Unsustainable game design - PvE vs PvP

I get where you were goin with this.

In D2, I hardly touched pvp until I got to the point of being able to afford enigma's and pretty things in that range.

But it was also basically like the last thing I did in D2 before losing interest completely. It did give me some reason to continue to pve in between, but it also didn't have any real meaning either. It did keep me playing a bit longer though, even if there was no point in the end.

But the very nature of this game type is pve. Look at the struggles balancing pve, there's no way pvp would ever get close to balanced.

Also, games built with pvp in mind from the beginning typically have a certain dynamic, whether its the shooters, mobas, rts, etc. Even in MMO's it can be hit or miss.

I can't believe in tyool 2020 I'm still reading the opinions of people who think D2 was popular because of its PvP.

Because it was. D2 without PvP would have been a radically different game. More like PoE where a huge influx of players show up and then depart 2 weeks in.

PvE alone cannot sustain in a world full of P2P games.

"

Izrakhan wrote:

PvE alone cannot sustain in a world full of P2P games.

PoE is doing just fine.

I agree, in my opinion the best games are the ones that have both PvE and some PvP development in mind. GGG is 99.9% focused on the PvE aspect of this game (and has been forever) when 80% PvE 20% PvP development would be much much more beneficial for the game.

The pvp community is small because the game made it that way, if there was more attention to pvp then we would have a larger pvp community. It's really that simple.. Most people playing at the moment are PvE focused because the game has been only focusing on that. So these people that are saying "PoE is a pve game and it should stay that way" are narrow-minded and stuck in their ways (right now there are more conservative-leaning players with this mindset in our current environment). Just because all the focus has been on pve does not mean things cannot change. Change takes risks but is highly rewarding if done right. PoE could use some fundamental changes imo.

Introducing more pvp development would be a huge plus, even if it can't be balanced perfectly it CAN still be made to be more enjoyable. It would start drawing in players from other genres, and player retention would improve drastically, among many many other benefits.

Check out the pvp discussions thread about this topic, maybe GGG or someone will hear us one day and take acton.

https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2678819

"

yamface wrote:

If you put in no effort into a product, expect nobody to buy it.

"

Izrakhan wrote:

Because it was. D2 without PvP would have been a radically different game. More like PoE where a huge influx of players show up and then depart 2 weeks in.

PvE alone cannot sustain in a world full of P2P games.

I have to completely disagree, 100%. I have zero hard numbers, only anecdotal evidence, but the reason myself and ALL of my friends played for so long was PvE; New ladder, baal runs, uber runs ect. We almost never touched pvp.

I'm well aware some people enjoyed PvP, but I just have seen zero evidence of PvP actually being the reason D2 was so replayable.

And PoE is evidence of just that. It's not only lasted for so many years, it's continued to grow and grow. On an overwhelming basis of PvE.

"

Bleu42 wrote:

I'm well aware some people enjoyed PvP, but I just have seen zero evidence of PvP actually being the reason D2 was so replayable.

In some servers the market was driven by pvp, all those runs to find items to sold to the pvp crowd. People would just create an MF char to gear pvp chars or sell items to pvp players.

"

SeCKSEgai wrote:

I get where you were goin with this.

In D2, I hardly touched pvp until I got to the point of being able to afford enigma's and pretty things in that range.

But it was also basically like the last thing I did in D2 before losing interest completely. It did give me some reason to continue to pve in between, but it also didn't have any real meaning either. It did keep me playing a bit longer though, even if there was no point in the end.

But the very nature of this game type is pve. Look at the struggles balancing pve, there's no way pvp would ever get close to balanced.

Also, games built with pvp in mind from the beginning typically have a certain dynamic, whether its the shooters, mobas, rts, etc. Even in MMO's it can be hit or miss.

THis is where GGG could improve if they tried but they don t want to bother.
In d2 you had community rules with servers dedicated to pvp. GGG could create an option for a cutthroat private league for example or give more options into private league (like disallowing certain overpowered items to drops).

But there is 0 tool for pvp community leagues

I'm still lost in this debate.

I understand people wanting PvP, both for the social aspect and for the challenges. But to call it "unsustainable"?

Fact 1: GGG pushes out A LOT of content each quarter, more than any other developer I know.

Fact 2: "Most" people are more than happy to come back each league. While some demand MORE monsters, MORE content and a changed META, a lot of players would return just for the ladder reset, like they did in D2.

Fact 3: Claiming D2 survived for as long as it did because of PvP, is a rather "unsustainable claim". I know for a fact that me and the friends I played with, returned solely for PvE.

Fact 4: PoE keeps growing and has been for 7 years. Sure, some leagues are better than others, some leagues will have better numbers than others. But all "modern" leagues have one thing in common: No focus on PvP.

Unsustainable? Nah.