PvP vs PvE in Wurm

[Arimus 81]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I love the idea of being a warrior/crafter defending and assisting my kingdom as best as I am able. Being part of a group provides motivation and purpose beyond character growth just for the sake of character growth. PvP often provides the highest level of challenge in a game since you are facing off against other real world players instead of predictable, unintelligent mobs.

 

However outside of structured pvp like the 5 vs 5  matches in games like gw2 and wow, pvp feels like it always devolves to 'the zerg' and 'the gank'. This is where the attacking group either has overwhelming numbers (the zerg) or out levels the target, often a newer player, with an overwhelming difference in gear/character levels (the gank).  The end result is that new players decide that PvP isn't worth it since they don't stand a chance. Players that aren't in the dominating group slowly trickle away till there isn't a challenge for anyone. So that leaves structured pvp which is often so artificial that no one cares about it. 

 

The same things happen again and again in spite of steps taken by developers. For example, games like Life is Feudal, Mortal Online, Darkfall, and most recently the New World beta have experienced the same issues.  If such a thing as well balanced PvP is possible in an open world game, surely someone would have figured it out by now.   

 

This then begs the follow up questions: If we assume that well balanced PvP is not realistic, is it possible to instead create a pve experience that is challenging enough to attract and retain the crowd that normally gravitates to PvP? Are developers better off to spend their resources and efforts creating a more challenging (but fair) pve conflict? 

 

I don't mean dungeons with the same mobs in the same locations doing the same actions. But a living environment, like Wurm has now, where mobs could be anywhere. 

 

For example, what if there was a server similar to jackal where once you leave the starting area player built structures are susceptible to being attacked by roaming mobs, some of which are solo mobs and others that roam in small packs? Would that higher risk environment encourage players to work together in a village rather than working separately?  

 

This isn't intended to aggravate any hardcore pvpers. It is a serious question. Like any other business, game companies have limited resources. It's in everyone's best interest for them to use them in a way that provides the best benefit to the future of the game.

 

So, I guess the overall questions to everyone are:

- do you feel balanced and healthy pvp is even possible in an open world game such that it doesn't just turn into the zerg and the gank (resulting in a daily population of 1 on chaos)?

- do you think that it is possible to create non-themepark pve conflict that results in players working together to build a community in order to survive and thrive?

- if such a pve world was built, would it be enough to attract players that normally gravitate to pvp?

[Nomadikhan 2,196]

do you feel balanced and healthy pvp is even possible in an open world game such that it doesn't just turn into the zerg and the gank (resulting in a daily population of 1 on chaos)?

 

No

 

- do you think that it is possible to create non-themepark pve conflict that results in players working together to build a community in order to survive and thrive?

 

Sadly, no

 

- if such a pve world was built, would it be enough to attract players that normally gravitate to pvp?

 

For a short while, maybe.  Long term, doubt it

[KharnovKrow 105]

The idea of player-made kingdoms and the conflict between them, the idea that the political landscape of the game could actually be built and maintained purely through player actions and interactions, was one of the things that drew me to Wurm. While my main focus is on PvE goals, it's always been my intent to have a character go over to Chaos and participate in PvP.

 

Some day.

 

Ironically, I consider one of the best qualities of Chaos to be something that a lot of people complain about; that it's connected to the rest of the Freedom Isles. The idea that you have somewhere safe to build up your resources and skills, to keep your best treasures safe, allows Chaos to be a place where you can go and gamble resources just for fun. Sail over in your back-up ship in a set of steel plate that you could craft again in a day, and just be ready to lose it all. I think that kind of mentality could add a fun political angle in negotiating with PvE deeds for resources and manpower.

 

But one of the most common complaints about PvP in Wurm that I've seen is that people will simply remove the valuables from a deed and abandon it rather than fight for it; defending a deed you can't hold costs too much to be worth it, and attacking a deed that won't have valuables to loot costs too much to be worth it. Thinking about this, I've been wondering if the sheer costs in real-life time and money are too much of a barrier for entry? It's all well and good to tell people to make a deed 'just for fun,' but it's hard not to get invested in something you spent a week building with your friends, paid real money to set up, only to have someone come and blow it up overnight; you're probably spending a lot of silver on maintenance if it's big enough that someone in a different timezone can't just knock the doors down while you're sleeping.

 

I can't help but feel that the best possible thing for PvP in Wurm might be making PvP deeds more affordable than PvE deeds. My thought is that you can fill your PvP deeds with your second-tier resources, equip yourself with second-tier gear, but that only helps so much if you're still gambling real-life money in the form of silver spent on deed maintenance. Not knowing too much about PvP, it's possible that keeping the bare minimum amount of currency in the deed is a common practice, but it could still be a decent amount of dosh if you're trying to make anything bigger than a cabin. I wonder if it might not be a good idea to a) provide special structures or resources for PvP servers that reduce or replace the silver cost of deed maintenance, or b) a) reduce the silver costs of deed maintenance in PvP servers across the board?

[John 254]

You can't zerg an entire homeserver, though I guess you could roam it like a horde. Come check out what remains of the dead Epic cluster before you deem PvP as something always devolving into zergs and ganks. There are plenty of catch-up mechanics - it still takes about a year to grind a good character if you're not super active, but after that you'll give most folks a fair fight.

[BrQQQ 2,854]

For me, the fun in PvP isn't just the combat. Like organizing a fair 5v5 in a steppe and hitting people until they're dead isn't really what makes PvP fun.

 

A big part of PvP are the circumstances around the fight. Where you are, what you think your enemy is planning on doing, what your exit strategy is etc. On top of that, the stakes are usually high, because people wear valuable gear or have a big ego that they want to preserve.

 

It's really impossible to recreate this environment in PvE. Though maybe it would make it more realistic if the NPCs who kill you in your scenario would talk crap about you on the forum afterwards. That'd definitely feel like PvP

[Manik 53]

My attraction to PvP (especially full loot) games has always been the sense of community it builds among its members. Its more of a struggle to survive in a competitive environment and that usually bands players together in a effort to bring each other up. A lot of the times you are only as strong as your weakest link in these styles of play. I have never seen so many things given away or resources shared, etc as I have when playing with a group of dedicated group who share a common goal. Which is ironic because we often get labeled as the exact opposite.

 

- Balance is absolutely possible in a open world pvp setting, it just needs to be actively evaluated and tweaked and changed with the times and the decisions need to be made by people who understand the PvP mechanics. It is hard to implement mechanics that    cater to both play styles. I don't think its possible to do this. 

- PvE will almost never produce the same team working results as PvP will because of the lack or urgency in a more laid back PvE settings.

- PvE will never be able to replicate what a PvP player seeks. You might grab a portion of the population but not the entirety. 

[elentari 2,660]

Unpopular opinion here, but maybe the experiment of full loot pvp games have run its course and honestly there aren't really any big success stories of it. Perhaps it's time to transition to only partial loot or not loot at all.

 

There are other full loot pvp mmo games out there. How many of them actually made it?

Darkfall is dead. Rust is plagued with griefers, toxic players and unbalanced gameplay. And everything in Wurm takes a long time to do even with good skills. A big fight can mean 40 horses killed, an entire breeding cycle of wait to be able to pvp again.

 

Simply put, a death can put a mental strain on a player. Several deaths can mean many hours just wasted to become pvp-able again.

 

I've heard counterarguments to this made by players that in a kingdom you can always replace your gear easily, but is it so?  If plate is so viable, why is everyone on chaos using drake and scale?

If plate was so viable why was everyone using moon gear on epic years ago? I can remember so many instances trying to find a compass, a quiver, some arrows or random things I knew I needed for pvp. I really wanted to fight but I didn't want to waste so many hours just to be able to. You can use leather now but with all the priest spells, you're dead anyway in 30 seconds.

 

Truth be told, pvp is simply a huge time sink. We had the full loot experiment play out. Let's admit it didn't work out so well. With RMT, people equated $ with in game items. Many people sold off their opponent's lost gear. There are a lot of variables that played out over the years that made pvp just toxic and worse.

 

Could we simply try for a server experiment like  the ex-challenge server, where there is no "full loot pvp" ? Just as an experiment, see if it plays out, if people enjoy it. What's there to lose at this point?

 

We could even spice out the rules for it to offset the lack of loot.

 

Small ideas.

Instead of playing for loot, players play for pvp points they can spend over time for different uses. 

Example of uses : Temporary buffs,  buying affinity tokens (as opposed from stealing an enemy's affinity), some one use items with pvp/pve use, drake hide, scales, rare bones, etc. 

Put players on equal fighting fields. No scale/drake armors in pvp. Just the standard medieval options for all.

 

Each death should come with a 20% gear dmg on all item pieces, that way you can just repair your gear instead of replace and re-enchant it.

 

I think the more we remove any barriers to pvp, people will fight more and most of all, have fun.

 

Again, why not try it at this point? I don't see pvp getting any worse at this point.

[Ekcin 2,407]

8 hours ago, Manik said:

My attraction to PvP (especially full loot) games has always been the sense of community it builds among its members. ..

I appreciated this posting (I do not appreciate full quotes, read the post above ) as it points to the "good sides of PvP" many PvEers either do not know or prefer to ignore. In addition, I want to point out that PvP gives the deepest insight into the intricacies of a given combat system. In all games I played so far, PvP players (or players who played PvP for a long time) were, not surprisingly, the best combat, weaponry, and armour experts, and usually of the crafting system (if there is one), too.

 

That said, I politely disagree to the point that balancing is possible with reasonable effort in smaller open world environments. In all "big games" I had the opportunity to speak with admin team members rebalancing and tweaking PvP mechanics takes a disproportionally high share of team worktime, nearly as much as moderation of player conflicts and abuse origination from PvP. All in all, PvP may take up to to thirds of team work time as I heard, with a share of active PvP players of 10-20% of the playerhood. It is doubtful that a small game is able to provide that.

 

And I agree to the rest: PvE is not PvP and cannot entirely make up for it. On the other hand, PvP is starting with excitement, and burning out soon, everywhere. I recall times when I set alarm clocks in the middle of then night for raid response, though it made it hard to survive the day on job. I know people who botched exams or were fired upon such things. Most people do that for a while if at all, then tend to cool down and drop out.

[MrGARY 12,421]

4 hours ago, elentari said:

Again, why not try it at this point? I don't see pvp getting any worse at this point.

 

Partial loot actually was tried, long before most current players were a twinkle in the eye of Rolfs wallet.  It was some odd system of only one item would drop and the dead guy would keep the rest, and it wasn't very well received and took a lot of the excitement of winning out of the game.  I'm not saying full loot works or doesn't, just that the way the game is, full loot system governed by a chance to keep or not if you have a res stone drastically helps make winning and losing mean something.  That being said, as I've suggested countless times over many years, res stones could be far more accessible than costing 5s per death.  Some healthy balance between full loot and no loot is needed, and some odd system of only dropping a scale glove or your pickaxe just doesn't work.

 

On a side note, the failed attempt at partial loot had some upsides.  Such as dead horses dropping a horse shoe and taking the rest of its gear with it into the void.

[Wonka 438]

I can't see that pvp as it currently stands can ever be balanced.  And even if it were completely overhauled, the amount of effort it takes from the dev and gm team to keep it running is far higher than pve - given pve is almost always the majority of the player base, it's hard to see how keeping pvp is worth it at all.  I'm sad to admit it, given where I started, but ultimately wurm just isn't a pvp game, and it shouldn't pretend to be.

 

Also, don't assume that most or many of the pve crowd would enjoy pvp if they only gave it a try.  There are a few who would, but the vast majority who play pve do so because that's what they want to play.

[Wargasm 1,927]

6 hours ago, Wonka said:

I can't see that pvp as it currently stands can ever be balanced.  And even if it were completely overhauled, the amount of effort it takes from the dev and gm team to keep it running is far higher than pve - given pve is almost always the majority of the player base, it's hard to see how keeping pvp is worth it at all.  I'm sad to admit it, given where I started, but ultimately wurm just isn't a pvp game, and it shouldn't pretend to be.

 

Also, don't assume that most or many of the pve crowd would enjoy pvp if they only gave it a try.  There are a few who would, but the vast majority who play pve do so because that's what they want to play.

 

Spoken like a blind fool that's never set foot in PvP.  You know nothing about balance, development or the amount of bugs found on PvP servers that relate directly to PvE.

 

As for this "majority" you speak of that would never try PvP.... you don't speak for everyone, you speak for yourself.  And you yourself seem completely clueless to the fact that experience trumps all (even gear and character skills) when it comes to PvP.

 

 

[Mordraug 2,542]

1 hour ago, Wargasm said:

 

Spoken like a blind fool that's never set foot in PvP.  You know nothing about balance, development or the amount of bugs found on PvP servers that relate directly to PvE.

 

As for this "majority" you speak of that would never try PvP.... you don't speak for everyone, you speak for yourself.  And you yourself seem completely clueless to the fact that experience trumps all (even gear and character skills) when it comes to PvP.

 

 

 

"Spoken like a blind fool":  Theeeeere's that attitude that's bound to bring in thousands of undecided players over.

 

"As for this "majority" you speak of...":  The numbers seem to agree and have been doing so for yeeeeeeeears.

[Haseroths 60]

3 hours ago, Mordraug said:

 

"Spoken like a blind fool":  Theeeeere's that attitude that's bound to bring in thousands of undecided players over.

 

"As for this "majority" you speak of...":  The numbers seem to agree and have been doing so for yeeeeeeeears.

Why is it that everytime i see you post on the forums, its almost always you attacking pvpers, you are doing nothing but stoking the fire when you behave like that. Also not sure why my previous post was removed, none of what i posted broke the rules. Would be really glad if whoever deleted it would reach out to me.

[Mordraug 2,542]

7 hours ago, Haseroths said:

Why is it that everytime i see you post on the forums, its almost always you attacking pvpers, you are doing nothing but stoking the fire when you behave like that. Also not sure why my previous post was removed, none of what i posted broke the rules. Would be really glad if whoever deleted it would reach out to me.

 

It's been a while actually.  And it's usually when they're:

a)  Not being civil (I have much stronger terms for that but I'll leave it there)

b)  Shooting down suggestions that would improve the game for hundreds for the benefit of a couple of dozens.

c)  Acting like they speak for staff.

 

Many of those times, I answer those people because of A and C, not even paying attention to whether they're PvP'ers of not.  

 

BTW, remember that thread about "Why don't more people from PvE come to PvP"?  Full of textbook examples of the three reasons I just gave.  "You are an ignorant fool!  You know nothing!  We are majority!  Without us there would be no game!" style replies all over.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Mordraug
Spleling fix....

[Wonka 438]

16 hours ago, Wargasm said:

 

Spoken like a blind fool that's never set foot in PvP.  You know nothing about balance, development or the amount of bugs found on PvP servers that relate directly to PvE.

 

As for this "majority" you speak of that would never try PvP.... you don't speak for everyone, you speak for yourself.  And you yourself seem completely clueless to the fact that experience trumps all (even gear and character skills) when it comes to PvP.

 

 

 

Spoken like a blind moron who's too tied up in what other people should do for them to actually read what they're blindly lashing out at.  Can't think why the stereotype of pvp is a bunch of spoiled children screaming whenever they're not getting attention...

 

We can sit in front of our keyboards and throw random insults at each other until the mods lock the thread or we can try to have a mature discussion.  The majority of players who prefer pve is obvious - just look at the server numbers!  Or pick one of the 'come play pvp with us' threads over the years, and see what the pve folks respond.  I'd love to go back to epic, but given the current game, and what else is out there, and where the dev team are putting effort, I'm just not seeing how a revival is achievable.  I would LOVE to be proved wrong, by the way!  I didn't for a moment suggest that experience wasn't the most valuable aspect, or that pvp bugs were only pvp.  What I did say was that pvp needs a massive rebalance and overhaul, and questioning whether that was a worthwhile investment for the development team.

 

I strongly agree with something said above - pvp dev needs to be by devs with pvp experience.  I also think wurm pvp needs a major overhaul to be balanced and viable, and that means significant dev effort, and I'm not seeing indications of that happening anytime soon.  But by all means, please carry on making pvpers look like antagonistic muppets with no social ability.

[Arimus 81]

I probably should have read this thread before posting my questions:

 

[platinumteef 2,201]

1 hour ago, Arimus said:

I probably should have read this thread before posting my questions:

 

 

do keep in mind that some of that thread is just kvk banter funsies, but it turned into a good talk thereafter 

[Wargasm 1,927]

 

19 hours ago, Wonka said:

What I did say was that pvp needs a massive rebalance and overhaul, and questioning whether that was a worthwhile investment for the development team.

 

Overhauling and rebalancing PvP for the same twenty people that want to PvP is out of the question.   I am not frustrated at Budda or the devs for "abandoning" PvP development, I'm frustrated at the attrition of players in Wurm as a whole, which has had a proportional effect to the population on PvP servers.  But anyone with any knowledge of PvP whatsoever knows that the attrition of the PvP player base is our own fault... one death at a time.

 

PvP suffers from the same ailment as PvE - lack of players... but the difference between the two is that PvP is much more linear in strategy and results.  On Xanadu, a new player might quit the game simply because they suddenly realize the amount of effort required to build a deed, a large house or even a simple 2x2 shack.  In PvP, people quit because they die, not to @Enki or to trolls, but instead to simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time... with the help of a few huge axes and a dead horse or two.

 

[Wilczan 2,048]

Thing is, there are some leftovers on Epic that live here on daily basis, like me.

 

Inactive players wanted some changes, devs made those changes, many people came back, and after few months all gone, and we are still here left with those changes.

 

People got a feeling that all those changes should be reverted, eventually new Elevation should stay, couse some already invested time and resources into it.

[Wargasm 1,927]

New Elevation would have been fine if they would have allowed PMK's.  It was mentioned several times, the devs refused, and they saw the result....Failevation 3.0.

[Wilczan 2,048]

1 hour ago, Wargasm said:

New Elevation would have been fine if they would have allowed PMK's.  It was mentioned several times, the devs refused, and they saw the result....Failevation 3.0.

They refused but also introduced civil war option, so people from same kingdom could declare war to each other, wich lead to situation that both fractions of MR fought between each other instead of focusing on enemy kingdoms.

 

This change should be reverted.

 

Also I do not really understand concept of Elevation, why it is needed anyway? Why it can't be just 3 kingdom servers against each other?

Edited February 29, 2020 by Wilczan

[Wargasm 1,927]

2 hours ago, Wilczan said:

They refused but also introduced civil war option, so people from same kingdom could declare war to each other, wich lead to situation that both fractions of MR fought between each other instead of focusing on enemy kingdoms.

 

This change should be reverted.

 

Also I do not really understand concept of Elevation, why it is needed anyway? Why it can't be just 3 kingdom servers against each other?

 

Because home servers are stupid.  The game has devolved (in population) so dramatically that there simply isn't a need for a four server PvP cluster.  Hell, we can't even populate ONE server these days with a decent number of players!

[Ekcin 2,407]

7 hours ago, Wargasm said:

New Elevation would have been fine if they would have allowed PMK's.  It was mentioned several times, the devs refused, and they saw the result....Failevation 3.0.

That might have been an option. But it was rather FailWurmPvPComm than FailEle3.

 

Ele 3 was announced and introduced as a temporary server to implement and test changes in PvP on Epic. That original (2.0) Elevation was unsustainable was consensus in long discussions. Many of the proposals of those discussions have been adopted and implemented, some were rejected, other probably postponed. The devs did a lot to let Ele 3 start.

 

From a mature and responsible community it could have been expected that they looked at least a bit beyond their narrow horizon of PvP brawls, and helped to evaluate the changes, point to flaws, appraise and discuss possible solutions, even in the ongoing server. Instead, they clashed a bit among one another, some certainly had some short lived PvP fun (which is what of course was to wish them to have), then ran away like spoiled brats discontent with the new toy breaking it.

 

I can say that I was deeply disappointed about that kind of conduct, and lost hope that PvP in Wurm might gain a renaissance.

 

Ok, with steam there is kind of a new situation for the new servers. Fresh players may come, and with some (very much) luck they may create a new healthy PvP community instead of the rotten old one.

[CreZ 284]

lol steam and healthy community in the same sentence...

 

Also as far as I've seen there is only going to be a pve for steam launch?

[Wargasm 1,927]

1 hour ago, Ekcin said:

mature and responsible

 

Such things are not allowed on PvP servers