Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Baps

Suggestion: Connect all servers.

Recommended Posts

The trouble is pvp will be rewarded ie grats 100 player kills etc here's a new gun.Passivism will not be rewarded, ie grats avoided killing 100 players today here's a new flower pot. You always get rewarded in games for killing. Even in pve you have to kill animals and npc to get stuff sometimes, but doesn't mean you want to attack other players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If some of the PVE crowd want ocasional riskless PVP they can just make a few of the lawless grids PVP enabled so they can blow steam off there and stop messing around with the people who wants full PVP and full PVE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not to do  with the risk, most pve players just don't actually want to go round attacking other players. They might not merge the two yet anyway, even though they have mentioned it, but if they did it all on one server they'd lose a lotta players. And potential customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with all those saying to keep them seperate.

I played EVE years back with a few friends, all PVE'ers. we stopped playing once we hit the limit of what we could do without venturing towards all those camped gates.

At the time we accepted those limitations as that was what the game was, but we liked just the few of us playing together, never wanted to be part of some unknowable large corporation.

If the dev's can find a way around the PVP "risk / reward" nonsense, and all of the PVPer's wanting bases in the PVE regions, then I might consider that system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am a small-group PvE player. My company is comprised of 3-5 people, and only 2 of us really enjoy the game to play every day. I work 10 hours a day. I cannot stand coming home from work and seeing all of my work destroyed. I have no patience for PvP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually thought this was how they were going to release the servers to begin with, the way it was described/advertised.

Just for thought you could respec once per level, pve or pvp.

A little creative thinking would give certain things only each could do. Making trade etc viable. For example taming.  Maybe only the pve player could make the highest level defenses and trade, say for faster ships on pvp side. doubt I have to look to far to see a pve player exited about WPE, I wonder why? I liked playing pvp but got tired of it and left because it was player vs door not player, you just lost everything while offline, so I know why a lot of people think the way they do.

There are most likely a lot of great ideas if people would get creative and think of some. Honestly there is a lot lacking in the game over all right now even on the pve side, it gets boring pretty quick.

Maybe only certain islands are pvp, maybe only ships in certain areas, etc. Maybe just a couple grids some where to test and see what might work. It may bring some changes to the claim system to make it viable.

If it did/could work it would not have anything to do with the pvper 4 grids away took all our stuff when we were offline.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Nutcutt3r said:

doubt I have to look to far to see a pve player exited about WPE, I wonder why?

Because it's a PVE system, nothing else.

It's not like PVEer's don't like combat, I like ship battles, I like land based combat, I also like that there is no bad attitude and motivation behind the challenges I face, I like that I can choose what to risk and when to risk it.

I can play the game at my own pace, while still enjoying the comunity around me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen games where pvp and mixed pvp/pve work well.  This is not one of them.  It requires strict rules and a large active moderator/god presence on the servers to enforce them and prevent griefing, abuse, and toxic behavior.   Private servers are tailor-made for this type of setup, and can have active moderation.  Grapeshot has already said they don't intend to do very much, if anything with live GMs in the game, hoping to prevent any bad behavior procedurally though coding.   I wish them a lot of luck with that, but the best way to achieve it is by designing a game that doesn't automatically fit into the category of "highest potential for abuse".  If they start to attempt that by choosing a game mode so flagrantly ripe for bad behavior, they've already lost that battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Nutcutt3r said:

 doubt I have to look to far to see a pve player exited about WPE, I wonder why?

I'm not excited about it.  Most of it's already in the game with the treasure map mechanic, and unless they change the way it works it will only provide content for a couple weeks, and then you'd never see them again.

 Look at adding (pve) content this way:

1.  Completely simple/unsophisticated approach.  (Game Design 101) -  Add more NPCs to kill

2.  Slightly more sophisticated - Write quests involving killing NPCs

3.  More sophisticated, yet still very basic - Write more complicated quests involving new geography, new animals to tame and more NPCs to kill

 

But all of those approaches miss the point.  Pve players want conflict and drama just as much as pvp players do, they just don't want it to involve killing other players and destroying their stuff.  So what's left?  How do you "win" pve and become king of the hill?  Economics, crafting, artistry, and personality.   Real additions to pve give the players an official structure to compete in those areas in the game.  This would require deep and exclusive crafting skill trees, a real economic system with benefits to gaining gold, a system to encourage politics and fame,  and better outlets for people's artistry in building, music, and changing the landscape.

The best game design for pve goes above Game Design 101 and recognizes that pve players do want to compete against each other in a game.   I swear, there are many game designers who think pve players enjoy killing 40 rats for some meaningless gain and then sit around pretending to serve each other tea.

The funny thing is that we talk about this stuff as pve content, but this is also content that makes it a richer game on the pvp side as well.  All these pvp/pve argument always ignore the fact that the pvp game is a superset of pve.  Pvp gets whatever pve gets plus all the pvp aspects as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way a mixed pve/pvp could actually work is with an opt in out option in settings, some mmos I play already do that and it works ok. The problem is the bulk of points and rewards etc will always go to the pvp player cos like I say no one is gonna reward you in a game for passivity. I used to play a lot of pvp but eventually you always come across a bored player or company that decides to destroy all your stuff while you're offline. Even if they have been friendly to you all the time too. In eso you have an option to prevent attacking other players. To me that's the only way it could work. I still say imo it should stay separate though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think they should merge the EU and NA servers in PvE. I see no reason why they continue with the two when players were dropping like flies. It would make sense to just have 1 PvE server whether it's called EU or NA or something else but having two just splits the players. I'd like to know the reason they have two though as it would probably save them some money and have players play together more but whether it can be done is another matter, can't see why not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2019 at 10:41 AM, DannyUK said:

Personally I think they should merge the EU and NA servers in PvE. I see no reason why they continue with the two when players were dropping like flies. It would make sense to just have 1 PvE server whether it's called EU or NA or something else but having two just splits the players. I'd like to know the reason they have two though as it would probably save them some money and have players play together more but whether it can be done is another matter, can't see why not.

280 ping is a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...