...also, from what i know a dev said that 18 percent of the playerbase (whatever that means) is klink. so, how can it be that only one percent of the playerbase is actually pvping when the pvp-labelled faction is that much bigger?
...dont trust any statistics, except the ones u faked
Yes...
Because when you play as a Klingon... you are obligated and outright forced to participate in PvP...
PVP-centric games being dominant on both consoles and computers affects everyone but mobile gamers.
The "PvP-centric games" that have become popular are FPS and MOBA games, which are predominantly set up to have a near-even playing field, such that it's a contest of skill as opposed to time/resources previously invested (unlike STO).
Let's look at MMOs:
As far as I know, EVE Online has probably the most uneven PvP. They had 500k subscribers as of Feb 2013, and hit a record high of 65k concurrent players this year.
As far as i know, GW2 has the least uneven PvP. (Their PvP gear is different from PvE gear, and stats are equalized.) They sold 3.5 mil copies with a record of 460k online concurrently.
I would say that, by those numbers, my hypothesis holds - the popularity of PvP games in the gaming market is primarily for contests of skill, not contests of time/resources invested.
For completion sake, because they're the elephant in the room, WoW has 117 PvE servers (16 High, 97 Medium, 4 Low) and 112 PvP servers (20 High, 61 Medium, 31 Low) with 7.6M subscribers as of last month.
So Moba-clones for everyone right? That'll make tons of money and be sure to work! Like all those Blizzard-MMO clones! Right? Right?
You may not be able to notice this in the bubble you're living in, but not everyone wants to play another stupid Moba clone. In much the same way that you don't like PVE, we don't want to be in your quasi e-sport.
I never asked for a moba clone. I mentioned Gekos interest in borrowing a few of the mechanics and used their popularity to back up my assertion that people in general love PVP. Turning STO into a moba clone isn't even a remote possibility, it would require changing the entire game. You're going to great lengths to try and discredit me but it just sounds silly.
The funny thing on my side is that I hate Mobas. Starcraft should be the more popular E-sport if you ask me.
Funny. The primary forum crutch in this thread seems to be saying "u mad" in some form or another. And here, we see a "mad" specifically about not being catered to.
lol Uh, yeah. Normal reaction for people, who purchase a service, then don't receive said service. I think most people would get mad, if they prepaid for their meal, then found the staff unwilling to cater to them.
"Come in and sit sown. We have steak, lobster, ice cream, and cake."
"Great! I like cake."
"That will be $199.00. Thank you. Your hostess will seat you."
*after eating some steak*
"I'll have some cake now, please."
"Sorry. We're still working on the cake. We have some fresh lobster and a new flavor of ice cream though."
"But you said there was cake."
"There will be cake. It's coming soon."
*after eating some lobster and ice cream.*
"Where's the cake?"
"There will be cake. It's coming soon. We have a new flavor of ice cream though."
"You said that before. How do you have a new flavor of ice cream, yet I still don't have my cake?"
*other patrons in the restaurant chime in*
"Hey! You're the only one who likes cake. The rest of us want ice cream. We don't want the kitchen wasting time on making your cake."
"But they said there would be cake. The cake was a lie!"
There is no such thing as an irrelevant gaming market when discussing gaming. PVP-centric games being dominant on both consoles and computers affects everyone but mobile gamers. The FTP market is dominated by Mobas. This phenomena affects us as players and consumers. PVP is the most popular way to extend a games longevity and not treating it like a red headed step child will do the game well. Just because PVP doesn't dominate MMOs doesn't mean it's not important. Every MMO ships with PVP because it's considered a key feature in practically any game.
There's such a thing as an irrelevant gaming market when we're talking about - amazingly enough - PVP specifically in the MMORPG gaming market. You even say it yourself right above: "PvP doesn't dominate in MMOs" - quite right, it doesn't. The community constitutes a niche demographic within the overall MMO gaming population. That is the point here, so bleating on about the MOBA and FPS markets is irrelevant - neither dominate the MMO market because they're not the bloody MMO market, and we're talking about the MMO market.
I don't know how many times I need to say that - and it really doesn't matter if a developer talks about incorporating elements of FPS or MOBA play into the game; those elements aren't going to allow the game to magically tap into the FPS & MOBA markets, and it's still an MMO. It's like Blizzard turning WoW into World of PokemonKungFuPandaFarmvilleCraft - it's all been novelty, no real market-tapping, and despite having pet battles and tending crops to your heart's content on your tubby Jack Black wannabe pandabear, you're still playing an MMO.
Also not every MMO ships with PVP, and no it's not considered a "key feature in practically any game". It's a feature paid lip service to by developers - especially MMO developers - because they know doing so will draw in a portion of the PvP fraternity, who will then proceed to be strung along for months - if not years - with the standard "Soon(TM)" rhetoric.
Unless I missed concrete proof of some overt, iron-clad promise of PvP content made by a developer with authorization to speak to the subject in an official capacity, it is dishonest to suggest such a commitment has been made.
The "PvP-centric games" that have become popular are FPS and MOBA games, which are predominantly set up to have a near-even playing field, such that it's a contest of skill as opposed to time/resources previously invested (unlike STO).
Let's look at MMOs:
As far as I know, EVE Online has probably the most uneven PvP. They had 500k subscribers as of Feb 2013, and hit a record high of 65k concurrent players this year.
As far as i know, GW2 has the least uneven PvP. (Their PvP gear is different from PvE gear, and stats are equalized.) They sold 3.5 mil copies with a record of 460k online concurrently.
I would say that, by those numbers, my hypothesis holds - the popularity of PvP games in the gaming market is primarily for contests of skill, not contests of time/resources invested.
For completion sake, because they're the elephant in the room, WoW has 117 PvE servers (16 High, 97 Medium, 4 Low) and 112 PvP servers (20 High, 61 Medium, 31 Low) with 7.6M subscribers as of last month.
This is a pretty good post but let's remember some important things about it. Despite WOW not being PVP focused it has more effort being put into pleasing PVPers than STO does. pVPers get entire servers for their use, that's territory mechanics at play too. All STO has in PVP that wow doesn't is a singular objective mode king of the hill map. Kerrat is like an entire server for WOW players. So what I'm seeing here is that companies that don't forsake a player base are rewarded for it. WOW even has a similar system to reputation in place for PVP servers, except it's more complex than any one rep path in STO. So treat us right and let the whole community grow as the majority of the industry shows.
Does establishing that there are a few MMOs without PVP disprove my entire point? I don't think it does and you're just bringing more attention to the fact that it's an industry standard.
Yes it does - you said that all MMO's have PvP, which implies that an MMO without PvP is therefore lacking a normal feature of MMO's. Not the case.
And if MMO's exist without PvP, it's hardly an industry standard, is it?
First off the Devs have said many things about what they want to do with PVP. So you too are getting mad about possible futures.
You are projecting your own emotions - what do I have to be mad about? The devs are going to continue ignoring PvP and I'm fine with that.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
This is a pretty good post but let's remember some important things about it. Despite WOW not being PVP focused it has more effort being put into pleasing PVPers than STO does. pVPers get entire servers for their use, that's territory mechanics at play too. All STO has in PVP that wow doesn't is a singular objective mode king of the hill map. Kerrat is like an entire server for WOW players. So what I'm seeing here is that companies that don't forsake a player base are rewarded for it. WOW even has a similar system to reputation in place for PVP servers, except it's more complex than any one rep path in STO. So treat us right and let the whole community grow as the majority of the industry shows.
I don't recall WoW's PvP being as massively unbalanced as STO's, but I never hit endgame so it could just be as bad. I dunno. It was a little less balanced than GW2, definitely.
Neverwinter's PvP is ****. :P
(I do tend to check out PvP, but when it's massively weighed in favor of "no-lifers" such that "casuals" don't have a fighting chance, I don't bother.)
There's such a thing as an irrelevant gaming market when we're talking about - amazingly enough - PVP specifically in the MMORPG gaming market. You even say it yourself right above: "PvP doesn't dominate in MMOs" - quite right, it doesn't. The community constitutes a niche demographic within the overall MMO gaming population. That is the point here, so bleating on about the MOBA and FPS markets is irrelevant - neither dominate the MMO market because they're not the bloody MMO market, and we're talking about the MMO market.
I don't know how many times I need to say that - and it really doesn't matter if a developer talks about incorporating elements of FPS or MOBA play into the game; those elements aren't going to allow the game to magically tap into the FPS & MOBA markets, and it's still an MMO. It's like Blizzard turning WoW into World of PokemonKungFuPandaFarmvilleCraft - it's all been novelty, no real market-tapping, and despite having pet battles and tending crops to your heart's content on your tubby Jack Black wannabe pandabear, you're still playing an MMO.
Also not every MMO ships with PVP, and no it's not considered a "key feature in practically any game". It's a feature paid lip service to by developers - especially MMO developers - because they know doing so will draw in a portion of the PvP fraternity, who will then proceed to be strung along for months - if not years - with the standard "Soon(TM)" rhetoric.
Want to know something interesting? Television is dying as an industry. It's because of the Internet and video games, two very different forms of media. The difference between those media forms is bigger than the difference between types of video games. Isolationism doesn't work politically or economically for countries, so let's take a look at how people work because that will always be relevant to any media discussion. People in general like PVP, it's easy to see.
Here's what I don't understand. If you play STO for the PvP, and the PvP is clearly inferior to all the "other MMOs" out there, then why are you punishing yourself playing PvP in STO, and depriving yourself of all the superior alternatives that are out there? It doesn't make sense, see?
Where else can I fly my Excelsior into pvp reliably?
I understand that STO was considered incomplete at launch by many reviewers and it's taken a long time to overcome that notion in the most basic of meanings. But the mission has been accomplished at this point with a long game filled with grinding and lore. But as part of the original package PVP still remains unfinished. Since the basic needs of the game are fulfilled in a grinding MMO sense the time has come to add something exotic. Giving PVP a nice update would both fulfil the original games purpose built design and add something exotic to the end game.
It's a win win for everyone if done properly. A portion of the population stays for longer and we attract more players. The PVP community isn't a blight either, they've helped fix several inherit bugs that hurt everyone. Look at the history of FAW if you want an example.
Speaking as someone who never PvP's, I like this quote.
Yes, it's true that a PvP update probably won't directly benefit me very much. But if it's good for the game, attracts new players and re-engages existing players, it keeps the money coming and the development going. And I get to keep playing the parts I like.
One point of contention between PvE and PvP players are the "shinys" that many PvP players refer to as "cheese". What is a cool game mechanic in a PvE setting might be either a decrease in effectiveness or a pay-to-win item in a PvP setting.
An option that allowed custom matches to exclude certain "cheesy" items from play would be wildly received by a lot PvP players and wouldn't hurt PvE'ers one bit.
A leaderboard that made it possible for PvP'ers to match up against other PvP'ers with similar win-loss records would immensely facilitate fair and challenging matches for everyone... with no downside for PvE.
New maps, new match types... the only "loss" to PvE is Dev time. But over the long haul, I think it's worth having new functionality for PvP.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
i guess i am what you would call a pve player though I have played pvp a few times and though i haven't played them all i am guessing they are all the same.
with the ones i have played i think the biggest problem for pve players is the respawn it makes things very confusing.
with pve when you take out an enemy he stays out, in some environments he may be replaced by another enemy of the same type but that's not the same.
if i was to enjoy playing a pvp i would ideally want it so that when you take out an enemy ship or ground character they stay out.
you could then have a game that is a kill all the enemy or capture the base type of thing with a set time of say 15 minutes to complete your objective.
if at the end of the game the base has not been captured and there are still enemy in play you could either declare it a draw or you could award the win to the side with most characters in play.
any buffs you might have like shield battery's or food ect could be used but anything that calls reinforcements such as the shard of possibilities could not.
you could have the rewards set so that anything you do gives a certain value in points say kill an enemy or be one of the players who capture the base or if you survive the mission.
the player with the most points getting the biggest share down to the player with the least points getting the smallest share.
i think if they had this type of game many more people would give it a go.
having said all that i have no objection to cryptic revamping the pvp games and adding a lot more.
it would also be cool if they had a fast action ground based pvp with vehicles of some kind like buggies or scooters with lasers and missiles.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
New maps, new match types... the only "loss" to PvE is Dev time. But over the long haul, I think it's worth having new functionality for PvP.
Exactly, Dev Time.
The one and only thing we can't spare.
See, all these new things for PvP will take AT LEAST a complete Season to get "up to date".
A Complete Season without Content... again.
I can say for at least for me, that I would not "return" to the Game when they announce such a content-free PvP Season until the next Content Update and I don't see the typical PvPer as someone that would buy all that cosmetic stuff (for example) in the C-Store as I do...
So yeah... MAYBE in the Long run it will be beneficial for the game but I am not sure it is able to survive a "short term" suffocation.
Exactly, Dev Time.
The one and only thing we can't spare.
See, all these new things for PvP will take AT LEAST a complete Season to get "up to date".
A Complete Season without Content... again.
I can say for at least for me, that I would not "return" to the Game when they announce such a content-free PvP Season until the next Content Update and I don't see the typical PvPer as someone that would buy all that cosmetic stuff (for example) in the C-Store as I do...
Content developers and programmers are two different entities. Working on system mechanics has zero crossover to content.
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
Comments
Yes...
Because when you play as a Klingon... you are obligated and outright forced to participate in PvP...
Ellipses....... ...........................
..........................
.....
.....make you sound like the boss on Office Space...... yeeeeeeeah.........
And on a more relevant note, either you're incorrect because there's a complete arc of PVE content for the KDF now or this is yet more whiny sarcasm.
I was aiming for a more Shatner-esque Style.
Ah... one can't do it right, huh?
Oh and it's not particularly whiny, it's more a little bit annoyed.
The "PvP-centric games" that have become popular are FPS and MOBA games, which are predominantly set up to have a near-even playing field, such that it's a contest of skill as opposed to time/resources previously invested (unlike STO).
Let's look at MMOs:
As far as I know, EVE Online has probably the most uneven PvP. They had 500k subscribers as of Feb 2013, and hit a record high of 65k concurrent players this year.
As far as i know, GW2 has the least uneven PvP. (Their PvP gear is different from PvE gear, and stats are equalized.) They sold 3.5 mil copies with a record of 460k online concurrently.
I would say that, by those numbers, my hypothesis holds - the popularity of PvP games in the gaming market is primarily for contests of skill, not contests of time/resources invested.
For completion sake, because they're the elephant in the room, WoW has 117 PvE servers (16 High, 97 Medium, 4 Low) and 112 PvP servers (20 High, 61 Medium, 31 Low) with 7.6M subscribers as of last month.
It's all good. I just like to poke people that get ellipses diarrhea.
I never asked for a moba clone. I mentioned Gekos interest in borrowing a few of the mechanics and used their popularity to back up my assertion that people in general love PVP. Turning STO into a moba clone isn't even a remote possibility, it would require changing the entire game. You're going to great lengths to try and discredit me but it just sounds silly.
The funny thing on my side is that I hate Mobas. Starcraft should be the more popular E-sport if you ask me.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCJZ5FBJ9bFaZ6yAFiNpZiRQ/featured?view_as=subscriber
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CaptainCidStorm
It's a zero-sum game. Resources are limited, and people won't want them "wasted" on things that don't improve their experience.
lol Uh, yeah. Normal reaction for people, who purchase a service, then don't receive said service. I think most people would get mad, if they prepaid for their meal, then found the staff unwilling to cater to them.
"Come in and sit sown. We have steak, lobster, ice cream, and cake."
"Great! I like cake."
"That will be $199.00. Thank you. Your hostess will seat you."
*after eating some steak*
"I'll have some cake now, please."
"Sorry. We're still working on the cake. We have some fresh lobster and a new flavor of ice cream though."
"But you said there was cake."
"There will be cake. It's coming soon."
*after eating some lobster and ice cream.*
"Where's the cake?"
"There will be cake. It's coming soon. We have a new flavor of ice cream though."
"You said that before. How do you have a new flavor of ice cream, yet I still don't have my cake?"
*other patrons in the restaurant chime in*
"Hey! You're the only one who likes cake. The rest of us want ice cream. We don't want the kitchen wasting time on making your cake."
"But they said there would be cake. The cake was a lie!"
There's such a thing as an irrelevant gaming market when we're talking about - amazingly enough - PVP specifically in the MMORPG gaming market. You even say it yourself right above: "PvP doesn't dominate in MMOs" - quite right, it doesn't. The community constitutes a niche demographic within the overall MMO gaming population. That is the point here, so bleating on about the MOBA and FPS markets is irrelevant - neither dominate the MMO market because they're not the bloody MMO market, and we're talking about the MMO market.
I don't know how many times I need to say that - and it really doesn't matter if a developer talks about incorporating elements of FPS or MOBA play into the game; those elements aren't going to allow the game to magically tap into the FPS & MOBA markets, and it's still an MMO. It's like Blizzard turning WoW into World of PokemonKungFuPandaFarmvilleCraft - it's all been novelty, no real market-tapping, and despite having pet battles and tending crops to your heart's content on your tubby Jack Black wannabe pandabear, you're still playing an MMO.
Also not every MMO ships with PVP, and no it's not considered a "key feature in practically any game". It's a feature paid lip service to by developers - especially MMO developers - because they know doing so will draw in a portion of the PvP fraternity, who will then proceed to be strung along for months - if not years - with the standard "Soon(TM)" rhetoric.
It's so bad that even though I would fully support some much needed improvements to PvP if such a thing were to happen, I'm somewhat glad it won't.
The proof is pretty much plastered all over this thread. PvE and PvP champions combined, from where I'm sitting you're both as bad as each other.
So we're afraid of change and experimentation now?
This is a pretty good post but let's remember some important things about it. Despite WOW not being PVP focused it has more effort being put into pleasing PVPers than STO does. pVPers get entire servers for their use, that's territory mechanics at play too. All STO has in PVP that wow doesn't is a singular objective mode king of the hill map. Kerrat is like an entire server for WOW players. So what I'm seeing here is that companies that don't forsake a player base are rewarded for it. WOW even has a similar system to reputation in place for PVP servers, except it's more complex than any one rep path in STO. So treat us right and let the whole community grow as the majority of the industry shows.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCJZ5FBJ9bFaZ6yAFiNpZiRQ/featured?view_as=subscriber
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CaptainCidStorm
Yes it does - you said that all MMO's have PvP, which implies that an MMO without PvP is therefore lacking a normal feature of MMO's. Not the case.
And if MMO's exist without PvP, it's hardly an industry standard, is it?
You are projecting your own emotions - what do I have to be mad about? The devs are going to continue ignoring PvP and I'm fine with that.
We fear change.
(I personally don't care what they do to STO, really.)
I don't recall WoW's PvP being as massively unbalanced as STO's, but I never hit endgame so it could just be as bad. I dunno. It was a little less balanced than GW2, definitely.
Neverwinter's PvP is ****. :P
(I do tend to check out PvP, but when it's massively weighed in favor of "no-lifers" such that "casuals" don't have a fighting chance, I don't bother.)
Want to know something interesting? Television is dying as an industry. It's because of the Internet and video games, two very different forms of media. The difference between those media forms is bigger than the difference between types of video games. Isolationism doesn't work politically or economically for countries, so let's take a look at how people work because that will always be relevant to any media discussion. People in general like PVP, it's easy to see.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCJZ5FBJ9bFaZ6yAFiNpZiRQ/featured?view_as=subscriber
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CaptainCidStorm
I've yet to see it put better
Alright how about you go find a list of MMOs without PVP and I might believe you.
I think you're out of touch. You don't understand PVP is in almost every major MMO and you don't know about the STO devs desire to improve PVP.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCJZ5FBJ9bFaZ6yAFiNpZiRQ/featured?view_as=subscriber
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CaptainCidStorm
Where else can I fly my Excelsior into pvp reliably?
Speaking as someone who never PvP's, I like this quote.
Yes, it's true that a PvP update probably won't directly benefit me very much. But if it's good for the game, attracts new players and re-engages existing players, it keeps the money coming and the development going. And I get to keep playing the parts I like.
One point of contention between PvE and PvP players are the "shinys" that many PvP players refer to as "cheese". What is a cool game mechanic in a PvE setting might be either a decrease in effectiveness or a pay-to-win item in a PvP setting.
An option that allowed custom matches to exclude certain "cheesy" items from play would be wildly received by a lot PvP players and wouldn't hurt PvE'ers one bit.
A leaderboard that made it possible for PvP'ers to match up against other PvP'ers with similar win-loss records would immensely facilitate fair and challenging matches for everyone... with no downside for PvE.
New maps, new match types... the only "loss" to PvE is Dev time. But over the long haul, I think it's worth having new functionality for PvP.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I'm not
I haven't played this pos in about 6 months
with the ones i have played i think the biggest problem for pve players is the respawn it makes things very confusing.
with pve when you take out an enemy he stays out, in some environments he may be replaced by another enemy of the same type but that's not the same.
if i was to enjoy playing a pvp i would ideally want it so that when you take out an enemy ship or ground character they stay out.
you could then have a game that is a kill all the enemy or capture the base type of thing with a set time of say 15 minutes to complete your objective.
if at the end of the game the base has not been captured and there are still enemy in play you could either declare it a draw or you could award the win to the side with most characters in play.
any buffs you might have like shield battery's or food ect could be used but anything that calls reinforcements such as the shard of possibilities could not.
you could have the rewards set so that anything you do gives a certain value in points say kill an enemy or be one of the players who capture the base or if you survive the mission.
the player with the most points getting the biggest share down to the player with the least points getting the smallest share.
i think if they had this type of game many more people would give it a go.
having said all that i have no objection to cryptic revamping the pvp games and adding a lot more.
it would also be cool if they had a fast action ground based pvp with vehicles of some kind like buggies or scooters with lasers and missiles.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
Exactly, Dev Time.
The one and only thing we can't spare.
See, all these new things for PvP will take AT LEAST a complete Season to get "up to date".
A Complete Season without Content... again.
I can say for at least for me, that I would not "return" to the Game when they announce such a content-free PvP Season until the next Content Update and I don't see the typical PvPer as someone that would buy all that cosmetic stuff (for example) in the C-Store as I do...
So yeah... MAYBE in the Long run it will be beneficial for the game but I am not sure it is able to survive a "short term" suffocation.
Content developers and programmers are two different entities. Working on system mechanics has zero crossover to content.
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
And who do you think has to make the new Interfaces? The Map Assets? And whatever has been demanded as necessities?