Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Grati.
I'm clarifying moreso for NiKr who has not had these experiences.
And I guess while I'm at it, though I figure NiKr knows this already, the main concerns and context provided by OP in their ... well... OP, can be deconstructed as 'not applying to FFXI' which was the point I was making.
I'm just concerned that this thread has gotten here without being able to have proper discussion, and I fear that pointing out the facts behind the deconstruction of said 'context' in the OP will lead nowhere.
Was i too vague or too unclear?
I was pretty sure when i wrote "regarding those aspects and their combinations especially when you have then intertwined in open world pvp"
my point was clearly to both at the same time especially in Open world scenarios was the foundation of my argument....
Not sure if wordplay semantics was necessary.
As i believe the lack of one or the other terribly diminishes MMORPGs in my eyes no matter how far you push the potential of one or the other without compromises.
Aren't we all sinners?
Don't go calling others out if your thread isn't spawning discussion on the topic if you yourself aren't replying to on topic posts.
So my point in explaining about the constant mechanics and adherence to them regardless of pve/pvp- is that should the desire exist to optimize both, I don't think there would be a need to compromise either pve or pvp providing their was a market for that type of gameplay and a business willing to execute. But with how businesses tend to operate and subsequently how mmos tend to be designed- based on their respective markets, yes you are 100% right in that there would generally be some compromise involved.
You understand that there will always be compromises when having both PvP and PvE together in one game, yet you believe that will always be better than only having one or the other.
The first part of this is basically the fact that I am stating, the second part of the above is an opinion - which you are obviously welcome to have and to share, though I am specifically not discussing my opinion on this matter.
in other words, since I am essentially just talking basic facts, you agree with what I am saying.
As I said earlier in the thread, the compromises exist, and can not be avoided.
The developers job is to navigate them - as in, figure out where on the scale of compromises towards PvP and PvE they want their specific game to fall.
If you are making a game where your focus is PvP and you only want PvE as a background, you can then concentrate on optimizing your systems for PvP - but only because you already made that compromise. If you decide you want to drop PvP totally and have a PvE only MMO, you can concentrate on making the best PvE possible, but again, only because you have already made that compromise.
I must be misunderstanding your point then, because that seems to completely contradict what I was getting at. Kind of tired atm so its highly possible its me- unless you are just passively disagreeing with my point, in which case thats fine too.
I did not state that MMORPGs are never designed for PvP.
Rather I stated that, back in the day, when RPGs were designed... PvP was not thing.
As in, when the concept of RPGs originated and we had games like D&D and GURPS.
Some MMORPGs tried to introduce PvP in a variety of ways... some fared better than others... sure.
But, there should be no surprise that some tactics and class/group mechanics designed systemically to work against NPCs are not going to work well against player characters. Tank mechanics are one example of that.
I don't agree we're talking about the same RPG elements.
de more FPS mechanics that work well with PvP.
Overwatch is a team-based, multiplayer First-Person-Shooter - with some RPG elements.
So, what you are saying here is that it depends on whether the Ashes team wants to significantly alter RPG tactics/mechanics designed for PvE encounters and include more FPS tactics/mechanics designed for PvP encounters.
Which... again... does not negate what I stated.
I guess first you would have to give me some examples of a PvX MMO.
And then I would have to agree that what you are describing is PvX.
Regardless of Steven's hype - I consider Ashes to be a hardcore PvP-centric game - with STeven just using PvX to entice Players who don't love PvP to give the game a try.
In Ashes, PvX just means that the PvPers will sometimes have to do some PvE stuff to progress their Adventurer Levels.
We already agree that PvP can work fine in MMORPGs.
I have a feeling we won't agree on what a PvX MMORPG is.
I don't think I've said "that wouldn't fit in an MMORPG".
The example you gave here is that the devs could take mechanics from an FPS and use them in an RPG.
And my response to that is, sure, they could make a game like that that people enjoy... but, the more that is done... the more that becomes some other game genre.
It's like taking baseball and making it more like soccer by removing the bat and enlarging the ball and changing the rules so that you kick the ball from home plate instead of batting the ball - thereby creating a hybrid called kickball. That can be a fun game. Lots of people might have tons of fun playing it.
But, if what I love about the game is hitting the ball with a bat, I'm not going to be excited about removing the bat from the game - or anything that interferes with my ability to wield the bat at home plate.
Might even be more true if what I love about stickball is the challenge of hitting a small ball with a small stick.
So... the bigger the ball and the bigger/wider the stick... the less that game becomes stickball. It becomes some other game than stick ball. Which can be OK - just not the game I want to play.
Even in MMORPGs, I would like to be able to be immersed enough in my characters and the evolving story to do some minimal character-acting/roleplaying. The more fast-paced action/FPS style combat you add to an RPG, the more difficult it becomes to character act/roleplay.
So, if we're talking action combat pace - WoW combat pace is about the fastest pace to still allow for some character acting/roleplay. BDO and typical FPS pace is too fast. Overwatch is probably too fast.
And then RPers can't RP in what is supposed to be an RPG.
*** Yes. You are misinterpreting things because...
I'm pretty sure I never said "RPGs are not designed for PvP". That is your misquote.
I also did not mean that the tanking issue is because RPGs tend not to be designed PvP.
I mean that when RPGs were created back in the 1970s - PvP was not a thing. And the tactics and class/group mechanics were designed for mob/NPC encounters; not for PvP encounters. So there should be no surprise that some of those tactics and class/group mechanics, like tanking, that work just fine for PvE, don't work well for PvP.
Somehow you jump from that to me supposedly saying that PvP shouldn't be in MMORPGs. Which is not a claim I would make or agree with.
(Misunderstandings are OK. The hope being that we can, through discussion, move towards mutual understanding, if not always agreement.)
Seems like repeting myself once again would be pointless.......
So lets try an example since you refused to provide one.
Considering your statement:
"Everything a developer does to make the trinity system work better for PvP means that it works worse for PvE."
Game A Dev is in the process of designing its Trinity system to work better for PvP
For the tanks they provide temporary Forced Target Acquisition since threat doesn't affect players
For Healers they provide a little more pvp survivability since players more often than monsters will focus then in PvP
For DPSs they provide more PvP CC resistance since they are way more likely to be CC combo'ed in PvP than on PvE
The game's PvP was improved without disturbing the game's PvE in anyway, therefore your statement is false and NOT "Everything a developer does to make the trinity system work better for PvP means that it works worse for PvE.".
Aren't we all sinners?
Thank you for clarifying
That statement is an example of what I was referring to, in that you can't help but categorize something into a genre, thus invalidating any comparison.
This is a thread about tanks in pvp. Overwatch has tanks in pvp, and a trinity, with rpg-like skills, thus it has "rpg elements" relevant to the topic, even if its overall genre is an fps. So, its a legitimate comparison to extrapolate from within this particular context.
But I better understand now what you were trying to say after reading your clarifications.
You did in fact say "MMORPGs are not designed for PvP" earlier in this thread. But I realize I made an assumption about what you were meaning by that statement, in terms of the "tendencies" of mmorpg design (in that due to their traditionally pve nature, those designs may not work when pvp is introduced in that context). So now it sounds like you and I are on the same wavelength as the discussion myself and noaani just had- in terms of whether its possible to design for both pve and pvp simultaneously without making compromises. I welcome you to read through our responses if interested in my input.
I didn't misquote you though, if anything I may have brought up old quotes (which I guess I could be remembering wrong and unintentionally misquoting), but mainly I could have just misinterpreted a couple of your statements, so thanks for clarifying. Like I said to others im pretty tired atm so probably not at perceptive as usual. But I do understand your point about tank design, but my main point stands in terms of judging things too restrictively by genre. (Yes I understand about "soccer" being one thing and "baseball" being another, with certain aspects being incompatible with each other in terms of retaining that overall nature of the genre "too you"- but im saying that some things that you are categorizing as "baseball" [not fitting into soccer too you] may actually be a very genre-defining aspect of soccer to another type of player that can't meet that need in another available sport)
I do appreciate your input on the topic though.
Good pve would push people with CCs and attacks. And even better pve would concentrate those things on the proper targets. So increasing someone's CC res would require proper balancing in pve, otherwise it'll ruin some part of pve content.
The tank thing you have "suggested" is basically saying "yes, tanks, your tanking works in PvP too!". it isn't really a change or compromise, it is literally the same thing as saying "Yes, DPS, your damage abilities work on players too!".
However, this has it's own issues. Now, your taunt abilities need to be balanced for both PvP and PvE, and it is actually really hard to balance this. Any changes made to a taunt for PvE reasons would also alter it for PvP, and vice versa. The only way top balance this without PvP and PvE impacting each other is if you effectively create two abilities, one for PvP and one for PvP - however now you are talking up more developer time, impacting PvP and PvE anyway.
The above EXACT scenario has happened.
For healers, this wouldn't be necessary with the tank changes above. However, how does this survivability take shape? Is it a blanket damage reduction? Is it a reduction to crit chance? is it something that is able to be debuffed? How does each of these potential methods of achieving this "more PvP survivability" affect group make up, individual player builds and gear selection?
As for DPS, if you give them better CC resistance, that means they, well, they have better CC resistance. This in itself has an impact on PvE content - I hope I don't need to elaborate at all on why this is the case (AoE CC is a thing, you know this, right?).
So, these things that you think won't have any impact at all on PvE literally all will have an impact. Now, admittedly, the healer one is totally indirect in its effects, but the effects are indeed real. However, the tank change means that either the developers start balancing two tanks instead of one, or literally all future balance needs to take both PvP and PvE in to account (which is obviously a compromise).
The DPS situation though, that just outright affects PvE.
Now, if you wanted to say that they could make it that only player cast CC has that reduced effect, you are now talking about balancing PvP and PvE entirely separately from each other.
This is - obviously - it's own form of compromise.
This entails that one can be improved without harming or making the other worse, which is my point, whatever the PvP survivability improvement happens to be.
Yes it certainly WOULD, not the case in the simplistic example i gave of one not having to obligatorily disrupt the other, i forgot to add "PvP" right before the CC resistance. so let me fix it for you.
Aren't we all sinners?
EQ2.
The game had about 35 taunts over 6 main tank classes. There were AoE taunts, ranged taunts, taunts of various strengths, and CD's.
Any changes to things like the number of targets the AoE taunt would hit, or the range of a long range taunt, or the CD of a taunt - these things all needed to have PvP and PvE taken in to account - until SoE decided to just not take PvP in to account at all (not saying this is the best solution).
Basically, it proved impossible to balance when you have a wide variety of taunts. A developer could obviously then not have such a wide variety of taunts - but again, that is a compromise.
Yes, i'm indeed talking about PvP and PvE having different forms of balancing that differs from each other for one to not directly disturb the other in any way shape or form.
if you believe it to be a compromise then your idea of a compromise being reaching a middle ground at each others expense is unreasonable in such scenarios.
Aren't we all sinners?
Are you sure you are trying to say that this isn't a compromise?
Keep in mind, Steven is going out of his way to avoid this in Ashes - because of all of the issues it has caused in many games throughout the years.
Not necessarily, it doesn't need to go as far as "making" or "having to maintain" two combat systems in one game
The changes doesn't need to be that far reaching, but it is undeniable that are key points were PvP and PvE details must differ to coexist threat is just one example, some games just went too far on the differentiations and ended up if a mess through negligence.
It's certainly isn't a compromise if we are going by your definition of compromise tho.
It is a good thing that Steven is trying his best to avoid those differentiations but some of those differentiations will prove necessary to improve the game PvP and PvE harmony.
Aren't we all sinners?
Game genre's exist for a reason. And they, of course, heavily impact the game design goals of any game.
I mean, you could try to extrapolate on how you think Overwatch tanking could be used to enhance tanking in Ashes PvP - that isn't already factored into the Ashes design.
Go for it!
This is like you saying, "Well, you kick a ball in soccer and you kick a ball in American football, so... it should be fine to change the rules in soccer to allow you to hold the ball in your hands as you run down the field. It's fun to do that in American football, so it would be fun to do that in soccer."
But, I think this still does not negate my point that there should be no surprise that some tanking mechanics and tactics that were designed to work against NPCs in RPGs don't work well for PvP.
Overwatch has some RPG elements...and the term "elements" is used to indicate that they are not the same as in a full-fledged RPG... so they are not the same. Just as in Ashes, augments are not the same thing as Active Skills.
Baseball has a ball. Softball has a ball. American football has a ball. Basketball has a ball. They do not have all the same features. Just because a ball works great for soccer does not mean a ball with the same features would work great in American football. A ball with the same features as a softball would not fit well in a stickball game.
So, just because some elements are similar does not mean that all features work great interchangeably.
I'm saying, "There should be no surprise that using a basketball when playing dodgeball is probably not going to work out well."
You're replying, "Well, in American football, they have the same gameplay, where they throw the ball at players and the players have to try to catch the ball. And that works just fine."
OK. Yes. I agree, they all have some similar gameplay - although I disagree it's the same.
And that does not negate what I said initially.
I - in fact - did not say that.
I just now went back through each page of this thread and did a search for "are not designed" and the first instance of that is your misquote on page 4.
But... in case I'm somehow mistaken... please post my full quote and cite the page it's on.
It's pretty clear that you misquoted me.
You misinterpreted my meaning - which, then, caused you to unintentionally misquote me.
Whether these priority positions culminate in raids to rival EQ or WoW is another matter entirely.
Good morning! Thanks for the clarification
Yes, at this point I am not attempting to negate your initial/main point, because I accepted that I misunderstood the main point you were trying to make, I understand now that you were comparing old design styles to new styles, and how that potentially affects pvp, so we are good on that.
At this time the only point I am making is about your perception of what belongs in/defines certain "genres". (Which now has no bearing on anything you are saying at this moment, other than I had already brought the point up during this discussion, so wanted to finish it out, and is relevant based on past statements I have read from you) but it is still relevant to this thread as well.
Yes we agree on that, thats why overwatch is not classified as an mmorpg- I was never saying that there was no difference between overwatch and an mmorpg, nor was I ever saying the rpg elements that are similar in overwatch are a 1:1 comparison to those elements implemented in mmopgs. I am simply saying that there could potentially be elements from an mmorpg that are 100% completely compatible with an fps if implemented in the same manner, so even if they are different genres, in certain cases it is okay to make comparisons without at all compromising on the nature of the game, and without having to shift it toward another genre in the spectrum when borrowing features from it. So i don't think "all features work interchangeably" but there definitely are some that work fine without having to shift the design goals. So im not neccessarily talking about mixing systems to create a new genre that other people enjoy, at the expense of the current vision (so if looking at solely a tank/pvp aspect of something like overwatch, if we were able to isolate these factors and extropolate, then I wouldn't agree that it would be neccesary to make soccer into baseball, because there are elements that are exactly the same between both genres and can be used interchangeably without affecting the sport)
The point of this is too articulate that it is the systems themselves that determine the genre, not the genre that determines the systems, purely from a game design perspective. Generally the genre is classified based on the majority of the systems in the game, this is why you can have the same systems acrossed 2 different genres, because of the majority of the other kind of gameplay that keeps the games classified separately. So, because of this, there are certain systems that don't really "belong" in any specific genre because they typically are in so many different ones already, and there are systems that are staples in certain genres, but would work just fine if implemented in another without affecting that genre. So in general yes genre does matter, but only really in terms of giving another person a general idea of what the overall gameplay is like, and also from a business perspective in terms of trying to appeal to a specific group of people with specific preferences- but aside from that, those who use genre as a reason to say what does/doesn't belong or what is/isn't compatible while retaining its genre identity, are just being myopic, unless they actually evaluate how each existing individual system is affected when used alongside foreign cross-genre systems to see where large-scale compromises need to be made.
How this could apply to you potentially, is that if you have specific preferences, or an idea of what an mmorpg is too you, then even if there are design decisions that are completely contradictory to what you value in an mmorpg (such as role play, and how one aspect may go from being soccer to baseball, due to affecting that role play aspect), this doesn't mean that the game stops being an mmorpg if those features are implemented, or that since its an mmorpg those features shouldn't be implemented to retain the identity of the genre- because its more about the majority/totality of the systems, rather than the prevelance of your preferred mmorpg mechanics, that determine the genre and its identity. Its really just a matter of perception. Even if, from a role-play standpoint it goes from soccer to baseball, too another person a new system could take their soccer experience to another level (because they may not care about role play) in their perception of the genre. But its still an mmorpg (and still enhanced soccer to some people) because of the majority/totality of the systems and overall type of gameplay it offers, even if not consistent in every aspect.
Hopefully I am not failing to articulate my thought properly- im pretty sure I do understand what you mean when you use that reasoning, im just trying to point out other elements in that kind of thought process that you may not have considered.
Agreed, sorry, I wasn't as alert when typing that.
Okey dokey.
It can't be 100% compatible - otherwise they would not only be the same game genre, but also the same game.
Sounds to me like we agree.
Hence, my soccer and American football analogy. And my baseball and kickball analogy.
Yet, what you seem to be trying to counter is when I say stuff like I don't want to play a game that is mostly like baseball, you just use a soccer ball instead because it's fun to play with soccer balls in soccer. When the thing I like about baseball is hitting a ball with a baseball bat. And I can't do that if the game uses a soccer ball instead of a baseball.
I don't use those analogies to say that MMORPGs should not have PvP. Or that PvP cannot work in MMORPGs.
I typically use those analogies when someone wants to use mechanics from action RPGs where no one actually RPs. Or from First Person Shooters, where no one actually RPs. Or MOBAs, where nobody actually RPs. Because it makes no sense to RP in those games. They aren't really designed for RPing even if they have some RPG elements. And I play MMORPGs because I want to be able to RP with other players.
The more elements you add from an FPS, the less of an RPG the game design becomes. And sure, you can make an FPS/RPG hybrid, but the more of that kind of hybrid you make it, the less I will probably want to play.
Because I don't play First Person Shooters. I play RPGs.
So, yeah, I'm going to be against adding in mechanics and features from game genres I don't play.
Like First Person Shooters and so called "Action RPGs".
We aren't looking soley at a tank/pvp aspect of an FPS like Overwatch.
We are looking at Tank design in the Ashes MMORPG for both PvE and PvP.
Sure, both Ashes and Overwatch have Tanks - just as both soccer and baseball have balls.
That does not mean the balls work equally well in both games, likewise, that does not mean that Tanks will work equally well in Ashes and Overwatch. Especially not when we have to factor in how the Tank design will work in PvE as well as the Tank design will work in PvP for Ashes.
All I said was there should be no surprise that the design of Tanks for PvE in RPGs does not work equally well for PvP in RPGs.
If you read my entire post - instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to something you think I meant (but didn't actually mean) in previous threads, you will see that my subsequent paragraph states that Tanks in Ashes will still be useful in PvP - precisely because they will still have many of the same mechanics that make Tanks useful in Overwatch - they just might not be as useful as they are in PvE. And we can expect the other Primary Archetypes in an 8-person group will adjust their tactics to compensate for that.
So... I don't think we actually have much disagreement.
Seems like you just think that I am against MMORPGs including PvP and maybe thing I am against Ashes having PvP, specifically - and that causes you to misinterpret what I actually write.
That is false. Game devs first decide what game genre they wish to make. And then create systems, features and mechanics to support that audience.
The devs have to make a pitch before systems can be made - and that pitch is going to include genre.
Similar to writing books or screenplays.
For Ashes, we know for certain that Steven specifically chose to make an MMORPG before any systems were designed.
Devs know before systems are created whether the want to make an MMORPG with FPS elements or a Survival game with RPG elements... or an MMOFPS with RPG elements or a MOBA.
Of course, devs may not realize the hybrid they're making should have a new genre name before systems are designed. Diablo is a good example of that.
What do you mean? I am referring to individual systems- why do you believe that if an individual system is 100% compatible between 2 genres, then the entire genre must change? Thats just not the case. You can have 2 different genres with individual systems that are compatible/interchangeable. You could take the exact combat system from dark souls and put it into an mmorpg, and they are still 2 different genres, even with a system that is identical (im not commenting on whether this has any merit/value/functionality just making a point about systems/genres)
Yes I understand and agree that that happens, it is definitely an approach that can be taken- I believe I did say that already that its just a tendency and practice due to specific audiences being targeted/business motovations/etc.- so thats not my point-
I am saying that in terms of what they are even referring to when they say "i am making an mmorpg", the perception of what the name of that genre means in the minds of the devs and consumers. The idea of an "mmorpg" itself is determined by the totality of systems- which means that even if someone sets a goal of making/buying an mmorpg, that goal is subject to the perception of which systems are normally associated within that genre (hense me saying the systems determine the genre)- so I am saying that since thats the case, there can be compatible non-mmorpg cross-genre systems, that could exist without compromising the fact that its still an mmorpg- meaning that when you set that goal to make/buy an mmropg (and subsequently expect certain systems) if you rely to much on your perception of what an mmorpg is you can eliminate the possibility of other systems co-existing within that genre, or the possibility that an mmorpg may be perceived as something completely different to someone else who like certain systems traditionally found in them- but due to the totality of those systems its classification is still an mmorpg regardless of whether it does or does not have those specific systems you and that player disagree on.
And based on that modularity of the genre, I am using that to extrapolate from other genres to make comparisons of potentially compatible systems (such as the tanks/pvp rpgs aspects in an fps game)
Yeah I totally understand thats what you were trying to get at- my point was more about how an mmorpg can compromise role play while still being an mmorpg, because there is more to mmorpgs than role play to certain people, so yes it would make it less like soccer if you like soccer, but it would still be soccer to someone else except enhance that soccer experience. Hopefully that makes more sense in this context?
Yes I agree- so my point is that the reason it might be incompatible is if we would be looking at unrelated aspects/making unequal comparisons. Im not saying to extropolate the exact system from overwatch and see how it does in ashes, I am simply saying that tanks/pvp which is traditional rpg element, has been done in non-mmorpgs- so you can use that as a case study providing you are able to isolate those factors and understand how things would change when introduced alongside different systems like ashes has, in order to make adjustments needed to fit into that type of game. I agree that everything isn't 1:1 from a more wholistic point of view, im just presenting more of a mindet to try to evaluate things at more of a modular level.
Ok, yeah I accept my misinterpretation of some of your points, thanks for clarifying. Yes we do agree on most things in this discussion so far now that you have cleared things up.
Obviously, a kickball field is 100% the same as a baseball field. Some of the "systems" exactly the same.
The differences are the shape and weight of the balls and the lack of bats and baseball gloves in kickball.
Just as both kickball and baseball both have balls but the designs of those balls aren't interchangeable - the same is true for the designs of Tanks in Ashes and Overwatch.
Most likely, if you took the exact combat system from Dark Souls and put it into an MMORPG, nobody would RP. Just as nobody RPs in Diablo.
I mean... keep in mind, I was a game dev for Activision for 10+ years.
Whatever that is worth...
Right. Which leads to games called RPGs where people don't RP.
Just as there is more to kickball and baseball than how you hit or kick the ball.
Obviously, there will be certain people who don't care whether you kick the ball or hit a ball with a bat.
If what I like about baseball is hitting the ball with a bat and catching the ball in a baseball glove, I'm obviously going to be opposed to playing baseball with a soccer ball. I'm not going to want to compromise on the bat, the type of ball or the basball glove.
And... as an RPer... I'm not going to want to compromise any more than is already common... on features and mechanics that impede RPing.
But... I didn't say that Tanks are incompatible with PvP.
PvP is not a traditional RPG element. That is my point. Which is why, in RPGs, tanking tends not to work as well for PvP as it does for PvE.
Again... what I said is that Tanks in Ashes will still be useful in Ashes PvP - that's true even without looking at Overwatch.
Throwing/kicking a soccer ball around a baseball field might not work as well as throwing a baseball around a baseball field, but it's far from useless. I don't need to try to do a case study on soccer or soccer balls to figure that out.
And I did not claim that a soccer ball is incompatible with a baseball field.
So... I'm pretty sure we agree.
Yeah I get you, I was merely using that as an example in regards to comparing genres, remember I am not trying to negate your original point anymore, so I brought up tanks/pvp in overwatch cuz it was an easy example of common systems across genres, im not using that example at this point as a way to say that "see i told you tanks can work fine in pvp, etc.etc."
Yeah im not saying 100% of the systems are the same- but they can have a small percentage of the same systems and still be different genres. If you mean the systems that are present can't be 100% the same, well, depends on how you look at it. The same system can be implemented 1:1 but they will still have a different result based on how that same exact system interacts with surrounding systems. This is kind of what im getting at because if you always look at that from the perspective of "here is the same system in 2 different genres, they are actually different because they are in a different context, so we don't want to make any comparisons with that system", that is foolish rather than saying "this is the same exact system within a different context, so I wonder how would it interact when placed within a different context, that is more in line with what we want to evaluate". Im not saying you do that, I don't know, but just in case you do based on some comments I may have misinterpreted, that is what I am trying to touch on.
Yes I don't blame you for that at all, I do the same thing sometimes, because we all have stuff we enjoy. Im just saying to label your idea of what you enjoy as "the difinitive mmorpg experience" is kind of subjective. Again..not saying you do that, I don't know, but just in case you do based on some comments I may have misinterpreted, that is what I am trying to touch on.
Of course it matters! Your insight is useful and meaningful. What did you work on?
There will be arenas and even a node whose mayor is decided with pvp. That's pvp priority.
BHs, caravans, open world pvp, open world bosses. All outweigh the pve that you can do, because people can always interrupt you. Pvp priority.
World bosses will have the best loot and they can also be contested. Pvp winner gets the pve loot. Pvp priority.
Open seas.
Guild and node wars and enemy of the state features promote fighting all over the place and w/o any penalties (hell, they'll even be connected to rewards). Pvp priority.
Node and castle sieges will be the hugest, as well as peak, pvp content. And Intrepid is trying their best to make them as big as possible. Pvp priotity.
Gear has no separation in type so neither side has the priority.
TL;DR it's all a matter of perspective and can be presented any which way.
Node castles won't just be held by pvp players but the best coordinated - again, top pve raids will have some of the best coordination. Then you have the bounty hunters - avenging the pve focused. Then we have the guild wars - based around pve requirements like grind spots, open world dungeons and node rivalry.