I'm interested in PvE. If I want to PvP generally I'll play a game designed for PvP.
I'm open to PvP in Pantheon....but I hope it exists in a way that does not compromise itemization/spells etc.
Feeling forced to have to balance for PvP in a PvE game can create restrictions that inhibit the PvE side of the game.
I hope they do not take PvP too seriously.
I'm looking forward to both PvE and PvP. I am excited about the balancing approach that Pantheon is taking to accomplish a fun experience in both avenues. For me, there would be a void to fill if there wasn't a PvP option.
RP isn't my thing.
PvE all the way. I've never encountered an MMO that even had PvP that wasn't horrbily unbalanced and full of hacking, which soured my experiences immensely.
I don't tend to enjoy the culture that springs up around PvP either. Might Makes Right is just gross to me.
I am a fan of all three (PvE, PvP and occasionally RP) depending on my mood. However, server wise I usually stick to PvE servers as PvP can easily lead to ganking and abuse from other players. In all honesty, I prefer my PvP to be instanced based as it takes more skill to kill someone your level vs someone who is 20-30 levels below you. Instances also allow for more dynamic combat features such as adding capture the flag objectives, capture and protect objectives, protection escorts... etc.
Baldur said:I am a fan of all three (PvE, PvP and occasionally RP) depending on my mood. However, server wise I usually stick to PvE servers as PvP can easily lead to ganking and abuse from other players. In all honesty, I prefer my PvP to be instanced based as it takes more skill to kill someone your level vs someone who is 20-30 levels below you. Instances also allow for more dynamic combat features such as adding capture the flag objectives, capture and protect objectives, protection escorts... etc.
I love me some PvP CTF! I do enjoy PvP game modes that are straight forward kill based but I agree that alternative game modes with objectives are the most fun. Capturing and holding points, CTF, Escorts or some unique game modes are where the game gets fun. I feel that if there is alternative game modes then the behaviors of the players slightly change and it's not as much about ego's as it is about fun.
Ego's still exist, everywhere...
VR is no fan of instancing but there are ways of adjusting the ruleset to prevent or discourage some forms of ganking.
Thus - making targets too much lower than you non-attackable unless they attack you or heal or buff your enemies. Making targets moderately lower than you attackable but with built in penalties (either giving you a bad reputation that has consequences, or maybe boosting the low level target of an attack to a few levels above the attacker.) Making an individual non-attackable by a group or giving it a buff, or the group a debuff.
I recommend none of these - just mentioning that we do not need instancing to restrict ganking should VR in its wisdom choose to do so.
dorotea said:VR is no fan of instancing but there are ways of adjusting the ruleset to prevent or discourage some forms of ganking.
Thus - making targets too much lower than you non-attackable unless they attack you or heal or buff your enemies. Making targets moderately lower than you attackable but with built in penalties (either giving you a bad reputation that has consequences, or maybe boosting the low level target of an attack to a few levels above the attacker.) Making an individual non-attackable by a group or giving it a buff, or the group a debuff.
I recommend none of these - just mentioning that we do not need instancing to restrict ganking should VR in its wisdom choose to do so.
The point of instancing PvP content is not the same as instancing PvE content. I agree that PvE needs to be open world and instance should not be used in this circumstance. However, when you start talking about instancing PvP it allows for battlegrounds to be created, teams to be formed, and objectives to be added without taking away from the PvE concept of the open world. Instancing, in this case, does not create a division within the player community, it facilitates it.
You also need to consider how races are labeled. So far there are 9 races and only 3 have been declared as "evil" (The dark mir, ogres, and skar). This brings up the question of how PvP is actually going to work within the open world. Is it going to be a 3 way battle with "good" VS "evil" Vs natural (sort of like ESO), will players be able to align themselves with one faction or another through an in-game decision, or is it one person vs everyone regardless of race? The addition of PvP instancing in this situation would allow for players to group with their friends and then Que up to be placed on a team in a Red Vs Blue situation. It could also remove the whole faction system (from PvP) and open up more grouping opportunities within the player community when it comes to PvP content.
You brought up the issue of ganking which will happen on a PvP server regardless of instanced PvP. The real issue here (at lest for me) is PvP is a pointless concept unless there are objectives attached to it. You could make the argument that PvP objectives could be added to open-world situations, but that just muddies up the world and increases server strain and lag in those areas.
VR's whole thing is promoting player grouping and promoting community. I'll be the first to state it "Non-objective based open-world PvP does not facilitate this ideology". VR may be aginst instancing the open world and that is great. However, if they completely overlook instancing as an option for PvP (and player housing) then they are just shooting themselves in the foot.
EDIT: You also said that VR is aginst instancing so let me ask you a question. Conceptually speaking what is the difference between creating instanced PvP battlegrounds vs creating a different server that is PvP focused? The answer: Not much, the only difference is that instanced battlegrounds could keep the open-world focused on PvE, player community and teamwork while giving those that want PvP an outlet where they can do this without dividing the community through the implementation of another server.
Will VR consider instancing objectionable if used on a pvp server for objective-based events. My guess that they will - if they feel it violates the core tenets for a raid or a dungeon why would they feel it is fine if the people going "out of the real Terminus" are doing it to fight each other instead of mobs? I don't expect to see instanced pvp arenas I expect to see arenas in the "real world" where people can enter to fight - perhaps with the doors locking when each side has enough people and unlocking when the fight is over. Do I agree or disagree with you? Does not matter if VR has its mind made up.
I come from DAOC - to me pvp is best if done on a faction basis where the purpose is not to run around in an artificial arena tagging sticks poked in the ground or kicking a ball around - but rather to support your side against the enemy. Just like wars on Earth are usually "us" against "them" not a random group of amoral murderers running around looking to find someone to murder. Us against them is best in landscape (including dungeons like the wonderful Darkness Falls pvp dungdon) and I will happily have a character or two on a faction-based pvp server.
Hemlock said:I wonder if PvE causes systemic brain damage. The question was RP or PvP.
PvP in any way shape or form.
Fair point, although a literal answer of the question gives a pretty useless metric. Something like: twice the number of people like PvP as RP (or vice versa.) So a 50 for one to 25 for the other count. (The vast majority not responding.) However, there seems no way to tell the percentage of the entire community without PvE responses. With PvE responses they can see a percentage of the total community in each camp.
If they see half of the entire community likes PvP, they're more likely to open additional PvP servers.