Project Gorgon PvP

[combobreaker]

Possible to run a 2nd server with pvp enabled?

[Greyfyn]

This has been answered in so many places and so many ways....

In short, the direct answer remains: no, not at this time.

At one point the Devs said IF there were enough people at some point in the future, they would consider this option. Currently the server we have can hold 1500 people. We're not even close to that number, as 600+ has been the very peak concurrent players so far. So having a second server at this point would be premature. Two servers would be very... empty, to say the least.

Have you tried the pvp that exists in game? The game is not at all focused on PVP. The devs have stated that with limited resources, they would rather make a good pve game than attempt to create at best, mediocre pvp. If you understand how builds are created and how they can be changed, you might see how a good PvP experience might be hard to achieve. Citan has said this. If I get back to this, I will find the links to those quotes unless someone puts them here first.

[ShieldBreaker]

Actually, PvP isn't going to be a big part of the game. That's mostly about development scope: trying to balance things for both PvP and PvE is a tremendous job that usually doesn't work too well, even for teams with multi-million-dollar budgets. Since this game is mostly about cooperation and PvE, we decided to skip PvP.

So our PvP will always be pretty rudimentary. We'll make do very basic balancing work on it eventually, but don't expect elaborate events or rewards.

I do think there are some interesting niche opportunities for indie PvP MMOs, though, and I hope that more indie teams focus on them! -Eric

https://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/comments/8ee7e7/project_gorgon_a_fantasy_mmo_ama/

The above is the most recent answer from the Devs

other links:

https://forum.projectgorgon.com/showthread.php?311-PVP-Old-Forum-Discussion
http://wiki.projectgorgon.com/wiki/PvP

[Oxlazr]

I know PvP isn't a big part of Project Gorgon - and speaking as a player who cares very little about it, but I can't help but wonder why there isn't a simple toggle for it for players that want it?

In the ancient past, I've seen players permanently flagged for PvP, as well as potions that provide temporary flags. Sure, it'd be a messy free for all for concerned players, but it'd ultimately have no effect on the rest of us if they want to duke it out every so often - as long as they understand it's not a core part of the gameplay (perhaps some sort of prompt before turning it on?) and that inevitably it won't be even remotely balanced, I don't think there's any particular harm in letting players voluntarily allow themselves to be attacked by other players.

[Greyfyn]

Players can pvp now. Any time! In the pvp dungeon under the Mantis house. Or with the pvp punch. Anyone asking for a pvp venue, at least should try that out.

Get some friends in there and smoosh each other.

Boring... well yeah! Mostly because the combat isn't designed for pvp. Starting by saying, let them do it, inevitably leads to requests for more pvp. And changes to combat FOR pvp. That's a fairly predictable outcome. The decision to NOT do that was made long ago. Certainly there are more pressing issues to be dealt with in the development process.

We've been through this. We have the Dev's answer. Yah really gonna make them say it again? :confused:

[Silvonis]

If we were to add a PVP on/off option, people would assume that we were a PvEvP title and would post about wanting more PVP content and how PVP was insanely unbalanced, etc.

As we have said, Project: Gorgon is a PvE title and we don't have plans for additional PvP content and/or settings.

[Mikhaila]

The thing that I find so interesting is that no matter how many times the developers state their goals with the game, and that PVP is absolutely not one of them, people still argue the point.

[Justarius]

There are so, so, so many other issues I'd rather see the devs work on - optimization first, content second - that if they started spending resources on PvP I'd probably not be very thrilled, to put it mildly. Also, the game has always been sold (Reddit page, etc) as a game that is relatively unconcerned with PvP. It was one of the reasons I bought it.

[combobreaker]

Not a problem, just a consideration on my part. I thought this looked kinda everquesty and thought it might be neat to try out - but if you're gonna stick pvpers in a hole and bar thoughtful competition that's up to you but I thought there was some potential with classless progression. I wouldn't put it out, there's a lot to pvp and communication that can thwart things like aoe mezz, various cc, mind control, feign death, kos npc's, reputation building, etc. But it seems like you've all made up your mind which is totally cool. If you like fighting monster sims all day thats cool, it just seems like playing chess versus a computer and never playing against another person. Unless you travel over here or eat this pie for 5 min, etc.

TLDR; pvp builds community and a means to compete over progression rather than holding hands and waiting in line. :D

[Greyfyn]

Somehow understanding didn't happen here. The Dev chose to not do pvp for multiple reasons and has repeatedly described why, if you'll read those links Shield provided. This was NOT a player or community choice.

And our taking the time to explain this to you shows the strength of our community. Cooperation builds community just as well or better than a competitive based pvp format.

When players come armed to the forums with assumptions based on other game models, without examining what this game provides, I have to think they are seeking forum PvP. Hopefully you'll find that game you're looking for--it's not this one.

[Taledar]

I can't begin to imagine the nightmare that balancing a true classless, skill-based game like this for PvE & PvP would be for a small team. That would mean that either the quality of both game modes would suffer or the whole dynamic of the development team, process, etc. would need to drastically change.

I've never been that into PvP myself outside of the random dual for entertainment so I'm good with the focus remaining where it is.

As I've seen mentioned several times when this comes up, there are several high quality PvP games on the horizon to "scratch that itch" so to speak.

[Mikhaila]

Why buy a game with no PVP is you want PVP?

Why claim PVP makes great community in a game that has a great community?

Why persist and argue when you've been told No over and over?

[preechr]

I have never actually seen a healthy PvP community in a PvE game

What I have seen is constant demands for god-mode builds and incessant complaints about other classes and skills

Eventually this leads devs to make changes that create another FotM in PvP while wrecking PvE builds

PvP in MMOs is generally the art of finding/exploiting bugs until they are patched and then crying that your build got nerfed into oblivion

All this already exists in nearly every other MMO in the world, so why in the world does Project:Gorgon need it?

Smugly denigrating PvE in a PvE game's forum... interesting tactic

[ErDrick]

Why are people that have no interest in PvP always so vocal about making sure those that do can never get it? That is one thing I have never understood.

Change gruesome spooky punch to reduce damage by 90% instead of 50%, get rid of the snare effect and super jumping effect, that's about all you need to do to make it at least a little enjoyable. ( or add 30 minute PvP potions to a vendor with the same effects). This would have zero effect on the rest of the game, it wouldn't suddenly turn it into a PvPvE game.

Alternately you could just impose a zone-wide debuff on the PvP dungeon with this same amount of reduced damage. Don't tell people to go there "as is" because all it is is one shot kills.

Yea some tanky builds would be overpowered...who cares, at least you would get to fight each other for 10-20 seconds instead of 1 second.

Strictly voluntary with nothing to lose or gain from it....who the hell cares? Why go out of your way to not give people this outlet? And especially why go out of your way to post because you aren't personally interested in it? It doesn't seem like at least changing spooky punch as I have suggested would take much time, erase 2 effects and change a 5 to a 9.

Bonus: these threads would stop popping up every month.

EDIT to add this, I personally don't even care....I just don't see why you don't do that so they can have a little enjoyment and end the "why is there no pvp threads"

[preechr]

My comment was in response to this:


...If you like fighting monster sims all day thats cool, it just seems like playing chess versus a computer and never playing against another person. Unless you travel over here or eat this pie for 5 min, etc.

TLDR; pvp builds community and a means to compete over progression rather than holding hands and waiting in line. :D

From your point of view, you can look at PvP and say "What's the Harm?" but when you live to gank noobs you look at every other playstyle and say "What's the Point?"

A PvP dungeon can be useful because they WILL find exploits that can be patched, but if devs start trying to make changes in order to "balance" their little battles, it never ends

They will never be happy and they won't shut up lol

[ErDrick]

I wasn't calling out a specific post or even this thread, it is a recurrent theme I have always seen every time someone mentions PvP in any form.

EDit: deleted rest of post, said what I needed to say !

[Mikhaila]

ErDrick, your suggestion I think is fine. But I don't think that's what most of the pro-pvp guys want. Some of the knee jerk reaction is from knowing that any time spent on PVP is time taken from other things.

[Greyfyn]

Re: PvP

Regardless of what any particular player would like to see, the Devs have repeatedly stated this is a PVE game.

PvP isn't going to be a big thing here. That's kinda just it.

[Crissa]

Class balance matters even in PvE if you want players to be playing on the same field. The difference is the balance you're aiming at is so that players don't end up uninvited to groups or not able to complete solo content.

[Taledar]

Unless PG makes it big time and get a million subscribers.... ;)

It could happen.

Not sure I understand the logic...if a PvE game developed a large following why would they feel the need to shift focus to PvP?

I could understand if over the years after "launch" that some sort of PvP evolved - didn't something like that happened with LotRO?

[Celedor]

Class balance matters even in PvE if you want players to be playing on the same field. The difference is the balance you're aiming at is so that players don't end up uninvited to groups or not able to complete solo content.

Ah yes, reminds me of being a ranger in early EQ...

[preechr]

Balance in PvE only matters when dungeons are designed so that DPS only parties can complete them, which is thankfully not the direction P:G seems to be going

A lot of the developers working on MMOs these days don't seem to enjoy playing MMOs much less understand the basics of building them

A proper MMO dungeon should require the skills of healers, tanks and controllers to complete it

The goal of playing in a group should be to fulfill one's role in the group, and the goal of the group should be to complete the content together as a team

This requires commitment to one's role and team, and this is a fundamental aspect of the mmoRPG genre... Even though we are not all into "Role-Playing" to the extend of talking funny and pretending to actually BE a pig-wizard living in a fantasy land, we should at least pretend that the "lives" and goals of our teammates matter and that they are more than a means to an end

Fantasy mmoRPGs draw in players from other genres of game because they are generally more complex, their worlds more rich and interesting and because their communities are less caustic than other types of games that attract hyper-competitive and aggressive players

Unfortunately, a lot of these "gamers" don't adapt as well as they'd like to think they do, and they advocate changes to make their new game more like all those other games they are used to... and when developers acceed to those demands, the underlying mmoRPG gets lost

Having a rich and complex world that is true to its core fundamentals CAN attract millions of players, and sure, it would be awesome if that happened, but the internet is so littered with "MMOS" that abandoned their roots, simplified their games and Quality-of-Life'd themselves to death in hope of getting a piece of that sweet WoW pie that any mmoRPG that doesn't follow that path is expected to wither and die... though none of those wannabes ever last long and none have supplanted WoW despite many years of trying

Back to balance... Obviously, you can't "balance" all classes to do equal DPS, which is the trap most MMOs (especially those that focus on PvP) fall into, as healers, tanks and controllers simply should not be relied upon to deal damage

Though there could be a case made for balance among roles... That's also not an issue with properly designed content because any damage dealer that out aggros the tank will likely take more damage than the healer can handle and die, at which point he is no longer capable of fulfilling his role

As for the support roles, while there may well be optimal tank, heal and CC builds, as a predominantly support oriented player I can attest that we generally are not as competitive as those that prefer DD roles, and our sense of personal achievement comes more from focusing on the group capability we provide

So, while one DD class may be able to out DPS another in a theoretical sense if set up precisely to do that, the risk involved in doing so should make that an impractical and undesirable choice in group content

As for solo content and leveling, I believe the AoE nerf is the first step toward adding more risk to glass cannon builds, and its also important to remember that players are able to effectively min-max to level 80+ in a game that right now does not offer any content at that level

A mmoRPG that requires balancing is one where the content has not provided it, so before we call for balance, why don't we wait to see what the finished game gives us?

In the mean time, I think its important to remember that every skill brings something unique and (potentially) important to a group, so maybe we should focus on suggestions that build on those unique qualities rather than trying to figure out how to build every skill to accomplish the exact same
things

Oh yeah... this discussion was supposed to be about PvP... meh... still not a fan

[Mikhaila]

I think the chance of ever getting a millions players is small.


So sure, when we get a million players we can have a serious pvp discussion :)

And drop it until then.

[Leodane]

Meh, I think the whole tank/healer/dps role crap needs to die. Being pigeon-holed isn't fun. That's what makes me excited about PG so far, and you can cooperate well and devise your own roles and strategies without being pigeon-holed from the get-go.

I actually kinda like having clearly defined roles. Grouping in GW2 wasn't all that fun for this reason - it was just a race to pile on as much damage as possible. Having played a variety of MMOs over the last 20 years, I have enjoyed the ones where I had a defined role in the group more. I loved tanking in WoW and DDO. I loved being a cleric in EQ1 and EQ2. I like playing a support bard/ment in this, making sure songs and ment buffs are always running when it matters. I think this game does a good job of giving classes a group identity while also making most classes soloable through most content. That's a tough balance to strike.

Also, no thank you to PvP. I'd rather have 100% dev time spent on the PvE experience, and 100% of the player base dedicated to experiencing it. No illusions about PvP, please.

[preechr]

Meh, I think the whole tank/healer/dps role crap needs to die. Being pigeon-holed isn't fun. That's what makes me excited about PG so far, and you can cooperate well and devise your own roles and strategies without being pigeon-holed from the get-go.

The beauty of the classless setup in P:G is I can build for support in a dungeon group and use any setup I want to solo, so nobody is actually "pigeon-holed" per se

There's danger in building a game with no need for support classes, though... That's what leads to parties of only max DPS builds and anybody that built anything else was just wasting their time

Additionally, for choices to matter they need to have consequence, so if I choose to focus my build on dealing damage, I should be weakened in other aspects like durability, self-healing and CC, and P:G accomplishes that by limiting the amount of skills we can use at any given time, locking skill bonuses into gear based treasure effects, and grouping mobs together so that pulls are more than DPS alone can handle

Roles are what bring us cooperation and strategy... I really don't see where that exists in "Everybody run in and AoE everything down"

[Celedor]

I actually kinda like having clearly defined roles. Grouping in GW2 wasn't all that fun for this reason - it was just a race to pile on as much damage as possible. Having played a variety of MMOs over the last 20 years, I have enjoyed the ones where I had a defined role in the group more.

Although I'm sure most people will disagree with me, I actually saw the *need* for clearly defined roles as a good thing. In EQ, putting together a team took a bit of effort, but I thought it was part of the fun. Sometimes you weren't able to get the right types of classes, especially if restricting to only guild members, but then *meh* you went and did something else. And that is less likely to happen in PG anyway, since each character could have several possible builds.

Oh, and no to PvP.

[Crissa]

Meh, I think the whole tank/healer/dps role crap needs to die. Being pigeon-holed isn't fun. That's what makes me excited about PG so far, and you can cooperate well and devise your own roles and strategies without being pigeon-holed from the get-go.
Balance in PvE cannot exist separately from the 'E': Content. The content changes a group's need for any particular ability. If a type of damage or special ability is negated by the content, that damage or special ability doesn't 'exist' for that part of the content, and changes the balance.

Roles also are... Not required. If an encounter can be done with 5 defense, 5 healing, 5 attack - and one root, one mez, and one stun: Does it matter how those abilities are spread across the group? No. Each character could provide part of what's required. And in fact, usually the attack is a combination of all the characters.

...Although it matters how much control the group has over the opposing damage. Damage can be mitigated in many ways; it's just been 'simpler' to have one character mitigate the damage and control where it goes with 'armor' and 'taunt'. But it could be like many GW or FF battles where the mitigation is based upon dancing your character out of the way. Or spreading it across the team. Or using interrupts. Or using special armor or buffs across the team.

In PvP, tho, the 'content' is 'other players'. Which is a fluctuating pool, it's both more easy to develop - since the players do a good deal of the work - and more difficult - because as players come in and out of the pool, has balance been maintained? It's a nasty economics question, actually. If Greenberg is in the pool, does that mean deer are overpowered, or is Greenberg just really good at what he does? If he leaves, does that mean deer are now underpowered? If deer are overrepresented, then more players will invest in a strategy to beat deer, but players who lose to deer will complain that deer are overpowered - but they might just be overrepresented! That a class is under represented doesn't exactly mean it's not as powerful, but it does make balance look bad.

Quite a different question, indeed.

But balance is still needed, either way, lest players who choose - and let's face it, they chose this hours, days, months before they knew what it would be like - classes and skills which aren't 'balanced' and get discouraged.

[Crissa]

That's an interesting point of view. You explained it rather well!
Thanks!

It's a difficult subject to talk about because people have serious 'feels' about it. And that's good! But the language just... Isn't here yet. While MMOs are relatively young, we have to remember the multi-player games and join-in mechanics have a long history. We can learn from the experience of the first MUDs and chess ladders and even beach volley ball!

I was a analyst for MMOGchart about a decade ago, and I've played on some of the oldest MUDs and MMOs. I hate to toot my horn, since I can write very opaquely and rarely publish, but I have been writing about this subject for two decades. It'd be great if we were able to build a language like film and games in general have developed. We have to remember that just because something hasn't been done yet in MMOs doesn't mean it can't be. Just that it hasn't been figured out quite how and with what audience yet!

And that experimentation is why I like PG.

Something I do like about PG: You can kinda watch PvP. If there's ever more PvP, I'd love for there to be intentionally built a spectator ability. So we can see what's going on in the nitty gritty, even if it's behind what the players are seeing.