MMO's arent quite MMO's anymore...

KoKane

Saw this quote, quoted from its source without the source provided, sorry.


Its spot on.

Hello,

The OP, and many who have posted in support of him, are absolutely correct here. The bottom line is simple: if there is no risk versus reward metric for PvP, with both individual and broad scale implications, then PvP is just an e-sport.

One note before I go any further: there's nothing wrong with e-sport. It's just that if I want that, I'll play a shooter or RTS. This, I think answers the question PvP players always get from the hardcore PvE community of, "if you want to PvP, why don't you just play a shooter?" The answer that I want my actions to have consequences. I want my destruction of you to mean something, and I am willing to risk that my loss will mean something as well.

This is something that I have come to believe that many PvE players either cannot or will not understand. The hardcore PvE player defines his goals around the repetition of an action, the raid, which carries little risk and perhaps some reward, but has no broader impact in the game. For whatever reason, this is what they want, and they will not accept that other people enjoy different aspects of a game.

Because developers want to maximize subscriptions, they will attempt to cater to both playstyles. Because so many hardcore PvE players are so risk averse, and because they make up a large faction of the MMO community, they have a strong impact on developers' ideas. And so, developers attempt to cater to both by separating the predators from the prey. There are grazing areas, and there are violent colluseums, but the world is segregated. This is the WoW model, and it is not reflective of what we would call a virtual world. Rather, it is a collection of different games on a single server.

Developers can make the arena as "fun" as they want, but they will ultimately fail to deliver what the PvP community wants so long as they cannot influence the greater savannah. Further, because a segregated world is so unnatural, developers who choose this path cannot make a virtual world. The beauty of a virtual world is that it creates all sorts of interesting emergent play, like virtual economies, which are actually beneficial to the non-PvP player.

If the hardcore PvE player would have a bit longer vision, he would see that, if he would give up just a bit of safety, the returns, in the form of emergent gameplay, vastly outweigh the loss of absolute security. This is something that PvP players understand because they are familiar with risk versus reward metrics. The PvE player, being less familiar with those metrics, and having been catered to by games like WoW, are understandably less equipped to see this natural outcome.

Now, the difference between the real world savannah and the virtual one is that, in the latter, the gazelle's have the option of not playing. So, the trick is to set a balance point where gazelles have lots of grass to graze on in safety, but the best, or certain unique grass, requires venturing into the savannah to obtain. The penalties must also be balanced; they must sting, but not so much that the risk versus reward metric causes gazelles to never venture into the savannah, or worse, that they simply choose another game. This is the integrated approach that games like Eve do so well.

Many will argue against this position, but it is because they are gazelles. They want all the grass in their safe pastures and to leave the lions and hyenas to just fight, but without the reward of any tender meat. Of course I do not blame the gazelle; it is human nature to argue in your own self-interest. However, if we continue down this road, then MMOs will continue to be just games and not truly virtual worlds.

Nody

Sorry but I find your title misleading; it should read "I want to be able to kill everyone and I don't care if they disagree". There was a reason EverQuest was such a huge success. The poster also fails to understand what the population in general wants and assumes because they want to prey on people that should be ok and any other game form is flawed if they can't do that.

Adding in the assumption that people who prefer PvE can't judge if PvP is ok or not is such elitist BS that it alone speaks volume of the poster. There has been several games along said model from Eve to AOC etc. and guess what; they fail and fail hard! Why? Because unlike what the so called hardcore PvP player thinks PvE players don't like being ganked over and over again and no matter what "unique grass" you put out there they are not going to go for it. The poster has clearly and utterly failed to understand or even bother to read up on what and why PvE players play they way they do and instead simply decided to call them all sheep for not giving in and becoming easy targets in their game of choice.

And this is coming from someone who's switched from 100% pure PvE style towards 100% PvP games...

Regarding the titel which has very limited connection with the qouted post I can only agree; MMOs are moving away from MMO towards single player experiences which I'm annoyed with (look at AoCs first 20 level is solo play for example or SWTOR's instances; before this there were the EQ2 instancing bonanza etc.). I'll be honest and admitt I hate instancing. Yes, it can bring good things (no more 4am weekday raids because boss A popped and the American guild monopolized it in that time zone) but it leaves a more dead world imo (I'm also aware of the help for splitting up the server resources etc.). I remember in Everquest you'd have camp checks, if a group wiped you'd risk a train coming your way as they ran to the border line. You'd fight around to their corpses to retrieve them, all in the same world. Today if you die in your instance you run back to your unique world and respawn at the instance border. This has more then anything else killed the MMO part for me; I hope Planetside 2 et al will bring back the feeling of having hundreds of people around fighting next each other; that is what I want in an MMO; not a flashy voice over dialogue in a movie clip; I got my single player games for that (and they do it far better then any MMO).

Playboy

I agree with the OP .. MMO's for me should be much more PvP driven with much more prevelant open world PvP which has consequences for the broader population. I think DAoC had a pretty good handle on how to weave PvP into the fabric of an MMO but I also dont think it went far enough. It's a difficult balance to achieve because of the playstlyes of some PvP players .. like the repeated ganking and grief killing.

Venom

The majority of MMO's players have little or no interest in full on world PvP which can be seen in the fact that almost all the PvP centric MMO's not only failed but failed bigtime.

Spunge

It would be cool if there were more games like eve which offer both a serious hardcore pvp experience and a (relatively) safe pve experience in the same world. Like for eve i just stayed in empire for a year or so, just trading and ratting, never did pvp or anything. Then i got bored of that and went into 0.0.

Playboy

Venom wrote: »

The majority of MMO's players have little or no interest in full on world PvP which can be seen in the fact that almost all the PvP centric MMO's not only failed but failed bigtime.

Don't agree at all... It just hasn't been done right in a while. DAoC was very successful as is Guild Wars and Eve. AoC had massive potential but unfortunately came up short. Every game needs a balance of PvP and PvE but IMO the end game needs to be PvP driven .. That's where a story can develop which creates unique worlds on different servers. End game PvE has just turned into a grind gear quest which people will get fed up with unless new content is added.

Nody

Playboy wrote: »

Don't agree at all... It just hasn't been done right in a while. DAoC was very successful as is Guild Wars and Eve. AoC had massive potential but unfortunately came up short. Every game needs a balance of PvP and PvE but IMO the end game needs to be PvP driven .. That's where a story can develop which creates unique worlds on different servers. End game PvE has just turned into a grind gear quest which people will get fed up with unless new content is added.

DaOC ran at half the EQ subscription; Eve's a unique cookie (same as WoW in the sense you should avoid drawing to many parallels with it vs. general MMO behaviour); GW never required a subscription (which means any comparisons of numbers are skewed). Look at WHO; to me it's the latest larger MMO to attempt to do PvP and PvE in one zone and that fell flat on it's nose as well (and I really wanted to like the game but gave up after 2 months). There's a reason why all these games keep on failing; and it's not because the PvEers don't understand "risk vs. rewards".

The whole thing with PvP as end game content is if you want it to matter (i.e. what people clamor for) then you can not really do PvE as well because it will always cause conflicts (either because developers did not design dual functionality (i.e. spell A does X in PvE and Z in PvP) from the start or simply due to gear imbalances). The only way I can see a PvP game work is if it is pure 100% PvP. I've played some semi successful hybrids such as Global Agenda and what not but in every case the PvE side skewes the PvP side of things by bringing in armor/weapons/stats/items that will make it an uneven fight (either from the start or via expansions / items you can buy). Now how do you then make PvP end game matter? Personally I think the only real route has to be ala PS and DAoC; bases to take and defend that gives a bonus (but nothing to large or you'll risk having one side steam roll the other and not being possible to be removed). To avoid population imbalances from two sides only (as seen in WoW, SWTOR, WHO etc.) it should be a three faction game and most likely also a cap per side in a fight to avoid one side still being able to steamroll (i.e. PS cap of 150/150/150 or perhaps a 40% max one side or something).

That's the only way you can make PvP matter and to add a touch of PvE flavour once again I'll refer back to PS; give people levels unlocking more gear in paralell but not making them more powerful. New starter? You got assault gun and heavy armor. Veteran? You got assault gun, heavy armor and can drive a tank etc. The new guy can do as much damage but not have as many options open at the same time as the veteran. It's also similar as Eve were if you focus you can be as good as a 5 year vet on a given vehicle (but with far less sub skills to worry about).

Blowfish

Overall I think it's pretty silly to claim to know what the entire PvE or PvP community prefer. Both are vastly varied in how they prefer their content.

Developers don't make 'e-sport' instanced PvP because it's 'easier', they make it because it's what the vast majority of the PvP MMO community want.

There will always be a (pretty vocal) minority of players who want more of a risk/reward system or their actions to make a difference in a bigger picture. As long as there's a reasonably sized market for it, these will be catered for with games like Eve etc.

witless1

Spunge wrote: »

It would be cool if there were more games like eve which offer both a serious hardcore pvp experience and a (relatively) safe pve experience in the same world. Like for eve i just stayed in empire for a year or so, just trading and ratting, never did pvp or anything. Then i got bored of that and went into 0.0.

EVE is the only game that I have ever played where the PVE has a risk/reward element to it. Attempt a mission you shouldn't, even in safe space, and you lose a ship you spent a few weeks saving to buy. The post quoted by the OP basically says that PVE players are shielded and don't have a risk / reward mentality. The PVE, as implemented in EVE has that, but EVE is a niche MMO and not for everyone, myself included and I have tried it a few times. If that translated into a WoW style MMO it might placate a small element of the hardcore but its something that the majority of hardcore let alone casuals certainly wouldn't go for. A mode where you wiping set you back somehow in terms of death penalties like losing gear in reward for something unique or stronger? That model can never be implemented in WoW style MMOs because it would impact on the development effort and the rewards would have to be massive for a guild to risk putting itself back if they failed. Massive rewards tend to cause balance issues even outside of PVP, imagine a portion of the top guilds constantly beating this super hard mode, the devs would push the bar even higher moving it further away from everyone else.

I don't think there is a solution where a PVE + PVP world can exist side by side in a WoW mould without massive dev effort for managing PVP & PVE abilities in parallel. Having a PVP focused game alone would not be enough of a subscription reward for the developers to warrant making the game. PVP players, outside of RPS / FPS, are stuck somewhat within the PVE/PVP world and I can't see them breaking out on their own. More encouragement needs to be made to move back to Vanilla WoW style PVP which I do remember fondly but it was all to brief for me. Now WPVP on a city level is a genuine ball ache and causes severe lag and crashes servers in some cases. WPVP is still possible and daily quest zones along the lines of the Firelands / BH dailys, while somewhat artificial, at least make opposite factions come together.

Spunge

surely there are or at least were more MMOs that had harsh death penalties even for pve. Like XP loss or something ?

Nody

Spunge wrote: »

surely there are or at least were more MMOs that had harsh death penalties even for pve. Like XP loss or something ?

Yes; and they got phased out by WoW style penalties (and the gazillion copies of it) as players did not want it (the debate about it was done a month or so ago as well).

Eoin247

For the first three years of my mmo gaming, i had absolutely no interest in pvp. My interest in pvp since then is still a fraction of my interest in pve. Many people simply prefer Pve.

nix

In my experience, people who dont like PVP are people who are not good at PvP

PvP will make you a better player all around, in both pve and pvp. Its sad to me that they dont put more focus into PvP especially on a PvP server.

PvE players are so bad they depend on mods to tell them how to play the game and majority of them still fail, its just so boring and unrewarding.

Eoin247

nix wrote: »

In my experience, people who dont like PVP are people who are not good at PvP

PvP will make you a better player all around, in both pve and pvp. Its sad to me that they dont put more focus into PvP especially on a PvP server.

PvE players are so bad they depend on mods to tell them how to play the game and majority of them still fail, its just so boring and unrewarding.

Most Pvp players are fairly experienced gamers. MMos cater for the bigger audience (the inexperienced casuals)

Calhoun

nix wrote: »

In my experience, people who dont like PVP are people who are not good at PvP

PvP will make you a better player all around, in both pve and pvp. Its sad to me that they dont put more focus into PvP especially on a PvP server.

PvE players are so bad they depend on mods to tell them how to play the game and majority of them still fail, its just so boring and unrewarding.

I like world pvp or arena type pvp but hated bg's was just so boring, game I used to play fps mmo you died in pvp or PVE you had to reimplant some of your gear and you lost an item that you could retrieve or your enemy could hack it and take it. When you fought it meant something

nix

Eoin247 wrote: »

Most Pvp players are fairly experienced gamers. MMos cater for the bigger audience (the inexperienced casuals)

Right but wow used to cater for all, hence people being annoyed. And its only since WoW really that the inexperienced were roped into playing it. So the game that once was was diluted and made easier. Imagine people done that with all games in the world, would be pretty crappy.

Imagine all games in the world were altered to cater for the inexperienced, wouldnt be much of a game then would they??

witless1

nix wrote: »

Right but wow used to cater for all, hence people being annoyed. And its only since WoW really that the inexperienced were roped into playing it. So the game that once was was diluted and made easier. Imagine people done that with all games in the world, would be pretty crappy.

Imagine all games in the world were altered to cater for the inexperienced, wouldnt be much of a game then would they??

I'd imagine it would be a world where developers and games companies would make a lot of money. Diluting WoW to bring in the inexperienced gamers pushed it beyond 10m active subscribers. Whether its a proper game or not is view dependent at that point. Games manufacturers will have no bother isolating a demographic to draw in bigger crowds. Money talks and it always has.

Dustaz

Nody wrote: »

Sorry but I find your title misleading; it should read "I want to be able to kill everyone and I don't care if they disagree". There was a reason EverQuest was such a huge success. The poster also fails to understand what the population in general wants and assumes because they want to prey on people that should be ok and any other game form is flawed if they can't do that.

Adding in the assumption that people who prefer PvE can't judge if PvP is ok or not is such elitist BS that it alone speaks volume of the poster. There has been several games along said model from Eve to AOC etc. and guess what; they fail and fail hard! Why? Because unlike what the so called hardcore PvP player thinks PvE players don't like being ganked over and over again and no matter what "unique grass" you put out there they are not going to go for it. The poster has clearly and utterly failed to understand or even bother to read up on what and why PvE players play they way they do and instead simply decided to call them all sheep for not giving in and becoming easy targets in their game of choice.

I really could not put it any better. Bang on.

There was a discussion a couple of years ago about Darkfall and how sandbox/pvp/full loot mmos were "the only games worth playing and everyone who didnt like them was an unskilled noob carebear and darkfalls gonna rule and your all gonna be noobs hahahaha".

Guess what happened to darkfall?

Exactly. If you want that type of game OP, go play games that allow it with the other 20 people playing it. Enjoy it and have a blast, but dont force it down everyone elses throat.

nix

witless1 wrote: »

I'd imagine it would be a world where developers and games companies would make a lot of money. Diluting WoW to bring in the inexperienced gamers pushed it beyond 10m active subscribers. Whether its a proper game or not is view dependent at that point. Games manufacturers will have no bother isolating a demographic to draw in bigger crowds. Money talks and it always has.

Yeah i know, but they dont have near that many subscribers anymore because they have turned the game to ****. I'm sure the game would have hit that many subscribers without making the drastic changes they made, also this is blizzard, they usually provide a near perfect game which they had but reduced it for the sake of more $$$$

There was a time where they wouldnt have done that, meaning they sold out

Can we haz a game company with ballz??

How much ****in money does a game company need?? So much ****in greed in this world.

neilk32

Dustaz wrote: »

I really could not put it any better. Bang on.

There was a discussion a couple of years ago about Darkfall and how sandbox/pvp/full loot mmos were "the only games worth playing and everyone who didnt like them was an unskilled noob carebear and darkfalls gonna rule and your all gonna be noobs hahahaha".

Guess what happened to darkfall?

Exactly. If you want that type of game OP, go play games that allow it with the other 20 people playing it. Enjoy it and have a blast, but dont force it down everyone elses throat.

What happened it? Please enlighten us.

d22ontour

Dustaz wrote: »

If you want that type of game OP, go play games that allow it with the other 20 people playing it. Enjoy it and have a blast, but dont force it down everyone elses throat.

There are a few successful pvp mmo out there, infact one called PWI makes/made more money than any other mmo bar one.You could drop items when pked and it didn't stop people playing it and at it's height i think it made 600m in one year in 2010, only WoW with it's cash shop has made more.
There is a market for pvp mmo, maybe not as hardcore as Darkfall but a market is there.

Dustaz

neilk32 wrote: »

What happened it? Please enlighten us.

noone played it for any length of time. Im sure theres a few people still playing it and having a great time. Its not hard to keep 100 people happy.

Dustaz

nix wrote: »

this is blizzard, they usually provide a near perfect game which they had but reduced it for the sake of more $$$$.

This is a running theme on this forum lately. "Wow used to be great, but blizzard ruined it". I really don't see how exactly they have ruined it. Sure they lowered the bar to entry for less casual players but raids, pvp, any of the end game stuff didnt really get any easier. So how then did it get easier/worse. Lets ignore MoP since its not out, so no lolpandas or lolpokemon.

As far as im concerned, the game as it stands now is a MUCH better game than it was in vanilla. Im just very very very bored of it and i suspect thats whats behind most of the accusations of AMG ITS BAD!

nix

Dustaz wrote: »

So how then did it get easier/worse.

Dungeons were made far too easy

Epics are obtained way too easily

Instant zone loading has greatly reduced the need to interact with most of azeroth come max level, making it a not so massive rpg.

Normal/heroic mode introduced for raids (this is **** dont care what anybody says)

World pvp greatly reduced, bad thing on a pvp server

Spells/talents constantly being changed adding more to balance issues (cant have blizz doing some actual hard work with regards to balance, just keep changing them, oh and new mop talents yet to come, more balance crap no doubt)

Blizz doing a pisspoor job of balancing their servers alli/horde ratios (cant be having people not paying for charatcer transfers)

Constantly revamping old dungeons/raids so they dont have to bother making new ones, (Its like the remakes hollywood keep doing to reduce costs)

Pretty sure i could think of more, but i cba

Dustaz

Wall of text incoming

nix wrote: »

Dungeons were made far too easy

WOTLK dungeons were a joke, even on heroic. Cata heroic dungeons were great though and a nice challenge. Afaic, Blizz nerfed them at the right time since my alts were coming through when they did and i really really cba spending the time no them again.

Epics are obtained way too easily

I sort of agree with this. They went some way to fixing it in cata but not fair enough. If theyre gonna make raids easy, then raiding should be the only way to get epics.

Instant zone loading has greatly reduced the need to interact with most of azeroth come max level, making it a not so massive rpg.

You mean LFG dungeon teleporting? Maybe, but before that existed most people just waited for a summon anyway. Thats taken a little bit of the fun of summoning stone skirmishing out of it (the stone outside SSC springs to mind) but meh, I was never to pushed about pvp and i gotta say, the instant zone loading is massively convenient :P

Normal/heroic mode introduced for raids (this is **** dont care what anybody says)

I really dont mind this. I liked raiding, i liked the fights and i liked seeing the raids. Normal gives everyone the chance i had to see all that stuff. We just got on with progression on hard modes.

Spells/talents constantly being changed adding more to balance issues (cant have blizz doing some actual hard work with regards to balance, just keep changing them, oh and new mop talents yet to come, more balance crap no doubt)

This is something i really really LIKE about what blizzard do. They constantly change things up. Classes NEVER get stagnant or boring becuase they change them so relatively often. If my mage was still frost like he was in vanilla, i would have got bored a long long long time ago. Since then, ive been hybrid, fire, arcane, fire, different arcane, etc etc etc. Each time the spells/talents change, its fun working out the new playstyle.

Blizz doing a pisspoor job of balancing their servers alli/horde ratios (cant be having people not paying for charatcer transfers)

Pisspoor? I suggest you take a look at the horror of swtor servers and then take another look at wows. Certainly theres a few servers with pop imbalances, mostly though theyre fairly even. Blizzard actively KEPT them even with free server transfers.

Constantly revamping old dungeons/raids so they dont have to bother making new ones, (Its like the remakes hollywood keep doing to reduce costs)

This doesnt really bother me. Naxx was fun to revisit. SFK/DM were almost completely different to the originals so im not sure how this affects you.

Right, next for a big one. This goes for most of Ropes post as well.

World pvp greatly reduced, bad thing on a pvp server

No. Just no.

Blizzard have never 'reduced' world pvp. The players have. Wow was always a PVE game with a large pvp element. Dont think for one second its a pvp game.

There was world pvp when everyone was levelling up. There still is at the start of expansions and to a certain extent when your on alts if your on a half decent server. There was group scale world pvp initially in vanilla when people were curious to see how the game worked and what it could handle.

Then the honor system arrived. For about 1 or (maybe 2) months there was large scale world pvp at tm/ss. 1 month out of 7 years that people never shut up about when they talk about world pvp. Blizzard didnt create that, the players did. They were given a reason to pvp (points) and found somewhere to do it. and it was RUBBISH. It was a slideshow, it was a zerg, it was pointless and it was a lot of fun for about an hour. (The same drawbacks (slideshow, zerg) affected the earlier and later city raids). The INSTANT that battlegrounds were introduced, the zerg at TM/SS disapeared and never returned.

Players prefered BGs to world pvp. If they didn't, we would still have the zergs.

Blizzard have constantly tried to put in elements to encourage world pvp for those who like it. Every expansion has a zone for it and a later quest zone for it. They know though that the majority of the player base just doesnt really go in for it.

Why are the pvp zones deserted if theres this large clamour for world pvp? Places like the Isle of QQ were full to the brim of 2 types. the LOLWORLDPVPIGANKU and the type there to do dailys. It was carnage for a while and the world pvp hero felt like this is the way the game should be. Then the daily guy eventually capped out his quests and stopped going cos he didnt need to. All of a sudden it was empty! Could it be that its only fun to gank people who didnt want to fight? Why didnt the world pvp types just keep going and fight each other? I dont know, cos i never went in for it.

Rope mentioned city raids and how noone bothers to defend. Like i lot of others, i particpated in city raids to get my bear and they were fun alright. Not enough fun to make me want to do it any more than twice but fun all the same. I defended the same raids and realised after the first 20 times you do it on consequtive days, you have better things to do than nuke people corpserunning back to the zerg. World pvp guilds are now the only people who do this and its like watching retarded children playing with lego. Noone bothers because like ANY activity in the game, its boring unless you are rewarded.

The ONLY thing that blizzard might have done to reduce world pvp was introducing summoning stones outside raids. Well tough ****. Its unimaginble to go back to the days where you had to get 40 people to travel to the same raid and just not a fun element of gameplay. So like i said, its mainly a pve game and they aint gonna nerf that just so people can gank a few latecomers on the way.

Oh, and the accusation that "they raised the level of the guards on towns" is laughable. Dont even go there.


tldr: Blizzard have provided tools for pvp. THe fact that not enough people use them is not blizzards fault.

ShadowHearth

I think alot of mmorpgs fail now BECOUSE of players.

I remember ultima online back then. It was damn great. It had freedom to do anything. If you wanted, you could just be a blacksmith and run your own shop. You could spend months of playing ultima online and you would not even kill a single monster! You could be carpenter, alchemic etc. then you had ability to kill other players! Become a bandit. Have a secret house somewhere in a swamps, where you would organise your next hit and store loot. So thing is: freedom was there, but that did not ment that every single player on server was a ganker ****! It was balanced out ( atleast for some time... ) .

Then we got a darkfall, which was a potential to be a proper UO son. What happened? Its just pure pvp madness. No one cares to be a blacksmith. No need for one, just need to be a warrior to be able to defend yourself from 99% of population!

Pvp with reward and penalty is awesome. Unfortunately there are way to many dickheads out there.

Now people will lought at me for saying this, but I will still say it: the only mmorpg in the market that is actuolly a mmorpg - runescape. Full player driven economy. Pvp with betings, full loot pvp in wilderness. World full of people with not many instances. ( if any ). Yes, it can be Grindy at times, but atleast it feels like a big world with lots of people in it.

GO_Bear

I kind of agree with the OP, while I don't think that it is essential for a good PvP game, take DAoC, a very small penalty for death but the game evolved around PvP/RvR as it was easy to reach a point where you had finished your "PvE" ( cap on stats easy to reach ) and after that point the game revolved around the war of the three realms and killing enemies / taking castles ( not to mention the evolution of the full group rvr, 8v8 fights that were not interrupted )

But the single most exhilarating PvP MMO I have played is/was Eve online, the chance to lose everything while you fight to gain anything, literally sent your heart racing, you can argue all you like, but it added a depth of game play I have not seen beaten since, I only hope CCP stops pissing on pirates and I might go back.

Nothingbetter2d

i play eve online... and it will be 9 years running (launched may 2003) and still doing well

the reason why swtor failed is cos it has linear path to it. Eve online is an open sandbox style of play. granted the pve is boring as hell in eve online but pvp remains entertaining. though incursions & wormhole sleepers have improved pve a bit.

but CCP have finally learned a hard lesson from the "monoclegate" incident following the launch of eve online tyrannis and started listening to its playerbase again and eve online crucible expansion fixed alot of the major issues within the game. perhaps bioware need to have a look at CCP's sandbox game design model and adapt it to fix swtor.

Raphael

Eh, by that argument Galaxies should have been a smash hit and WoW should have been a failure. Sandbox and Theme Park MMOs are completely different animals, you really can't compare between them.

Venom

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

i play eve online... and it will be 9 years running (launched may 2003) and still doing well

the reason why swtor failed is cos it has linear path to it. Eve online is an open sandbox style of play. granted the pve is boring as hell in eve online but pvp remains entertaining. though incursions & wormhole sleepers have improved pve a bit.

but CCP have finally learned a hard lesson from the "monoclegate" incident following the launch of eve online tyrannis and started listening to its playerbase again and eve online crucible expansion fixed alot of the major issues within the game. perhaps bioware need to have a look at CCP's sandbox game design model and adapt it to fix swtor.

At the moment Eve has around 400k subs which pre-WoW was the average for big name MMO's like EQ1, EQ2 and SWTOR. Once WoW hit the market the MMO landscape changed forever with developers wanting millions upon millions of subscribers which in 99.9% of newer games results in piss poor WoW clones like SWTOR. CCP are also one of the worst developers imho due to how many EvE devs are not only members of some of the bigger megacorps but use non-gameplay elements to help their fleets at the expense of other customers which is well out of order.

EvE is not only one of the few big PvP focused MMO's but the only real space based MMO which has a huge effect on its sub numbers. If a more PvE focused EvE style game comes out EvE's numbers will take a huge hit.

While the sandbox vs themepark argument is valid for the likes of WoW and SWTOR style games over UO and SWG it just doesn't factor into EvE's popularity at the moment.

Nody

Venom wrote: »

EvE is not only one of the few big PvP focused MMO's but the only real space based MMO which has a huge effect on its sub numbers. If a more PvE focused EvE style game comes out EvE's numbers will take a huge hit.

Star Trek online? SWG? The two space games that came out oh 4ish years ago? Earth and Beyond or something like that (both are cancelled now).

Saying it's only size is due to being the only space MMO is a false premise; I think the scope and drama possible is a huge driver honestly (and the fact is is different from "normal" MMO by offline training, sandbox style, space, no safe areas etc.).