Laylyn

It looks interesting. I'll do some playtesting on freedom sometime soon to get a feel for how these things are a playstyle change. Movement surpression will be a huge change to the old arena playstyle and I read there was a base 40% resistance buff to squishes. That's a heavy dynamic switch.

Thanks for the info SC and MN. =)

Hi all.

SC, so what's the 2.0 change in math? You implied a mass simplification of base amounts. How does that work?

I got note on our website to check this out from an old ally in BOP.

If you want to restart the Guardian Wars, you need to do the following:

1. You HAVE to build coalitions with both sides. In the first run, BOP was our center guild for Villians and TA helped fill the numbers you'll see for number two. That's a simple number though in truth, we had agreements and props to at least 10 different guilds on both sides to keep numbers consistantly up. On top of that dozens of guilds joined in the original Wars.

2. The Guardian Wars work best in RV when the numbers are above 50 vs 50. The ideal is around 100 vs 100. The reason being that individual builds matter less in that large of an engagement. The complaint is normally lag, but this is the way we made the whole thing work.

3. It has to be made in such a way that the hardcore pvper has plenty to do and the casual pvper has to be able to have fun too. The central idea of the wars was to grow the pvp base of Guardian. At one time it was 1/3 of the total players online on boths sides, which is a record that no other server ever touched.

4. You have to capture the hearts and minds of the community.

Guardian, you all had a lot to be proud of with the old Wars. It was never just me or HAUNT.

The best chance the Wars have for balance is the next expansion, when your blue toons can be bad guys, it allows for a total spread on both sides. It also takes care of the "lol villian" realities that dogged us, because of game mechanics.

The expansion might take care of everything that makes the current issues. If you guys and girls really want it to happen, that might make the best time to make it last for a year or years.

/salute

[ QUOTE ]
So use the arena then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. If that was there complaint they can control any factor they don't like there.

[ QUOTE ]
Would be cool, they could make those purples only have PvP effects, so PvEers would have no reason to want them anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
Awsome post, as someone who's played MUDs/MMOs forever it is completely true.

Look at WoW and the millions of PvPers through BGs/Arenas/World PvP.

People like WoW PvP because they can actually gain what they need to become more powerful through it even after the lvl cap and Blizzard pumps out new season gear all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a thought, maybe they could make pvp specific purples. Possibly earned in each zone as a side affect of rep, say every 500 points or so.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, the Aegis is a weird creature, and can't just be classified as "like a set bonus". Part of it functions that way, but not all of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In particular, according to my last testing it functioned like this:

*3% Psi Resist - On constantly
*20% Status Resist functions as a 100% chance to fire proc of 4% status resist(with nigh-infinite duration) that stacks with itself to hit 20%.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, as I said above it's 5% status resistance stacking up to 5 times for a total of 25% status resistance.
I guess that one possible source of confusion is that 25% Mez resistance is displayed in the Combat Attributes window as reducing Mez duration by 20%.



[ QUOTE ]
HOWEVER, as of my last testing of this proc it only fired if in an 'active' power. I placed it in Resist physical and only received the psi-resist. Placed it in TI and both aspects worked as described above...it has been a while since the test so I am not sure if this has been fixed or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

The status resistance seems to work just fine in passives, and I see no reason why it would not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Posting while on sudafed == bad.

What I meant to say was that, if for example, you place the IO in a click power (such as the Sonic shields), you will get 5% status resistance per casting (stacking up to 5 times).

For a toggle, you must turn the power on and it will gradually tick 5 times.

For a passive, it will tick as soon as the character is loaded due to the power always being on.

So for passives, it works like set bonus (effectively). For toggles, it will also work like a set bonus IF the toggle is on (note: the long duration means that it will still be effective once the toggle is dropped). But for clicks, it only operates like a set bonus if you click your power on a few times (once per 5%).


Just to make sure my memory was correct, I just went back to the test server and put an Aegis in Unstoppable to confirm.

My apologies for the muddling of the earlier posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I have an out of the box question for you then. What would happen if you placed the Aegis in a buff, such as a corrupter's fire shield or thaw. Would it status buff the user or the people you throw the buff on?

[ QUOTE ]
Since this post was dug up, I figured I'd respond.

I'm nearing my 12th month of subscription time. I both pve and pvp. If it wasn't for pvp, I would have left much much sooner - Why?

Because programmed behavior is predictable.

I've got several 50s, and pvewise, the content is hardly fresh (aside from an occasional issue). My current main has over a billion invested in her, while the rest are all below 300 million each. One of the cheapest had a Master of Statesman's Task Force badge on her second run. My main has run well over 20, and while comming close here and there, has yet to be successful facing untimely teammate deaths.

What's the point? One doesn't need the best gear to accomplish one of the most difficult tasks this game has to offer. With that said, why put the time and effort getting it if its unnecessary?

Without a PvP aspect, there would be no justification for spending so much time and effort getting the best gear possible. In regards to pvp, you want the best edge possible and thus I was able to put the effort towards building my main to my ultimate design. Countless NPCs have fallen by my hand. After hitting 50, all you can really do is repeat the same content in the same game. Why repeat it after the hundredth, two-hundredth time (etc)

Where is the reward to making yourself as strong, as fast, as improved as possible when you're simply doing what you had already been doing? PvP.

Don't get me wrong, a majority of players can enjoy a game a long time purely focusing on pve. However, to really have a thriving economy, pvp is necessary as pvp-focused players have an irreplaceable role. They put in the time and effort casual gamers simply will not do or cannot afford.

As far as the Diablo 2 references, after hitting the level cap, the only reason to play was to get better gear, almost always for pvp purposes. Otherwise it was just rolling another character or variation, but effectively the exact same gameplay.

All in all, I would have to say PvP is in-fact essential to any Large MMO. Pve only goes so far without people to team with. Eliminate PvP, and you're losing subscribers faster than you can replenish them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree.

[ QUOTE ]
PVP rules..that is all

[/ QUOTE ]

Word, Rift.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is a bit out of date. Since this thread still exists I'll add that Star Trek Online, Marvel, and DC all seem to have been canceled. Cryptic is now developing Champions which will have pvp options.

AoC is right now in a strong launch. Warhammer is currently expected to be out in October 2008 as something very pvp centric. WOW is adding more pvp options with its next expansion due in November.

Many of the old pvpers from this game still hope that a better red team versus blue team balance will come to this game as well. May we one day reach a point that everybody's characters will have the chance to have fun in COX's PVP.



/keep hope alive

[/ QUOTE ]


Honestly WoW and its spawn of clones (AoC, WAR) don't interest me at all. Anyways even if they did its PvP in the same old fantasy setting as always, which is way different from CoX so I can't really see any competition except for PvP. The deep PvP game I'm waiting for is Darkfall Online which I don't think is to far away now, probably closer than WAR at least.

Champions is still a far way off from knowing how well PvP will actually be there, and farther still from actually playing it. But since CoX's revamp and fresh meat to the Dev team I'm hoping to see more introduced and rebalanced within its PvP ecosystem a least. I definately look forward to them completing the powerset proliferation and then perhaps some fine detail power adjustments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most people are sick of the fantasy only aspect to most MMORPGs. Vanguard went down fast for a reason.

[ QUOTE ]
Since _Castle_ has started doing this balancing act for powers and such, I'm getting an inkling of hope.

It may not all be great or immediate changes, but something is happening at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that as a glimmer of hope as well. It's also good to know you're still around man.

This is a bit out of date. Since this thread still exists I'll add that Star Trek Online, Marvel, and DC all seem to have been canceled. Cryptic is now developing Champions which will have pvp options.

AoC is right now in a strong launch. Warhammer is currently expected to be out in October 2008 as something very pvp centric. WOW is adding more pvp options with its next expansion due in November.

Many of the old pvpers from this game still hope that a better red team versus blue team balance will come to this game as well. May we one day reach a point that everybody's characters will have the chance to have fun in COX's PVP.



/keep hope alive

[ QUOTE ]
lots of good stuff

[/ QUOTE ]


I liked your post. Here's the link for the PVPEC,

http://pvpec.guildportal.com/Guild.a...;TabID=1463928

Don't just have great ideas, feel free to join, get involved and act on them. It's fine to just get people involved on your own server or you can do things on test as well.


The main thing to do PVP postive is develop friendly rivalies and don't get your feather ruffled if someone has a bad day. There's endless potential if you are willing to build up both sides and don't care about anything more than having fun.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, no, they're not. Not in original EQ. The loot grind was for its own sake. I mean, I was there. I'm telling you how it was. People didn't raid to PvP. WoW, well, also no. If you want PvP gear you're basically better off.. PvPing though, so that's fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

In WOW, until the Burning Crusades Expansion, all the best PVP gear was loot to be discovered in the hardest dungeons. WOW had a wierd habit of turning hardcore PVPers, into raiders also, due to something magical known as purple fever.

I'll take your word for it that the EQ original game didn't depend on it. However, it predates the point I was making and EQ did hybrid into a RP/ PVE/ PVP game rather than just a PVE game.

Again, the marketing strategy was to allow different strokes for different folks. One of the numbers wierdnesses with EQ, is that it list it's total subscribers not just from direct paying customers but from something SOE developed called "The Station pass", which meant for an extra 10 bucks and account could play anything in SOE's inventory, including every game you'd ever bought, which kept old players coming back to EQ and other games, simply because it was part of a package deal.

Again, I understand your point of view. However, it doesn't detract from the threads point, which is that current marketing is not developed for PVE only. Even with the players you'd see on EQ today, a huge percentage are "Station Pass" customers that like filtering between separate games that again include PVP options just like EQ does.

The arguement continues to be that strictly PVE games, don't do well. In the 70 plus pages of this thread, which include dev input, no one has disproven that.

I understand your point completely. It simply doesn't affect the current industry of computer games or the development ideas coming for the next two years.

For example, if you look at the current game listing book for NCSoft, for every game coming out this year, they all include PVP. The only one that doesn't have a listing is the COX, which as we know does include PVP...

[ QUOTE ]
You know, I read back over your post, and I have to correct something that weakens your point (Sorry, because in general, I /do/ agree with you)
EQ didn't survive because of PvP. PvP there was vereh lopsided, mostly towards hybrid classes. EQ Survived because it set up a raiding and grind treadmill. It only took a weekend to 'beat' the newest raid, perhaps..

It took months to get everyone gearred up in its phat lewtz. That's how they kept subscriptions. PvP was a concession that wasn't terribly popular, IIRC.

[/ QUOTE ]


The point of the post is that "PVE only" games don't do well. EQ still developed pvp to hybrid. Loot grinds both in EQ, WOW, and other games are often driven by the motivation on performance against other players. They tend to enhance each other, with WOW being the best example of that.

For the record, no insult taken...

[ QUOTE ]
It failed to market well do to forced grouping, bad quest ideas, no over world, no crafting, and no pvp. In my case, the fact that you need a full group to get anywhere in a quest, and XP was only awarded at the completion of the quest, not for mobs killed, ruined the game for me.

To many things failed in DDO. They have PvP now, and many of their forum goers seem to think that DDO is the future of MMO games. I still won't play it, and I love D&D. I have been waiting for that game since 1983.

[/ QUOTE ]


You had stated above you wanted Co-op games of PVE. DDO provided that and your also stating you quit because of that

here: "forced grouping"

and here:

"the fact that you need a full group to get anywhere in a quest, and XP was only awarded at the completion of the quest,"


You might want to clairfy that more. Also, most PVE centric games center around raiding, which is by itself a group effort to do and complete. Even in COX, you don't solo a strike force or Hami.

It sounds like your looking for more of a solo game playing enviroment. Have you considered Xbox, Playstation or adventures in other home consol games. I'm not saying that too be insulting it's just that the market exists for that and it's less buggy than MMORPGs.

As for upcoming MMORPGs, I'd suggest Tabula Rasa. It has guild versus guild pvp. However, since you are a solo player by nature, it wouldn't affect you at all.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me see if i can sum up my stance on PvP - and I'm a known hater:

[/ QUOTE ]

You are also on the PVP forums. Which means in short, verbally, you are here to PVP.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't give two tin [censored] if YOU enjoy it or not. Want your little sandbox? FINE. Here it is, take it, keep it, stay in it, and stay the hell away from me. What I want is simple: to not be penalized for saying no to PvP, to not be constantly poked and prodded towards PvP, and for all PvE content to be 100% accessible without ever needing PvP or a specific team.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true in most games. PVE related PVP content was a developer idea. The majority of gamers that like to PVP actually wanted the zones empty of badges and npcs. The majority of the focus on Arena is to avoid PVE realted elements.

PVPers don't want PVP haters in the zones either. We've been screaming it for about two years.

[ QUOTE ]
IE, Villain Accolades are currently a "penalty for not PvPing" situation on half of them. The constant "go talk to this PvP zone intro dude" missions and the poor hackjob of leveraging folks to farm for Salvage in PvP zones (because you either outlevel the range it's in or there is a severe dearth of Magic foes at a specific level range - see Cap Au Diable for a perfect example of the latter) are examples of the pokeprod. The RSF, occasionally the STF, and PTOD Elite Bosses for Dominators are an example of the last point.

In short, I don't care if there is or is not PvP in CoX, as long as I don't have to see it, smell it, or touch it to play everything ELSE in CoX.

[/ QUOTE ]

Villains are far more penalized in this game than just that. Further, the comparitive hardness of gaining accolades as a Hero to that as a villain are the difference between going to a fast food place or doing the seven tasks of Hercules.

Again, this has been complaints shared by PVPers since accolades became available for villains.

[ QUOTE ]
On to other points:

Laylyn, you keep pointing out that there are no MMOs other than Toontown that have been PvE-only and successful...let me ask this, how many PvE-ONLY MMOs other than Toontown have there BEEN?

[/ QUOTE ]

PVE was the original model for MMORPGS. They died for the same reason no one plays the first Zelda game anymore, eventually the content got stale and people moved on. The granddaddy MMORPG Everquest started as PVE only and also set the pace for raiding in games like WOW. It had to adapt PVP to keep its populations up. MMORPGs were actually headed for a complete death prior to the success of WOW however. They had extreme development costs and people only played for short periods of time. WOW has a mixed bag that includes PVP even on the servers named PVE and Roleplayer, because it helps mix things up. It's flagged, so it is completely optional just like COX's PVP zones. Very few games are developed to force people to PVP.

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly cannot think of one AT ALL, and this is part of why I think there are problems with the "MMO must have PvP to succeed" paradigm; EQ was the granddady, and it had PvP available.

[/ QUOTE ]

As noted above, it was a later update.

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone else has just done what humans do: follow what's worked once.

And it's interesting to me that only one person has actually mentioned Diablo 2 so far; the game was in fact almost 100% PvE, with ZERO PvP support available from the devstaff, reward limited to an ear and whatever gold they dropped(unless the PKer was trying for corpsepopping, in which case, they're a griefer...), and the absolute ability to avoid all PvP ever(by passwording games). Given that D2 can be seen in may ways as a blueprint* for CoX, and D2 often had well over 150K people online all at once in its big time days, the "mostly PvE, unsupported PvP" model can work. I just don't know of anyone else that's put a big effort INTO it, because one thing online gaming has ALWAYS had is PvP.


[/ QUOTE ]

D2 was the blueprint for WOW, not COX. Both were developed by Blizzard, not Cryptic / NCSoft.

[ QUOTE ]
It's become axiomatic..nobody makes an online game that doesn't have PvP because nobody has made an online game that doesn't have PvP. It started with BBS doorgames; I remember LORD. It had PvP from day 1. Yeah, you COULD find "non-PvP" games on those old clunkers...but they were all single-player. What I wonder is this: Why has there never been an actual PvE online FPS game with full co-op, with a campaign setting? The example that always springs to my mind is the MechWarrior games. They have a fairly beefy campaign for single-player, complete with being able to field up to two lances of AI Mechs at one time...but for online play, it's just deathmatch, deathmatch, deathmatch. Why not allow multiplayer in the SP campaign?

[/ QUOTE ]

Check out NCSoft's Tabula Rasa when it goes live on October 13th. There is a PVP option for guild vs guild online. However the entire storyline is set up for PVE main. It also has an internal coms system much like BF2 or DDO.

DDO is also a PVE only game. However, despite being the template for Everquest and every fantasy game developed since the 1970s, it's failed to market well, due to the lack of any PVP options.

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, why not DESIGN for it? Running some of those missions with non-AI lancemates could be great fun. But nobody has ever made a truly focused online PvE FPS like that, ever...and it's because of the axiom. Nobody does it because nobody HAS done it, so it's unproven. Unproven is assumed to be unprofitable...so it never GETS proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, DDO is PVE only. It's also failing to beat Toontown online for numbers.

[ QUOTE ]
WoW is just the last in a long line of this type of thought, given bulk and "weight" by dint of the Blizz name. If WoW wasn't Blizzard, it wouldn't be ten percent as successful as it is, PvP or not...count on it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Agreed, Blizzard has a rep for making top end games. They are well balanced and they ruthlessly enforce their EULAs so it keeps cheating to a minimum.

[ QUOTE ]
*Clarifying the blueprint comment: CoX is essentially Diablo 2 with costumes unhooked from gear, better graphics, and for a long time less loot. Each class/AT gets different skill trees/powersets to pick from, and once points are spent/powers are chosen, they're mostly locked into stone. D2 had the charstats in addition to the skilltrees; in CoX, this is basically handled by the devs having picked all your charpoints out ahead of time, and all of it goes into Vitality and Strength - Vitality is the HP increase, Strength is slots as a function of gear you can wear. CoX has respecs added, something Blizz added into WoW; the only reason it was never added into D2 was because the engine couldn't support it. Targeting is easier in CoX(sometimes, unless tabtargeting is wonky again today), and D2 had a harder to use interface...but in the end, CoX is a simplified, prettified D2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, D2 was Blizzard. Blizzard develops games that appeal to loot junkies, it's not really soemthing COX really does to the same degree, even after inventions.

[ QUOTE ]
A MMO needs several things to be successful. PvP is a PART if that equation. It is not the main or the largest part of the equation though. If that was the case, most PvPers would not be here, they would be in WoW, or Fury, or Planetside, or DAoC. They would be were the PvP was polished and good. That tells me there is more to a game than PvP...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look at this thread from beginning to end, you'll see it is a response to people that want the game to have no PVP at all. The fact still stands that the only "PVE only" MMORPG to successfully run is Disney's Toontown Online and that's geared for pre teens and bought by parents that subscribe to the Disney advertising Machine.

Everything you said in your post was already debated in the first 30 pages. The only side your supporting here is the shreaking lunies that want pvp completely removed from this MMORPG and every other MMORPG so the can grind in peace before quiting because they don't understand why they are bored.

Every MMORPG needs player based content. PVE takes months to write and a weekend to finish. There is no way for a gaming company to keep up with the demands of a PVE only base. That's why vast majority of every PVE player bases quit in 6-8 months of joining a game. NCSoft's business model is actually built to cycle players into multiple games to account for this business trend, with the motto: "Imagine the Next Life. Build the Next Game. Create the Next Culture."


The PVE only crowd wants to kill the Goose that laid the golden egg. Your guilty of being another person not looking at what the debate really is and simply saying what you feel from an impression.

You have posed on the side that has actively opposed game balance and has actively harassed PVPers in their own forums. Your impression of PVPers in COX is a chicken and the egg thing. After being openly harassed on there own forums for since 2005, in a manner that wouldn't be tolerated on any other boards in these forums, I no longer ask questions why they are hostile in game or on the boards.

Your only crime was not paying attention to the real focus of the thread and everyone does that from time to time. Luckly this isn't an enviroment where there were real longterm consequences for that, other than a game that continues not to be balanced and continues to lose people in droves because the end game content is defective due to not being balanced.

In the end most of the hatred of PVP in this game comes from the fact that most people's toons are not going to be as useful as a few toons spec'ed in very specfic ways. That is a game design flaw.

In the end, for both heroes and villains, every toon should be viable in PVP. Since I don't like nerfs, I'd go with Villain Arena fixes exactly mimicing the ones given to heroes, adding APP selections to PPP lists, and balancing the base power indexes to making Villain toons competitive. For both sides, each AT could use about 5 more powers in each powerset that are useful for PVP if it is currently cosidered a PVE build or is useful for PVE if it is currently a PVP build.


Don't rip any one group down. It's actually possible to build everyone up.


Give players an even shot and mix up the predictable builds you see these days. The player base will never be what it would have been if this game had been balanced from the beginning, but it could be a lot better.

More game content for the RP and PVE communities wouldn't be bad either, especially if it could be more player driven content. The point of this thread from the beginning was to seek a better game for everyone and dispel the thought that any section was disposible. No community of gamers is.

[ QUOTE ]
Since you have your version, I figured a little truth would be nice. After all, we are all about killing myths in this thread right? Enjoy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, reread the facts as presented, on this thread for everyone too see. Sadly, if you do even the devs disagree with you. Once again, the only PVE only game to not die quickly is Toontown online for Disney which is geared for preteens with the Disney adversting machine.

As far as your opinions on SWG, the CU, and the GCW update prior to the CU were for PVErs. The basis of that was the hunger among the pve base for a class called Jedi. The village unlocked a number of people being Jedi that came into conflicts with LucasArts IPH agreement, thus the NGE happened, to rebalance things. The NGE, by both SOE and the reviewing companies was a rewrite of the grind from levels 1-30 and an introduction of 10 more exciting levels to grind from 80-90. Last time I checked, grinding was PVE.

You won't believe me on that. So talk to either company and then go through the game company reviews. I'll advise anyone reading this to review this as well.

As for the poster, you can talk to Karl Rove or Ann Coulter in real life, either might have a job for you. You can start telling people the sun is purple or something. Perhaps the check is in the mail or you really are selling the Brooklyn Bridge...

Right?

[ QUOTE ]
my only problem with PvP is that there is no way to do a realistic simulation of conflict.

There are no consequences involved.

In real life, if the hero falls back, people get hurt.

If the villain falls back, weeks, if not months, of preparation are ruined.

In CoH, if a hero falls back....nothing much happens. If a villain falls back....nothing much happens.

In real life, people in battle often have to get involved in battles they know or think are going to be losing (reference the 300 Spartans, Bastogne, Coral Sea...etc) because even a tactical loss there might avert a more important strategic loss.

PvP turns into a bunch of random ganking where people do not get into battles that they don't think they can win.

There is no reason to hang around if you're losing.

There is no reason to push it, because nothing all that bad will happen if you decide to run away.

It turns into a frustrating give and take that never quite goes anywhere.

Battles are meaningless and unimportant and, over all, forgetable.

There are occasional exceptions, there are always exceptions, but in general the PvP is unsatisfying.

If there were something REAL at stake, even something like Recluse's Victory NOT being reset, it would be a little better. But even that is not nearly enough to make people decide to fight it out instead of flee.

After all, who cares if an isolated zone/reality is left in the control of the enemy if it has no effect on the world at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you could make something meaningful as an event. Create something that meets what you believe you are missing. The game simply gives you the tools. =)

[ QUOTE ]
Here's an idea inspired by the OP.

**Disclaimer** I do not no if this is even possible with the coding, <<<is programming illiterate.

Is it possible to make it so that when you roll a toon, you have the option of making it for PvE/P or strictly PvP.

If you make a PvP toon then that toon is limited to PvP Zones only and Pocket D. When you roll it, the system treats it like a respec and you may pick your powers accordingly. This raises all kinds of questions about getting inf to buy enhancements/IO's and the likes but it's just a very vague idea that popped into my head, that will solve a some peoples issues and potentially not damage the game either. Since villains has no EAT this could be a reward for once you hit 50.

If you roll a character for PvE/P then you have all regular access to the game and nothing is changed for you.

Not trying to threadjack but this just came to mind.

[/ QUOTE ]


That idea was used very well in Guildwars. It could be done here as well. =)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally I feel that a balance of everything PvE and PvP is what's going to keep this game alive. I'm not going to sit here and marginalzie PvP simply because I don't enjoy it as much as you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the most reasonable stances I've seen so far, bravo!

[/ QUOTE ]


Word.

[ QUOTE ]
They certainly are different, though the people who play them are generally the same. If we think about how each big hit MMO drew more and more players in, this becomes pretty apparent when they didn't just steal players from previous MMO's. I am watching Fury with a great deal of interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

When does Fury go live?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While approaching 9 million paying subscribers, which is more than the Nelson rating of most tv shows, WOW has servers that are labeled PVE and Roleplaying, which have pvp zones and have pvp hot options. Eve Online, MXO, Guildwars, COX, Vanguard, and every other game have the pvp components. Warhammer, Age of Conan, Gods & Heroes: Rome Rising, Star Trek Online, Marvel, DC, Firefly Online, and World of Darkness Online, are being pre built with PVP in mind and that's every major game being released from 2007-2009.

PVP pays the bills. PVE does not.

...

Here is your proof from just one major developer, watch all 7:26 minutes: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZOTRjWGxmjI

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. 'killing the myth' etc was a bit grandiose though, don't you think, for such a simple point?

As far as paying the bills etc. I've been playing for 2 and a half years, and I'm still far from bored with the PvE content. Every Issue brings me more, too. You say there's Player-created content from PvP. If you tell me where I can find it, I'd love to give it a go to see how it compares to the story arcs of the PvE game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, well ... every game cited as proof has spent a lot of time and money on PvE content (it's typically the lion's share of the budget, but much of that work goes directly into PvP content too). If it were only PvP that paid the bills, they wouldn't bother at all - you could level up a character based on PvP performance, and trade currency earned in PvP for your upgrades. But despite the FUD elements ("PvP pays the bills. PvE does not." ) and oversimplifications, there are fair points behind the overstatements. I don't think it's willful disinformation, but a lot is being conveniently overlooked. I mean, if you swapped "PvP" for "PvE" throughout, it holds up just as well.

Or, to say that people finish the PvE content and so it's not relevant is as valid as saying that people never finish the PvE content despite years of subscription (in five years, I never got through all of EverQuest!) and so it's all that's relevant. Both statements begin true, yet neither one ends genuinely.

If the only draw of Warcraft were the PvP, the queue for a BG would take days. Imagine being in a lineup 9 million people long!! WoW is a spectacular phenom - you've got a huge number of people ignoring the PvP and working through the PvE alone and slowly getting through it. Plus, you've got a huge number that burn PvE as fast as possible to focus on raiding - a huge chunk of whom are doing so only to be better equipped at PvP. You've got a sizable group, too, who find the perfect twinkable BG and stop levelling to only play that one BG with that character. And the fourth half of 'em are doing some or all of the above ...

One of the reasons cited (you'll have to find the quotes yourself if you need citations, and there is much more involved than what I am about to paraphrase) by WoW developers for changing both the raid and PvP structuring is that those "hardcore" markets weren't sweeping through the game population as they'd anticipated. To sustain those game elements, they needed to soften the curve and broaden the appeal, to get more of the casual, non-raiding, non-PvP players playing the content that would keep them locked into the game. That is, raids and PvP.

Yes, both of those are vital to the game. No, neither one exists in it's own bill paying vacuum. All elements are important to Blizzard's model and they want raiders to quest, questers to PvP and PvPers to quest and raid too. That's the money, baby! (And if there's one thing Blizzard knows by now, it's the money!)

Even Warhammer Online, an IP that just screams out PvP, is working on PvE content (and they may trump all comers by how they blend PvE with PvP by what I've been reading). One of the reasons they've delayed shipping the game is to work on the starting areas for Dwarves and Greenskins. This gives them some opportunities to rework other PvE elements too. And I'm sure they'll be addressing PvP too but if you read the full interview balance and netcode were in place, it was the early environments that needed work.

Mark Jacobs: "The most challenging aspect of development has been the delivery of exciting quests that immerse you in the ongoing war efforts as well as designing, testing and balancing our "Careers." Over the years we have proven that we can create great and lasting Realm vs. Realm systems -- now we have to take both our RvR and PvE systems to the next level. That takes a lot of time, energy and focus to pull off."

The complete interview (about the WO:AoR's delay) can be read at http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/warhammer-o...783684p1.html.

Yeah, the next big thing (okay, one of them) in PvP/RvR is also working on their PvE game too. And why not? If you overlook either side of the coin, you better have a damn good reason. Certainly you can build a pure PvP game and find an audience and you can build a pure PvE game and find your audience but the best way to be popular is to broaden your appeal without pissing anyone off. (D'uh!)

But to say "PvE/P pays the bills, PvP/E does not" is as stupid as saying "Steak is food, potatoes are not". Balance your diet already, and stop talking with your mouth full. The day PvE/P pays the bills and PvP/E does not is the day game companies stop creating PvP/E content. If you were a game developer, would you really turn down all the subscriptions of those who prefer PvE/P to PvP/E?

"Player created content" is the challenge pf playing other players. Look in the PvP zones or the Arenas. You won't always find anyone there but if you keep heading back you will. If you haven't tried it you might be pleased, or you might be bored. Everybody's different.

[/ QUOTE ]

See the above response and also note that WOW allows you to PVP on its RP and PVE servers.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PVP isn't optional for COX's long term survival. The PVE is stale and most people in the anti pvp crowd turn to badge hunting just to keep themselves entertained. Most of the people I talked to had servers that went through a shock when the zone bugs effectively shut down pvp on most servers from november to february. Most people stopped logging in and serveral people quit, who are only now coming back. Since COX is a game of many alts, these people turned out to be a lot of toons people had known in other venues.

On one of the first four pages on this thread someone brought up that SWG had been pvp centric as it's end game and had then switched to pve for a bit. They incorrectly assumed that's what hurt that game. By contrast, in 2003, SWG had the biggest openning of any MMORPG which it lost by being eclipsed by WOW. It's numbers dropped overnight and half it's servers closed by becoming a grind game with Jedi and the CU. It numbers were harmed even worse by becoming even more PVE centric NGE. SWG had to suck up that PVP paid the bills to begin regrowing now.

While approaching 9 million paying subscribers, which is more than the Nelson rating of most tv shows, WOW has servers that are labeled PVE and Roleplaying, which have pvp zones and have pvp hot options. Eve Online, MXO, Guildwars, COX, Vanguard, and every other game have the pvp components. Warhammer, Age of Conan, Gods & Heroes: Rome Rising, Star Trek Online, Marvel, DC, Firefly Online, and World of Darkness Online, are being pre built with PVP in mind and that's every major game being released from 2007-2009.

PVP pays the bills. PVE does not.

That's not me saying that. That's the entire video game industry saying that. They are saying that now. They are saying that through 2010 and quite possibly beyond.

In fact, PVE does the opposite of pay the bills. PVE only develops a core of players that burn through 3 month of development in a weekend. Does that make them happy? Not at all, they go on to cry on whatever forum board that another 3 months of development can't be done instantly to stop their boredom.

As much as the anti pvp crowd might stalk these forums and scream endlessly in the throws of obsessive compulsive disorder that they don't like pvp in this game. This game will have to have it and balance it to survive.

If the developers of this game ever get silly enough to listen to the screams of the anti pvp crowd, this game will have its life support plug pulled much sooner. Right now, without the balance issues being fixed, this game is expected to only edge out a suvivable profit by the time Marvel and DC come out. Paradoxically, NCSoft is developing Marvel and I'll bet real money it's being required to be absolutely balanced from the beginning.

PVP creates long time rivalries. PVP creates player driven content. PVP communities are the group that stay with a game for years in the highest numbers.

You might believe in your heart pvp doesn't pay the bills. But all the industrial side market research for the past two years says that you are saying the world is flat.

Here is your proof from just one major developer, watch all 7:26 minutes: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZOTRjWGxmjI

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I've managed to boil your point down to its basics, which is this: you like PvP and you don't like PvE, in CoH at least.

Fair enough. 'killing the myth' etc was a bit grandiose though, don't you think, for such a simple point?

As far as paying the bills etc. I've been playing for 2 and a half years, and I'm still far from bored with the PvE content. Every Issue brings me more, too. You say there's Player-created content from PvP. If you tell me where I can find it, I'd love to give it a go to see how it compares to the story arcs of the PvE game.


Eco.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll summerize what I said on page 4, of the 13 million plus people that were playing MMORPGs in July 06, less than 400,000 players were playing PVE only games. Of the PVE only games you can track, all but one, disney's toontown for kids (with 110,000 subscribers and meant for pre teens), has been dying.

I also don't have anything against PVE people. I do have something against people trying to eject PVP from this game.
The title and the rebutals for 58 pages were focused on a select group that would like to see all pvp removed from COX.