[ 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.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ 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.
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
[ 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. 
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
T_L would you mind posting the link to those statics again?
I can't seem to find them.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ 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."
Why do I do do do things I do
Nobody was ever there for me to talk to
Once I was youngster, pure and true
Now I'm running with a sick, sick crew.
[ 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.
This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04
[ 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?
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ 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).
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ 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).
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So "For most gamers (not all), PvP content has more replay value than PvE content. " is surely an opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
BTW, one important point. My data is based on all gamers, not just MMO gamers, and certainly not just gamers playing CoX.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then perhaps that is why people have trouble with your data. In the past I have been an extensive FPS player and the only FPS games where I did the PvE content more than once was Doom (once on normal & once on nightmare) and Half-Life. So without the PvP content I would hardly have played these games at all.
MMOs are different (I think). When it comes to PvE I believe the real content is the different powerset combos we can build and team with. So while I have done Frost Fire several times I have yet to atempt it twice using the same tools.
[EDIT] What I am trying to say is I love FPS PvP but can't get into PvP here. So statistics showing that millions of people play Counterstrike isn't going to convince me that more PvP is what this game needs.
PS: I am still hoping for some kind of 8v8 Hero vs Villain capture the flag type scenario. Am I the only one?
This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04
I, and I have every reason to believe Im a typical MMORPG player, have no interest in a FPS PVP game. The main attraction I have for the game is the PVE creaction and playing of my character, and watching that character grow in an RPG to the highest level. In a FPS PVP type game you have zero level progression, meaning gear makes the man. For instance, in Doom the BFG9000 or whatever and your reflexes are what make you strong, not the time/levels invested in the character. Its the make and grow your character, and see the progression that makes MMORPGs addictive IMO.
However, where PVP comes in is what do you do after you do all of PVE? When you are max level, and done all the unique missions and the rest are repetitions, then what do you do? PVP, loot, skills/trades are all answers various games have used to try to keep interest after you "finish" the game.
This is why most games which attract players via PVE, also want PVP. One brings them and hooks them, the other provides a reason to stay after you "finish" the game.
[ 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 ]
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 ]
[ 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.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ 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.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ 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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Player Auction houses are a great example of PvP content that is typically embraced by PvE players.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why do I get the feeling that you've played EVE Online? 
DS
[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't, but I want to get into it at some point. I find their use of resources intriguing.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was very attracted to Eve Online -- multiplayer Elite?!? Sign me up!
After spending 6 hours in the tutorial, and realizing I was only halfway through it, and realizing that I'd forgotten the last 5 hours of material, I gave up. I'm sure it's tremendously rewarding after you've spent a month learning everything, but damn. Life's too short.
[ 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.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ 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 ]
With the exception of fighting people who are clueless, yes its different every time. Even when you fight a team multiple times, they will change strategy. Now, this isn't to say that you can't have the same sort of experience, ie Stalker dodging is going to happen to any squishy who enters a PvP zone, but that is much different than knowing exactly when and where X spawn will pop up.
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree completely, but the people who play those games are very much the "same". A relatively small portion of gamers report only sticking to only one genre. Just because a game type isn't the same does not mean that elements (and lessons) can't cross those boundaries. BF2 is arguably one of the most popular FPS games of the last several years and it has an advancement mechanic that is straight out of a RPG.
[ QUOTE ]
I would hope games like Fury do not subscribe to this. (I still haven't gotten a chance to test the game personally).
[/ QUOTE ]
Balance, or more accurately the lack there of, is one of the major reasons that some of the early (and the less well thought out) PvP implementations got a black eye. Balance is critical for PvP to flourish, which is one reason I get passionate about that topic. However, just because its harder to balance MMO's than FPS games doesn't mean it shouldn't be done or lower the value of PvP in MMO's. Its just one of the hurdles (one that CoX stumbled on) between wanting a good PvP implementation and getting one.
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I do suggest, is that not funding PvP is entirely short sighted because PvP content is much more reusable than PvE content and I see both as contributing to the success of a modern MMO.
[/ QUOTE ]
How are you defining "reusable"? I ask because I know players who have been here two years now, know the PvE content by heart, and yet still come up with new toons on a regular basis to re-experience that same "less reusable" content. Seeing that, I think the entire issue of "content reusability" is entirely subjective.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually it isn't subjective at all, however keep in mind that I speaking of gaming in general not just gaming here in CoX. There are certainly people who can and will play the same PvE content many times in as many different variations as is possible. Having said that, no pure PvE implementation shows anything like the longevity seen with PvP implementations. Keep in mind that both Counter Strike, StarCraft, Warcraft, BF, BF2, and a multitude of other "old" games.
Lets just look at CS since its the grand daddy of em all.
In 2002 there were over 30,000 populated Counter-Strike servers on line.
In 2004, GameSpy statistics showed over 85,000 players simultaneously playing Counter-Strike at any point in time.
in 2006, Steam regularly shows over 200,000 players for Counter-Strike at the same time (though this number includes some of the later releases as well).
According to statistics gathered by Valve's content-delivery platform, Steam, these players collectively contribute to over 6.177 billion minutes of playing time each month.
Thats a game that was released in 2000 (started as a mod back in 1999).
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.)
Now, are there some people who don't get bored by the repetition that is common in PvE? Certainly, but I don't think its all that common, otherwise I wouldn't expect people to constantly ask for more content. Guild Wars only has 4 PvP venues (really just 3 IMO), each with a limited set of maps. Compare that the number of PvE venues, 3 lands each with 40+ regions.
(http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Main_Page)
The same is true for most games that don't have open PvP, there are almost always far more PvE content (in terms of maps, assets, etc) than PvP content. 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 ]
You ignore a major difference. Counter Strike and CoX are very different games. Counter Strike fits very clearly into one a single game type while CoX doesn't.
One of the problems CoX has is also it's biggest advantage. It can be look at as a Role playing, Strategy or a Video Game and played as any one or combination of those 3. Some could even make an arguement for it as a FPS but I would think it is a terrible FPS lol.
To the point though. The players who are playing CoX aren't the same type of players as those on the Counter Strike servers. So they will not get the same replayability. Most of them are looking for a different gaming experience (or they would likely be playing Counter Strike).
There will be some of the same types of players but there will be a lot of players who will need other "carrots" to bring them in. The two biggest complaints I hear are: 1. I don't see the point since there is no reward, 2. poor sportsmanship. Hard to do anything about the later but the former:
Role Players: Need engaging story lines to follow that require PvP, role playing community involvement in PvP ("Lets Make a Difference!") or something of this sort.
Video Gamers: May need some reward for PvP besides eventually getting a badge.
Strategy Gamers: May get bored with PvP after a while because the situations don't change enough. The idea of team vs team missions would seem to be a good solution.
CoX is a different game than any other game on the market as far as I can see and attracts a different group of players than other games. So it will require different solutions.
----------------------------
You can't please everyone, so lets concentrate on me.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree completely, but the people who play those games are very much the "same". A relatively small portion of gamers report only sticking to only one genre. Just because a game type isn't the same does not mean that elements (and lessons) can't cross those boundaries. BF2 is arguably one of the most popular FPS games of the last several years and it has an advancement mechanic that is straight out of a RPG.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here I disagree slightly. I know many a people who were TURNED OFF from pvp because of the "nonsense" they claim they saw in FPS and RTS, but love MMO PVP, specifically coh's system cause of the things it breaks away from that are prevelant in FPS and RTS. Now granted I have not played the games they mentioned so I don't know if their claims are as much an exaggeration as "pvpers are poo monkies". But the from reading this thread and other "why do you hate pvp" one of the key issues is that they got burnt out of/hated/tried and didn't like FPS pvp and thus had their minds clossed off from pvp and thus were not willing to try coh pvp.
As for BF2, I've never played it so I will take your word for it. Also I've tried other FPS and RTS, and I hate them. But I love coh's pvp systm. Which is where this dicussion needs to be focused. MMO pvp. The issue (at least as I understood it) was whether a pvp-only MMO can do well in the current market. I don't know and it remains to be seen, as Fury is the only one attempting it.
So I don't necessarily agree that those who play fps rts and mmo pvp are the same.
[ QUOTE ]
I would hope games like Fury do not subscribe to this. (I still haven't gotten a chance to test the game personally).
[/ QUOTE ]
Balance, or more accurately the lack there of, is one of the major reasons that some of the early (and the less well thought out) PvP implementations got a black eye. Balance is critical for PvP to flourish, which is one reason I get passionate about that topic. However, just because its harder to balance MMO's than FPS games doesn't mean it shouldn't be done or lower the value of PvP in MMO's. Its just one of the hurdles (one that CoX stumbled on) between wanting a good PvP implementation and getting one.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it should have a lower value, however as I found you saying recently to Arcana, sometime balance just needs to take a back seat to fun. If they ever balance coh pvp in a way that everyone feels just like everyone else (a common complaint about FPS pvp btw) I'm outta here.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ 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 ]
Thanks for the clairity. =) I misread you. =)
Well, so, after many twists and turns, we come full circle.
Which is to say it seems we all agree.
The game needs both, and it sounds like everyone agreed on that from the beginning, we just didn't like the sources and sometimes we didn't like the tone.
The next question is still the big one, which is how to improve the crossover and make what are (in my mind, anyway) 2 different games come closer to being one game we can all enjoy in its full length and breadth. Well, not "all," that's overstating. There are 10% on either side of the PvE / PvP issue that will never enjoy the other. But we need to start playing to the 80% in the middle.
[ 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.
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends