Aura_Familia

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ex Committee members leaking incorrect information and creating a level of paranoia is really not helpful..

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it would be a problem if it wasn't the only source of information. To date, all we've known is "there's a committee out there for the PvP community". Not who's on it (unless you've cherry picked it out of someone's sig) or what they're doing. I know there was an event scheduled on my server with the PvPEC brand name, but I have no idea what difference that makes to the event (I'll come back to that in a bit). And then the forums get rearranged - was that a committee recommendation? I have no idea - because I have no idea at all what the committee is doing, or how that matches up to my needs.

[ QUOTE ]
We can not possibly include everyone on the committee. I encourage everyone to utilize their server reps and hero/villian reps if they want to submit feedback to the committee.

[/ QUOTE ]

A reasonable request, if you happen to know who those people are, or that those positions even exist. I didn't know there were specific hero/villain reps until this thread, and I read these forums daily. A representative that you don't know exists isn't representing much.

[ QUOTE ]
We hope to plan two major PvP events per year....Summer/Winter.. Its THAT simple... We hope to start our first event the begining of May. We will release the details of the event as soon as we have something definitive. We are looking to run a series of educational events as well to help people who have never PvP'd before or who would like to improve their skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

Golden information. You don't have to have the details of the event spelled out in blood - it's nice just to know what in general this committee that's supposed to be looking out for me is up to.

[ QUOTE ]
I urge you all to please wait until we have something to actually announce before jumping to conclusions and conspiracy theories...

[/ QUOTE ]

Waiting until something's set in stone before announcing it is too late. For all I know, you're planning a PvP-themed bake sale. If you wait until the brownies are in the oven before you leak any information, it's a little late for anyone to sit up and say "hey, that doesn't represent my interests at all!"

[ QUOTE ]
Finally..we are but one of what I hope will be many player run committees. There will be plenty of opportunities for people to get involved where their intrests lie...Supporting our efforts help all of us in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's going to be very beneficial to the rest of these committees that the PvPEC came first, because if there's one thing you can see about the PvP community, it's that they're brutally up front with their thoughts. There seems to be an undertone in your post that you somewhat blame the PvP community and some ex-committee members for the ranting and paranoia surrounding the committee's construction, but the fact is that the committee has been lax in terms of communicating with the community they represent. It just so happens that you picked the most vicious bear in the den to poke with that stick first, so the repercussions have been impressive in scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll agree that all the work of the committee should have been transparent from the beginning. It isn't like this is a closed beta, where everyone is bound by an NDA. Its a committee that's suppossed to represent the playerbase (not just the forumbase btw).

THAT if anything is one thing I also find fault in with this process. Everything should have been open and transparent from the beginning. One way this is usually done with a committe, is by there bing minutes being taken and then submitted to the "public" a little after each meeting.

So to the committee members, are there minutes taken of the meeting. And if there are why are they not public?

With that said: If there are none, I would suggest taking minutes and revealing at least the parts that you can. If there is specific future game related features that you learn from EX or any other dev, those parts can be NDA'd or something. But definetly I think readable minutes would help.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also I want to point out I would be wary of anything posted by MMOrgchart.

As has been stated several times in this thread.

EDIT: Also I see MMOs and RTF and FPS as all different genres. You can't really lump all those statistics together because the reasons (and audience of) one plays an MMO pvp game is different than that of an FPS. I myself HATE FPS and RTFs with a passion. MMO pvp is what actually attracted me.

Also these links to statistics do nothing to show that the idea that "most find pvp as having more replability" as nothing more than opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll respect you don't like MMOrgchart. Do you have an alternate site that you do respect the research of?

So far the only refute to any of these arguements is questioning the material. There has been no posted counter material as of the past 44 pages, unless someone edits it in after this moment.

Those of us that choose to believe the posted information and that choose to believe what a dev has said on is thread about pvp increasing the surviablity of a game have presented our proofs.

We're still waiting for a counter proof other than how someone feels. We'd rather go with discourse and reason.

BTW the only statistical data as of June 2006 I have found on a PVE only MMORPG that has numbers over 100k is Toontown online by Disney, which is meant for pre teens. All the rest I have found quickly drop to populations of around 10,000 to 30,000 within two years or so. If COX went PVE only, as many have demanded, and the same trend held true, that would mean a net loss of 110,000 to 130,000 players from the numbers we have in COX, more than 4 out of 5. That data does come from the charts at MMOrgchart, which I will let you dispute.

Where would you suggest we get our facts from? What do you have as a counter?

The debate is still what would happen if COX were to go PVE only. The debate has never been about trying to go after the PVErs in any way, shape, or form. Nor has it been about forcing them to PVP if they don't want to.



[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, no the debate is not that at all. Those who think COX should only to go PVE don't have a leg to stand on (and are a minority in all the threads I've seen, so i don't understand why you or anyone else is taking them so seriously) as any game that doesn't have both PVE and PVP is dead in the water in the current market. I can't think of one game that doesn't have both other than Fury. And as that is not really out yet, it remains to be seen how well it does.

The one thing that got me saying "huh", was the idea that a game could pull out pve and pvp alone could make the mmo survive. Of which I KNOW there is no data supporting that idea, as there is no SUCCESSFUL game that is only pvp. . . so far.

I would suggest you try to get the facts from the coh developers or ncsoft themselves, as they know their game best and have the REAL data, as to opposed to a third party. But I don't know how much information NCSOFT or Cryptic would be willing to give.

If you haven't guessed, I could care less about WoW or any other game on the market (okay maybe Fury, if it turns out to be good ) when discussing pvp versus pve issues FOR THIS GAME (and technically I don't think its a versus. I think anyone who prescribes to that versus notion is narrow minded--the pve and pvp sides cannot survive without the other) in this game. Nor do I consider FPS or RTS relevant to the discussion, FOR THIS GAME.

Bottom line is one cannot survive without the other. Shouldn't take posting stats to show that. I think its pretty obvious if one just like at the current market today and the games coming out. And even that I don't think is necessary, as the devs have already stated that pvp in this game is here to stay. Anyone who wishes for it to be removed, is [censored] outta luck.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, since you want facts...here are some for ya.


1. Well over half of all MMO players worldwide are playing on a server with open non-consensual PvP.

2. Well over 90% of all MMO players are playing a game that allows PvP.

3. There are more players playing pure PvP games (including FPS and RTS games) than all MMO's combined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you site the source of these 'facts'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I can, and without the single quotes around the word facts as well.

[ QUOTE ]

1. Well over half of all MMO players worldwide are playing on a server with open non-consensual PvP.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of, take a look at this chart:

Distribution by MMO

Then consider that all of the Lineage 1 and 2 servers are open PvP and almost half of the WoW servers are.

WoW servers

The actual numbers are 106 (PvP & RPPvP) versus 115 (Normal & RP) however, its interesting to note that the PvP category has twice as many servers that have high populations as non-PvP servers (33 versus 16). The total numbers still work out to about 50 percent, since the non-PvP servers have 19 more medium (64 to 45) population servers. The most interesting statistic I found when doing some digging was that the server type with the highest percentage of high population servers was RPPvP, with 4 of the 6 servers labeled this way with high populations.

For more info on WoW break downs you can look at this chart:

WoW server population and type

Now, the stats on the MMOG Chart graph are from June 06 and since then WoW has grown quite a bit larger, but purely based on those stats we can see that L1, L2, and WoW PvP accounts for 48.85% alone. Add in UO (1.1%) DAOC (1.0%) and EVE (1.0%) and you get to 51.95%.


[ QUOTE ]
2. Well over 90% of all MMO players are playing a game that allows PvP.


[/ QUOTE ]

This one is even easier since all WoW servers allow PvP and they are such a large portion of the market. I don't _think_ there are any MMO's with a percentage share greater than 1% that don't allow PvP.

[ QUOTE ]

3. There are more players playing pure PvP games (including FPS and RTS games) than all MMO's combined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on this data:
Chart here

We can see that there is something less than 14 million MMO players. Its a little harder to garner hard statistics on the number of FPS and RTS gamers online, since they aren't all connecting to same company run servers. However, we know that there are many many people running servers, in fact there is an entire business around building and hosting servers for gaming clans.
Google Search

And we know that significant portions of people who buy games like BF2 (9 million copies sold) bought it exclusively for multiplayer. All told about 14% of all games sold are FPS games and another 12% or so are RTS.

Sales by genre 2005

The data above doesn't separate other "strategy" type games *30.8%) from RTS's so the 12% number is estimated. Given that those number represent more people in one year than have ever played an MMO its pretty obvious where the market is. If you include console numbers in the mix its even more skewed because Xbox Live is heavily FPS (mostly Halo) dominated. All in all MMO's are actually a small part of the gaming, even purely PC gaming, numbers. In fact, in many gaming companies the idea of MMO's was losing favor until Blizzard hit it big with WoW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well done, but be wary of anything from mmogchart. And that last line is classic. No matter what we think of WoW, Blizzard did in fact save MMOs from going the way of the dodo bird, or at least made it look MUCH better for a game publisher to try and develop an MMO.

[/ QUOTE ]


For DarqAura =)

[/ QUOTE ]

also I want to point out I would be wary of anything posted by MMOrgchart.

As has been stated several times in this thread.

EDIT: Also I see MMOs and RTF and FPS as all different genres. You can't really lump all those statistics together because the reasons (and audience of) one plays an MMO pvp game is different than that of an FPS. I myself HATE FPS and RTFs with a passion. MMO pvp is what actually attracted me.

Also these links to statistics do nothing to show that the idea that "most find pvp as having more replability" as nothing more than opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
T_L would you mind posting the link to those statics again?

I can't seem to find them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I found what you were looking for by quoting you on page 27, it's now on 44. You need some caffine. =) Starbucks always does me wonders. =)

[/ QUOTE ]

go back and ready my post after the fact.

kthnxbye.

[ QUOTE ]
It has been confirmed that there will be events on Live and on Test.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to hear.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hello Everyone,

To introduce myself , as the name says..Im Genna. The PvPec Chair Person.


[/ QUOTE ]

lawl

How about this?

How about the PvP community makes their OWN committee...Libris acts as a Community "representative" and supports this committee, instead of planting cronies like yourself in the head positions...and we use you and other players to help out?

Sounds good to me, insane I know that a Community Rep. would actually let the "community" guide themselves and pick their own leaders, but hey I'm a crazy guy, lol.

I nominate Rift for Chairperson.

[/ QUOTE ]
But Psy, you nominate Rift for Chairperson when Rift himself asked everyone to cool it and trust in the committee as it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

PvP implementations derive much of their re-playability because of the variation. Any time I enter a PvP match, even if I've been on the map thousands of times before, the experience is fresh because I have no idea what my opponents are going to do. The same cannot be said of (most) PvE implementations. (I can run the FrostFire mission in my sleep I believe.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with your description of the PvP experience for FPS but try as I might I do not get the same experience here. Do PvP regulars get surprised by their opponents? My (acknowledged as limited) exposure to PvP suggests it to be every bit as repetative as PvE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends what you mean by surprised. Surprised by level of skill. Yes. Surprised by tatics. Umm, I would argue an affermative no. There are only so many tatics that a blapper or a controller can make based on their AT's abilities. Eventaully in high end pvp there are some things you can basically expect. The variability, at least in my opinion, is how many of them a person actually knows (this comes from experience) and how well and fast they can execute them (also comes from expeirence, but arguably more from SKILL).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you would like to attempt to refute my data, please do so. I've provided extensive information; including raw data, graphs, and citations. All are open to challenge on their own grounds or contradictory data, but as of yet no one has offered any.

[/ QUOTE ]

To quote Homer Simpson: "You can create a statistic to prove anything - 67% of all people know that."

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

T_L, were you talking about this post?
---------------------------------------------------
Ok, since you want facts...here are some for ya.


1. Well over half of all MMO players worldwide are playing on a server with open non-consensual PvP.

2. Well over 90% of all MMO players are playing a game that allows PvP.

3. There are more players playing pure PvP games (including FPS and RTS games) than all MMO's combined.


Cause if you were I see no links in that post. Can you provide supporting links for this please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Also I do not see MMOs and RTS/FPS games as one and the same. To me you HAVE to separate them simply because in MMOs there are variations in the combatants (ATs, classes, etc). There are A LOT less variations in the typical RTS or FPS game than in an MMO.

Take our favorite game (coh/cov). The number of variations (and thus part of the reason you and Arcana have been going back and forth for the last few pages about BALANCE in an MMO) is greater than an FPS.

Hell many people on these forums have stated they like FPS over coh pvp because they feel there is more balance in FPS. That is mostly cause everyone is mostly the same in FPS and RTS. I on the other hand (and would suspect many who like coh's pvp system) would not play an MMO PVP game that had everyone being mostly the same.

I would hope games like Fury do not subscribe to this. (I still haven't gotten a chance to test the game personally).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you would like to attempt to refute my data, please do so. I've provided extensive information; including raw data, graphs, and citations. All are open to challenge on their own grounds or contradictory data, but as of yet no one has offered any.

[/ QUOTE ]

To quote Homer Simpson: "You can create a statistic to prove anything - 67% of all people know that."

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

T_L, were you talking about this post?
---------------------------------------------------
Ok, since you want facts...here are some for ya.


1. Well over half of all MMO players worldwide are playing on a server with open non-consensual PvP.

2. Well over 90% of all MMO players are playing a game that allows PvP.

3. There are more players playing pure PvP games (including FPS and RTS games) than all MMO's combined.


Cause if you were I see no links in that post. Can you provide supporting links for this please?

T_L would you mind posting the link to those statics again?

I can't seem to find them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So "For most gamers (not all), PvP content has more replay value than PvE content. " is surely an opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you would like to attempt to refute my data, please do so. I've provided extensive information; including raw data, graphs, and citations. All are open to challenge on their own grounds or contradictory data, but as of yet no one has offered any.

BTW, one important point. My data is based on all gamers, not just MMO gamers, and certainly not just gamers playing CoX.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is even if 1 person sees pvp as nothing but the same ol same ol (because they don't see any new rewards for it), and they don't see pvp as having ANY replayablity, the the idea that pvp content has more replay value than PVE, IS in fact an opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same argument Jack just tried to make, and its still false. Simply because some people don't agree with the majority, doesn't change the fact that the majority feels a certain way. The statistics are facts based on personal opinions, but they are not opinions themselves.

*Edit*

Now, if the statistics are somehow wrong then you have a venue of dispute, but saying that statistics are invalid isn't a good means to move the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh then I must go back and re-read this thread. As I missed where you linked to data. Give em a sec.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that is subjective at all, it doesn't mean that it holds true for each individual but its certainly true from a statistical view point.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the fact that there are people for whom it doesn't hold true renders your statement entirely subjective. Its your opinion, and you have the right to it, and I might even agree with it, but its still just your opinion and as such is subjective by definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

No its not. Let me see if I can clarify this for you. Whether or not a person enjoys re-using any given type of content _is_ a completely subjective decision based on personal preferences. However, the _fact_ is that PvP content is more reusable by far more people than PvE content is not subjective, it can be demonstrated via statistical analysis.

Here's another way of looking at it. An opinion is subjective, but the measurement of the outcome of those opinions is not. If we ask 10 people if the like apples, 7 may say yes and that creates survey data. If we watch what those 10 people eat over a period of time we can more data about how much they really do like apples. The fact that 2 people don't really care for apples and 1 person can't stand them doesn't alter the reality that most people, in our subject group, like apples. For most gamers (not all), PvP content has more replay value than PvE content.

[/ QUOTE ]

T_L, that's still an opinion. There is no way you can tell me you have surveyed most of the playerbase in this game or in most MMOs. If you have my hats off to you but I doubt you have.

And actually I would argue that pvp's replay value is based on the level of skill of your opponents. So technicaly its more variable in the experience you have, however for most people that play games (not just MMOs in general) REWARDS for what they do in game are what keep bringing people back. With that said for this game in particular, there aren't that many (if any tangilble) rewards for pvp. So the replayability for some just isn't there.

The fact is even if 1 person sees pvp as nothing but the same ol same ol (because they don't see any new rewards for it), and they don't see pvp as having ANY replayablity, the the idea that pvp content has more replay value than PVE, IS in fact an opinion. The fact that you will face an opponent of different skill to me does not change the fact that the arena is the arena every time. Sirens is still Siren's every time. The replayability is the type of player skill, not the actual content. Though that same argument can be made about the PVE game. You will never get the same type of pug every time. For someone who loves cooperating with others THEIR replayability is the type of people who they team with and meet while going against the PVE.

Now you can say pve doesn't have any renewable rewards for it either. Even with all the AT and pre/sec combos you will eventually experience all the powers in game. Though arguably I don't know anyone who has played every AT and every Pri/sec of every AT (both heroes and villans) to 50. Is that even possible with the number of slots we have over all the servers? I haven't done the math so I'm not sure. However, as I said for some they types of people they play with and interact with while facing the PVE is THEIR replayability.

So "For most gamers (not all), PvP content has more replay value than PvE content. " is surely an opinion, or at least highly subjective.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, since you want facts...here are some for ya.


1. Well over half of all MMO players worldwide are playing on a server with open non-consensual PvP.

2. Well over 90% of all MMO players are playing a game that allows PvP.

3. There are more players playing pure PvP games (including FPS and RTS games) than all MMO's combined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you site the source of these 'facts'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I can, and without the single quotes around the word facts as well.

[ QUOTE ]

1. Well over half of all MMO players worldwide are playing on a server with open non-consensual PvP.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of, take a look at this chart:

Distribution by MMO

Then consider that all of the Lineage 1 and 2 servers are open PvP and almost half of the WoW servers are.

WoW servers

The actual numbers are 106 (PvP & RPPvP) versus 115 (Normal & RP) however, its interesting to note that the PvP category has twice as many servers that have high populations as non-PvP servers (33 versus 16). The total numbers still work out to about 50 percent, since the non-PvP servers have 19 more medium (64 to 45) population servers. The most interesting statistic I found when doing some digging was that the server type with the highest percentage of high population servers was RPPvP, with 4 of the 6 servers labeled this way with high populations.

For more info on WoW break downs you can look at this chart:

WoW server population and type

Now, the stats on the MMOG Chart graph are from June 06 and since then WoW has grown quite a bit larger, but purely based on those stats we can see that L1, L2, and WoW PvP accounts for 48.85% alone. Add in UO (1.1%) DAOC (1.0%) and EVE (1.0%) and you get to 51.95%.


[ QUOTE ]
2. Well over 90% of all MMO players are playing a game that allows PvP.


[/ QUOTE ]

This one is even easier since all WoW servers allow PvP and they are such a large portion of the market. I don't _think_ there are any MMO's with a percentage share greater than 1% that don't allow PvP.

[ QUOTE ]

3. There are more players playing pure PvP games (including FPS and RTS games) than all MMO's combined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on this data:
Chart here

We can see that there is something less than 14 million MMO players. Its a little harder to garner hard statistics on the number of FPS and RTS gamers online, since they aren't all connecting to same company run servers. However, we know that there are many many people running servers, in fact there is an entire business around building and hosting servers for gaming clans.
Google Search

And we know that significant portions of people who buy games like BF2 (9 million copies sold) bought it exclusively for multiplayer. All told about 14% of all games sold are FPS games and another 12% or so are RTS.

Sales by genre 2005

The data above doesn't separate other "strategy" type games *30.8%) from RTS's so the 12% number is estimated. Given that those number represent more people in one year than have ever played an MMO its pretty obvious where the market is. If you include console numbers in the mix its even more skewed because Xbox Live is heavily FPS (mostly Halo) dominated. All in all MMO's are actually a small part of the gaming, even purely PC gaming, numbers. In fact, in many gaming companies the idea of MMO's was losing favor until Blizzard hit it big with WoW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well done, but be wary of anything from mmogchart. And that last line is classic. No matter what we think of WoW, Blizzard did in fact save MMOs from going the way of the dodo bird, or at least made it look MUCH better for a game publisher to try and develop an MMO.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah WAR looks damn good also!

For the first time in years I feel like getting into two games from the ground up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Psh. Why? It's such a WoW ripoff.

Kidding!

I'm not so hot on fantasy.. so does anyone know if there's any Warhammer 40k games in the works?

[/ QUOTE ]

HA HA!

Honestly though I think blizzard are geniuses for:
1. levarging their existing worldwide fan base with an easy to play mmo, while at the same time catering to hardcore pvpers who want pvp servers and,

2. makeing themselves the most hated and most loved mmo developer (depending on who you ask)

3. a combination of both 2 and 3, is as we speak/type ganering comparions of this new mmo and this new mmo to WoW. Or how different this new mmo or this new mmo is to WoW. This alone, via bad or good press is keeping WoW constantly on everyone's lips.

No matter what you think of WoW or blizzard, the fact that everyone is talking about them for the above 3 reasons I think they are pretty freaking smart.

Now as to what I personally think of WoW the game, the filters on this forum would melt.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Sorry to keep bringing up Fury in this forum, but the game looks (I haven't tested it myself yet) and sounds just that damn good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already labelled myself as a "PvP hater" (though I really don't like labels like that). But I still have to say that Fury does sound interesting. I will have to check it out once it is released (or at least go into open beta). Who knows... maybe they'll get PvP right.

I'm also eagerly awaiting WAR. Too bad it's so heavily RvR oriented (and that might ultimately turn me away) but... it's Warhammer. I have to give it a shot. Again, maybe they'll get the PvP right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah WAR looks damn good also!

For the first time in years I feel like getting into two games from the ground up.

(Though I would have tried to get into to open beta for this game had I been paying attention to MMO media back then. )

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not disputing that PvP is popular. Some people like it, and that's great. I'd also dare say that some like PvE as well. I'm not suggesting that a game shouldn't feature PvP. I'm protesting the OPs opinion that PvP shouldn't be optional if a game wants to be successful. I disagree strongly with the notion that PvE players are somehow more fickle than PvP players. Why is it so wrong to have both? Why alienate half the potential playerbase?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is what I don't understand. Why do we have to see the cultivation of one side as a slap in the face of the other? Why are we phrasing these questions in an adversarial way at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those who say I hate pvp, it sucks are just as blind to me as those who say, PVP is always better than pve. Neither statement holds a grain of truth in my eyes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... you are a bit naive if you think any potential mmo publisher can ignore loot forever or not try to do what is successful just because they want to be different...

[/ QUOTE ]
While you're in the mood for a little realism, I'd like to point out that CoX has been without loot for 3 years and is apparently still "comfortably in the black".

As such, adding loot now in I9 is not about addressing long term growth and lower subs. IMO, it's about introducing content that builds on the mechanics of features already in the game. This has the effect of reducing the amount of resources needed to release a new issue and frees up some real talent for the MUO side of Cryptic.

Once the other white meat has been cooked, we might start seeing some talk about EATs, new power sets, and hopefully, Crossover. Until then, I predict it'll be spreadsheets and spreadsheets of phat lewts that will amaze and thrill 20% of the player base.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. I see it as adding more pve options into the game--more to do. Epsecially for lvl 50s.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, fair statement. How is it hypocrisy? This feels akin to your saying "Calling a man who has robbed a bank a bank robber is wrong" to me, and that makes no sense. As Herodotus said, it is no insult to a dead man to say that he is dead. If someone is acting like an [censored]-hat, and everyone recognizes that he is acting like an [censored]-hat, how is pointing out that fact hypocrisy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because dead is a well defined term. Whereas [censored]-hat is not only censoered it is also highly subjective. Your use of the word is engageing in the same activity that is provokeing you to call them a [censored]-hat. I dunno about hypocracy but it certainly a good case of becoming what you behold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense.

There is no comparison between my calling someone an [censored]-hat and hounding someone so badly they flee the game. No comparison at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes there is. Look at your sig man. Calling anyone who causes any form of dismay to ANY person whatsoever is considered a Poo Monkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah that's really too broad a stroke their Jack.

[ QUOTE ]

4. loot sucks. theres no way around this.

5. dont devs want to be innovative, to do something original, rather than the do same old thing everybody else does? sure, its a business and you got to make a living, but when did game design become widget production?

[/ QUOTE ]

These two points are key, but unfortunatly you are a bit naive if you think any potential mmo publisher can ignore loot forever or not try to do what is successful just because they want to be different. MMOs are besides everything else, first and foremost a business. If you can't get the subscription numbers in, everything else is irrelevant.

Now not saying I wouldn't like to see more creativity (can we please stop having the newer MMOs coming out trying to be like WoW) but I'm also a realist.

Though some would say pessimist.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, since you want facts...here are some for ya.


1. Well over half of all MMO players worldwide are playing on a server with open non-consensual PvP.

2. Well over 90% of all MMO players are playing a game that allows PvP.

3. There are more players playing pure PvP games (including FPS and RTS games) than all MMO's combined.

[/ QUOTE ]

True facts on and all. But that does not mean that pvp ALONE can drive a SUCCESSFUL MMO.

Though FURY looks like its about to break that mold.

Sorry to keep bringing up Fury in this forum, but the game looks (I haven't tested it myself yet) and sounds just that damn good.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what Fury is. As for WAR (or WHO, if you prefere), that's kinda my point. Optional. And that's one game heavily slated for PvP anyway. And still it will have plenty PvE content as well that you can do if you want.

When I think of a game without any PvE at all, I kinda think WoW, but with only the battlegrounds. Or CoH/V, but only the arena. They don't sound like huge games to me


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats exactly what Fury will be. WHO (and DAOC really achieved the same thing) makes PvE a complete option, since you can level as effectively in PvP as well gaining items. WoW's recent changes to loot drops in PvP are also a step in that (IMO right) direction, but of course you still have to level via PvE there.

[ QUOTE ]

As for FPS/RTSs, that's true! Except we're not talking about those. We're talking MMOs. There's a reason I don't play these games a lot anymore... it's the two genre worst hit by the "let's skip the single-player portion and just make it a glorified multiplayer game. Yay! Infinite content!" phenomenon. I used to be a huge RTS player. Back when those games had stories, plots and didn't just feel like a string of cheap one-shot random maps against the computer.

[/ QUOTE ]

For FPS games and RTS games the jump to multiplayer was the best thing that could have happened. People still play Counterstrike and StarCraft in droves and the vast majority of that time is spent in multiplayer online matches.

I understand that you may personally not like it, but that doesn't invalidate the concept that PvP is immensely popular and well worth including (and even focusing on) in MMO's. That's not to say that every MMO has to include PvP, but its hard to imagine a publisher not including it at this point. The difference between FPS, RTS, and MMO players is not a large gap, in fact most people cross genre's at least occasionally so ignoring the popularity of PvP in the other genre's because they aren't MMO's isn't particularly wise IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed the point. The point is there is a SUCCESSFUL game out right now that focuses ONLY on pvp. Fury is yet to be released, so this remains to be seen.

However, I agree (and I think the person you responded to does) that any sucessful (notice i keep saying that word, I think some forget that MMOs are a buisness--though clearly not you T_L) that any MMO released now has to focus on both. I would even argue it should focus equally on both, which arguably up until recently cov/h hasn't done.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But the fact that most games are being build with PvP in mind doesn't prove anything. How many of these games have no PvE content? How many successful MMOs can you name that have no PvE content at all? So... is it right to conclude that all these games (including WoW) owe their success to PvE? Well, apparently!


[/ QUOTE ]

Fury will have no PvE content and in WHO you can level and get gear completely via PvP. Now, both of these games are still in development/testing and so haven't yet demonstrated success. However, arguably the entire FPS/RTS online community is a pure PvP experience and still attracts more gamers than all of the MMO's combined.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what Fury is. As for WAR (or WHO, if you prefere), that's kinda my point. Optional. And that's one game heavily slated for PvP anyway. And still it will have plenty PvE content as well that you can do if you want.

When I think of a game without any PvE at all, I kinda think WoW, but with only the battlegrounds. Or CoH/V, but only the arena. They don't sound like huge games to me

As for FPS/RTSs, that's true! Except we're not talking about those. We're talking MMOs. There's a reason I don't play these games a lot anymore... it's the two genre worst hit by the "let's skip the single-player portion and just make it a glorified multiplayer game. Yay! Infinite content!" phenomenon. I used to be a huge RTS player. Back when those games had stories, plots and didn't just feel like a string of cheap one-shot random maps against the computer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fury will be all pvp all the time. Remains to be seen if this will be successful, as THERE IS NOTHING like it out right now in MMOs. I think I agree with your point, I'm yet to see an MMO that has ONLY pvp that has been successful. And by today's WoW-ified standards successful does not = 10K subs for most game developers/publishers.

I'm hoping Fury makes at least 80K. I would consider that a success.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Player Auction houses are a great example of PvP content

[/ QUOTE ] plz explain

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah I don't see how that's pvp either.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again like you just said you CAN get away from the idiot in PVE and go PVE somewhere else. When you flee a pvp zone, you are fleeing an activity you like.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you get it. Yes, I CAN get away from the idiot in PVE by being forced to do something OTHER THAN I WANT and leave the zone where they were griefing me.

In PVP, I have that SAME choice....but I can also fight back because "griefing" is really just "Player versus Player" in those zones.

How can I fight back in PVE?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets try this again, we want more folks in the zones! The grief pushes them out of the zones. This is a bad thing. For an exprienced pvper fighting back is easy. For a first timer the thing they see is the bad behavior and then they turn tail and leave. This is not a good thing.

In a pve zone I can just avoid the idiot or not team with him.

Hence whey I like the arenas a lot. You can exclude the idiots right from the get go.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Point is you can get away from all of that PVE greifing.

You can't get away from the idiot in a pvp zone if you wish to to pvp in the zone. The griefing in PVE is nothing compared to pvp as far as I'm concerned.

You can't really drive someone out of a pve zone as then you'd be driving them out of the game. Driving someone out of a pvp zone is only driving them out of pvp, which is what we all don't want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you are wrong. You can't avoid griefing in the PVE world any differenty than in the PVP world. In all the cases I listed, I had to leave the zone and go somewhere else as I had NO WAY to fight back at the griefers doing it. I was a blaster, the guy was a fire tanker and he had aggro'd dozens of critters on top of me...I had no choice but to go play elsewhere. NO WAY I could retaliate against him. In PVP, I've the option to fight back or flee. My option in PVE is to flee.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again like you just said you CAN get away from the idiot in PVE and go PVE somewhere else. When you flee a pvp zone, you are fleeing an activity you like.