Unified PvE and PvP Playstyles Never Work

Rainwhisper

From Rich Lambert on the livestream: "We want one cohesive game. We want you to be able to understand how combat works in PvE, and have that translate into PvP...It's not a completely different experience."

I have played nearly every MMO since Ultima Online, and several of the text MUD's before that. One thing I've observed in over twenty years of online gaming is that the goal of creating a unified PvE and PvP experience always comes up, and never works.

I wish developers would let go of that particular Holy Grail.

PvE players want predictable fight mechanics based on an established sets of skills/spells/formula. This grows out of the RPG identity of MMORPG's, where ultimately it's a combination of math and player choices, based on established patterns, that determines success.

PvP players want unpredictable fight mechanics that require them to memorize a number of rock-paper-scissors combinations for beating specific opponents. They want the risk and challenge of possibly hugely imbalanced fights, in either direction. The playstyle is radically different, and grows more out of the MMO identity of an MMORPG, where online, action/combat games are based primarily on player skill and team co-ordination.

While I recognize that end-game, group PvE content adds elements of close co-operation and memorization, ultimately the playstyle is still different from that of PvP, particularly in terms of the unpredictability of the opposing players' actions, and the "gotcha" combinations of attacks they will choose. In addition, end-game PvE encounters are carefully-tuned for balance, something impossible in PvP because the developers generally cannot control the number of players involved, or their skill level.

Consequently, the experience of fighting another player will never feel like the experience of fighting an AI-controlled opponent. PvP players will spend hours carefully selecting combinations of armor, skills, and attacks - then practicing them - to ensure deadly combinations against various classes and builds. PvE players will focus on choosing the skills that either match their roleplaying vision for their character, or optimize their ability to accomplish specific tasks, or seem like a fun way to play for a while, knowing that the stakes aren't terribly high.

Neither playstyle is "better," but trying to establish a system that allows a player to seamlessly move between the two is never going to happen. It will always feel like two completely different games.

At some level, I think ZOS understands this, since as a PvE player, I can completely ignore armor designed for protection from critical strikes. I wish their entire development philosophy, however, reflected this reality.

BuddyAces

Thank you for psting this a wee bit more elogantly than I ever have. I've been saying this for a long time now. Very nicely put together but at this point it's either ego or stupidity that's keeping them in this mindset. It's not fair to their player base for pve or pvp.

Anlaemar

Great post.

ZOS listens, no matter what people say. Whether they act on what we say is a completely different story. The game is getting harder and harder to balance with every DLC because they're trying to keep PvP and PvE one big happy family.

My advice is to stick with it. They'll open their eyes eventually.

Imvoracious

I played a game called Asherons call for 16 years on Darktide which was an open world pvp/pve server. All pvp geared characters could complete end game pve content. It can be achieved but it takes time, lots of tweaking and lots of trial and error.

kongkim

Its the same game. not two games. I play both PvE and PvP and enjoy both. I like my build and i like how it works.

Lysette

Well, it works in EVE online for example - PvE and PvP excists both in this game, even the whole universe is PvP from the very beginning, not even newbies are outside of it. But this works, because being an outlaw is not without consequences, there are different security levels with more or less consequences for an aggressor. This does not mean that one would be safe anywhere, once undocked, one is not, one can be killed everywhere - but dependent on the security status of the system this has more or less harsh consequences for the aggressor. I like that concept a lot actually, but then again, I am playing EVE since 2008 and am used to it - PvP everywhere is possible even with PvE players - but it takes a system like in EVE online.

Rainwhisper

Imvoracious wrote: »

I played a game called Asherons call for 16 years on Darktide which was an open world pvp/pve server. All pvp geared characters could complete end game pve content. It can be achieved but it takes time, lots of tweaking and lots of trial and error.

I played Asheron's Call for several years, quite succesfully, and would never have been successful on Darktide. Darktide was a server of PvP'ers who also took part in PvE content, but that doesn't mean a single playstyle made a character viable in both. For a high-level, well-geared character, PvE-content was often trivial in AC1.

If anything, I think Darktide proves my point that PvP and PvE gameplay are completely different, which is why so many AC players avoided Darktide like the plague.

In addition, the AC skill system was uniquely open and flexible, and one of the few where you could create a character who was completely incapable of surviving, if you didn't know what you were doing. I don't think it applies here.

Rainwhisper

Lysette wrote: »

...PvP everywhere is possible even with PvE players - but it takes a system like in EVE online.

That would be an entirely different game, and one I would have no interest in playing.

What you're talking about, though, is open-world PvP, which is a different subject entirely.

Coilbox

Do you think ZOS believe their philosophy about these two environments being able to balance and put together and still work? Or do you think ZOS agrees with the vast majority of the player base that suggest treating these two game modes separately, but they have gone too far to recognise their mistake, and keep smashing their heads against the wall?

Rainwhisper

kongkim wrote: »

Its the same game. not two games. I play both PvE and PvP and enjoy both. I like my build and i like how it works.

So you use the same armor, the same skills, and the same strategies when fighting another player that you use when fighting an overland, AI-controlled monster/NPC?

Docmandu

Splitting PvE and PvP balance is the worst idea one could ever implement.

Enough games prove it is possible to have both and not have to resort to lame stuff like needing gear/skills specific to 1 play style.

Rainwhisper

Docmandu wrote: »

Splitting PvE and PvP balance is the worst idea one could ever implement.

Enough games prove it is possible to have both and not have to resort to lame stuff like needing gear/skills specific to 1 play style.

I don't PvP, but dont' ESO PvP players already use different armor, skills, and champion point allocations from PvE players?

kongkim

Rainwhisper wrote: »

kongkim wrote: »

Its the same game. not two games. I play both PvE and PvP and enjoy both. I like my build and i like how it works.

So you use the same armor, the same skills, and the same strategies when fighting another player that you use when fighting an overland, AI-controlled monster/NPC?

Sometime i change a skill or two just to get some stun/snere. But other then that yes. Im very casual player and don't mind max/min. and play for fun. And the most players in the game are casual players.
And its not the casual players you find most of on the forum. So yah im glad they dont listen to the forum and im glad i don't have to swap items and skills every time i do something different.

Coilbox

Docmandu wrote: »

Splitting PvE and PvP balance is the worst idea one could ever implement.

Enough games prove it is possible to have both and not have to resort to lame stuff like needing gear/skills specific to 1 play style.

It's not the same fighting against a player with 20k hp than fighting a PVE Boss with 5 mill hp but no recovery and closed mechanics... right?
If im not interested at all on fighting another players, cause it's not what i enjoy or what i look for on this game? why should I suffer the consequences of the balances aimed to that kind of game? It's not fair. So no, it's not the worst idea at all to separate these 2 environments.

Lysette

Rainwhisper wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

...PvP everywhere is possible even with PvE players - but it takes a system like in EVE online.

That would be an entirely different game, and one I would have no interest in playing.

What you're talking about, though, is open-world PvP, which is a different subject entirely.

It is actually safer than you might think yet - imagine you are in a high security area - you get attacked by a player and get killed - the law enforcers would come and kill the aggressor and he could be looted by whomever. Do you think there would be many attacking you in this case, when the aggressor would loose his equipment?- that is how it is in high security space in EVE, of course there is ganking and one should be aware of it, but as it has consequences for the aggressor, it is not that often.

The law enforcers are unavoidable in EVE and they will kill the aggressor to 100% in high security space - but how long it takes them to show up, differs by security level of the system. So if you as the attacked player can last long enough, you will not be killed and have even a chance to loot the aggressor once law enforcement has killed him - so you can even create bait setups, where you try to get someone to ambush you - last long enough - and loot him, once he got killed by law enforcement.

A system like that is actually fun to play in - even as a mainly PvE oriented player - I have done both, PvP and PvE in EVE.

kongkim

Coilbox wrote: »

Docmandu wrote: »

Splitting PvE and PvP balance is the worst idea one could ever implement.

Enough games prove it is possible to have both and not have to resort to lame stuff like needing gear/skills specific to 1 play style.

It's not the same fighting against a player with 20k hp than fighting a PVE Boss with 5 mill hp but no recovery and closed mechanics... right?
If im not interested at all on fighting another players, cause it's not what i enjoy or what i look for on this game? why should I suffer the consequences of the balances aimed to that kind of game? It's not fair. So no, it's not the worst idea at all to separate these 2 environments.

Because its one game. and whatever you like it or not pvp is part of the game.

Rainwhisper

kongkim wrote: »

Because its one game. and whatever you like it or not pvp is part of the game.

PvP is an option in the game. It is not a necessary part of it.

kongkim

Rainwhisper wrote: »

kongkim wrote: »

Because its one game. and whatever you like it or not pvp is part of the game.

PvP is an option in the game. It is not a necessary part of it.

That is true. But its still a part of the game. I play both, and i like it to work the same.

mikejezz

Rainwhisper wrote: »

kongkim wrote: »

Because its one game. and whatever you like it or not pvp is part of the game.

PvP is an option in the game. It is not a necessary part of it.

"Can you PvP in the game?"

"Yes and no. It's an option, but there's no PvP in it".

Lysette

mikejezz wrote: »

Rainwhisper wrote: »

kongkim wrote: »

Because its one game. and whatever you like it or not pvp is part of the game.

PvP is an option in the game. It is not a necessary part of it.

"Can you PvP in the game?"

"Yes and no. It's an option, but there's no PvP in it".

Well, the concept of it is not really player vs. player - but faction vs. faction - this is often forgotten with it.

Coilbox

kongkim wrote: »

Coilbox wrote: »

Docmandu wrote: »

Splitting PvE and PvP balance is the worst idea one could ever implement.

Enough games prove it is possible to have both and not have to resort to lame stuff like needing gear/skills specific to 1 play style.

It's not the same fighting against a player with 20k hp than fighting a PVE Boss with 5 mill hp but no recovery and closed mechanics... right?
If im not interested at all on fighting another players, cause it's not what i enjoy or what i look for on this game? why should I suffer the consequences of the balances aimed to that kind of game? It's not fair. So no, it's not the worst idea at all to separate these 2 environments.

Because its one game. and whatever you like it or not pvp is part of the game.

It's not part of it since if i dont want to participate i just dont take part in it. It wont affect my progression in the game at all, and i can enjoy the other 90% of it which is not pvp.
As the OP just mentioned, is just an option.

coop500

Please, enough with the PVP in open world PVE zones, that thread was already closed, we don't need another

Rainwhisper

coop500 wrote: »

Please, enough with the PVP in open world PVE zones, that thread was already closed, we don't need another

To be clear, I am not talking about open-world PvP. I am talking about the mythical unicorn of a single playstyle for both PvP and PvE, something that was mentioned in the most recent livestream as part of the underlying ESO development philosophy (see my opening quote, above).

Zvorgin

Rainwhisper wrote: »

kongkim wrote: »

Its the same game. not two games. I play both PvE and PvP and enjoy both. I like my build and i like how it works.

So you use the same armor, the same skills, and the same strategies when fighting another player that you use when fighting an overland, AI-controlled monster/NPC?

PvP gear and equipment translates quite well to vMA. PvP gear and builds can easily translate to PvE, they just aren't optimized because the have built in utility for survivability. An optimized PvE build is pretty bad in PvP for lacking that surivivability so maybe the issue is PvE doesn't require enough of player builds?

coop500

Rainwhisper wrote: »

coop500 wrote: »

Please, enough with the PVP in open world PVE zones, that thread was already closed, we don't need another

To be clear, I am not talking about open-world PvP. I am talking about the mythical unicorn of a single playstyle for both PvP and PvE, something that was mentioned in the most recent livestream as part of the underlying ESO development philosophy (see my opening quote, above).

I wasn't really meaning you, I was meaning the people wishing to turn this thread into that one.

Zvorgin

Coilbox wrote: »

kongkim wrote: »

Coilbox wrote: »

Docmandu wrote: »

Splitting PvE and PvP balance is the worst idea one could ever implement.

Enough games prove it is possible to have both and not have to resort to lame stuff like needing gear/skills specific to 1 play style.

It's not the same fighting against a player with 20k hp than fighting a PVE Boss with 5 mill hp but no recovery and closed mechanics... right?
If im not interested at all on fighting another players, cause it's not what i enjoy or what i look for on this game? why should I suffer the consequences of the balances aimed to that kind of game? It's not fair. So no, it's not the worst idea at all to separate these 2 environments.

Because its one game. and whatever you like it or not pvp is part of the game.

It's not part of it since if i dont want to participate i just dont take part in it. It wont affect my progression in the game at all, and i can enjoy the other 90% of it which is not pvp.
As the OP just mentioned, is just an option.

Nice to have the option, a pvp'er has to do PvE whether they want to or not. The rebalancing issues Zos is doing are geared at PvE as much as PvP because they don't want players solo'ing vet group content and having builds that don't factor in survivability and utility.

Rainwhisper

Zvorgin wrote: »

Nice to have the option, a pvp'er has to do PvE whether they want to or not.

That makes sense, though, considering the genre of the game. It's an RPG, not Overwatch.

Coilbox

Zvorgin wrote: »

Rainwhisper wrote: »

kongkim wrote: »

Its the same game. not two games. I play both PvE and PvP and enjoy both. I like my build and i like how it works.

So you use the same armor, the same skills, and the same strategies when fighting another player that you use when fighting an overland, AI-controlled monster/NPC?

PvP gear and equipment translates quite well to vMA. PvP gear and builds can easily translate to PvE, they just aren't optimized because the have built in utility for survivability. An optimized PvE build is pretty bad in PvP for lacking that surivivability so maybe the issue is PvE doesn't require enough of player builds?

PVE is more based on cooperative builds, i lack of tanky skills, thats why we run with a tank... If i dont have much healing skills, well.. I have a healer that heals the team.

Try to taunt a real player... does it work? Of course no... Because the nature of the fights are completely different, so is the playstyle, so are the skills, and so should the environments be. Stop f*cking one side trying to balance the other. They can live perfectly fine separately being different options.

Egonieser

Imvoracious wrote: »

I played a game called Asherons call for 16 years on Darktide which was an open world pvp/pve server. All pvp geared characters could complete end game pve content. It can be achieved but it takes time, lots of tweaking and lots of trial and error.

The game has to be built from the ground up using this formula - ESO never did. While they do focus on PvP more than other traditional MMO's, PvP was never the main focus. From this stems the neverending argument of PvP vs PvE, the huge imbalances between the two and division in playerbase as both sides feel the opposite is encroaching on their territory and trying to enforce their playstyle an habits onto them.

Let's face it - as long as both remain together - it will never be balanced and fun for either side. They have to be separated.

LoTRO learnt this a few years into their lifespan by introducing PvP specific sets, buffs, skills and stats that only function in PvP and are next to useless in PvE and vice versa.. And it worked for the most part. It gave a resemblance of balance without sacrificing other part of the spectrum (PvE) while also giving PvP a form of progression and growth that could be done in their native environment - not repeatedly farming PvE dungeons or repeatables.

joaaocaampos

The problem is when PvP nerfs affect PvE. After all, PvE is rotation and mechanics. PvP is when you're noob and facing good players, and say that his class deserves nerf.

In my opinion, they have to work the central point of each play style (PvE and PvP). In most cases, the damage is what determines the PvE. If the four classes are balanced in PvE, but one of them is being OP in PvP, they should not reduce the damage of this class. Survival is not the central point of PvE. So, in general, this OP class should have its survival reduced. This is just an example.

I see no problem in their philosophy. However, as I said, they have to review the strengths and weaknesses of PvP / PvE in the class perspective. In general, PvE balancing should be the most important.

STEVIL

Rainwhisper wrote: »

From Rich Lambert on the livestream: "We want one cohesive game. We want you to be able to understand how combat works in PvE, and have that translate into PvP...It's not a completely different experience."

I have played nearly every MMO since Ultima Online, and several of the text MUD's before that. One thing I've observed in over twenty years of online gaming is that the goal of creating a unified PvE and PvP experience always comes up, and never works.

I wish developers would let go of that particular Holy Grail.

PvE players want predictable fight mechanics based on an established sets of skills/spells/formula. This grows out of the RPG identity of MMORPG's, where ultimately it's a combination of math and player choices, based on established patterns, that determines success.

PvP players want unpredictable fight mechanics that require them to memorize a number of rock-paper-scissors combinations for beating specific opponents. They want the risk and challenge of possibly hugely imbalanced fights, in either direction. The playstyle is radically different, and grows more out of the MMO identity of an MMORPG, where online, action/combat games are based primarily on player skill and team co-ordination.

While I recognize that end-game, group PvE content adds elements of close co-operation and memorization, ultimately the playstyle is still different from that of PvP, particularly in terms of the unpredictability of the opposing players' actions, and the "gotcha" combinations of attacks they will choose. In addition, end-game PvE encounters are carefully-tuned for balance, something impossible in PvP because the developers generally cannot control the number of players involved, or their skill level.

Consequently, the experience of fighting another player will never feel like the experience of fighting an AI-controlled opponent. PvP players will spend hours carefully selecting combinations of armor, skills, and attacks - then practicing them - to ensure deadly combinations against various classes and builds. PvE players will focus on choosing the skills that either match their roleplaying vision for their character, or optimize their ability to accomplish specific tasks, or seem like a fun way to play for a while, knowing that the stakes aren't terribly high.

Neither playstyle is "better," but trying to establish a system that allows a player to seamlessly move between the two is never going to happen. It will always feel like two completely different games.

At some level, I think ZOS understands this, since as a PvE player, I can completely ignore armor designed for protection from critical strikes. I wish their entire development philosophy, however, reflected this reality.

While the playstyle may be different, the mechanics are not.
While some capabilities and tactics are better for one than the other or may be needed more in one than the other the functions are mostly the same.

What they can do and obviously are trying to do is provide enough options so that whichever way you want to go you have enough tools to do the job. You have impen traits that help in pvp but other traits that help in pve.

Every time the issue of separating the two comes up i dont focus on the play but on the support and development and one of them made sure to touch on it yesterday. After the blather about playstyles, they started talking about how if it splits every change has to be done and tested and evaluated two-three-four more times than now.

Splitting pve and pvp means splitting the code streams and as they grow more and more and more divergent the effort required quadruples for everything. You will move towards three to four times as long and three to four times as many bugs... and eventually some bean counter will sit down and look at the least prifitable code stream and say "if we cut that out what does that do to our overall bottom line..."

Split development in a shared product is almost always sooner or later an appealing notion but also almost always a bad idea.


Cut the releases per year in half, double the bugs per release and also see a lot more blandifying of added stuff... that is what split code would give us until the bean counter raised his hand.