[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I could see how some could consider this griefing, but I certainly don't consider it to be such.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let's see. "Harassing another player so badly that he leaves the game entirely isn't a bad thing". Check. "Blame the victim". Check.
[/ QUOTE ]
My problem with your logic is that activities that some might consider "harassment" are considered by others to be "PvP". If the same group keeps killing me, or you, or anyone over and over again, that's simply not harassment. If someone is using profane language to insult you and your family, that's harassment and is a reportable offense. That does happen. However, I don't think that verbal harassment = griefing.
[/ QUOTE ]
It has to do with letting other people have fun and sportsmanship which apparently you never learned in your botched childhood.
[ 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.
MArcs:
The Echo, Arc ID 1688 (5mish, easy, drama)
The Audition, Arc ID 221240 (6 mish, complex mech, comedy)
Storming Citadel, Arc ID 379488 (lowbie, 1mish, 10-min timed)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
[The Incarnate System is] Jack Emmert all over again, only this time it's not "1 hero = 3 white minions" it's "1 hero = 3 white rocks."
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and PvE nuts that think PvE is the way to keep a playerbase around....thats simply is not true, because content is pretty much blasted through in days...
[/ QUOTE ]
True the content is done and done over. But for me teaming is the best thing in this game. each team is different weither we have team-wipes or if we blow through mishs it is fun for me.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Jeez, this thread ius huge. Here's a good point tho that I think illustrates another difference between PvPers and PvEers. PvPers often claim that the content is zapped thru in a very short time, and isnt worth repeating becasue its broing.
As a PvE-centric player, it's taken me 27 months to get my main to lvl 42, and a few alts to the late 20s. I savour the content, wneh it seems to me that if you're rushing thru it to get your PvP-perfect 50 built, then of course its going to seem dull and be over with fast.
And I agree that different teams make whole new missions out of the PvE content. Ive done Frostifre dozens of times, for example, and I still enjoy it. Don't forget that in an 8-man PvE team, there are 8Ps 
Eco.
MArcs:
The Echo, Arc ID 1688 (5mish, easy, drama)
The Audition, Arc ID 221240 (6 mish, complex mech, comedy)
Storming Citadel, Arc ID 379488 (lowbie, 1mish, 10-min timed)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
[The Incarnate System is] Jack Emmert all over again, only this time it's not "1 hero = 3 white minions" it's "1 hero = 3 white rocks."
|
[ 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 ]
[ 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.
[ 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 ]
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 ]
Everything you've said here is eminently sensible and well-put.
I agree with you completely.
The realisation the the 'player-created content' montioned sometimes in regard to PvP is simply Players having a fight is a bit disappointing for me personally. I was thinking more of story-driven content. Never mind.
Eco.
MArcs:
The Echo, Arc ID 1688 (5mish, easy, drama)
The Audition, Arc ID 221240 (6 mish, complex mech, comedy)
Storming Citadel, Arc ID 379488 (lowbie, 1mish, 10-min timed)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
[The Incarnate System is] Jack Emmert all over again, only this time it's not "1 hero = 3 white minions" it's "1 hero = 3 white rocks."
|
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Have toyu tried ciomparing the figures for games that ONLY have PvP and games that do contain PvE as well? I don't know how many people play Counterstrike or Battlefield or all those other twicth games with no PvE content, but that would give another way of looking at your premise.
You say:
Games with PvE only = fail
Games with PvE+PvP = win
Therefore PvP = win.
Maybe we need a
Games with PvP only = ?
to fully compare?
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well in that case I actually support you broadly in that I don't wish to see PvP removed from CoX. None of the changes to the game itroduced because of the need for PvP balancing have caused me any annoyance particularily, and even the few times Ive dabbled in PvP with my Stalker have been fun for an hour.
There's plenty of room in CoX for both camps imo.
I stand however by my refutation of your claim that PvE content is boring and not long-lasting enough for EVERYONE (or even almost everyone).
Eco.
MArcs:
The Echo, Arc ID 1688 (5mish, easy, drama)
The Audition, Arc ID 221240 (6 mish, complex mech, comedy)
Storming Citadel, Arc ID 379488 (lowbie, 1mish, 10-min timed)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
[The Incarnate System is] Jack Emmert all over again, only this time it's not "1 hero = 3 white minions" it's "1 hero = 3 white rocks."
|
[ QUOTE ]
... Even a nub like myself can go back and find that supression was added due to people using it to exploit the mechanics of the PvE game...
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, you could - if you lived in a vacuum, oblivious to everything else that was going on after the release of I4.
Sorry, but ignorance would have been bliss only if the majority of folks playing during those days remained silent. If it weren't for the involvement of everyone ELSE back then, the travel power suppression compromise would certainly have been more heavy handed than it is today.
Travel Suppression is here to stay, unfortunately, and I have learned to deal with it. However, I won't agree with "nubs" trying to re-write history justifying it.
Let's play a game though:
Imagine you are fighting a horde of mobs in the game. You successfully deafeat 3 or 4 of them, but there are just way too many left over. Your health is slipping away and your skills to mitigate any damage are insufficient for this group. You are near a zone border and two police drones. You decide to flee and the mobs follow you. You make it to the drones and they dispatch the remaining mobs with ease. After you rest, you head back into the zone and find another group of similar mobs near the entrance and repeat the sequence of events again.
Tell me. Isn't this exploiting the PvE mechanics of the game?
How about all that herding of Freakshow to a fiery defeat in dumpsters in the Dreck mission by a Fire Tanker?
Tell me. Isn't this exploiting the PvE mechanics of the game?
Why haven't the devs corrected some other commonly exploited PvE mechanics in the game? Risk vs. Reward seems much more skewed with some of THESE examples than with jousting a mob around a building corner.
Live in a vacuum too long, and your brains will get sucked out of your ears, sir. 
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Have toyu tried ciomparing the figures for games that ONLY have PvP and games that do contain PvE as well? I don't know how many people play Counterstrike or Battlefield or all those other twicth games with no PvE content, but that would give another way of looking at your premise.
You say:
Games with PvE only = fail
Games with PvE+PvP = win
Therefore PvP = win.
Maybe we need a
Games with PvP only = ?
to fully compare?
[/ QUOTE ]
I did just that:
There are more people playing pure PvP games online today, (counting RTS and FPS games only) than are playing all MMO's combined.
[ QUOTE ]
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).
[/ QUOTE ]
While CS is one of the most popular games still around today, its not as dominant as WoW is in the MMO market. BF, BF2, UT, and numerous other FPS games achieve similar numbers, this doesn't even take into account the other common pure PvP game type the RTS. Warcraft and Starcraft contribute significantly to the total.
Its interesting that so many people are convinced, mainly I think because its what they enjoy doing, that PvE MMO content is popular among gamers. It is popular among current MMO players, and will continue to be as long as the genre exists, but when we look at gamers as an overall population things are significantly different. This has a direct impact on how gaming companies will be creating MMO's because very very few MMO gamers enter the MMO market without having been a gamer before and playing a variety of other types of games.
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Have toyu tried ciomparing the figures for games that ONLY have PvP and games that do contain PvE as well? I don't know how many people play Counterstrike or Battlefield or all those other twicth games with no PvE content, but that would give another way of looking at your premise.
You say:
Games with PvE only = fail
Games with PvE+PvP = win
Therefore PvP = win.
Maybe we need a
Games with PvP only = ?
to fully compare?
[/ QUOTE ]
I did just that:
There are more people playing pure PvP games online today, (counting RTS and FPS games only) than are playing all MMO's combined.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, yes, but more copies of Monopoly have been sold than all MMO's combined. So obviously, we need Monopoly in this game. 
Kidding aside, I think we really need to wait to see how an MMO like "Fury" does before we draw a real comparison. FPS and RTS and MMO are sortof apples and oranges. Well, maybe more like grapefruits and oranges.
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.
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
[ 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?
They are saying Q4 of this year, but who knows how realistic that is or isn't.
http://www.unleashthefury.com/general_faq.php
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
General disclaimer, this post isn't directed at any one person, it's probably going to be a bit long winded so bear with me, and 12am was a lousy time to try and read the last 100 or so posts, though the discussion going on has me curious so i'll get back to it later.
First off I'll just say for the record I've been playing coh since closed beta, I just hit my 30 month vet badge about 2 weeks back if that counts for anything, and I have in the time from then to now cancelled my account and taken a break twice. One reason I left, a personal bias regarding my first 50 character, my storm/elec. And the perception that despite a concerted campaign by the defender community, specifically the storm players to have the set looked at. Complete with a topic exceeding 300+ posts, all we got were some pointless platitudes from geko and cuppa. When it came out that not only were storm trollers better at the majority of my powers, but were also getting containment damage when all we got was vigilence, that was a deal breaker for me.
The other reason I left? I'll admit it's a bit more related to the topic at hand, and that's because I saw the arrival of arena's with quite a bit of dread, given how I feel about pvp in general, more specifically the kind of people pvp brings to a game, I'll usually just call them "validation of the greater internet ****wad theory" But poo flingers as Jack said works too.
I'll admit it, I'm as anti pvp as they come, I don't think there's any place for it CoH, I don't think it was ever needed for a successful game, and I despise with a passion the fact it was added in.
That said I wasn't surprised at all when sure enough it wasn't one month before the nerfherders, the smack talkers, the 12 year old mentality of i have to be the best infected the forums, infected coh, and as cov and pvp zones came in I watched with more then a little disgust the promise of pvp not changing anything pve go right out the window (travel supression and to hit debuffs among other things, but specific changes like how hurricane was nerfec as well)
That and it changed pve because of the first simple truth about pvp combat, if you don't have a specific build for it, or the right powerset for it (ice tanks anyone?) you may as well not bother with it. Or at the least not bother with someone min/maxed for it, which is usually most of the people who activily pvp and care about it. And I'll be damned then if I'm going to change any build for a sideshow now just as I was then.
The last time I was in the Bay? My then teen level tank still wearing DO's was putzing around cause I was bored and felt like trying to get a shivan, I played teleport tag with a dark MM who kept trying to tp foe me, i'd port away and keep going. But later on I had a run in with a stalker a good 3 levels higher then me, sent by the MM specifically to hunt me down, two shot me right through ice armor, and basically taunt me in broadcast and local nonstop anytime i tried to do anything in the zone. In short your average oh look at me i pwnzed you immature ganker who needs to feel big by being a bully and a poo flinger. One who I could clearly not fight back against.
Now were they playing within the rules of the zone? Yes I'll grant that point, she had every right to keep ganking me and stealing pieces as I tried to take out turrets. But was she acting with any kind of sportsmanship, decency, or dare I even say Etquitte? Not in the slightest, she ran me out of the zone, made me log out of coh because i was too pissed to want to play anymore, and was a perfect reminder of why I can't stand pvp or pvp'ers in general. The only redeeming fact to this story is that a few people playing villains heard how she was acting, turned about and logged in heroes, then hunted her down till she was driven from the zone as well. Tip of the hat to those players, if pvp wants to draw in more then a rabid hardcore base, it needs more people like that for starters. It's why I at least have respect for members of the PvpEC, they're trying to draw in people in a more civil way, despite my feelings on the matter.
So yes I'm a "pvp hater" As some would say, but only and this is the important point, only when it comes to cox. If a game wants to be built from the ground up with pvp only, pve only, or a mix of both, let it be built that way from the START. Not four issues later. Let a game stand on it's own merits. Pvp has always felt, tacked on, shoehorned in, and an afterthought by people in business suits who don't even play their game and wanted to try and cater to a select and fickle set of gamers, while leaving the loyal fans they had going. "Hey nice university, is it ever oh I don't know, going to be open this century?"
And that's the one true reason why I can't stand pvp being added in, the total resource drain in time, money, staff, and development that has gone into it, while those of us who play coh watch the game become more of the same, another generic mmo in tights that tries to do it all and fails at everything, instead of the fresh different game it was back at the start.
Why did I buy coh, why did I cancel the mmo accounts I had after 2 days of beta? It was different, it was new. And it had no loot, no pvp, no farming mobs, no crafting time and money sinks, no overpriced crap nobody could afford without a max level funding them, no phat lewtz where gear started having more of an impact on your character then ones actual skill level, nobody spamming duel requests on "teh noobs!", and a real sense of community.
And now?
PvP is still a sideshow that most casual players won't even bother with at all. Mainly due to the fact powers aren't balanced, can't be balanced, and won't ever be balanced. Casual build > pvpcentric build. And twinked out toons with maxed SO's all the time vs again casual's or first timers still working to slot out toons with SO's period.
Loot hunting no big deal? I guess not, I mean my SG two nights back had fun, we actually had an 8 man team of us all together for once, pity it was during switching between all their alts to speed run katiee hannon (which needs to be nerfed) One made a lowbie illusion troller specifically built with recall and invis to farm the cavern trial as well.
Wings? 20 million, yeah that's realistic. Same goes for about every other price on WW for anything rare. Unless you have high level alts to twink out lowbies. Costume drops are rare enough without people price gouging.
IO's in general? Yeah lets rip off diablo 2 and wow for the set piece idea, that's reeeal original cryptic. The last thing I want coh becoming is more like the 500 pound mmo gorilla I can't stand in the slightest. Whatever happened to the more utility belt feel i thought we were promised, not the shiny bauble syndrome we have now? And a whole 4 temp powers? That's definitly a [censored] for me.
Simple question to end this post, what if we decided to take this to general and have a little poll.
Would you rather have seen pvp tacked on and resources spent on it, or the dev team making a real skill or invention system?
Would you rather have the pvp zones with their silly rules and "mini game" mentality added on, or would you rather have the ability to have your energy blast be any damn color you please already?
Would you rather have seen the time wasted on 5 new AT's that are pretty much either reverse of hero side ones and an swg creature handler so we have something to pvp with, or would like to have shield and dual pistol powersets out already?
Would you rather have seen the endless tweaking or nerfing or balancing, and have time wasted on that. Or would you like to see defiance and vigilence made into something useful?
Would you like to have real content added in, more dynamic events like SC fires and creative npc behavior (thanks war witch) or would you like to see more recycled gankfest garbage that pvp zones are right now. Multiplayer maps aren't real content, they're just a hamster wheel to keep us occupied with squat.
No prizes for gussing how i'd answer, and if they keep making coh more of the same, or listening to the pvp crowd, the game is toast, they'll lose the loyal players first, the pvpers second when the new shiny is out, and that's that.
[ QUOTE ]
tl;dr
i predict epic failery from you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its amazing to me that people will post a book of nothing but opinions in a thread like this. I mean, expressing your opinion is all well and good, but if there was anything in there besides (paraphrasing) "I don't like PvP, never will, and don't agree with the direction of the game." I didn't see it despite reading the whole thread. The whole section on who participates in PvP has nothing to support it. If any part of PvP is suffering, its actually the high end groups and not the more casual (usually zone) PvP scene.
I'm not trying to pile on you, but if you're gonna necro a thread its better to bring something new to the discussion.
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
I read the OP. I'm not reviving a dead thread as this is the first thread in the forum.
PvP is great. There are many, many games designed around pvp which are doing very well. MMORPGs are a terrible platform for pvp. Design and develop your character is terrible for pvp.
Counterstrike = great pvp
CoH = bad pvp
That said I may still pvp. But claiming that pvp is what makes games successful is just laughable. It is a big world of games out there. Pinball has been successful for decades with no pvp.
People making claims without any facts or worse yet, twisting facts to suit their view point is irritating at best.
[ QUOTE ]
But claiming that pvp is what makes games successful is just laughable. It is a big world of games out there. Pinball has been successful for decades with no pvp.
[/ QUOTE ]
No one claimed that PvP makes all games successful, the pinball reference is as blatant a non sequitur as I've seen recently. We're discussing MMO's and other on line games specifically.
Here are some facts, since people seem to be good at ignoring them:
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.
Having a good PvP implementation is integral to having a successful MMO in the current gaming market. This is a demonstrable fact. The 3 largest on line RPG's are all heavily invested in PvP for this reason (WoW, Lineage 2, and Guild Wars). Note, this is very different from saying that a good PvP implementation is all that is needed, PvE is also a critical element. We are only just now seeing MMO's that are purely PvP (Fury) and whether or not they will succeed is still up in the air.
[ QUOTE ]
Counterstrike = great pvp
CoH = bad pvp
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll agree on CS, but I still like UT better..personal preference. CoX PvP has some issues, but that's not because of the genre its because of some of the shortcuts taken by the development team that's made balancing harder to achieve. Having said that, CS was hardly the game it is today when it was released, in fact it was just a mod when I started playing it.
[ QUOTE ]
MMORPGs are a terrible platform for pvp. Design and develop your character is terrible for pvp.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the part I take the most issue with, in part because it has a grain of truth. Games that allow the end user to design their build have implicit balance issues compared with games with fixed designs. The more build variation there is, the greater (in every case seen thus far) the disparity is between a good build and a bad one. To make matters worse many powers that work well against mobs don't work against players. Now, this one of the biggest issues I'd like to see addressed, if each CoX character had access to 2 builds we could mitigate this problem to a great degree. It still wouldn't be perfect because the casual crowd seldom invests the time the min - maxers will.
Having said all of that, there is a tremendous attraction to having build flexibility because it allows for a broader range of tactics. In Guild Wars, which by your definition would be a good PvP game, the meta-game is a constant source of discussion, planning, and out of game strategizing. I'm not sure how anyone could consider people talking about the game they extensively as a bad thing....
As an aside, if there isn't PvP in pinball why do I enjoy kicking my co-workers [censored] at it?
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
Here are some facts, since people seem to be good at ignoring them:
1. Well over half of all MMO players worldwide are playing on a server with open non-consensual PvP.
-- so what? On that basis CoH should shut down because more people are playing WoW so obviously WoW is what people like and CoH isn't. Or you could conclude that CoH is not WoW or any other game and doesn't need to try to include their features.
2. Well over 90% of all MMO players are playing a game that allows PvP.
-- Great, I bet 99% of all MMO players are playing a game that alows PvE. So pve wins. Thank you, tip your waiter.
3. There are more players playing pure PvP games (including FPS and RTS games) than all MMO's combined.
-- great, so there is no need for pvp in mmo's. The other games exist, do it better and have the audiences for them. Trying to recreate the wheel as an oval is pretty dumb.
thank you for pointing out that pve is more popular than pvp, that pvp is already provided in games for any who want to play it, and that CoH either needs to provide a different experience than WoW or simply close shop.
[ QUOTE ]
Here are some facts, since people seem to be good at ignoring them:
1. Well over half of all MMO players worldwide are playing on a server with open non-consensual PvP.
-- so what? On that basis CoH should shut down because more people are playing WoW so obviously WoW is what people like and CoH isn't. Or you could conclude that CoH is not WoW or any other game and doesn't need to try to include their features.
2. Well over 90% of all MMO players are playing a game that allows PvP.
-- Great, I bet 99% of all MMO players are playing a game that alows PvE. So pve wins. Thank you, tip your waiter.
3. There are more players playing pure PvP games (including FPS and RTS games) than all MMO's combined.
-- great, so there is no need for pvp in mmo's. The other games exist, do it better and have the audiences for them. Trying to recreate the wheel as an oval is pretty dumb.
thank you for pointing out that pve is more popular than pvp, that pvp is already provided in games for any who want to play it, and that CoH either needs to provide a different experience than WoW or simply close shop.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your views on this topic are so ignorant it's hard to even express my thoughts.
Maybe you are the one that should start thinking about closing up shop.
[ QUOTE ]
Pinball has been successful for decades with no pvp.
[/ QUOTE ]
Last time I checked you played pinball to get the high score. Which means you would be beating another persons score. Which means you are playing to beat another player.
I dont know about you, but playing pinball alone is pretty damn boring. Fighting for the high score against friends on the other hand is pretty fun.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many folks (like me) disagreed with this facade and called it what it truly was, a significant correction of a PvP problem that significantly affected PvE playstyle. My sarcasm above clearly reflects my chagrin with the devs' answer to jousting. There were no problems with PvE for 4 isssues. As soon as PvP reared it's ugly head, all of a sudden it was all about how unfair we had been exploiting the AI of all those poor NPCs. Thank you, very much, Dread Lords.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know, its funny I keep seeing people post this and it always make me laugh. I certainly exploited travel powers in PvE with my Blaster (first character) and suppression is more likely to be negated in (team) PvP via buffs than it is in PvE. I can't say what the devs "true" motivations are/were, but to claim that there was no PvE justification for making changes to how travel powers operate in combat is false. Would if have been changed if PvP were never introduced? I don't know, but at a minimum the situation is more complex than you've presented it.
*anti-smirk*
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you're amused. However, I'll reiterate for the sake of clarity that I don't believe travel powers ever were in any way being "exploited" in PvE. In fact, I believe travel suppression wasn't even REMOTELY a PvE consequence. Ironically, it wasn't until folks were getting pwned in the Arena when the devs starting justifying how imbalanced the PvE had become. The only things complex about this were the dance steps to sell it, sir.
This is a superhero/supervillain MMO. At a "minimum", comic lore does not support what our dev team justified needing to be done to travel powers. IMO, PvP balance is what supported it and PvE play fell victim to the excuse. We appear to disagree. And while that's ok, I feel compelled to distinguish your use of the term exploit from mine in the proper context.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even a nub like myself can go back and find that supression was added due to people using it to exploit the mechanics of the PvE game. People were jousting mobs, etc and never getting hit thus ruining the whole risk vs reward thing. This was the reason it was changed. Anything that affects PvP across the board with such a thing like supression not being there is balanced since anyone can do it. PvP would be just as balanced if supression was or wasn't there in my opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
I always found that even when jousting, whenever you get in range of the mob to attack it, it instantly counter-attacks.