I can state an outright fact (such as combining PvP and PvE requiring compromises in both areas) and they will argue against that blatant fact.
It would be refreshing to have an example from you such as:
"For example in one of the patches to EQ2, they decided to change xxxx skill to have separate PvE+PvP calculations but then increased the cooldown of the ability to account for the PvP direction they were going with on the xxxx class as so that ability wouldn't conflict with the rework but this in turn resulted in us being dissatisfied on the PvE end.
xxxx ability was an essential cc component that helped with the group attack foundation, it would literally bring the mobs together in the distance which ends up being essential for an optimal strategy pressing forward when the tank is finished with prior work and charges for the next monsters, now with the heavy cooldown it really no longer exists for PvE"
Atm Noaani I just think of you as the EQ2 guy who has a massive chip on his shoulder about anything PvP and only puzzle/constantly updated/super.stat.nerdy PvE can save the genre....I mean if EQ2 had unreal engine 5 graphics right now it would be the best game in the world right?
Regardless of how addicted you are with your preference you need to somehow look at your game critically, which you've never really highlighted to anyone and I really do not trust an opinion of someone who does not highlight key flaws in their game alongside the good.
Atm Noaani I just think of you as the EQ2 guy who has a massive chip on his shoulder about anything PvP
Yeah, but that is only because you don't actually pay attention to what I am saying, and only hear/read the parts of it that fit in with your narrative of me.
The MMO I have spent the second most amount of time in is Archeage, and I enjoyed my time there immensely. But sure, I have a chip on my shoulder about anything PvP...
It would be refreshing to have an example from you such as:
If you need examples, all it shows is that you don't belong in the discussion.
From day 1 in WoW, developers have been explaining to players that changes made to abilities in the PvE aspect of the game were due to PvP. Games like L2 have sub-standard PvE because they don't want to instance content off, and actual PvE can't exist in a state where PvP is live. Games like ESO attempted to segregate PvE and PvP off, but class balance still has bleed over between the two, and the design of classes is severely limited.
This is not an exhaustive list, it is simply enough to call you out on your bullshit saying "examples of blatantly obvious things would be nice".
Why do you need examples of this? You claim to have been playing MMO's since UO, you want us to believe your experience is extensive. You simply can NOT have been in the MMO scene since UO and NOT seen these compromises.
Again... RPGs were not designed for PvP, so there should be no surprise that tanking does not work well with PvP. That's what happens when you try to shove a square peg into a round hole...
"Guess what?! It doesn't fit well!!..." Duh!
Im not sure where you get this notion. Systems define the genre, not the other way around. Just because a genre has a tendency to include/exclude certain systems doesn't mean those systems/genre are incompatible with each other, it generally just means from a business perspective a given combo of systems is more appealing to a specific group of people.
Following that reasoning there are loads of pvp games with the rpg elements relevant to this topic, of which work quite fine, such as Overwatch. We could go in circles if you say "overwatch isn't an mmorpg so that doesn't count" but then we are back at square one, in that the genre title has no bearing on the relationship of different game systems, its just a convenient way of organizing and referring to those systems under a given title. And in fact, overwatch started as the beginnings of Blizzards next mmo, if that helps you understand how a core design of a game can remain, but can shift genres, simply by decisions made outside of that core design.
I could go in depth about how to make pvp work just fine in mmorpgs but thats not really the point im making.
Really the only legitamacy to saying "that shouldn't be in an mmorpg" is from a business perspective, but even then there is still a demand for a certain specific combination of systems that would typically be labeled as an mmorpg, of which is more in line with what other types of pvp players would be looking for in an mmorpg- rather than a more pve player like yourself would be looking for in the genre.
The trinity system was designed purely with PvE in mind. Trying to get it to work in a PvP setting has always involved compromises. Everything a developer does to make the trinity system work better for PvP means that it works worse for PvE.
I feel no need to elaborate when literally every MMORPG you could point to supports my statement.
Talk to an MMORPG developer (hell, just ask Steven if you can't find one), they will tell you that combining the two will literally ALWAYS involve compromises.
The developers job is to navigate those compromises, they can't eliminate them.
Eh, I understand why you might think that but its more of a matter of them not wanting to make it work as best as possible for both pvp and pve, due to the requirement of making the pve much more difficult to make proper use of the more complex pvp mechanics, which would not have mass appeal business wise.
Combat mechanics are constant, and both npc enemies and real players have to adhere to the same rules of combat, if combat is designed to work the same in both scenarios. So its more about making things work for pvp, and then making the npc enemies efficient enough in combat to actual present a challenge/take advantage of the combat design, when against real players empowered with more complex combat options, to make it worth creating that type of combat system.
No one properly covers all the mmorpg's and if they claim to I will get my shotgun out immediately because I don't believe a person for a second could exist where they've played mmo's that have certain fundamental principles and then went and played the likes of FF14 where it's essentially a golden brick road and after you've completely many instance bosses "dodging the multicolored floor donuts" you then relax all day with jump puzzles, casino and go in a hot tub with cute cat girls and continue singing "follow the yellow brick road".
Why would I be involved with EQ2? I had too many good mmo's to play around that time, including wasting time on the expanding console era at the time and for me to fallback on EQ2 from an older age with the game looking as bland as it is (should of went isometric view if you can't do 3d right), not my cup of tea sorry.
Infact, until I bumped into you on these forums I remembered "hey....I may have heard the name of that game" and I'm not joking when I say this, Everquest or EQ2 I have never heard of from any "geek" in the UK, ever, in my life.
Anyway, keep your blabbering's down, this thread is hopefully talking about how gameplay can expand in the mmorpg genre as to be further immersive and so that it isn't just designed for people nearing their 40's.
Games like L2 have sub-standard PvE because they don't want to instance content off, and actual PvE can't exist in a state where PvP is live. Games like ESO attempted to segregate PvE and PvP off, but class balance still has bleed over between the two, and the design of classes is severely limited.
And btw, when L2 started stealing more and more pve from WoW and started having more instanced stuff, they separated pve and pvp enhancement of abilities So even there the devs had to compromise in their design.
Everything a developer does to make the trinity system work better for PvP means that it works worse for PvE.
I'm really intriged on why you believe that, can you elaborate on it or provide an example?
I feel no need to elaborate when literally every MMORPG you could point to supports my statement.
Talk to an MMORPG developer (hell, just ask Steven if you can't find one), they will tell you that combining the two will literally ALWAYS involve compromises.
The developers job is to navigate those compromises, they can't eliminate them.
I see... well, i was expecting atleast an example even if from EQ2, i do certainly understand there will always be compromises regarding those aspects and their combinations especially when you have then intertwined in open world pvp, but i certainly do not agree with the statement: "Everything a developer does to make the trinity system work better for PvP means that it works worse for PvE."
and don't think all compromises OBRIGATORILY makes either worse.
This just shows that you are pretty avoidant of actual discussion honestly, you don't even attempt to understand other perspectives and thats why you are getting frustrated when people disagree.
I addressed this in another thread, and instead of talking about it in a normal manner, you completely ignore that response to turn around and use it as an insult in another thread lol. This mindset is why there is conflict in your thread.
3
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Following that reasoning there are loads of pvp games with the rpg elements relevant to this topic, of which work quite fine, such as Overwatch. We could go in circles if you say "overwatch isn't an mmorpg so that doesn't count" but then we are back at square one, in that the genre title has no bearing on the relationship of different game systems, its just a convenient way of organizing and referring to those systems under a given title. And in fact, overwatch started as the beginnings of Blizzards next mmo, if that helps you understand how a core design of a game can remain, but can shift genres, simply by decisions made outside of that core design.
There are loads of PvP games that are not RPGs that have some RPG elements. We agree.
That does not negate anything I said.
I could go in depth about how to make pvp work just fine in mmorpgs but thats not really the point im making.
I didn't say that it's not possible to make PvP work just fine in MMORPGs.
I said that when you do that, there should be no surprise that some tactics and class/group mechanics that were designed for RPG gameplay -- before PvP was even a thing in RPGs -- won't fit well with PvP gameplay.
Really the only legitamacy to saying "that shouldn't be in an mmorpg" is from a business perspective, but even then there is still a demand for a certain specific combination of systems that would typically be labeled as an mmorpg, of which is more in line with what other types of pvp players would be looking for in an mmorpg- rather than a more pve player like yourself would be looking for in the genre.
Um. Sure. You can make up a quote that I didn't say and try to argue against that point.
The term for that is straw man fallacy.
And btw, when L2 started stealing more and more pve from WoW and started having more instanced stuff, they separated pve and pvp enhancement of abilities So even there the devs had to compromise in their design.
I honestly don't think they compromised on much, L2 outside of instance content remained the same and they just add caveats to PvE instancing that just appeared wacky and stupid in comparison, it was pathetic design and it looked easy to do. Overall L2 didn't get much updating at all, at Interlude the updating process slowed right down and there was barely any updating or expansion to be had at all when you compare it to wow and ff14, it appeared NCsoft were happy earning off of their Lineage 1 fanbase in korea and with potential new projects, mainly all tied to their homebase.
I've never heard of anyone on popular private server discussions say "I wish a private server came out with Goddess of Destruction", the "modern L2" is just overall too stupid and as much as I'll honor Korea's initial design and philosophy on their base games the way they update games is usually not exciting weight up overall or horrendously lacking in any workload.
You don't need to play them to know the basics of what is going on in them.
If you don't know what is happening in the biggest game of the genre, can you call yourself a fan of the genre at all?
More to the point, if you are so insulated in your understanding of the genre, you need to be more accepting of being told that your opinions are based on that limited scope than you have been in the past.
It is *LITERALLY* the case that every time developers attempt to mix PvE and PvP in the same game, there are compromises made to both, and it is the job of the developer to navigate these compromises.
I'll also point out to you that while YOU may not have heard of EQ or EQ2 "back in the day", that is simply a consequence of you being so insular.
In late 2004, EQ2 had 5 UK specific servers, as well as 7 other EU servers. Before WoW launched, EQ was the largest MMO in the UK by a long shot.
You saying that you didn't even know about it, and that you don't pay attention to MMO's other than those you play - all that means is that you aren't equipped for discussions about MMO's in general, only about the specific MMO's you have played.
once again, I have been trying to tell you this for a while.
This just shows that you are pretty avoidant of actual discussion honestly, you don't even attempt to understand other perspectives and thats why you are getting frustrated when people disagree.
I addressed this in another thread, and instead of talking about it in a normal manner, you completely ignore that response to turn around and use it as an insult in another thread lol. This mindset is why there is conflict in your thread.
Noaani has more or less developed a habit of being off topic, his first post in this thread was a bizarre take on how PvE/PvP/PvX are an essentially marketting tool which could only be valid towards people that are already heavily involved in the genre which has nothing to do with proper marketing practices.
I can't help but make jokes and when I'm bored of where people send debates I do like to crack a joke about how much of a casual thing games like ff14 are when apparently it is something to be taken seriously.
If people can't banter about their game and take it too seriously then that's on them.
I don't completely ignore responses, show proof of that, you vile defamer!
and don't think all compromises OBRIGATORILY makes either worse.
By definition, a compromise is a middle ground where neither side has the best result possible.
If you do indeed understand that there will always be compromises, and you understand that a compromise by definition means a middle ground, then it should stand to reason that you understand that those compromises see both sides being less than they otherwise would be, should there be no need to make compromises.
I do think you know this, however, and while I am not wanting to put words in your mouth, I am wondering if you meant to say something more along the lines of - sometimes those compromises degrade the game less than the total sum of having both PvP and PvE together, so having both is a net gain, even if the required compromises mean that each is not as good as it could be in isolation.
I honestly don't think they compromised on much, L2 outside of instance content remained the same and they just add caveats to PvE instancing that just appeared wacky and stupid in comparison, it was pathetic design and it looked easy to do.
Then why make a separate pvp enhancement branch instead of just making the basic "power" branch stronger? I'd assume it was to prevent a snowballing effect on mob power, while player power grew faster.
Overall L2 didn't get much updating at all, at Interlude the updating process slowed right down and there was barely any updating or expansion to be had at all when you compare it to wow and ff14, it appeared NCsoft were happy earning off of their Lineage 1 fanbase in korea and with potential new projects, mainly all tied to their homebase.
Looks pretty stable to me. Especially on the NA side.
And from what I've heard of WoW/FF14 expansions - that shit takes years.
I've never heard of anyone on popular private server discussions say "I wish a private server came out with Goddess of Destruction", the "modern L2" is just overall too stupid and as much as I'll honor Korea's initial design and philosophy on their base games the way they update games is usually not exciting weight up overall or horrendously lacking in any workload.
Except the change I'm talking about happened before GoD. And those updates are still super popular, even if a lot of veterans still prefer Interlude.
But even GoD+ has had successful servers. Though, relatively successful, considering the overall shor-tlived nature of newer L2 private servers.
Noaani has more or less developed a habit of being off topic, his first post in this thread was a bizarre take on how PvE/PvP/PvX are an essentially marketting tool which could only be valid towards people that are already heavily involved in the genre which has nothing to do with proper marketing practices.
Again with you only taking in what you want to in order to validate your narrative of me.
I said PvX is a marketing term, not PvP or PvE. What that post was, was clarifying for you what people mean when they say PvP and PvE game - and while *YOU* may disagree with the terms use, you should at least understand how it is used, and why it is used in that way (and with that understanding, should never again have an issue with it's usage).
There are loads of PvP games that are not RPGs that have some RPG elements.
That does not negate anything I said.
Exactly..the point is that if they have rpg elements relevant to pvp, then they can be used as case studies regarding pvp gameplay in an rpg, when comparing those relevant pvp and rpg game systems, hense this discussion about tanking in pvp. So it does negate what you said about how "rpgs are not designed for pvp" and how it "shouldn't be a surpise when tanking does not work well in pvp" due to the fact that those same rpg elements you are claiming would "not make it work in pvp"- already work just fine in game like overwatch. Its more of whether they want it too work like that in a traditional mmorpg, due to trying to appeal to the types of players that don't neccessarily care about "overwatch pvp type gameplay" business wise.
I didn't say that it's not possible to make PvP work just fine in MMORPGs.
I said that when you do that, there should be no surprise that some tactics and class mechanics that were desgined for for PvE, before PvP was even a thing in RPGs won't work well.
Obviously, taunts designed to work on NPCs will not be effective on Player Characters.
Yeah thats what I was referring to, I thought that statement would get the idea acrossed within this context. So i'll modify it to say "I could go into detail about how to make pvp work fine in a pvx mmo" or something to that effect if you get the idea.
Um. Sure. You can make up a quote that I didn't say and try to argue against that point.
The term for that is straw man fallacy.
I should have put a disclaimer on there for that quote. Im not stawmanning you- something along the lines of "that wouldn't fit in an mmorpg" has been a response of yours against other ideas in the past, so im referencing those responses from past threads not neccessarily from this specific one, because it seems to be your mindset when judging specific systems, which these "genre based arguments" are the flawed logic I was addressing in my post.
***
Of course, I could be misinterpreting things, in that
when you said "rpgs are not designed for pvp" you didn't mean they shouldn't have a design focused on pvp, but rather, you meant that they tend not too, causing the perceived issue of tank design within a pvx setting. In which case, my apologies, if thats what you meant I just assumed it was the the anti-pvp perspective you tend to have, so my mistake if thats the case.
@Noaani why do you defend one game so passionately? I'm not feeding you anymore, you're obsessed.
In regards to "compromise" you are literally just spewing and twisting something along the lines of "PvP was a mistake, every company should of hard focused on PvE as that is what the genre and fans demand".
This is forever tiring.
"PvX", oh give me a break and anyone else who uses that term for mmorpg's just gfto of this thread, I'm after intellectuals not closet mmorpg only fans.
I don't completely ignore responses, show proof of that, you vile defamer!
You posted against jump puzzles in the other thread, I adressed you and defended them, you never responded and then used jump puzzles as an insult in this thread, hense being avoidant and dismissive
I do like to crack a joke about how much of a casual thing games like ff14 are when apparently it is something to be taken seriously.
Yet its top lvl pve is considered quite difficult and people spend weeks (afaik) trying to beat it on its release. And that's weeks of non-WoW-like "prepare for the fight for 20h and then spend 1h fighting useless mobs before you wipe on the boss within 5 minutes", and instead a "go fight the boss right this moment" kind of battling.
If FF14 is so easy, why would they need all that time to beat the content? And the game has millions of players, so it's not like there's only 10 crippled players attempting the boss.
And from what I've heard of WoW/FF14 expansions - that shit takes years.
While it is true that WoW expansions took a long time (2 years+), the volume of content when they did launch was significant.
As an example, regardless of what players thought of the expansion, it wasn't considered out of scope when Blizzard literally redesigned the entirety of the games starting content for an expansion.
Basically, in terms of scope of content, an expansion for a game like WoW (and both EQ games, I can't speak for FF games - I do want to point out that both EQ games get expansions yearly) is not all that far off the amount of content in the base game. Less content, for sure - but not a lot less.
I'm happy to defer to you in regards to how that compares to L2's updates.
those same rpg elements you are claiming would "not make it work in pvp"- already work just fine in game like overwatch.
I haven't played Overwatch, so could you tell me what kind of "rpg" elements does it have? I thought it was just different classes with a few abilities, and that's it. When I hear "rpg" I don't think about just classes, I think about leveling, stats changing and builds having different effects/powers. Iirc Dygz is somewhere close to that kind of thinking, so maybe you just have a different definition for "rpg"?
I'm happy to defer to you in regards to how that compares to L2's updates.
As we've discussed this before, L2 had big updates too and if you were to add up two updates from it, you'd get something similar to other games. And it also had several world-changing updates in its lifetime.
But that's beside this current context. Nish said that L2's updates slowed down, when in reality they didn't. Not only that, they increased by quite a lot. Those "world-changing" updates came after the "Intrelude" one. So in a way, L2's updates ramped up in later years because they brought in more content.
You posted against jump puzzles in the other thread, I adressed you and defended them, you never responded and then used jump puzzles as an insult in this thread, hense being avoidant and dismissive
Sensitive about someone thinking that their minigame is a bit of a joke...
I wish someone could just use the word "toxic" on me without all this writing.
The point of this thread refuses to be addressed because you guys were incapable of properly commenting on it, instead poking at arbitrary things such as questioning my mmorpg experiences and not properly absorbing the thread unlike the example of volunteer moderator in here and instead choosing to fall back and remain super loyal, as always to past systems.
@Wandering Mist close this thread, I'm done with these addicts.
@NiKr yes you're right about the timescale it wasn't that long at all between instalments, I just thought it was a lack of content and stuff outside of class upgrades were usually pointless in the grand scheme of things and were just mainly things to spread the player base around the world but I think that ended up making the foundation worse.
I haven't played Overwatch, so could you tell me what kind of "rpg" elements does it have? I thought it was just different classes with a few abilities, and that's it. When I hear "rpg" I don't think about just classes, I think about leveling, stats changing and builds having different effects/powers. Iirc Dygz is somewhere close to that kind of thinking, so maybe you just have a different definition for "rpg"?
It doesn't have much, at least as of now until they implement their update to add pve and progression. But in terms of the ones relevant to this topic about pvp and tank design- they have both those things. Pvp and trinity- so it can be a useful reference for class design, class balance, and pvp action combat.
Obviously everything has to be evaluated modularly, im not saying its a 1:1, but there are lessons to be learned if you can isolate relevent factors/systems, and not think too wholistically about things.
The point of this thread refuses to be addressed because you guys were incapable of properly commenting on it, instead poking at arbitrary things such as questioning my mmorpg experiences and not properly absorbing the thread like the volunteer moderator in here and instead choosing to fall back and remain super loyal, as always to past systems.
Mainly because this topic has been addressed in several threads already, even if in a roundabout way.
It doesn't have much, at least as of now until they implement their update to add pve and progression. But in terms of the ones relevant to this topic about pvp and tank design- they have both those things. Pvp and trinity- so it can be a useful reference for class design, class balance, and pvp action combat.
Obviously everything has to be evaluated modularly, im not saying its a 1:1, but there are lessons to be learned if you can isolate relevent factors/systems, and not think too wholistically about things.
Ah, you meant it in that way. Ok, I see your point.
I haven't played Overwatch, so could you tell me what kind of "rpg" elements does it have? I thought it was just different classes with a few abilities, and that's it. When I hear "rpg" I don't think about just classes, I think about leveling, stats changing and builds having different effects/powers. Iirc Dygz is somewhere close to that kind of thinking, so maybe you just have a different definition for "rpg"?
It doesn't have much, at least as of now until they implement their update to add pve and progression. But in terms of the ones relevant to this topic about pvp and tank design- they have both those things. Pvp and trinity- so it can be a useful reference for class design, class balance, and pvp action combat.
Obviously everything has to be evaluated modularly, im not saying its a 1:1, but there are lessons to be learned if you can isolate relevent factors/systems, and not think too wholistically about things.
I will disagree here because while using the systems that Overwatch and Paladins use for this would be a fun thing (it works in Sieges fine, for example), a general complaint such as OP's would easily cause it to be deconstructed.
Those games work because they are fairly consistently positional-objective based, even their deathmatch modes often contain one in the form of a chokepoint.
Ashes has big open fields, where the methods they apply generally do not work.
Sensitive about someone thinking that their minigame is a bit of a joke...
I wish someone could just use the word "toxic" on me without all this writing.
The point of this thread refuses to be addressed because you guys were incapable of properly commenting on it, instead poking at arbitrary things such as questioning my mmorpg experiences and not properly absorbing the thread like the volunteer moderator in here and instead choosing to fall back and remain super loyal, as always to past systems.
Im far from sensitive. I don't even play that game. I am just simply pointing out your social approach, in terms of simply ignoring a defense about a topic, then using that topic offensively later on- and im pointing that out not to be sensitive, but so that you realize how you come acrossed, which is exacerbated in this thread
@Noaani why do you defend one game so passionately? I'm not feeding you anymore, you're obsessed.
In this thread, I have only bought it up in response to others bringing it up. I mean, you bought up EQ2 at least 2 times in direct response to me before I mentioned it once. If anything, you're the one that seems obsessed with EQ2, not me.
In regards to "compromise" you are literally just spewing and twisting something along the lines of "PvP was a mistake, every company should of hard focused on PvE as that is what the genre and fans demand".
Once again, another example of you only taking in what fits your internal narrative.
I have never said that PvP was a mistake - I did, however, say that it was introduced in to trinity based games poorly (ham-fisted is the term I believe I used).
That comment does not equate to PvP was a mistake, unless you were scanning my posts for something you can disagree with (which, to be fair, reading things on purpose that you know will get you pissed off even if the thing you are reading isn't accurate - or you are reading it wrong - is effectively the English National Pastime - so don't feel as if I am just pointing at you here).
Eh, I understand why you might think that but its more of a matter of them not wanting to make it work as best as possible for both pvp and pve, due to the requirement of making the pve much more difficult to make proper use of the more complex pvp mechanics, which would not have mass appeal business wise.
Yes, but that is still a compromise.
Those decisions make the PvE game worse - just as other decisions that had to be made make the PvP game worse.
That doesn't mean the game as a whole is worse (though it could well be the case), it just means that some of the decisions made for the game as a whole make PvE worse, and some other decisions made for the game as a whole make PvP worse.
I will disagree here because while using the systems that Overwatch and Paladins use for this would be a fun thing (it works in Sieges fine, for example), a general complaint such as OP's would easily cause it to be deconstructed.
Those games work because they are fairly consistently positional-objective based, even their deathmatch modes often contain one in the form of a chokepoint.
Ashes has big open fields, where the methods they apply generally do not work.
Trust me im aware- I wasn't bringing that up to say that exact design should be in ashes, I was just using a cross-genre example of a game that has similar systems as mmorpgs, in response to dygz. I felt it unecessary to bring up the nuances in order to get the point acrossed.
I havent even really addressed the OPs main concern in this thread at this point, due to the social approach and redundancy ive observed so far, it seems kind of pointless (at least at this moment because its so late where I live I am tired.)
Comments
It would be refreshing to have an example from you such as:
"For example in one of the patches to EQ2, they decided to change xxxx skill to have separate PvE+PvP calculations but then increased the cooldown of the ability to account for the PvP direction they were going with on the xxxx class as so that ability wouldn't conflict with the rework but this in turn resulted in us being dissatisfied on the PvE end.
xxxx ability was an essential cc component that helped with the group attack foundation, it would literally bring the mobs together in the distance which ends up being essential for an optimal strategy pressing forward when the tank is finished with prior work and charges for the next monsters, now with the heavy cooldown it really no longer exists for PvE"
Atm Noaani I just think of you as the EQ2 guy who has a massive chip on his shoulder about anything PvP and only puzzle/constantly updated/super.stat.nerdy PvE can save the genre....I mean if EQ2 had unreal engine 5 graphics right now it would be the best game in the world right?
Regardless of how addicted you are with your preference you need to somehow look at your game critically, which you've never really highlighted to anyone and I really do not trust an opinion of someone who does not highlight key flaws in their game alongside the good.
The MMO I have spent the second most amount of time in is Archeage, and I enjoyed my time there immensely. But sure, I have a chip on my shoulder about anything PvP...
If you need examples, all it shows is that you don't belong in the discussion.
From day 1 in WoW, developers have been explaining to players that changes made to abilities in the PvE aspect of the game were due to PvP. Games like L2 have sub-standard PvE because they don't want to instance content off, and actual PvE can't exist in a state where PvP is live. Games like ESO attempted to segregate PvE and PvP off, but class balance still has bleed over between the two, and the design of classes is severely limited.
This is not an exhaustive list, it is simply enough to call you out on your bullshit saying "examples of blatantly obvious things would be nice".
Why do you need examples of this? You claim to have been playing MMO's since UO, you want us to believe your experience is extensive. You simply can NOT have been in the MMO scene since UO and NOT seen these compromises.
Are you that ignorant of your own hobby?
Im not sure where you get this notion. Systems define the genre, not the other way around. Just because a genre has a tendency to include/exclude certain systems doesn't mean those systems/genre are incompatible with each other, it generally just means from a business perspective a given combo of systems is more appealing to a specific group of people.
Following that reasoning there are loads of pvp games with the rpg elements relevant to this topic, of which work quite fine, such as Overwatch. We could go in circles if you say "overwatch isn't an mmorpg so that doesn't count" but then we are back at square one, in that the genre title has no bearing on the relationship of different game systems, its just a convenient way of organizing and referring to those systems under a given title. And in fact, overwatch started as the beginnings of Blizzards next mmo, if that helps you understand how a core design of a game can remain, but can shift genres, simply by decisions made outside of that core design.
I could go in depth about how to make pvp work just fine in mmorpgs but thats not really the point im making.
Really the only legitamacy to saying "that shouldn't be in an mmorpg" is from a business perspective, but even then there is still a demand for a certain specific combination of systems that would typically be labeled as an mmorpg, of which is more in line with what other types of pvp players would be looking for in an mmorpg- rather than a more pve player like yourself would be looking for in the genre.
Eh, I understand why you might think that but its more of a matter of them not wanting to make it work as best as possible for both pvp and pve, due to the requirement of making the pve much more difficult to make proper use of the more complex pvp mechanics, which would not have mass appeal business wise.
Combat mechanics are constant, and both npc enemies and real players have to adhere to the same rules of combat, if combat is designed to work the same in both scenarios. So its more about making things work for pvp, and then making the npc enemies efficient enough in combat to actual present a challenge/take advantage of the combat design, when against real players empowered with more complex combat options, to make it worth creating that type of combat system.
No one properly covers all the mmorpg's and if they claim to I will get my shotgun out immediately because I don't believe a person for a second could exist where they've played mmo's that have certain fundamental principles and then went and played the likes of FF14 where it's essentially a golden brick road and after you've completely many instance bosses "dodging the multicolored floor donuts" you then relax all day with jump puzzles, casino and go in a hot tub with cute cat girls and continue singing "follow the yellow brick road".
Why would I be involved with EQ2? I had too many good mmo's to play around that time, including wasting time on the expanding console era at the time and for me to fallback on EQ2 from an older age with the game looking as bland as it is (should of went isometric view if you can't do 3d right), not my cup of tea sorry.
Infact, until I bumped into you on these forums I remembered "hey....I may have heard the name of that game" and I'm not joking when I say this, Everquest or EQ2 I have never heard of from any "geek" in the UK, ever, in my life.
Anyway, keep your blabbering's down, this thread is hopefully talking about how gameplay can expand in the mmorpg genre as to be further immersive and so that it isn't just designed for people nearing their 40's.
I see... well, i was expecting atleast an example even if from EQ2, i do certainly understand there will always be compromises regarding those aspects and their combinations especially when you have then intertwined in open world pvp, but i certainly do not agree with the statement:
"Everything a developer does to make the trinity system work better for PvP means that it works worse for PvE."
and don't think all compromises OBRIGATORILY makes either worse.
Aren't we all sinners?
Why you coming at everyone so hard?
This just shows that you are pretty avoidant of actual discussion honestly, you don't even attempt to understand other perspectives and thats why you are getting frustrated when people disagree.
I addressed this in another thread, and instead of talking about it in a normal manner, you completely ignore that response to turn around and use it as an insult in another thread lol. This mindset is why there is conflict in your thread.
That does not negate anything I said.
I didn't say that it's not possible to make PvP work just fine in MMORPGs.
I said that when you do that, there should be no surprise that some tactics and class/group mechanics that were designed for RPG gameplay -- before PvP was even a thing in RPGs -- won't fit well with PvP gameplay.
Um. Sure. You can make up a quote that I didn't say and try to argue against that point.
The term for that is straw man fallacy.
I honestly don't think they compromised on much, L2 outside of instance content remained the same and they just add caveats to PvE instancing that just appeared wacky and stupid in comparison, it was pathetic design and it looked easy to do. Overall L2 didn't get much updating at all, at Interlude the updating process slowed right down and there was barely any updating or expansion to be had at all when you compare it to wow and ff14, it appeared NCsoft were happy earning off of their Lineage 1 fanbase in korea and with potential new projects, mainly all tied to their homebase.
I've never heard of anyone on popular private server discussions say "I wish a private server came out with Goddess of Destruction", the "modern L2" is just overall too stupid and as much as I'll honor Korea's initial design and philosophy on their base games the way they update games is usually not exciting weight up overall or horrendously lacking in any workload.
If you don't know what is happening in the biggest game of the genre, can you call yourself a fan of the genre at all?
More to the point, if you are so insulated in your understanding of the genre, you need to be more accepting of being told that your opinions are based on that limited scope than you have been in the past.
It is *LITERALLY* the case that every time developers attempt to mix PvE and PvP in the same game, there are compromises made to both, and it is the job of the developer to navigate these compromises.
I'll also point out to you that while YOU may not have heard of EQ or EQ2 "back in the day", that is simply a consequence of you being so insular.
In late 2004, EQ2 had 5 UK specific servers, as well as 7 other EU servers. Before WoW launched, EQ was the largest MMO in the UK by a long shot.
You saying that you didn't even know about it, and that you don't pay attention to MMO's other than those you play - all that means is that you aren't equipped for discussions about MMO's in general, only about the specific MMO's you have played.
once again, I have been trying to tell you this for a while.
Noaani has more or less developed a habit of being off topic, his first post in this thread was a bizarre take on how PvE/PvP/PvX are an essentially marketting tool which could only be valid towards people that are already heavily involved in the genre which has nothing to do with proper marketing practices.
I can't help but make jokes and when I'm bored of where people send debates I do like to crack a joke about how much of a casual thing games like ff14 are when apparently it is something to be taken seriously.
If people can't banter about their game and take it too seriously then that's on them.
I don't completely ignore responses, show proof of that, you vile defamer!
If you do indeed understand that there will always be compromises, and you understand that a compromise by definition means a middle ground, then it should stand to reason that you understand that those compromises see both sides being less than they otherwise would be, should there be no need to make compromises.
I do think you know this, however, and while I am not wanting to put words in your mouth, I am wondering if you meant to say something more along the lines of - sometimes those compromises degrade the game less than the total sum of having both PvP and PvE together, so having both is a net gain, even if the required compromises mean that each is not as good as it could be in isolation.
Looks pretty stable to me. Especially on the NA side.
And from what I've heard of WoW/FF14 expansions - that shit takes years.
Except the change I'm talking about happened before GoD. And those updates are still super popular, even if a lot of veterans still prefer Interlude.
But even GoD+ has had successful servers. Though, relatively successful, considering the overall shor-tlived nature of newer L2 private servers.
I said PvX is a marketing term, not PvP or PvE. What that post was, was clarifying for you what people mean when they say PvP and PvE game - and while *YOU* may disagree with the terms use, you should at least understand how it is used, and why it is used in that way (and with that understanding, should never again have an issue with it's usage).
Exactly..the point is that if they have rpg elements relevant to pvp, then they can be used as case studies regarding pvp gameplay in an rpg, when comparing those relevant pvp and rpg game systems, hense this discussion about tanking in pvp. So it does negate what you said about how "rpgs are not designed for pvp" and how it "shouldn't be a surpise when tanking does not work well in pvp" due to the fact that those same rpg elements you are claiming would "not make it work in pvp"- already work just fine in game like overwatch. Its more of whether they want it too work like that in a traditional mmorpg, due to trying to appeal to the types of players that don't neccessarily care about "overwatch pvp type gameplay" business wise.
Yeah thats what I was referring to, I thought that statement would get the idea acrossed within this context. So i'll modify it to say "I could go into detail about how to make pvp work fine in a pvx mmo" or something to that effect if you get the idea.
I should have put a disclaimer on there for that quote. Im not stawmanning you- something along the lines of "that wouldn't fit in an mmorpg" has been a response of yours against other ideas in the past, so im referencing those responses from past threads not neccessarily from this specific one, because it seems to be your mindset when judging specific systems, which these "genre based arguments" are the flawed logic I was addressing in my post.
***
Of course, I could be misinterpreting things, in that
when you said "rpgs are not designed for pvp" you didn't mean they shouldn't have a design focused on pvp, but rather, you meant that they tend not too, causing the perceived issue of tank design within a pvx setting. In which case, my apologies, if thats what you meant I just assumed it was the the anti-pvp perspective you tend to have, so my mistake if thats the case.
In regards to "compromise" you are literally just spewing and twisting something along the lines of "PvP was a mistake, every company should of hard focused on PvE as that is what the genre and fans demand".
This is forever tiring.
"PvX", oh give me a break and anyone else who uses that term for mmorpg's just gfto of this thread, I'm after intellectuals not closet mmorpg only fans.
You posted against jump puzzles in the other thread, I adressed you and defended them, you never responded and then used jump puzzles as an insult in this thread, hense being avoidant and dismissive
If FF14 is so easy, why would they need all that time to beat the content? And the game has millions of players, so it's not like there's only 10 crippled players attempting the boss.
As an example, regardless of what players thought of the expansion, it wasn't considered out of scope when Blizzard literally redesigned the entirety of the games starting content for an expansion.
Basically, in terms of scope of content, an expansion for a game like WoW (and both EQ games, I can't speak for FF games - I do want to point out that both EQ games get expansions yearly) is not all that far off the amount of content in the base game. Less content, for sure - but not a lot less.
I'm happy to defer to you in regards to how that compares to L2's updates.
But that's beside this current context. Nish said that L2's updates slowed down, when in reality they didn't. Not only that, they increased by quite a lot. Those "world-changing" updates came after the "Intrelude" one. So in a way, L2's updates ramped up in later years because they brought in more content.
Sensitive about someone thinking that their minigame is a bit of a joke...
I wish someone could just use the word "toxic" on me without all this writing.
The point of this thread refuses to be addressed because you guys were incapable of properly commenting on it, instead poking at arbitrary things such as questioning my mmorpg experiences and not properly absorbing the thread unlike the example of volunteer moderator in here and instead choosing to fall back and remain super loyal, as always to past systems.
@Wandering Mist close this thread, I'm done with these addicts.
@NiKr yes you're right about the timescale it wasn't that long at all between instalments, I just thought it was a lack of content and stuff outside of class upgrades were usually pointless in the grand scheme of things and were just mainly things to spread the player base around the world but I think that ended up making the foundation worse.
It doesn't have much, at least as of now until they implement their update to add pve and progression. But in terms of the ones relevant to this topic about pvp and tank design- they have both those things. Pvp and trinity- so it can be a useful reference for class design, class balance, and pvp action combat.
Obviously everything has to be evaluated modularly, im not saying its a 1:1, but there are lessons to be learned if you can isolate relevent factors/systems, and not think too wholistically about things.
Ah, you meant it in that way. Ok, I see your point.
I will disagree here because while using the systems that Overwatch and Paladins use for this would be a fun thing (it works in Sieges fine, for example), a general complaint such as OP's would easily cause it to be deconstructed.
Those games work because they are fairly consistently positional-objective based, even their deathmatch modes often contain one in the form of a chokepoint.
Ashes has big open fields, where the methods they apply generally do not work.
EDIT: Removed NiKr-ping
Im far from sensitive. I don't even play that game. I am just simply pointing out your social approach, in terms of simply ignoring a defense about a topic, then using that topic offensively later on- and im pointing that out not to be sensitive, but so that you realize how you come acrossed, which is exacerbated in this thread
I have never said that PvP was a mistake - I did, however, say that it was introduced in to trinity based games poorly (ham-fisted is the term I believe I used).
That comment does not equate to PvP was a mistake, unless you were scanning my posts for something you can disagree with (which, to be fair, reading things on purpose that you know will get you pissed off even if the thing you are reading isn't accurate - or you are reading it wrong - is effectively the English National Pastime - so don't feel as if I am just pointing at you here).
Those decisions make the PvE game worse - just as other decisions that had to be made make the PvP game worse.
That doesn't mean the game as a whole is worse (though it could well be the case), it just means that some of the decisions made for the game as a whole make PvE worse, and some other decisions made for the game as a whole make PvP worse.
This is kind of what compromises do.
Trust me im aware- I wasn't bringing that up to say that exact design should be in ashes, I was just using a cross-genre example of a game that has similar systems as mmorpgs, in response to dygz. I felt it unecessary to bring up the nuances in order to get the point acrossed.
I havent even really addressed the OPs main concern in this thread at this point, due to the social approach and redundancy ive observed so far, it seems kind of pointless (at least at this moment because its so late where I live I am tired.)