Other games with PvP vs PvE conflict

[Surefoot]

If you want to get a good value from your observations you should compare with real full-PvP games that are built up for that purpose. There was an MMO called Face of Mankind that did that kind of experiment, very interesting and quite entertaining, and we can mention Planetside series too. There is a host of real "full loot pvp" MMOs out there, a quick search will give them out (one historical valuable example is Ultima Online). How people accept these and have actual fun in these is conditioned by how much the PvP aspect was integral to the gameplay design. EvE and Black Desert Online are current examples of PvP (and total player agency) being integral to the game design.

By contrast, when the PvP aspect is slapped on at a later stage on a game design that is not thought for that purpose, it does create the kind of conflictual situation you mention. UO was more or less in that situation (arguably), mostly because the full pvp was there out of lack of design rather than being thought out from the beginning, still it provided an interesting game experience and an insight on MMO game mechanics. Elite Dangerous is in a situation where multiplayer was added at a later stage on what was a single player game design, and it suffers for that reason, since it ends up in a limbo consisting of MMO grind style progression and storytelling with what is still a single player experience (no player agency, no proper social interaction). Many Korean MMOs are in a situation where they add PvP to grind-style PvE games as a "feature", not as a base design element, which is also the wrong approach and does polarize the player community.

Also you say not to mention PUBG, but while it cannot be considered as an MMO (since there is no persistence) the amount of players is enough that it creates a social construct that's interesting to explore. So does LoL, Fortnite.. In terms of game design we have to check these out and see how these design choices influence this social construct.

 

[StiTch]

Pretty much any game where a) PvP is not the sole purpose of the game and b) PvP is non-optional. Some folks just don't like the level of risk it brings.

ED is a unique example because it's non-optional and still has many times the complaints of any other game. Go figure.

In GTA Online you can set passive mode which means other players can't harm you directly (however, there are tricks whereby you can kill people with passive mode on indirectly. However, being in passive mode limits some of your activities.

The one i'm thinking of is Ark. There are seperate servers you can play on, some focused on PvP, some are PvE only, and some where PvP is allowed but not the focus.

Funny thing is, in Ark there is such a thing as PvE griefing. You can drop pillars in prime locations stopping other players from building there.

And yes, the community can be quite split and toxic, with PvEers calling PvPers murder hobos and PvPers calling PvEers carebears (or equivalent).

Ark makes Elite Open play in a CG look like a relaxed afternoon stroll through the shade. The PvE aspect of that game would be classed as the most horrific kind of griefing ED has to offer. In PvP it's savage to the point players will build their fortitude (resistance to the environment) up so high they can camp and live in the highest mountain regions possible without freezing to death, even when pretty much butt naked.

I've seen less in the way of toxicity there, but possibly because I'm less involved in the multiplayer aspect or forum discussions. I actually prefer PvE in that game, for the sole reason it provides balanced challenge: multiplayer is too safe for my liking unless you find a decently populated server with a difficulty increase.

 

[Old Duck]

This is the only game I've joined a forum for, and the "conflict" mostly happens in the forum. I have noticed that other games I play with both PvE and PvP do a much better job at distinguishing / separating the two modes than Elite does..