DEVELOPERS, Read This!: PvP & PvE statistics, TeamKilling & Learning from History | Forums

[JiuJitsuMMA]

Thanks, Hapnos, I corrected my post about DarkAge of Camelot (from my friends who loved to play on the PvP Free-for-All server & all the media about Dark Age's PvP focus, it seemed that it was mostly a PvP MMO & reading it's Wiki page)

[JerginsSoft]

"MMOs that were mandatory PvP-only like Dark Age of Camelot died out because not enough players (the 10%-20% of players that like PvP are dwarfed by the 80%-90% that seek PvE) "

Sorry mate, plenty of PvE in that game. Devs killed that one with changes people didn't like, or asked for. Same goes for SWG Lord rest its soul.

I'm pouring a 40 on the ground for SWG... one of the most brilliant mmorpg's ever created. You'll be missed, homey.

And, whether you think this game is an rpg or not, it has enough rpg elements in it to create some pretty overwhelming balance issues. Add to that that the OP's point is 100% correct about pve servers, and you have got yourself a recipe for obscurity, if you base your entire endgame on PvP.

Even Age of Conan, who really DID market itself as having heavy pvp elements, had the good sense to offer way more pve servers than open pvp servers. I actually had the extreme displeasure of accidentally creating a character on a pvp server, and when i first entered an area that allowed open pvp, i immediately knew what I did... because I spawned into the zone dead... with a high level player camping a boat that you came in on... for no reason...

Did the same with EQ, only that was not an accident. Only servers that were up were pve ones, for some reason, so I said, why not? I regretted it immediately, there, too.

This is why I've been advocating for a pve map revamp so hard in this game. You just can't force people to engage in this activity and expect it to be fine. Its been proven that unless you provide a platform that offers pvp with a balanced element to it, it is not going to go well. Its the #1 reason why pvp servers are so much less popular than pve ones.

And I've played both mmorpg's and fps's for almost DECADES now. Trust me, I know of what I speak.

[iuki.]

If only this game had DZ as the PvE grind area so soloers/small teams could happily farm in peace.

And then a separate PvP mode I could join where it's maybe 'conquest' with two teams duking it out for control of NYC.

"Agents vs Rogues"

Have it's own progression system; skins, badges, pvp gears, name tags, ranks, etc too.

Also normalize the PvP damage so it's nice and balanced so it would come down to coordination, skill, and hard work rather than gear.

Instead you have gank pvp based on gear, the lowest form of PvP out there.

Meh?

[ImAxely]

If only this game had DZ as the PvE grind area so soloers/small teams could happily farm in peace.

And then a separate PvP mode I could join where it's maybe 'conquest' with two teams duking it out for control of NYC.

"Agents vs Rogues"

Have it's own progression system; skins, badges, pvp gears, name tags, ranks, etc too.

Also normalize the PvP damage so it's nice and balanced so it would come down to coordination, skill, and hard work rather than gear.

Instead you have gank pvp based on gear, the lowest form of PvP out there.

Meh?

how about we switch around dark zone = PVE, outside of dark zone, player will be visible and its gonna be PVP, even in missions/safehouses.

[JiuJitsuMMA]

If only this game had DZ as the PvE grind area so soloers/small teams could happily farm in peace.

And then a separate PvP mode I could join where it's maybe 'conquest' with two teams duking it out for control of NYC.

"Agents vs Rogues"

Have it's own progression system; skins, badges, pvp gears, name tags, ranks, etc too.

Also normalize the PvP damage so it's nice and balanced so it would come down to coordination, skill, and hard work rather than gear.

Instead you have gank pvp based on gear, the lowest form of PvP out there.

Meh?

That's another great suggestion.. that's what Guild Wars 1 & 2, TERA, Blade & Soul does successfully .. (they sold millions or have millions of players worldwide)

[JiuJitsuMMA]

in SWTOR... all pvp servers are dead most people plays on PVE severs..and they are packed-

i have posted about this 2 weeks ago. are you are so right.

THIS is not PVP this is PK and noting to do with skill at all.
there is to much damge vs Hit points ,,, you die before you can hit the keybord, even if you have 80k hitpoints.. you just die.. SWG made the same mistake back in pvp ..

in SWG people had like 100k dps 120k hitpoints and people duel all the time and pvp all the time then came a update and people had 200k dps and 60k hit points PVP DIED under a WEEK---

and i PVP ALL DAY .... IF ONLY IF i dont loss EXP or LEVEL.. why the hell do i want to pvp if i loss EXP ?


PS DAOC2 is coming ...HELL YEALL!!........ DaoC die to wow thats about it.. noting more

Most players would play more PvP & less frustration if there was no xp loss on death

I noticed that TheDivision has XP loss on PvP death.. just like Everquest (less than 100,000 players now) PvP did & death in BlackDesertOnline (400,000 players) does too (they are designed by hardcore PvPers -this is a huge source of debate by their players --

the most successful games that sell millions of copies & still have millions of players like Diablo, Destiny, Borderlands, Warcraft, TERA, Guild Wars, etc do NOT give an XP loss penalty on death in PvP .. the fact that The Division has this to 'increase tension' --most players play the game to relax, have fun.. they don't want 'more tension' or 'hey, there goes 30 mins of xp')

--I'm surpised The Division is copying old hardcore MMO games that have xp loss on death that have playerbases of under 500,000 --it's like the designers are hardcore PvPers who are appealing to a much smaller niche market .. is that their goal?

[iuki.]

how about we switch around dark zone = PVE, outside of dark zone, player will be visible and its gonna be PVP, even in missions/safehouses.

Indeed, listen to this guy. Hell, don't change DZ; make every where PvP.

Then the people left can all uninstall and leave this mess to this guy and his ilk; keep em occupied here while we go play OW instead.

Great idea. Stellar. Standing ovation. +1

GotY solution 2016

[DarienStegosaur]

As a software developer who loves The Division, Borderlands, GuildWars, Destiny, Diablo-type games,
if
you do the industry research in MMOs, you'll find that about 80% to 90% of players choose to play on PvE (with optional PvP limited only to teams/factions with no team-killing) servers
while
10% to 20% of players choose to play on PvP-only servers ..
this
statistic holds true for every MMO game from Everquest to World of Warcraft, TERA, Asheron's Call, Aion, Lineage II, Blade & Soul, etc ..

Note TheDivision experienced a 90% drop in players --and statistics show that less than about 5% of players even read or post on the forums so the forums ARE NOT THE REASON why players stopped playing TheDivsion as moderator DigitalHitMan erroneosuly
wrote that the toxicity in the forums is
"The biggest problem right now is the community toxicity, the haves and have-not's. People are upset because some players who, may or may not have, dedicated the time to rank up and grind out gear pre-patch are overbearing to those who dont have the time to spare." ---NOT TRUE
when
even less than 5% of the players read nor post in the forums

The real reason 90% of players quit The Division is the math mentioned above & explained below:

Even in competitive sports games, there is no betrayal nor backstabbing --ie, someone on your same football/soccer, basketball team can't go 'rogue' & can't tackle you nor start stealing the ball & scoring points for the other side

MMOs that were mandatory PvP like Dark Age of Camelot died out because not enough players (the 10%-20% of players that like PvP are dwarfed by the 80%-90% that seek PvE)
--this
is one of the reasons why The Division is losing 80%-90% of it's playerbase (besides the bugs & lack of post-30 content & insufficient loot/rewards that don't give players a good sense of reward)

When the first PvP games came out such as BattleField, Quake, Call of Duty, Unreal Tournament, etc , players on the same team could kill each other & 'grief' (throw grenades, shoot team-mates in the back,etc)
--this lead to such an uproar
that the games quickly added a flag that made killing team-mates impossible

Is this the problem with The Division because the act of betrayal/team-killing (which was depicted as a selling-point in The Divison trailer) adds tension & drama to the game?

. but
in practice, most players hate it when they are
stabbed in the back by someone they thought was a team-mate or neutral player ..
or 'ganked' or 'griefed' --in sports, imagine how popular a game would be if someone on the same team goes 'rogue' in your football league could tackle you, steal the ball & score points for the enemy team?

but to PvP players,
that's just being 'carebear' (but statistics show that most of the PvE players actually play equalized PvP games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, Halo, etc --they just prefer a
'fair fight' as a true test of skill instead of mostly gear & backstabbing)

Thus, MMOs added OPTIONAL PvP in factions/battlegrounds only PvP such
special arenas/battlegrounds,
Realm vs Realm (Horde vs. Alliance in WoW, etc) or Factions/Guild vs. Guild or switchable PvP-on/off flags
(such as Blade & Soul's PvP choice by donning different faction costumes)
with
easily identifiable enemy factions so that there can be no team-killing & enemy factions are easily identified so that they can't be backstabbed

The DarkZone is different in that it is a PvP area but there's no recognizable player enemy faction until AFTER they go 'rogue' & shoot/kill you in a few seconds

Solutions from what previous successful MMOs (Guild Wars, Warcraft, Everquest, etc) came up with:

1) PvP flag that can be turned on or off before entering the battleground .. those who have it turned on can kill or be killed by other players .. those who have it turned off can't kill nor kill other players..
statistically,
80%-90% of people will keep their PvP flag turned off most of the time or only 10%-20% of the playerbase will enter a PvP area if they can be killed by other players

2) PvP battlegrounds with enemy teams/factions/guilds: You choose a team/faction/guild before joing the battleground --every same faction/guild member you see is an ally
&
every opposite faction you see is an enemy --no backstabbing --
only enemy factions/guilds can kill you & you can only kill enemy factions/guilds -
-this
is what the most successful games do..
from Call of Duty to Halo to Destiny, World of Warcraft,
Call of Duty, Battlefield,
TERA, etc -
-there
is no faction/team-killing & you can't leave your faction/team to kill them either (switching factions can only be done outside the battleground or it takes several minutes to change where you can't do anything so as to prevent betrayal-backstabbing) ..



I think the developers like the selling point of the added tension of betrayal & PKing ..but that's catering to the 10%-20% PvP market .. is that enough for The Division to thrive or survive? I hope so

Interesting statistics. Would you mind posting some sources?

[JiuJitsuMMA]

Interesting statistics. Would you mind posting some sources?

Sure..for the 'less than 5% of players post or read the forums' statistic, the number of views, members & posters is displayed on the forums --which is several thousand, which is less than 5% (more like 1%) of the 5-6 million players that bought the game (a software developer for Asheron's Call first pointed this out years ago & holds true for almost all games)

there were/are games that were like the DarkZone with where you could be killed by anyone at anytime outside of safezones on their PvP-servers such as Everquest had about 24+ PvE servers ..
but only 4 servers were PvP-servers
--and those 4 were combined later into just 1 PvP server because they saw massive population drops over time
(currently, there are about 23+ PvE servers but just 1 PvP server)
..source http://strategywiki.org/wiki/EverQuest/Servers ..it's down to under 100,000 players

Asheron's Call also had PvP servers where you could be killed by anyone at anytime (like the Darkzone) but with no safe zones. I played Asheron's extensively (no longer online) started off with about 20 PvE servers, about 4 PvP servers..
which
dwindled down to 5 PvE servers & 1 PvP server before I left (no longer online --I can't find the articles on the server population anymore (100,000+ players) but you could see the number of PvE & PvP servers everytime you logged in
..and it was always about a 5 to 8 PvE servers to 1 or 2 PvP servers ratio
.. it's dead like Shadowfall, Darkfall, Dark Age Camelot

Games that do PvP 'right' have factions vs. factions:

Unlike the Division's Darkzone, StarWars The Old Republic MMO only allows Factions vs Factions PvP on it's PvP servers & only in open-areas & warzones & enemy players are clearly marked as enemy factions (no betrayal or ganking from same faction) --
and even limited to that, PvE servers outnumber PvP servers by 2:1 (PvE servers still have warzones for Faction vs. Faction battles)
Source: http://www.torstatus.net/

World of Warcraft also only has Factions vs. Factions PvP --on it's PvE servers, only in Battlegrounds/arena areas .. on PvP servers, PvP is on only in 'contested' areas & battlegrounds areas but any threat is is clearly marked as enemy faction unlike the Division's Dark Zone (no betrayal or ganking from same factions) ..
even with this 'more fair' option, the PvE servers outnumber PvP by 2:1
Source: http://www.warcraftrealms.com/quickstats.php
&
https://realmpop.com/us.html

Other games such as Guild Wars 1 & 2, Blade & Soul, etc that have millions of players don't have separate PvP servers because they have only PvE servers with optional PvP in factions vs factions, arenas, battlegrounds, etc

[SpazzticZeal]

Corrected Update:
Hapmos,
yes, Dark Age of Camelot had PvE on it's servers but it's servers at the begining were heavily advertised PvP-only where you could be killed at any time in most areas (talk about added tension & drama like the Dark Zone, LOL) because it was designed by people who love to PvP

(information from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Age_of_Camelot --'the Classic' servers had PvP & my friends who played DAoC who loved to PvP on the Free-for-All servers)

--ie, what I mean is that Dark Age of Camelot had mandatory PvP-only servers (ie, it had servers were PvP where players could kill other players at any time in most areas

--Mythic added PvE servers with PvP limited to only certain areas --and
ironically, the PvE servers became the MOST popular server.. )

That wiki page is so full of bad info. DAoC ( I was there from day 1) always had PvE with Ream vs. Realm on it's original servers. They added ONE, ONE free for all all zone PvP server. DAoC was a huge success by a tiny developer. It lasted a long time, it hardly died out.