I will stay with ambisinisterr and reply that reasoning is always available to deal with existing problems, but i still doubt that pvp elements will add greatly to the multiplayer experience as a whole.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Nope. No numbers at all. Yes, it's a blanket statement. Nope, not apologizing for it or trying to quantify it other than in my experience, that statement has held true for years. I might add as well that the general attitude of the PvP players on boards I've read and encountered in games has totally and completely proved the statement true without a shadow of a doubt for me.
People who try to win with blanket statements often make themselves look foolish. If you don't like something, fine. But proof or it never happened applies to you too. If you're expecting something to be that way, that's all people will often see, and biased is just the starting point.
PvP is fine as long as it isn't forced upon others in a game system that is not based on PvP at its core. Options are just that, optional.
I find I like PVP by choice and balanced PVP, by that I mean generally not open world, as that usualy ends up who has the most numbers. Instead I perfer PVP where numbers are generally more balanced, or least taken into consideration. Classic ways to do this are arenas and battle grounds, though I have also had fun with open world events where you pick a side and do battle with another faction, with difference in numbers balanced by number of npcs that help. Rushing in with hundreds of other PC or NPC battle line if just fun, though the better the AI for npc the more fun it can be. Though sometimes I think respawning spoils it alittle, once dead in a battle should stay dead, meaning more thought needed sometimes, though need something to do if you do die early on, maybe some mini game you can do while dead that might aid your side alittle?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] I am not evil, I am just cursed.
PvP is fine as long as it isn't forced upon others in a game system that is not based on PvP at its core. Options are just that, optional.
I agree with this statement.
I would like to add being outnumbered in pvp can be a lot of fun if you have a defensive position like a keep or tower or even good terrain. The most memorable pvp i have ever experienced was in Daoc where 4 groups of guild mates would take a castle in the enemies frontier then defend it for hours against hordes of the enemy. If we were successful they would give up eventually. Another memoriable battle was when we were outnumbered 3 to 1 and the groups without a bard speed formed a shield wall in a narrow pass. Again about 4 groups hid behind enemy lines on a forested hill. As the Horde of enemy charged the shieldwall we swooped down behind them and it was a total route.
So fighting against all odds is not a bad thing if the pvp is properly built as a core system of an mmo. This being said there have been games which it was at the games core and it just didn't work well. Any game that just adds it in as a afterthought usually has lack luster pvp.
As pvp goes there really needs to be a reason for it such as two factions at war or realm vs realm. It should always be optional in the frontier areas of a world. So folks who do not want to pvp do not have to travel to such areas. Any loot found in a pvp area should also be found somewhere in a pve area so it doesn't force folks who do not wish to pvp to have to enter such an area.
Arena's, scenario based pvp just never does it for me. In my opinion this is just tacked on so a mmo can say it has pvp. While some scenarios are fun they get old fast.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited December 2012
I agree with everything you're saying Adamantium.
Playing on Nordock used to be a lot of fun. I'd go on Drow Raiding Missions and just cause havoc. We'd drag dragons to the main human town or better yet <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> off Benzor's dragon guardian and have him wage war against the town. Oh god the good old memories of causing chaos.
Sadly such a system won't be in place in Neverwinter but like you said, as long as the PvP areas offer nothing I can't get from PvE only areas I think PvPers would be far happier with the wilderness option.
Though as much as I do think that option is better, no offense Cryptic, but I have yet to see a company which doesn't try to force PvE in wilderness areas even if they start out on the right path. For some reason they always end up with the bright idea 'this new boss would be for more challenging and entertaining if players could kill each other in the area. In order to make it worth-while let's give it one of the best drops in the game too!'
I think the open world wilderness style provides the best PvP for PvPers but that content relies heavily in PvE relying on the developers to care enough to not give them the shaft.
Not to be selfish but this is a PvE Game. I don't like PvP in PvE Games; that will never change. The only people who should get the shaft in this game, or any other PvE Game are the PvPers. Sadly most companies will drive me away from their games by forgetting who their audience really is.
People who try to win with blanket statements often make themselves look foolish. If you don't like something, fine. But proof or it never happened applies to you too. If you're expecting something to be that way, that's all people will often see, and biased is just the starting point.
PvP is fine as long as it isn't forced upon others in a game system that is not based on PvP at its core. Options are just that, optional.
- Putting digressive symbolism on posters has never helped a discussion in any way. Posters who voice an opinion have no obligation to provide proof of an opinion that has, as the op points out, formed over a period of time. Putting him off may not be a part of your role as moderator and requires an explanation clearly stating reasons and background of your intervention.
I was going to stop arguing in this fashion but i want to say that the point, in my view was how it would affect the game if pvpers were to have a say in the pve parts of it. If we have established that while most players will be able to adapt to anyone in their party during the progress of a mission, there may still be some irritation on the part of the dedicated pvers. Either way, I wish there was an automaton in the previous games that points out how the "elitist pvpers" (as i now call them) can avoid griefing other players with their competitive playstyle.
Were is this pvp hate coming from ??? There are allot of people that like pvp and play games for pvp.
Nobody is making you play pvp in an mmorpg so why hate it ?
Go do endless pve and leave the pvp alone if you don't like it.
I expect to pvp myself, and may or may not enjoy it.
You did not read the above thread or you would have seen that its about pve getting abused by some pvpers. not all pvpers. Some posters have voiced complaints about certain behaviors and it seems that this has caused very bad problems in other games. I think we all agree that it makes no sense to generalize agrression against pvpers or even elitists. jeez.
btw it just shows how you don't even consider thinking about other's wishes. Even the most basic politeness (in an open world) would immediately lead you to the assumption that you are being forced to deal with something you haven't encountered before. Take some tea.
Do you think it would be possible to create PvP events and/or arenas using the Foundry after the game launches? That could be very epic, and agreeable for both PvE and PvP groups.
I think they might even include a few war events to top up the campaign after it reached some kind of climax. Something like the faction wars that NWN2 introduced, where you could get ambushed by random parties while travelling. I remember a vid of large numbers of orcs raiding the spawncamp. I think it was the opening dideo of NWN 2. Something like that would actually illustrate the Thundering or whatever .
Giving my two biscuits on the subject, I believe PVP and PVE can be one of the same content. Just flicking a switch and making everyone killable is not "open world PVP", well it kind of it but lazy. I believe in something similar to Warhammer online PVP. The leveling zones had areas you defended/attacked. But that game is mostly PVP any way so it doesnt really count.
I like PVP, specially warfronts/battlegrounds/war games/mini games, what ever you want to call them! So I do, personally, support them.
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
- Putting digressive symbolism on posters has never helped a discussion in any way. Posters who voice an opinion have no obligation to provide proof of an opinion that has, as the op points out, formed over a period of time. Putting him off may not be a part of your role as moderator and requires an explanation clearly stating reasons and background of your intervention.
I was going to stop arguing in this fashion but i want to say that the point, in my view was how it would affect the game if pvpers were to have a say in the pve parts of it. If we have established that while most players will be able to adapt to anyone in their party during the progress of a mission, there may still be some irritation on the part of the dedicated pvers. Either way, I wish there was an automaton in the previous games that points out how the "elitist pvpers" (as i now call them) can avoid griefing other players with their competitive playstyle.
Playing on Nordock used to be a lot of fun. I'd go on Drow Raiding Missions and just cause havoc. We'd drag dragons to the main human town or better yet <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> off Benzor's dragon guardian and have him wage war against the town. Oh god the good old memories of causing chaos.
Sadly such a system won't be in place in Neverwinter but like you said, as long as the PvP areas offer nothing I can't get from PvE only areas I think PvPers would be far happier with the wilderness option.
Though as much as I do think that option is better, no offense Cryptic, but I have yet to see a company which doesn't try to force PvE in wilderness areas even if they start out on the right path. For some reason they always end up with the bright idea 'this new boss would be for more challenging and entertaining if players could kill each other in the area. In order to make it worth-while let's give it one of the best drops in the game too!'
I think the open world wilderness style provides the best PvP for PvPers but that content relies heavily in PvE relying on the developers to care enough to not give them the shaft.
Not to be selfish but this is a PvE Game. I don't like PvP in PvE Games; that will never change. The only people who should get the shaft in this game, or any other PvE Game are the PvPers. Sadly most companies will drive me away from their games by forgetting who their audience really is.
Personally, I have no problem and actually encourage a persistent PvP wilderness zone outside of any locale's influence just like it could happen in any D&D campaign. What I would like is an optional team mechanic so people who decide to go there can "group up for safety." I'm not sure if it would be a simple leader-board or some other reward, but out there, only the strong survive and people know this.
Of course, there should be some warning to those entering the zone this is a player attackable area, but nothing else really needs to be done.
Do you think it would be possible to create PvP events and/or arenas using the Foundry after the game launches? That could be very epic, and agreeable for both PvE and PvP groups.
Giving my two biscuits on the subject, I believe PVP and PVE can be one of the same content. Just flicking a switch and making everyone killable is not "open world PVP", well it kind of it but lazy. I believe in something similar to Warhammer online PVP. The leveling zones had areas you defended/attacked. But that game is mostly PVP any way so it doesnt really count.
I like PVP, specially warfronts/battlegrounds/war games/mini games, what ever you want to call them! So I do, personally, support them.
As long as it's not some lazy attempt at endgame or what you wrote, I fully agree to this option.
syfylisMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
edited December 2012
I had idea of writing thread about it but there is not much to say. What crytpic have to do is create option for people to host a server with their created pvp map. Map should be same as quest so everyone can host their own server from someone else map. Ranking system should aply here as well.
To create a pvp arena people would have to chose game type capture the flag, fight for artefact, capture point, demolition. After chosing type you get option to create map respawn points and pvp targets (flags, cap points etc. depends on what type u chose). We should have option as well to chose map time, max pts to win, freezetime, respawn time and do people can play with pvp or pve gear.
I had idea of writing thread about it but there is not much to say. What crytpic have to do is create option for people to host a server with their created pvp map. Map should be same as quest so everyone can host their own server from someone else map. Ranking system should aply here as well.
To create a pvp arena people would have to chose game type capture the flag, fight for artefact, capture point, demolition. After chosing type you get option to create map respawn points and pvp targets (flags, cap points etc. depends on what type u chose). We should have option as well to chose map time, max pts to win, freezetime, respawn time and do people can play with pvp or pve gear.
They won't do private servers with this software, period. It literally doesn't work with the architecture. But they ARE working on a persistent world and PvP foundry mission concepts.
They won't do private servers with this software, period. It literally doesn't work with the architecture. But they ARE working on a persistent world and PvP foundry mission concepts.
I mean to use same way as for any normal foundry quest with the difference that it starts when all slots are full. Same mechanics + support for other team.
anyway I think it's a good time to close this thread
Honestly all you have to do is look at other MMO's and your question will be answered, Warhammer online is a prime example; folks say "well that game was intended to be PVP focused" but it wasn't the whole "Killing peopel in da face" was Jeff Hickmans and Carrie Guskos's brain child and we see the results; they cut the throat of the PVE game and left it to bleed out in some back alley of Altdorf and WH is now a dead shell....currently Hickman is steering SWTOR down the exact same path making that game more PVP focused.
Aside from that look at all the balance issues games like WOW has had, while games that use a completely detached system like LOTRO monster play has had virtually no balance issues. Even games that has relative success with PVP still has issues just look at EvE online......CCP has been really good about providing that community with a steady stream of victims, but that can't last forever and is starting to show decline, but CCP will carry on because it has the biggest soap opera factor of any other MMO.
So is PVP bad for MMO's In my opinion yes especially if the game was suppose to be PVE focused from the start.
I would like to add being outnumbered in pvp can be a lot of fun if you have a defensive position like a keep or tower or even good terrain. The most memorable pvp i have ever experienced was in Daoc where 4 groups of guild mates would take a castle in the enemies frontier then defend it for hours against hordes of the enemy. If we were successful they would give up eventually. Another memoriable battle was when we were outnumbered 3 to 1 and the groups without a bard speed formed a shield wall in a narrow pass. Again about 4 groups hid behind enemy lines on a forested hill. As the Horde of enemy charged the shieldwall we swooped down behind them and it was a total route.
So fighting against all odds is not a bad thing if the pvp is properly built as a core system of an mmo. This being said there have been games which it was at the games core and it just didn't work well. Any game that just adds it in as a afterthought usually has lack luster pvp.
As pvp goes there really needs to be a reason for it such as two factions at war or realm vs realm. It should always be optional in the frontier areas of a world. So folks who do not want to pvp do not have to travel to such areas. Any loot found in a pvp area should also be found somewhere in a pve area so it doesn't force folks who do not wish to pvp to have to enter such an area.
Arena's, scenario based pvp just never does it for me. In my opinion this is just tacked on so a mmo can say it has pvp. While some scenarios are fun they get old fast.
Yeah well since PvP servers or full open World PvP is not supported the largest PvP battles are likely Battlegrounds(instance area but bigger area then Arena can have outdoor environment forest, water etc. within the PvP instance). WOW had Alterac Valley that is 40 vs 40(maximum 80 could be 10 vs 40=50) as a BIG Battleground.
However since this game is F2P I would keep expectations slightly lower. Right now I hope this game will support Capture the PvP gaming mode and I suspect Battlegrounds are smaller then Alterac Valley in WOW. Oh and I hate GW2 mentality of equal gear. This is likely not so hardcore in loot system as WOW, but likely not even near so casual as Guild Wars 2. Level/gear should matter in PvP though of course it is skill and numbers also.
0
syfylisMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
edited December 2012
Well i think we should talk about game life. Because yes those big names lost many players but for how long these games are alive? They already made a lot of money for their creators and truth is whatever you do sooner or later game will become boring.
In my view if game keep alive with player base of 60-70% of number of people that start playing when game started for 2-3 years then it already made enough money so dev won't feel it was a failure and if game have 50-60 % playerbase after 4 years then it is a success and game can die without any problems.
Now my last point is about this delusion that without pvp you would have so much pve content. There is no writer that will make story going on forever, R A Salvatore will say good bye some day and even if he would not then what do you expect? That you will have 1000 quest for end game? That people will keep going to go questing even they alreeady have best gear and they don't improve their character anymore? Because what? You will create another great story?
At some point quest will become similar and saying ah I'll play another class then don't do much here becaues nvn quests are mostly linear, this is not a witcher2 where small choices make different story.
There is limit to pvp same as to pve. At some point game become boring and mmo dies but that's not bad and we shouldn't feel bad because end of somehting is begining to something else.
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited December 2012
The only thing I can refute in your statement is that layers who don't want developers spending time on PvP because they believe this equates to more PvE development. I know for certain I don't.
The simple truth of any statement I make saying I don't want PvP being developed is because I don't want it in the game. It will be there and has to be there in order to draw in players but I'd be far happier from my own selfish gaming standpoint if PvP wasn't even possible.
Your conclusion makes sense and in some cases may be true but there's many like me who just don't want PvP in the game.
The rest of your post however provides completely valid, logical and to an extent indisputable points.
However as valid as the approach is from arguing end game content it's also important to consider actual player gaming styles. A game built upon too much PvP without being an actual PvP game will have me refusing to play it from the start such as Guild Wars. My interest in that game is non-existant due to the PvP end-game it promotes.
I agree that a PvP End-Game won't save the game from eventually becoming boring but the question is, is PvP bad for [this] MMO?
Will an overbearance on PvP hurt this game? In my opinion it would kill it.
Will an underbearance on PvP hurt this game? In my opinion yes, but not nearly as much.
syfylisMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
edited December 2012
I do not believe that making PvP content take that much of human resources and I do not see how option of going or not going to pvp hurt your game. You don't like it you don't go there.
We can say we would have several hours more on pve content if there was no pvp but every developer know that people do mailny pve content (quest) once and pvp you can do infinite amount of time. It is a good perspective for developer view what you get for your work which lead us to very strong point of having pvp in game.
You can create pve content for few hours that people finish and then you have to do something new or create pvp where people will have much more hours of playing.
And about ballancing it is mainly changing numbers for already created content so it's smething that one man can do in short time.
Is pvp bad for mmo? No it's not because mmo is a attempt to create world with society in game world and natural part of society are wars, violence, fighting for your own goals and pvp is a part of the game world which respond to that image.
The only thing I can refute in your statement is that layers who don't want developers spending time on PvP because they believe this equates to more PvE development. I know for certain I don't.
The simple truth of any statement I make saying I don't want PvP being developed is because I don't want it in the game. It will be there and has to be there in order to draw in players but I'd be far happier from my own selfish gaming standpoint if PvP wasn't even possible.
Your conclusion makes sense and in some cases may be true but there's many like me who just don't want PvP in the game.
The rest of your post however provides completely valid, logical and to an extent indisputable points.
However as valid as the approach is from arguing end game content it's also important to consider actual player gaming styles. A game built upon too much PvP without being an actual PvP game will have me refusing to play it from the start such as Guild Wars. My interest in that game is non-existant due to the PvP end-game it promotes.
I agree that a PvP End-Game won't save the game from eventually becoming boring, but the question is, is PvP bad for [this] MMO?
Will an overbearance on PvP hurt this game? In my opinion it would kill it.
Will an underbearance on PvP hurt this game? In my opinion yes, but not nearly as much.
I sense some truth and agree though I like both PvE and PvP.
I played happily WOW for 3.5 years but eventually got bored on it. My casual brother quit WOW in less then a year because it was simply to hardcore(time sink everlasting lootmill). Guild Wars 2 came out 2012.... ultra casual max your character in less then 2 weeks! Developers in Guild wars 2 openly said in interviews that endgame does not exist according to their philosophy. Guild Wars 2 had only one thing for serious ENDGAME and that was PvP with epic scale.
You know I can play WOW with pretty high settings and Witcher 2 also with medium high settings. Guild Wars 2 looks with low graphics worse then WOW with medium settings so I refuse to put lowest graphics in guild wars 2. Guild Wars 2 Mist PvP is Epic scale up to maximum 2000 players( 3 different factions/realms war against each other). The mist area have Castles, siege engines, environment including lakes and NPC that can even ally temporary with you for example Ogres.
Yeah sounds great PvP? The Mist PvP did put my Quad core laptop 2.2 GHz and my brothers dual core desktop 3.4 GHz to their knees! Yeah it is about CPU because we got gaming graphiccards and enough RAM(I had 8 Gb my brother 4 GB). There GW2 collects dust and I will never buy expansions to Guild Wars 2. Even my casual brother hates GW2.
I plan to buy next year Haswell super CPU highend desktop, but lesson learned! Do not ignore PvE endgame or create PvP that has insane system requirements!
lol pvp become bad if you have only 1 map see gw2/ swotor and is amazing if you have tons of map and good mecanic see warhammer online/daoc. The point is no pve is < of pvp in fact games with pvp like end game content have a lot more life circle than other. Then sure you cant leave the pvp to itself you have to balance classes and bring new map every years. A game balanced on group meccanic must have tank unkilleable but they cant kill nothing, melee with medium damage and medium resistence and power rdps wit lol resistence, healer medium/high resistence.
Fight in this mode are long and cool, and it win only the best team. With the tank that can lower the damage of other classes and use crow controll, melee that can lower heal and rdps that can do both single and good aoe damage. and healker that can heal aoe/single even if hitted with a good kitte
BUT important is not casual pvp content like gw2, all in fact are critic it for this there is no sense in talke the castle etc, after 2 sec they can already be retakeable, and win will no produce nothing for the player, i mean win or loosed dont make any difference so why fight? for fun? is not fun we your guardina is powned by 1 thief and you shoul be immortal co you are a tank.
MY advice is not make the pvp zerg based cos is very boring.... make it party/warband based and balance damage and heal, for exemple the scale between damage/heal / resistence in game must be 3/3/2 if not some class become OP , other useless and thi lead to game imbalancement.
Sy for any eng errors
0
elewyndylMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
lol pvp become bad if you have only 1 map see gw2/ swotor and is amazing if you have tons of map and good mecanic see warhammer online/daoc. The point is no pve is < of pvp in fact games with pvp like end game content have a lot more life circle than other. Then sure you cant leave the pvp to itself you have to balance classes and bring new map every years. A game balanced on group meccanic must have tank unkilleable but they cant kill nothing, melee with medium damage and medium resistence and power rdps wit lol resistence, healer medium/high resistence.
Fight in this mode are long and cool, and it win only the best team. With the tank that can lower the damage of other classes and use crow controll, melee that can lower heal and rdps that can do both single and good aoe damage. and healker that can heal aoe/single even if hitted with a good kitte
BUT important is not casual pvp content like gw2, all in fact are critic it for this there is no sense in talke the castle etc, after 2 sec they can already be retakeable, and win will no produce nothing for the player, i mean win or loosed dont make any difference so why fight? for fun? is not fun we your guardina is powned by 1 thief and you shoul be immortal co you are a tank.
MY advice is not make the pvp zerg based cos is very boring.... make it party/warband based and balance damage and heal, for exemple the scale between damage/heal / resistence in game must be 3/3/2 if not some class become OP , other useless and thi lead to game imbalancement.
Sy for any eng errors
I don't say GW2 is unplayable. I have seen PvP The Mist with i5-2570k Quad Core super Intel CPU and Nvidia 670 super graphiccard and yes it is playable and looks good with high settings. However Guild wars 2 look with low settings worse then WOW in graphics. I do not want to reduce lots of graphics and simply said Mist PvP is meant for at least Quad Core 3 Ghz CPU.
I agree with that don't make PvP zergbased.
Neverwinter has clearly a Tank: Guardian Fighter. I suspect very strongly Cleric will be available as healer at release.
This will not be like Guild wars 2 which has no tanks and instead is respawn festival since all classes can resurrect each other.This is DD 4th edition and none except some healing classes like for example Cleric should resurrect.
However it is Action combat so the Tank needs to dodge. It is easy to dodge a slow Ogre, but Werewolves are much faster and can even jump on a wizard or rogue with bad armor. GROWL! I like Action/Horror movies and yeah make this game Mature content please.
0
syfylisMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
edited December 2012
GW2 Faild at pvp because:
1. It didn't reward you for wining
2. Open world PvP have problem with "brute force" when higher numbers of players doom lower number so it's no longer game of skill but number. The only solution I came up with to create mass pvp is in my GvG thread which is to create several groups of 30 people and then face them against other groups so you get mass pvp but people can't out number others.
I do not believe that making PvP content take that much of human resources and I do not see how option of going or not going to pvp hurt your game. You don't like it you don't go there.
I didn't say it would make a difference on PvE. I clearly said that has NO BEARING on my opinion.
I have yet to see a game which succeeds in having everything separated. As a PvE Only person at some point over time games which have PvP will eventually force PvE players into PvP zones for one reason or another. I have no trust left that developers of any game won't attempt to appease the bloodlust of the PvP Community by offering PvE sacrifices to them.
If not at launch then later on I expect this from every MMO.
Name a single MMO in which every PvE drop can be gained without going into a PvP Zone or doesn't give better drop rates while PvEing in PvP Zones. None exist to my knowledge and this is why I would be far happier if PvP wasn't ever introduced into a D&D MMO.
I don't care about the development team and their projects. I don't want PvP. Not that others or my own desires will have an effect on the fact PvP will be released. My only hope in my statements is that if enough players say they don't want it Cryptic wouldn't foolishly consider doing what every other MMO has: mix PvE and PvP mechanics.
I frankly couldn't care less what kind of effect the loss of the PvP Team would have on PvE Content. The only effect I want is to not be effected by PvP in game.
syfylisMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
edited December 2012
Requiem Memento Mori
It was horror mmorpg that i playd. Game was not best, with bugs and few other issues but it give a lot of fun.
Only set you couldn't get there from pve was pvp set and it was different in a way that it give you more resistance which decrease dps of players skills. All best weapons and best armor sets you could get from pve.
There was 3 servers, first two was pve and last one was PK one. You could start pvp map with password for your friends to join. You didn't have do do any pvp to finish game, and after 3 years ofcourse number of people playing go down and when it come server wars to pve servers had to merge to stand up against PK one.
So pvp with PK is not minority. And for the PvE content all i can say i don't give a damn on any side quests because we got Foundry and there will be people that do their job even better than cryptic. What cryptic have to do is create good main story, good mechanics, good pvp, and all other stories will be in hands of people so because of foundry mainly because of foundry cryptic have a good chance to create good pvp and pve in one game.
I expect to pvp myself, and may or may not enjoy it.
You did not read the above thread or you would have seen that its about pve getting abused by some pvpers. not all pvpers. Some posters have voiced complaints about certain behaviors and it seems that this has caused very bad problems in other games. I think we all agree that it makes no sense to generalize agrression against pvpers or even elitists. jeez.
btw it just shows how you don't even consider thinking about other's wishes. Even the most basic politeness (in an open world) would immediately lead you to the assumption that you are being forced to deal with something you haven't encountered before. Take some tea.
What's the point of an chaotic evil character if I cannot TORTURE people ? I want to ambush people, I want to enervate people, to use mind spells and KILL other players.
Is this forum full of paladins ? In the name of Cyric I hope i get the posibility to do some bad stuff in this game. I want it to be my choice ! I want full freewill.
If I want to play a good paladin of Torn or an evil assasin dark elf it must be the player's choice.
D&D is about players choosing they're own path
Let there be PVP.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
So pvp with PK is not minority. And for the PvE content all i can say i don't give a damn on any side quests because we got Foundry and there will be people that do their job even better than cryptic. What cryptic have to do is create good main story, good mechanics, good pvp, and all other stories will be in hands of people so because of foundry mainly because of foundry cryptic have a good chance to create good pvp and pve in one game.
Exactly why I don't care about the PvP Dev Team. As I said, I just don't want PvP in this game or any other game I play which isn't a PvP Game of it's own.
However thank you for proving me right. The game started out as a separate but equal game and ultimately ended up intermixing the player-base. That's the end result of every MMO which I have seen.
That's not to say PvP is a majority though!
Logically speaking PKers will leave a game without PvP...
PvE Players will likely try to deal with PvP, if they can, and avoid it if/when they can.
Each game is different. Each game attracts a different player-base.
GW2 is a PvP playerbase. Period. Where-as D&D by nature attacts PvE Players.
One game doesn't set the standard. However the fact as a PvE Player I have been burned many times in the past by Developers throwing me into a PvP environment to appease PvPers has become the ultimate end to every MMO which has any form of PvP in it.
Comments
People who try to win with blanket statements often make themselves look foolish. If you don't like something, fine. But proof or it never happened applies to you too. If you're expecting something to be that way, that's all people will often see, and biased is just the starting point.
PvP is fine as long as it isn't forced upon others in a game system that is not based on PvP at its core. Options are just that, optional.
Totally agree with that statement. I do feel it would be....revolutionary to attempt an MMO completely without PvP, however.
Occam's Razor makes the cutting clean.
I agree with this statement.
I would like to add being outnumbered in pvp can be a lot of fun if you have a defensive position like a keep or tower or even good terrain. The most memorable pvp i have ever experienced was in Daoc where 4 groups of guild mates would take a castle in the enemies frontier then defend it for hours against hordes of the enemy. If we were successful they would give up eventually. Another memoriable battle was when we were outnumbered 3 to 1 and the groups without a bard speed formed a shield wall in a narrow pass. Again about 4 groups hid behind enemy lines on a forested hill. As the Horde of enemy charged the shieldwall we swooped down behind them and it was a total route.
So fighting against all odds is not a bad thing if the pvp is properly built as a core system of an mmo. This being said there have been games which it was at the games core and it just didn't work well. Any game that just adds it in as a afterthought usually has lack luster pvp.
As pvp goes there really needs to be a reason for it such as two factions at war or realm vs realm. It should always be optional in the frontier areas of a world. So folks who do not want to pvp do not have to travel to such areas. Any loot found in a pvp area should also be found somewhere in a pve area so it doesn't force folks who do not wish to pvp to have to enter such an area.
Arena's, scenario based pvp just never does it for me. In my opinion this is just tacked on so a mmo can say it has pvp. While some scenarios are fun they get old fast.
Playing on Nordock used to be a lot of fun. I'd go on Drow Raiding Missions and just cause havoc. We'd drag dragons to the main human town or better yet <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> off Benzor's dragon guardian and have him wage war against the town. Oh god the good old memories of causing chaos.
Sadly such a system won't be in place in Neverwinter but like you said, as long as the PvP areas offer nothing I can't get from PvE only areas I think PvPers would be far happier with the wilderness option.
Though as much as I do think that option is better, no offense Cryptic, but I have yet to see a company which doesn't try to force PvE in wilderness areas even if they start out on the right path. For some reason they always end up with the bright idea 'this new boss would be for more challenging and entertaining if players could kill each other in the area. In order to make it worth-while let's give it one of the best drops in the game too!'
I think the open world wilderness style provides the best PvP for PvPers but that content relies heavily in PvE relying on the developers to care enough to not give them the shaft.
Not to be selfish but this is a PvE Game. I don't like PvP in PvE Games; that will never change. The only people who should get the shaft in this game, or any other PvE Game are the PvPers. Sadly most companies will drive me away from their games by forgetting who their audience really is.
- Putting digressive symbolism on posters has never helped a discussion in any way. Posters who voice an opinion have no obligation to provide proof of an opinion that has, as the op points out, formed over a period of time. Putting him off may not be a part of your role as moderator and requires an explanation clearly stating reasons and background of your intervention.
I was going to stop arguing in this fashion but i want to say that the point, in my view was how it would affect the game if pvpers were to have a say in the pve parts of it. If we have established that while most players will be able to adapt to anyone in their party during the progress of a mission, there may still be some irritation on the part of the dedicated pvers. Either way, I wish there was an automaton in the previous games that points out how the "elitist pvpers" (as i now call them) can avoid griefing other players with their competitive playstyle.
Were is this pvp hate coming from ???
Nobody is making you play pvp in an mmorpg so why hate it ?
Go do endless pve and leave the pvp alone if you don't like it.
p.s. i don't even play mmorpg without pvp.
You did not read the above thread or you would have seen that its about pve getting abused by some pvpers. not all pvpers. Some posters have voiced complaints about certain behaviors and it seems that this has caused very bad problems in other games. I think we all agree that it makes no sense to generalize agrression against pvpers or even elitists. jeez.
btw it just shows how you don't even consider thinking about other's wishes. Even the most basic politeness (in an open world) would immediately lead you to the assumption that you are being forced to deal with something you haven't encountered before. Take some tea.
I like PVP, specially warfronts/battlegrounds/war games/mini games, what ever you want to call them! So I do, personally, support them.
Fair enough.
Personally, I have no problem and actually encourage a persistent PvP wilderness zone outside of any locale's influence just like it could happen in any D&D campaign. What I would like is an optional team mechanic so people who decide to go there can "group up for safety." I'm not sure if it would be a simple leader-board or some other reward, but out there, only the strong survive and people know this.
Of course, there should be some warning to those entering the zone this is a player attackable area, but nothing else really needs to be done.
It is wishlisted.
As long as it's not some lazy attempt at endgame or what you wrote, I fully agree to this option.
To create a pvp arena people would have to chose game type capture the flag, fight for artefact, capture point, demolition. After chosing type you get option to create map respawn points and pvp targets (flags, cap points etc. depends on what type u chose). We should have option as well to chose map time, max pts to win, freezetime, respawn time and do people can play with pvp or pve gear.
My work: Heroes Blacksmith - Library
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?21051-Heroes-Blacksmith-Library
They won't do private servers with this software, period. It literally doesn't work with the architecture. But they ARE working on a persistent world and PvP foundry mission concepts.
I mean to use same way as for any normal foundry quest with the difference that it starts when all slots are full. Same mechanics + support for other team.
anyway I think it's a good time to close this thread
My work: Heroes Blacksmith - Library
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?21051-Heroes-Blacksmith-Library
Aside from that look at all the balance issues games like WOW has had, while games that use a completely detached system like LOTRO monster play has had virtually no balance issues. Even games that has relative success with PVP still has issues just look at EvE online......CCP has been really good about providing that community with a steady stream of victims, but that can't last forever and is starting to show decline, but CCP will carry on because it has the biggest soap opera factor of any other MMO.
So is PVP bad for MMO's In my opinion yes especially if the game was suppose to be PVE focused from the start.
However since this game is F2P I would keep expectations slightly lower. Right now I hope this game will support Capture the PvP gaming mode and I suspect Battlegrounds are smaller then Alterac Valley in WOW. Oh and I hate GW2 mentality of equal gear. This is likely not so hardcore in loot system as WOW, but likely not even near so casual as Guild Wars 2. Level/gear should matter in PvP though of course it is skill and numbers also.
In my view if game keep alive with player base of 60-70% of number of people that start playing when game started for 2-3 years then it already made enough money so dev won't feel it was a failure and if game have 50-60 % playerbase after 4 years then it is a success and game can die without any problems.
Now my last point is about this delusion that without pvp you would have so much pve content. There is no writer that will make story going on forever, R A Salvatore will say good bye some day and even if he would not then what do you expect? That you will have 1000 quest for end game? That people will keep going to go questing even they alreeady have best gear and they don't improve their character anymore? Because what? You will create another great story?
At some point quest will become similar and saying ah I'll play another class then don't do much here becaues nvn quests are mostly linear, this is not a witcher2 where small choices make different story.
There is limit to pvp same as to pve. At some point game become boring and mmo dies but that's not bad and we shouldn't feel bad because end of somehting is begining to something else.
My work: Heroes Blacksmith - Library
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?21051-Heroes-Blacksmith-Library
The simple truth of any statement I make saying I don't want PvP being developed is because I don't want it in the game. It will be there and has to be there in order to draw in players but I'd be far happier from my own selfish gaming standpoint if PvP wasn't even possible.
Your conclusion makes sense and in some cases may be true but there's many like me who just don't want PvP in the game.
The rest of your post however provides completely valid, logical and to an extent indisputable points.
However as valid as the approach is from arguing end game content it's also important to consider actual player gaming styles. A game built upon too much PvP without being an actual PvP game will have me refusing to play it from the start such as Guild Wars. My interest in that game is non-existant due to the PvP end-game it promotes.
I agree that a PvP End-Game won't save the game from eventually becoming boring but the question is, is PvP bad for [this] MMO?
Will an overbearance on PvP hurt this game? In my opinion it would kill it.
Will an underbearance on PvP hurt this game? In my opinion yes, but not nearly as much.
We can say we would have several hours more on pve content if there was no pvp but every developer know that people do mailny pve content (quest) once and pvp you can do infinite amount of time. It is a good perspective for developer view what you get for your work which lead us to very strong point of having pvp in game.
You can create pve content for few hours that people finish and then you have to do something new or create pvp where people will have much more hours of playing.
And about ballancing it is mainly changing numbers for already created content so it's smething that one man can do in short time.
Is pvp bad for mmo? No it's not because mmo is a attempt to create world with society in game world and natural part of society are wars, violence, fighting for your own goals and pvp is a part of the game world which respond to that image.
My work: Heroes Blacksmith - Library
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?21051-Heroes-Blacksmith-Library
I played happily WOW for 3.5 years but eventually got bored on it. My casual brother quit WOW in less then a year because it was simply to hardcore(time sink everlasting lootmill). Guild Wars 2 came out 2012.... ultra casual max your character in less then 2 weeks! Developers in Guild wars 2 openly said in interviews that endgame does not exist according to their philosophy. Guild Wars 2 had only one thing for serious ENDGAME and that was PvP with epic scale.
You know I can play WOW with pretty high settings and Witcher 2 also with medium high settings. Guild Wars 2 looks with low graphics worse then WOW with medium settings so I refuse to put lowest graphics in guild wars 2. Guild Wars 2 Mist PvP is Epic scale up to maximum 2000 players( 3 different factions/realms war against each other). The mist area have Castles, siege engines, environment including lakes and NPC that can even ally temporary with you for example Ogres.
Yeah sounds great PvP? The Mist PvP did put my Quad core laptop 2.2 GHz and my brothers dual core desktop 3.4 GHz to their knees! Yeah it is about CPU because we got gaming graphiccards and enough RAM(I had 8 Gb my brother 4 GB). There GW2 collects dust and I will never buy expansions to Guild Wars 2. Even my casual brother hates GW2.
I plan to buy next year Haswell super CPU highend desktop, but lesson learned! Do not ignore PvE endgame or create PvP that has insane system requirements!
Fight in this mode are long and cool, and it win only the best team. With the tank that can lower the damage of other classes and use crow controll, melee that can lower heal and rdps that can do both single and good aoe damage. and healker that can heal aoe/single even if hitted with a good kitte
BUT important is not casual pvp content like gw2, all in fact are critic it for this there is no sense in talke the castle etc, after 2 sec they can already be retakeable, and win will no produce nothing for the player, i mean win or loosed dont make any difference so why fight? for fun? is not fun we your guardina is powned by 1 thief and you shoul be immortal co you are a tank.
MY advice is not make the pvp zerg based cos is very boring.... make it party/warband based and balance damage and heal, for exemple the scale between damage/heal / resistence in game must be 3/3/2 if not some class become OP , other useless and thi lead to game imbalancement.
Sy for any eng errors
I agree with that don't make PvP zergbased.
Neverwinter has clearly a Tank: Guardian Fighter. I suspect very strongly Cleric will be available as healer at release.
This will not be like Guild wars 2 which has no tanks and instead is respawn festival since all classes can resurrect each other. This is DD 4th edition and none except some healing classes like for example Cleric should resurrect.
However it is Action combat so the Tank needs to dodge. It is easy to dodge a slow Ogre, but Werewolves are much faster and can even jump on a wizard or rogue with bad armor. GROWL! I like Action/Horror movies and yeah make this game Mature content please.
1. It didn't reward you for wining
2. Open world PvP have problem with "brute force" when higher numbers of players doom lower number so it's no longer game of skill but number. The only solution I came up with to create mass pvp is in my GvG thread which is to create several groups of 30 people and then face them against other groups so you get mass pvp but people can't out number others.
My work: Heroes Blacksmith - Library
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?21051-Heroes-Blacksmith-Library
I didn't say it would make a difference on PvE. I clearly said that has NO BEARING on my opinion.
I have yet to see a game which succeeds in having everything separated. As a PvE Only person at some point over time games which have PvP will eventually force PvE players into PvP zones for one reason or another. I have no trust left that developers of any game won't attempt to appease the bloodlust of the PvP Community by offering PvE sacrifices to them.
If not at launch then later on I expect this from every MMO.
Name a single MMO in which every PvE drop can be gained without going into a PvP Zone or doesn't give better drop rates while PvEing in PvP Zones. None exist to my knowledge and this is why I would be far happier if PvP wasn't ever introduced into a D&D MMO.
I don't care about the development team and their projects. I don't want PvP. Not that others or my own desires will have an effect on the fact PvP will be released. My only hope in my statements is that if enough players say they don't want it Cryptic wouldn't foolishly consider doing what every other MMO has: mix PvE and PvP mechanics.
I frankly couldn't care less what kind of effect the loss of the PvP Team would have on PvE Content. The only effect I want is to not be effected by PvP in game.
It was horror mmorpg that i playd. Game was not best, with bugs and few other issues but it give a lot of fun.
Only set you couldn't get there from pve was pvp set and it was different in a way that it give you more resistance which decrease dps of players skills. All best weapons and best armor sets you could get from pve.
There was 3 servers, first two was pve and last one was PK one. You could start pvp map with password for your friends to join. You didn't have do do any pvp to finish game, and after 3 years ofcourse number of people playing go down and when it come server wars to pve servers had to merge to stand up against PK one.
So pvp with PK is not minority. And for the PvE content all i can say i don't give a damn on any side quests because we got Foundry and there will be people that do their job even better than cryptic. What cryptic have to do is create good main story, good mechanics, good pvp, and all other stories will be in hands of people so because of foundry mainly because of foundry cryptic have a good chance to create good pvp and pve in one game.
My work: Heroes Blacksmith - Library
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?21051-Heroes-Blacksmith-Library
What's the point of an chaotic evil character if I cannot TORTURE people ? I want to ambush people, I want to enervate people, to use mind spells and KILL other players.
Is this forum full of paladins ? In the name of Cyric I hope i get the posibility to do some bad stuff in this game. I want it to be my choice ! I want full freewill.
If I want to play a good paladin of Torn or an evil assasin dark elf it must be the player's choice.
D&D is about players choosing they're own path
Let there be PVP.
Exactly why I don't care about the PvP Dev Team. As I said, I just don't want PvP in this game or any other game I play which isn't a PvP Game of it's own.
However thank you for proving me right. The game started out as a separate but equal game and ultimately ended up intermixing the player-base. That's the end result of every MMO which I have seen.
That's not to say PvP is a majority though!
Logically speaking PKers will leave a game without PvP...
PvE Players will likely try to deal with PvP, if they can, and avoid it if/when they can.
Each game is different. Each game attracts a different player-base.
GW2 is a PvP playerbase. Period. Where-as D&D by nature attacts PvE Players.
One game doesn't set the standard. However the fact as a PvE Player I have been burned many times in the past by Developers throwing me into a PvP environment to appease PvPers has become the ultimate end to every MMO which has any form of PvP in it.