Let´s talk WOW, or WOWclone SWTOR then.. or Tera.. or Rift.. or every other WoW clone with optional PvP seperation.
they still have:
- PvP gear which can only be acquired via PvP
- PvP rewards and achievements which only can be acquired via PvP battlezones
- PvP battlezones which can only be entered for... PvP
- entirely different leveling for PVP - valor, or PVP ranks or levels, again with different rewards you can´t get via PVE
(valid for both PVP and PVE servers, because the server setting only applies to open world, if characters on PVE server run around in invincible kiddie mode)
So, do we get different ways of progression through PVP in Elite?
What will be the PVP incentive? Why should I risk my cargo and ship in PvAll mode, if it´s useless and there is no risk vs. reward model? If PvAll offers nothing, I´ll switch to PvE mode and carebear my way through the universe like everyone else. Why bother?
1. Different progression for PvP and PvE has nothing to do with the PvP and PvE servers (or groups in Elite). Different progression for both styles happen because the devs want to lengthen the grind and prevent shortcuts, forcing players that want to be good at both PvP and PvE to spend more time subscribed.
2. Not every game with PvP/PvE server separation has different progression paths for PvP and PvE.
3. At least for WoW the info is only partially true. WoW has typically three tiers of PvP gear: crafted (obtained by pure PvE means), Honor (can be obtained by either PvP or PvE means), and Conquest (can only be obtained through PvP). So WoW, at least, allows PvE players to go two thirds of the way to the top, as far as gear potency goes, before even setting foot in a PvP fight for the first time.
4. Again, PvP servers have no progression-related advantage in WoW, and despite that between 38% and 75% of the player base, depending on which country you are looking at, play in them. If what you are suggesting was true almost 100% of WoW's player base would be in PvE servers, given the easier time doing open world activities there and the lack of rewards-based incentives to play in PvP servers.
http://robertsspaceindustries.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/StarCitizenSurvey.pdf
The biggest number is "What kind of combat do you prefer" with 53% for PVE. Prefer does not mean "I hate PVP" I can prefer PVE which I do, and still like the chance for PVP happening. I like epic scripted Star Wars style space battles or strategic missions like in X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter like everyone else. Still I want a realistic multiplayer universe sandbox.
Other question from the same poll:
"What part of the game are you looking forward the most?"
Yeah, says nothing - I went with "Single Player campaign" because I like to have another Wing Commander type storyline to play through, then continue in the online universe. Still don´t means I want a PvE/PvP serparation in the online universe.
Every concrete question on the forums, specifially on the PVE/PVP aspect showed up to 90% want PvAll to some degree.
http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/forum/showthread.php?14298-PvA-in-StarCitizen/page2
Only 10 % voted 0% PVP.
Do take notice that the pool about the preferred kind of combat had "Both" - aka PvAll - as an option. And that "Both" had about half the votes of PvE.
In case you didn't notice, you basically corroborated my point.
Pool in the forums, asking how much PvP they want, with 492 answers: 9.55% want PvE.
Official poll, asking which kind of combat the player prefers, with "PvP", "PvE", and "Both" as options, and 8004 answers: 53.07% want PvE (26,02% want Both, 20.90% want PvP)
So, two results that don't match, one with over 16x more people answering than the other. At the very least we can point out that forum pools are very unreliable; worse, for your position in the argument, that data shows that, in Star Citizen at least, most of the "silent minority" seems to be PvE players, enough to turn what the forum pools points as a minority into the major group inside the player base.
so let´s regurgitate the same bland player base splitting please-everybody concept of the last 10 years F2P MMOs over and over again?
You said that "recent trends in game development are not on your side". I was pointing that those trends are even less on YOUR side, not arguing in favor of the trends themselves.
But, in this specific case, for games that aim at having non-consensual PvP, better segregating the player base than the alternative of driving away a large part of the player base due to rampant PK activity, or the threat of. Almost every single game that had non-consensual PvP, meaningful death penalties (for example player looting), and attempted to force everyone to play together in a single server type crashed and burned in the west; EVE seems to be the only exception currently.
Games where all PvP is consensual, on the other hand, have no problem keeping everyone on the same server. Plenty of those around. This - removing from the game anything that even resembles non-consensual PvP - seems to be an even stronger trend nowadays, BTW.
-10 years running
-Player numbers increasing every year
-Now half a million paying subs
-Never went F2P
If you actually pointed any other MMO than EVE with the kind of non-consensual PvP you want that managed to achieve, and preferably hold, 100K+ players in the west, you would actually have made a point. I was already describing EVE as perhaps the only exception in the trend of MMOs with forced open PvP crashing and burning, after all.
Still sold like hotcakes despite the very public lack of PvP.
BTW, the main reasons for the low scores seem to be mainly the always Online DRM, the lag if you don't live in a country where Blizzard has a datacenter, and the huge failure that was the launch itself. I had the game at launch but could only actually play a week later, for example. The lack of PvP was a minor factor for that score, if it was a factor at all.
That is a lot of misinformation in one paragraph.
WOD is coming, and CCP doesn´t do things half . It´s done when it´s done and up to the level of quality they want.
They focused on finishing EvE´s Dust 514 first because EvE is their biggest franchise - so what? Resources are not unlimted for CCP either.
EvE Fanfest 2012 WOD info
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch2vB1ZatPI
EvE Fanfest 2013 WOD info
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxC8vX2zAgY
Where is the misinformation?
WoD Online is guaranteed to NOT be launched this year or in 2014. No launch date could be given by CCP, just some obscure reference about the game still being in pre-production.
CCP acknowledges WoD Online is still in pre-production; in fact parts of the concept were changed, so any info from 2010 or earlier is only valid if it has been confirmed by CCP afterwards.
CCP took part of the team working in WoD online to finish Dust 514.
CCP purchased White Wolf, in order to get the World of Darkness IP, back in 2006. WoD Online was already in pre-production back then, as was officially announced at EVE Online Fanfest 2006.
Also, I look at this whole mess not as a MMO fan, but as a White Wolf fan that saw CCP basically drive White Wolf into the ground for the sake of a MMO that, year after year, failed to materialize. To add insult to injury, if or when it is released it's likely to be a griefer paradise just like EVE, which precludes me from having any interest in the MMO, despite having almost every single WoD book published since the second edition Vampire.
you can disagree all day long, everyone knows the market is filled with "consensual everything" please everyone/Maximize population trash games which all take a nose dive a few months after release, going F2P or shutting down. Look at SWTOR, carebear themepark heaven. Crashed and burned with biggest IP ever. Pathetic.
On the other hand there are a lot of successful games that follow the "consensual everything" model, while almost every single game that deviated from that model crashed and burned in the west, EVE being the main exception. Heck, just last week we heard how Paradox is getting rid of it's open PvP, permadeath MMO called "Salem", and transferring it to a two persons external development team; this is not what I would expect from a successful game.
BTW, even some games often seen as an example of non-consensual PvP are, in truth, about consensual PvP. Take Dark Souls, for example; besides the game allowing offline play (and obviously rendering the player completely immune to PvP while playing offline), the game can only be invaded if the player specifically opts in for it by turning human, and turning human only makes the game otherwise slightly easier, thus no need to ever turn human.
Read some threads on mmorpg.com. People are sick of theme parks.
Either ED goes the way of the Dodo together with them or makes sure to be future proof.
If those people are as prevalent as you say, why do MMOs with non-consensual PvP still crash and burn, while those "consensual everything themeparks" they seem to dislike at least get a chance to succeed? Why do games like Free Realms can keep player bases in the millions, even with heavy competition, while games like Mortal Online and Darkfall languish with a few thousand players, if that?
