong people. Because in every game I've played so far, classes I've played have suffered from nerfs from time to time. And I still had my fun with them. You just need to adapt to it.
And to the killer argument, "I can't take part in Raids/Dungeons anymore, cuz nobody wants class x since the nerf!" This is a community problem, where the PVE players are being idiots. I've never had a big problem to find a spot on a raid/dungeon just because my class was recently nerfed and not considered en vogue anymore. I mean it's not as if PVE was that challenging once you figured out an encounter. Sure, there'll always be some elitist jerk around that will judge people based on class/gearmetrics etc. But it's generally advisable to not group with such people anyway. If your friends won't play with you anymore because you play class x and class x was nerfed and is now only the second best dd/healer/tank in the game, then I suggest you look for better friends.
Menzoberranzan, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape & Birthright were 4 settings ripe for inter group turmoil. Those aside, if a member of your group was never cloned, enthralled, charmed or enticed into betraying his party... you're a terribad DM. If your party has never lost it's cool and just started wailing on one another from IRL anger or possibly IC rivalries (pally vs. rogue)... you're a terribad DM. If you never allowed a player to concoct his own henchman for the parties antagonist and allowed him to RP that character against his own group... you're a terribad DM.
I pity so many of you for not having DMs either experienced enough or clever enough to introduce you to the finer aspects of betrayal, intrigue or just plain ole raucous fun from player vs player competition.
ALL of that aside, this is an MMO and MMOs are known for having PvP elements. PvPers are a broad base of the MMO community. To not include them or work with them in maintaining a balanced PvP experience is folly. The last company that did that paid for it. You may have heard of them? BioWare. A little game called SWTOR. BW publicly apologized and stated flatly, "we grossly underestimated the popularity of PvP".
Look where that got them. They've been desperately trying to play catch up ever since.
everquest had no pvp at launch. pvp servers were added later, but pvp was never introduced to the base game.
pvp wasn't considered mainstream until daoc and then later world of warcraft. an mmoRPG does not need pvp to be successful and in fact unless pvp is the sole focus of said mmoRPG, the overwhelming majority of it's playerbase will not participate in it. you can google that data on your own i'm too lazy to do it again.
because pvp balance issues always result in nerfs that drastically alter pve effectiveness.
You're too "lazy" because that data doesn't exist. Pulling fabricated data out of thin air then "playing it cool" by saying you're "too lazy" to google the data is a common forum ploy to aid in substantiating unsubstantiated data. However allow me to show you some real data.
Here are subscription data points for the top 6 mainstream MMO's on the market:
And here are subscription data points for the remainder of the top 20:
Note anything interesting? How about the fact that the majority of those games have a significant PvP focus and none of the PvE only games come anywhere near contending with the top 5 which all include PvP or are PvP centric. The only non-PvP inclusive game that comes anywhere close is Second Life which is an anomaly in and of itself, on so many levels, in regards to MMO's in general.
The interesting thing about facts is you don't have to dig for them. Facts are right out in the open. You don't have to scour obscure corners of the interwebs to find facts. Facts sit right on your front door; a mere 15 seconds away from linkage. So next time you want to talk about facts give me a hollar because I have a whole slew of actual facts to discuss any time you wish.
Hyperbolic nonsense.
This is akin to saying rain storms always result in flooding. It's rhetorical drivel. The early days of CO are fantastic examples of how PvE nerfs/buffs completely obliterated any semblance of PvP balance. CoPD alone, all by it's lonesome, smashed PvP into bits for CO for a, wait for it, whopping THREE MONTHS before it was ever addressed. And that was just one power.
You want an example of PvE balancing ruining PvP to a nigh unplayable state? Look no further than the first year of Champions Online. Done sir done.
TL;DR
Do you have to have PvP in order to be a successful MMO? That depends on your definition of "successful". But the FACTS are if you want to contend with the big dogs... you **** well better have PvP in your game somewhere or prepare for an MMO lifespan of mediocrity.
I'll save you the time.
The only two items on the top 20 list that make an appearance which are not PvP centric games are Skyrim & Minecraft. The rest of them are PvP games. All of them. That alone should tell you how popular PvP is in the gaming world.
Cryptic came close to abandoning PVP totally in STO. Even coming out and stating the PVP player base was so small as to be, and I quote "Insignificant". Granted they have been slowly trying to repair the damage that statement caused, but most will agree the mishandling and neglect have poisoned STO PVP beyond repair.
And when you look over to CO, you'll find STO is actually in better shape.
I have no issue with PVP as it is. As long as it brings something to the table, it will enhance the over all total package. But a little common sense should be a factor. Asking for PVP simply for the sake of having PVP. And doing so in the face of a demonstrated track record of failure. Seems just a little absurd.
They're only meaningless if said person wishes to keep their head in the proverbial sand.
If tomorrow morning Gallup released a spreadsheet illustrating that if politicians want to win a presidential race in the United States of America they have to appeal to the Hispanic population of said United States of America, you would see every politician scrambling to make headway with that demographic.
Oh wait...
FunFact#1:
Guess how many MMO's that released in the last 10 years without PvP broke the 1 million subscriber mark? If you guessed Z-E-R-0... you win +1 internets.
FunFact#2:
The MMO industry is about making money. If you want to make big bucks you appeal to the masses. If you don't appeal to the masses... you don't make the big bucks. This is simple arithmetic. If Cryptic wants to make headway into the finite pie that is the MMO market they better start doing what EVERY other company that is succeeding is doing:
Making PvP more than just an after thought.
let me stop you right there. I've had several dms. The one who wanted us to fight each other the most? he's the one that sucked. He kept telling us to get into fights. Yes, this was dark sun, but he was *telling us* to fight.
You've got a real, real broad definition of "pvp" a better statement would be "if you had no party turmoil, then your dm sucked, if you were playing in <settings>" My dark sun druid mistrusted the preserver in the party because arcane magic destroyed athas. They even got into little fights!
I wouldn't consider that "pvp" because no one broke out a ladder our tournament system. No one was rating us on our crit percentage. We argued and i tried to kill him, and he crowd controlled me to calm me down enough to show me the error of my ways. PLayers were rolling against players int he most literal sense, but I never had to capture the flag, and in mmorpgs, that's kind of what "pvp" is. its a tournament thing.
The argument ive made, over and over again, is that dnd is not written with that as its *main focus* The charmed pc that becomes an enemy? That's one instance. Turmoil in the party during Dark sun? sure. tha'ts a thing.
Is fighting each other the primary thing you do around the table? is the game designed for this? no. Simply, no. Wizards in editions 1-3 were so **** powerful, it was evident that the design of the game was not for pvp. A wizard would utterly destroy everyone else in the party. at the same time. given time to prepare spells. If the game was designed for compettative pvp tournament play, then this class would not be availible to players, point blank and period.
Because the focus of dnd is not primarily pvp, i'd like it if, just this once, pvp had to take a backseat to pve. I don't want it gone, i just don't want you kids screaming for nurfs.
as you have demonstrated with your graphs: there are plenty of succsessful pvp focused mmorpgs on the market. If you have to have pvp be the *priamry driving force* for development, go play one of them. If you're okay with pvp as an afterthought, well, that's what this game is doing.
Correction, let *me* stop *you* right there.
1.) Check my sig.
2.) Context. Look up the definition, understand the literary concept and then ask yourself why I didn't read past your first paragraph.
The context is exactly the same that you use. You said that if, around the table, you did not pvp, your dm sucked. My experience is totally opposite. the more there was "pvp" the less the game was any fun. I'm making the point that you're doing a fallacious bit about personal experience.
If it's meant to be only a joke in context, then why do you follow up with emperical data and go on and on about FACTS?
Here's a fact: almost every example of play in the books reference co-op play.
despite disagreeing with your position, i gave you the respect of reading your posts in full. Your argument about the health of a mmorpg without a pvp option is accurate, and thus, why I don't advocate for no pvp, i only advocate for no pvp-driven balancing decisions. The strength of this argument begs the question: why use the weak argument i quoted? Why appeal to personal preference? You have data. use it instead.
However, your shield from your detractors is "i don't care" so i don't really know why i'm bothering. Enjoy life as an unlikable troglodyte that stamps his feet and cries -rather than actually discuss- when challenged.
honestly, i thought that the community for this game wouldn't be the same collection of internet tough guys. I guess i'm too optimistic.