That depends entirely on your viewpoint, and given your sig, your viewpoint is quite opposed to mine.
[ QUOTE ]
Looking at the populations in game and reading what the forums have to say, in most games PvP zones are underpopulated. That tells me most people do not want PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
In most games, pvp sucks, so it is underpopulated. Not because people are against pvp.
Take board games, chess for example is a pvp game. Probably the best and most popular pvp game ever. Some mmos have found ways to successfully integrate pvp into their designs. WoW and guildwars have.
PvP IS all that and a bag of chips. Streetfighter? Mortal Combat? Sports games? Halo? Those are all examples of player vs. player games.
Somewhere along the way, people began to confuse pvp with griefing people weaker than yourself... PvP in and of itself is great.
[ QUOTE ]
PvP IS all that and a bag of chips. Streetfighter? Mortal Combat? Sports games? Halo? Those are all examples of player vs. player games.
[/ QUOTE ]
...except that Streetfighter, MK, Madden, Halo, et. al. can also be played strictly PvE, and it is in fact impossible to "win" the game PvP-wise. Beat 1000 other players, and the game won't care a whit.
Except for people who like PvP, the PvE game has nothing to do with 'winning'.
And about the comment about my sig; PWNZ isn't a PvP forum, it's just a forum where people of the mindset that tend to like PvP reside.
[ QUOTE ]
Let me see if i can sum up my stance on PvP - and I'm a known hater:
[/ QUOTE ]
You are also on the PVP forums. Which means in short, verbally, you are here to PVP.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't give two tin [censored] if YOU enjoy it or not. Want your little sandbox? FINE. Here it is, take it, keep it, stay in it, and stay the hell away from me. What I want is simple: to not be penalized for saying no to PvP, to not be constantly poked and prodded towards PvP, and for all PvE content to be 100% accessible without ever needing PvP or a specific team.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is true in most games. PVE related PVP content was a developer idea. The majority of gamers that like to PVP actually wanted the zones empty of badges and npcs. The majority of the focus on Arena is to avoid PVE realted elements.
PVPers don't want PVP haters in the zones either. We've been screaming it for about two years.
[ QUOTE ]
IE, Villain Accolades are currently a "penalty for not PvPing" situation on half of them. The constant "go talk to this PvP zone intro dude" missions and the poor hackjob of leveraging folks to farm for Salvage in PvP zones (because you either outlevel the range it's in or there is a severe dearth of Magic foes at a specific level range - see Cap Au Diable for a perfect example of the latter) are examples of the pokeprod. The RSF, occasionally the STF, and PTOD Elite Bosses for Dominators are an example of the last point.
In short, I don't care if there is or is not PvP in CoX, as long as I don't have to see it, smell it, or touch it to play everything ELSE in CoX.
[/ QUOTE ]
Villains are far more penalized in this game than just that. Further, the comparitive hardness of gaining accolades as a Hero to that as a villain are the difference between going to a fast food place or doing the seven tasks of Hercules.
Again, this has been complaints shared by PVPers since accolades became available for villains.
[ QUOTE ]
On to other points:
Laylyn, you keep pointing out that there are no MMOs other than Toontown that have been PvE-only and successful...let me ask this, how many PvE-ONLY MMOs other than Toontown have there BEEN?
[/ QUOTE ]
PVE was the original model for MMORPGS. They died for the same reason no one plays the first Zelda game anymore, eventually the content got stale and people moved on. The granddaddy MMORPG Everquest started as PVE only and also set the pace for raiding in games like WOW. It had to adapt PVP to keep its populations up. MMORPGs were actually headed for a complete death prior to the success of WOW however. They had extreme development costs and people only played for short periods of time. WOW has a mixed bag that includes PVP even on the servers named PVE and Roleplayer, because it helps mix things up. It's flagged, so it is completely optional just like COX's PVP zones. Very few games are developed to force people to PVP.
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly cannot think of one AT ALL, and this is part of why I think there are problems with the "MMO must have PvP to succeed" paradigm; EQ was the granddady, and it had PvP available.
[/ QUOTE ]
As noted above, it was a later update.
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone else has just done what humans do: follow what's worked once.
And it's interesting to me that only one person has actually mentioned Diablo 2 so far; the game was in fact almost 100% PvE, with ZERO PvP support available from the devstaff, reward limited to an ear and whatever gold they dropped(unless the PKer was trying for corpsepopping, in which case, they're a griefer...), and the absolute ability to avoid all PvP ever(by passwording games). Given that D2 can be seen in may ways as a blueprint* for CoX, and D2 often had well over 150K people online all at once in its big time days, the "mostly PvE, unsupported PvP" model can work. I just don't know of anyone else that's put a big effort INTO it, because one thing online gaming has ALWAYS had is PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
D2 was the blueprint for WOW, not COX. Both were developed by Blizzard, not Cryptic / NCSoft.
[ QUOTE ]
It's become axiomatic..nobody makes an online game that doesn't have PvP because nobody has made an online game that doesn't have PvP. It started with BBS doorgames; I remember LORD. It had PvP from day 1. Yeah, you COULD find "non-PvP" games on those old clunkers...but they were all single-player. What I wonder is this: Why has there never been an actual PvE online FPS game with full co-op, with a campaign setting? The example that always springs to my mind is the MechWarrior games. They have a fairly beefy campaign for single-player, complete with being able to field up to two lances of AI Mechs at one time...but for online play, it's just deathmatch, deathmatch, deathmatch. Why not allow multiplayer in the SP campaign?
[/ QUOTE ]
Check out NCSoft's Tabula Rasa when it goes live on October 13th. There is a PVP option for guild vs guild online. However the entire storyline is set up for PVE main. It also has an internal coms system much like BF2 or DDO.
DDO is also a PVE only game. However, despite being the template for Everquest and every fantasy game developed since the 1970s, it's failed to market well, due to the lack of any PVP options.
[ QUOTE ]
Hell, why not DESIGN for it? Running some of those missions with non-AI lancemates could be great fun. But nobody has ever made a truly focused online PvE FPS like that, ever...and it's because of the axiom. Nobody does it because nobody HAS done it, so it's unproven. Unproven is assumed to be unprofitable...so it never GETS proven.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, DDO is PVE only. It's also failing to beat Toontown online for numbers.
[ QUOTE ]
WoW is just the last in a long line of this type of thought, given bulk and "weight" by dint of the Blizz name. If WoW wasn't Blizzard, it wouldn't be ten percent as successful as it is, PvP or not...count on it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, Blizzard has a rep for making top end games. They are well balanced and they ruthlessly enforce their EULAs so it keeps cheating to a minimum.
[ QUOTE ]
*Clarifying the blueprint comment: CoX is essentially Diablo 2 with costumes unhooked from gear, better graphics, and for a long time less loot. Each class/AT gets different skill trees/powersets to pick from, and once points are spent/powers are chosen, they're mostly locked into stone. D2 had the charstats in addition to the skilltrees; in CoX, this is basically handled by the devs having picked all your charpoints out ahead of time, and all of it goes into Vitality and Strength - Vitality is the HP increase, Strength is slots as a function of gear you can wear. CoX has respecs added, something Blizz added into WoW; the only reason it was never added into D2 was because the engine couldn't support it. Targeting is easier in CoX(sometimes, unless tabtargeting is wonky again today), and D2 had a harder to use interface...but in the end, CoX is a simplified, prettified D2.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, D2 was Blizzard. Blizzard develops games that appeal to loot junkies, it's not really soemthing COX really does to the same degree, even after inventions.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PvP IS all that and a bag of chips. Streetfighter? Mortal Combat? Sports games? Halo? Those are all examples of player vs. player games.
[/ QUOTE ]
...except that Streetfighter, MK, Madden, Halo, et. al. can also be played strictly PvE, and it is in fact impossible to "win" the game PvP-wise. Beat 1000 other players, and the game won't care a whit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, what? I thought winning was defeating your opponent. I don't expect a chess board to get up and dance the when I win.
Do they not have sports in school anymore? Something about competition bringing out the best in people ect...
[ QUOTE ]
That depends entirely on your viewpoint, and given your sig, your viewpoint is quite opposed to mine.
[/ QUOTE ]
The evidence is against your viewpoint.
Of course, some of us follow our gut, not facts. Facts just get in the way of truthiness.
[ QUOTE ]
Streetfighter? Mortal Combat? Sports games? Halo?
[/ QUOTE ]
I hated PvP in these games. Never played Halo, a FPS, and never will, but the other two I enjoyed. PvP in Streetfighter/MK means the loss of game time for someone, the inability to see the end if you are losing, and dealing with someone who memorized the moves of every character and knows every counter.
I never cared for PvP in VIDEO games. I am all for co-op play. I am not the only one.
PvP is not great. Never has been, never will. Looking at most game releases over the past 10 years point to that.
By the way, please don't include sports games. Other than racing games, only Americans seem to like sports games, and a good number of those people are HAPPY with PvE. I should know, I speak with the (decides against an offensive word) individuals on a regular basis.
[ QUOTE ]
Do they not have sports in school anymore? Something about competition bringing out the best in people ect...
[/ QUOTE ]
High school atheletics brings out the WORST in people. Rage, bigotry, cheating, violence. Oh yeah, High school sports is horrible, and I lived in a small town. To the school, the YEARLY riot against their rivals was a good thing.
Competition is good. The problem is to many people in this country seem to think that beating the crap out of the opposition is a good morale booster.
Sit in on the majority of those pre game chats. They are not becoming model citizens. They are becoming violent adolescents with the idea that the high school owes them.
FYI, I like sports, at least some of them. I like martial arts, both in practice and in tournaments. I like soccer. I liked World League Football. I love running and swimming. I greatly admire marathon runners and triathletes. My PoV has nothing to do with sports.
[ QUOTE ]
[DDO is also a PVE only game. However, despite being the template for Everquest and every fantasy game developed since the 1970s, it's failed to market well, due to the lack of any PVP options.
/quote]
It failed to market well do to forced grouping, bad quest ideas, no over world, no crafting, and no pvp. In my case, the fact that you need a full group to get anywhere in a quest, and XP was only awarded at the completion of the quest, not for mobs killed, ruined the game for me.
To many things failed in DDO. They have PvP now, and many of their forum goers seem to think that DDO is the future of MMO games. I still won't play it, and I love D&D. I have been waiting for that game since 1983.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do they not have sports in school anymore? Something about competition bringing out the best in people ect...
[/ QUOTE ]
High school atheletics brings out the WORST in people. Rage, bigotry, cheating, violence. Oh yeah, High school sports is horrible, and I lived in a small town. To the school, the YEARLY riot against their rivals was a good thing.
Competition is good. The problem is to many people in this country seem to think that beating the crap out of the opposition is a good morale booster.
Sit in on the majority of those pre game chats. They are not becoming model citizens. They are becoming violent adolescents with the idea that the high school owes them.
FYI, I like sports, at least some of them. I like martial arts, both in practice and in tournaments. I like soccer. I liked World League Football. I love running and swimming. I greatly admire marathon runners and triathletes. My PoV has nothing to do with sports.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think lack of sportsmanship is one of the key problems with PvP in MMOGs (I've been PvP'ing for years, and it really does seem to get more widespread with each new generation of game), and it's not something that's easy or even possible to fix. The ability to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet only makes things more volatile.
It's unfortunate, as I really used to enjoy PvP a lot in MMOGs. Still do from time to time, but I can't really get into it like I used to, because of the increasing prevalence of poor sportsmanship. I enjoy the competition, but I also enjoy getting to know my opponent, building friendly rivalries, etc. This doesn't happen if my opponents are antisocial [censored], and so a large incentive for me to PvP is gone.
[ QUOTE ]
I hated PvP in these games. Never played Halo, a FPS, and never will, but the other two I enjoyed. PvP in Streetfighter/MK means the loss of game time for someone, the inability to see the end if you are losing, and dealing with someone who memorized the moves of every character and knows every counter.
I never cared for PvP in VIDEO games. I am all for co-op play. I am not the only one.
PvP is not great. Never has been, never will. Looking at most game releases over the past 10 years point to that.
By the way, please don't include sports games. Other than racing games, only Americans seem to like sports games, and a good number of those people are HAPPY with PvE. I should know, I speak with the (decides against an offensive word) individuals on a regular basis.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, i think you and I are just going to have to disagree. I guess I never realized people were really against competitive activities.
I fully disagree with you. You may not be entirely alone in your opinion, but judging by the ubiquitous nature of player versus player games, I don't think you speak for as many as you think.
Did you even enjoy monopoly or was that to competitive for you?
Is chess only fun if it ends in a draw?
Also about your whole rant on sports bringing out the worst in you. Someone needs to find you, tie you down, and make you watch every american sports movie ever made including every rocky movie.
[ QUOTE ]
It failed to market well do to forced grouping, bad quest ideas, no over world, no crafting, and no pvp. In my case, the fact that you need a full group to get anywhere in a quest, and XP was only awarded at the completion of the quest, not for mobs killed, ruined the game for me.
To many things failed in DDO. They have PvP now, and many of their forum goers seem to think that DDO is the future of MMO games. I still won't play it, and I love D&D. I have been waiting for that game since 1983.
[/ QUOTE ]
You had stated above you wanted Co-op games of PVE. DDO provided that and your also stating you quit because of that
here: "forced grouping"
and here:
"the fact that you need a full group to get anywhere in a quest, and XP was only awarded at the completion of the quest,"
You might want to clairfy that more. Also, most PVE centric games center around raiding, which is by itself a group effort to do and complete. Even in COX, you don't solo a strike force or Hami.
It sounds like your looking for more of a solo game playing enviroment. Have you considered Xbox, Playstation or adventures in other home consol games. I'm not saying that too be insulting it's just that the market exists for that and it's less buggy than MMORPGs.
As for upcoming MMORPGs, I'd suggest Tabula Rasa. It has guild versus guild pvp. However, since you are a solo player by nature, it wouldn't affect you at all.
You know, I read back over your post, and I have to correct something that weakens your point (Sorry, because in general, I /do/ agree with you)
EQ didn't survive because of PvP. PvP there was vereh lopsided, mostly towards hybrid classes. EQ Survived because it set up a raiding and grind treadmill. It only took a weekend to 'beat' the newest raid, perhaps..
It took months to get everyone gearred up in its phat lewtz. That's how they kept subscriptions. PvP was a concession that wasn't terribly popular, IIRC.
[ QUOTE ]
You know, I read back over your post, and I have to correct something that weakens your point (Sorry, because in general, I /do/ agree with you)
EQ didn't survive because of PvP. PvP there was vereh lopsided, mostly towards hybrid classes. EQ Survived because it set up a raiding and grind treadmill. It only took a weekend to 'beat' the newest raid, perhaps..
It took months to get everyone gearred up in its phat lewtz. That's how they kept subscriptions. PvP was a concession that wasn't terribly popular, IIRC.
[/ QUOTE ]
The point of the post is that "PVE only" games don't do well. EQ still developed pvp to hybrid. Loot grinds both in EQ, WOW, and other games are often driven by the motivation on performance against other players. They tend to enhance each other, with WOW being the best example of that.
For the record, no insult taken... 
Well, no, they're not. Not in original EQ. The loot grind was for its own sake. I mean, I was there. I'm telling you how it was. People didn't raid to PvP. WoW, well, also no. If you want PvP gear you're basically better off.. PvPing though, so that's fine.
And so after the long and dramatic battle, the JLA had finally managed to defeat the Legion of Doom (just barely). As the core of the JLA stood battle scarred and injured but triumphant, the mighty Superman, after pulling out a small shard of Kryptonite from his shoulder stood over the defeated body of his arch-nemesis Luthor and proclaimed:
U GOT PWND BI%$% !
I have to say that as much complaining people do about the Devs not doing this or that, considering what they have to work with they are doing a remarkable job.
Here is what I mean:
At the moment CoX is the only Superhero/Supervillain online game they created their own universe, created there own heroes and villains and attempted to make a superhero based game system in which people could effectively level without the game getting entirely old.
The difficulty is that they had to make a game as well as let it fit into the superhero genre. Some Superheroes can fight great battles on their own [Solo], while others (meaning the less combat-oriented ones) usually join up with others to battle crime and other such things [Teaming]. Even the most powerful of heroes need to work together to deal with world-shattering problems [Taskforces & Trials]. Or they can also just do something that would take up a single comic book [Newspaper Missions]or a series of comics [Story Arc].
Villains on the other hand are designed to be able to work on their own most of the time (hence not as team designed archetypes). But on occasion do join up with others for their own protection or to get access to equipment they wouldnt normally have access too [Supergroups & Bases]. In times of great crisis, large numbers of heroes and villains battle it out to save or destroy the city [PvP]but most of the time in comics they are more often dealing with each other on an individual level [1-on-one Arena battle]. Even at times heroes and villains work together to destroy a greater threat to ensure their own survival [Rikiti Invasion Event, Rikiti War Zone].
CoX is not a comic though, it is an ONLINE GAME. Because of this we are not dealing with comic book characters but players making characters. Players like all people enjoy different things and Cryptic knows this. Cryptic wants to make money and therefore needs to listen to its current player base as well as expanding its player base.
Do I PvP a lot? No not really. Its not that I hate it (although it does get frustrating at times) but I like playing with my friends both local and others I have gained while playing this game. Some like PvP and others dont. If I can have fun doing PvE content then I see nothing wrong with it.
I do believe that there are myths about PvP and PvPers, and although I dont agree with most of them there is always a seed of truth in the greatest fabrication. I have met some fantastic and enjoyable people while PvPing, but I have also met people who to me seem outwardly rude and impossibly cruel. This is there game too, and as long as they pay their $15 and the Devs dont see them as a problem they have their right to act as they wish, but I dont think it helps the PvP communitys image.
Lets face it PvP in CoX is more like a war than a comic book. Would you really purchase a book about a character that just snuck around and sniped or wounded heroes or villains made a snide comment and then went somewhere to do it again? Yes games like WoW, SWG or Warhammer are more well designed with PvP, if you look into their names or backgrounds they are based on direct conflict therefore PvP has been integrated from the gound up. City of Heroes started as PvE with the idea of PvP content to be added later.
Yes at times you grind to get where you want to be, but in my opinion its far easier to do in CoX than in WoW. I have played WoW and in my opinion the coolness about remarkable quests that can take you hours to complete due to traveling around the globe literally (even the simplest ones) can be as much a pain as they are an achievement.
In my opinion I believe it would be much better in CoXs interests to instead of just trying to create more content to focus on new events. Like an event every three months or so. It can be one sided, meaning perhaps it only focuses on heroes rather than villains, it could be PvE or PvP based but at least it might get people who appear to have a one-sided vision on where this game is going or should be going to see the usefulness of both PvP and PvE.
Just my two cents
Who wants the soap box now?
P.S. Badges can be fun to acquire if you are in the right mindset and are also about bragging rights (at least that is my opinion).
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
[ QUOTE ]
Well, no, they're not. Not in original EQ. The loot grind was for its own sake. I mean, I was there. I'm telling you how it was. People didn't raid to PvP. WoW, well, also no. If you want PvP gear you're basically better off.. PvPing though, so that's fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
In WOW, until the Burning Crusades Expansion, all the best PVP gear was loot to be discovered in the hardest dungeons. WOW had a wierd habit of turning hardcore PVPers, into raiders also, due to something magical known as purple fever.
I'll take your word for it that the EQ original game didn't depend on it. However, it predates the point I was making and EQ did hybrid into a RP/ PVE/ PVP game rather than just a PVE game.
Again, the marketing strategy was to allow different strokes for different folks. One of the numbers wierdnesses with EQ, is that it list it's total subscribers not just from direct paying customers but from something SOE developed called "The Station pass", which meant for an extra 10 bucks and account could play anything in SOE's inventory, including every game you'd ever bought, which kept old players coming back to EQ and other games, simply because it was part of a package deal.
Again, I understand your point of view. However, it doesn't detract from the threads point, which is that current marketing is not developed for PVE only. Even with the players you'd see on EQ today, a huge percentage are "Station Pass" customers that like filtering between separate games that again include PVP options just like EQ does.
The arguement continues to be that strictly PVE games, don't do well. In the 70 plus pages of this thread, which include dev input, no one has disproven that.
I understand your point completely. It simply doesn't affect the current industry of computer games or the development ideas coming for the next two years.
For example, if you look at the current game listing book for NCSoft, for every game coming out this year, they all include PVP. The only one that doesn't have a listing is the COX, which as we know does include PVP...
[ QUOTE ]
lots of good stuff
[/ QUOTE ]
I liked your post. Here's the link for the PVPEC,
http://pvpec.guildportal.com/Guild.a...;TabID=1463928
Don't just have great ideas, feel free to join, get involved and act on them. It's fine to just get people involved on your own server or you can do things on test as well.
The main thing to do PVP postive is develop friendly rivalies and don't get your feather ruffled if someone has a bad day. There's endless potential if you are willing to build up both sides and don't care about anything more than having fun.
[ QUOTE ]
In WOW, until the Burning Crusades Expansion, all the best PVP gear was loot to be discovered in the hardest dungeons. WOW had a wierd habit of turning hardcore PVPers, into raiders also, due to something magical known as purple fever.
[/ QUOTE ]
When t3 was new, yes, that was true. The PvP gear obtained from the insane setup was buffed to be better then t3 for PvP though (Slightly lower Item Level, so weaker overall, but with Stats and Set Bonuses that are distinctly PvP in flavor). And yes, before the introduction of the current, saner system of PvP gear introduction (About 2 months before TBC) the endgame was raiding for PvP gear.
Like I said, I agree with your original point, just that part of your supporting argument was, well, wrong.
I play board games that are pvp all the time. I love MtG CCG. It's not that I am against pvp. I love chess, checkers, Cosmic Encounter, Car Wars.
As for it bringing out the worst in players... "Oh all attacks go against <insert player>. Those are the rules." These are crappy statements I heard from friends. Or how about the game spoons where fisticuffs were "OK".
As for sports movies, give me a break. I have watched most of the movies you mentioned, and found them LACKING!! American sports are awful, and I am American. They are long, boring events. Besides, those are MOVIES!!! People do not act like that in real life. The fact that you point to them as validation worries me more than you can ever know.
Movies.. sheesh. What has the world learned from Neverending Story, Hook? What has America learned from Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th? I love movies as much as the next guy, but I never compare them to real life.
I am a console gamer by preference I admit.
As for not liking forced grouping and liking co-op play, those two statements are not mutually exclusive. I have more of an issue with grouping in Co* due to outleveling content. I have an issue with grouping in DDO because you needed 6 people to complete a dungeon, and that if life took over, you got no XP for leaving the mission early. I always wanted to group in fantasy games until player only wanted to grind, not experience content.
You can want co-op play, and not want forced grouping. Shall we burn your scarecrow now?
[ QUOTE ]
Let me see if i can sum up my stance on PvP - and I'm a known hater:
[/ QUOTE ]
There I did a better job summing that up for you (and took me 2 minutes, much better than your 3 hour essay on how to post like a windbag).
[ QUOTE ]
As for it bringing out the worst in players... "Oh all attacks go against <insert player>. Those are the rules." These are crappy statements I heard from friends. Or how about the game spoons where fisticuffs were "OK".
.
[/ QUOTE ]
You have crappy friends then. Good sportsmanship is something that everyone should have the opportunity to learn. Some of us, albiet aparently not all of us, enjoy some friendly competition.
Also, thanks for pointing out that movies aren't real life. I haven't slept since I saw nightmare on elm street. I am starting to get very tired.
Not including PvP is hardly an improvement analogous to using more efficient and/or reliable forms of producing light.