PvP vs PvE

[The Sad Panda 113]

I'm the biggest carebear, even in video games. I don't shoot unless shot at (except at NW airfield, I think most everyone agrees that's a free-fire zone, for obvious reasons), will share supplies with anyone who doesn't immediately shoot at me, and avoids PvP situations as best as possible to begin with.

That being said, if the PvP aspect of the game were to be removed on even a few servers, I probably wouldn't log into the game anymore. The infected aren't what makes the game hard, they're more of an annoyance in their current state. It's the human factor that's truly dangerous. Every can of beans you take, every new weapon you can find without being shot is a PvP victory in a sense. Not only does it help you survive the Environment (and believe me, the Environment is out to get you), but just by FINDING these supplies and assets you're taking them away from other players. I can't tell you how many times I've been run out of a supermarket right after looting it by a crazed gunman. I hope he wasn't starving though, because there's no beans to be found in there.

If PvP was completely removed and the fear of player killings was no longer present....really, what's the point?

You can sprint through town like a madman, through open fields without a care in the world. Infected will die to one body shot from an Enfield, what's the point of hunting military grade weaponry? How about camo? that's out the window too, seeing as how zombies are computer controlled, you could look like a moving rock, but they'll still find you if you make too much noise.

While we're on the subject though, you mentioned safe-zones, but I think we've got different definitions of that word. Do i want a sanctuary type city where no PvP is allowed or enemies will spawn (like in WoW) ... No....

Do I want to be able to use the barbed wire, sandbags, tank-traps, and tents that I find in order to construct a base out of? Yes. But as the game has proven, fortifications are useless in the eyes of ghosters, who think it's cute to server hop to another server, move into your base's location, and then relog behind the defenses. So in a sense, yes, i want a type of safe-zone. It's not actually safe, but it would be something to prevent ghosters from bypassing any player made defenses.

[nicraM 137]

I say, add PvE but do not make safe zones. That shit is fucking stupid. The great thing about this game is the fact you can get jacked anywhere, at anytime.

You need us. Without me and people that play like me, you would get bored. And, if you don't then you my "friend," are a dolt.

[JohnnyDerp 4]

I was under the impression that shooting zombies was pve. Go play some themepark if you want to farm shiny gear and have a glorified chat room. 99% of the fun is wondering if someone is in that treeline as you attempt to cross that field, hearing gunfire in the distance, finding loaded tents, etc. Finding that downed chopper and wondering who's watching you through a scope. The risk is what makes this game interesting.

[Ucalchi 0]

I learned how to play with PVP so it makes no difference. But it would be nice for a PVE server option. However if something like that were to be implemented, then there should be no cross over of gear and items saved between PVE only and other servers. What ever obtained in PVE only servers would not be saved to the pvp servers/hive. It would be good for beginners and those who want to submerge themselfs into game play and not just a pvp fest. Then again I am huge into pvp and believe in the new stand alone zones should be able to be occupied and some benefit be reaped from that. Either that or some benefit from surviving longer in game...meh what do I know?!

[xximrtwoixx 104]

There would be NO difference in game play from zombies or loot in anyway, except the lack of pvp. Players could still steal from you, players could take your cars, however they couldn't sit ontop of a hill in Elektro and shoot you five minutes after you spawned just because they're bored. No one in that thread wanted anything different, they will find their own forms of entertainment and there is no reason what so ever why both sides can't enjoy the game. None at all.

Yea because players that want a new game mode to avoid conflict will not complain about not being able to stop people from trolling them, stealing their gear, chopper, etc.

If players aren't able to impose their will/defend themselves on other players then game mechanics have to be developed to stop this otherwise its just crap. Why would they waste *any* dev time to deliver such a crappy experiance as what you say you want?

Saying you only want a switch is BS, you want a different experiance and a quality experiance isn't delivered with a switch so stop lying and accept/say that you want a different game. People will tell you to GTFO, yea but at least you're giving your true opinion.

I don't know why people assume that there will even be an option for PVE or people to manipulate the experiance/game themselves. The whole point of the game is to expose you to a hostile environment where everything is against you, ie survival. If you look at what Rocket has said he wants this to be the same for everyone and he knows the best way to do this is create central servers, hell he's talked about EVE countless times. A set up like this costs money but he has already raised a shit load of capital with BI through the mod so its there, more money for people buying ALPHA/Beta of stand alone and he'll be able to set up enough infrastructure to support central servers.

You will all be forced to endure the pain that DAYZ is, one central server with un-balanced non linear difficulty. Set standards for tags, view distance, FP/3P, Damage, etc.

You will not be able to escape via AltF4/Disconnect, you will die, you will bitch, and you will come back for more.

Or you will go play some standardized crap that has tried to ride the coat-tails of Dayz, were your doing the same thing over and over again with no risk. If your a good boy you get a cookie and you only have to deal with violence if you choose to.

[nicraM 137]

I love it, care bears complain about getting murdered but get a rush out of it.

Why do you complain, then?

Cause you are assholes, that is why.

I really wish ESRB would enforce the ratings. I wish your parents would as well. Then, myself and real players would have a good experience, minus the kiddies.

[Travst 8]

To expand on my earlier post, I've always seen conflict between PvPers and those who don't PvP. Invariably, it boils down to each group feeling that their needs are not being met because resources are being spent on the other group. The best PvP games are "pure" PvP. In my opinion, of course.

As an example, if anyone played SWTOR (what a bore), there was always a huge catfight going on between the two groups. Even the PvPers were divided between the Wow-gear-progression group and the run-what-you-brung group of people who hate gear progression.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Travst

[CLewis 31]

A couple of things:

1) Question 2 and 3 are the same question. And question 6 is more or less the same as 2 and 3 too.

2) Adding extra things in the PvE does not seem to be what people want. Infact I seems like they want the same as PvP'ers, but with FF off.

3) Q.4 -Leaving the game because of letting people have some fun their way?. You can't have fun in a PvP server knowing other people are having fun in a PvE server? Are you kidding me? EDIT: (This point was writen with the assumtion that PvP and PvE servers was on different hives)

Very biased poll IMO.

Edit: I didn't vote because of my first point.

Edited August 9, 2012 by CLewis

[The Sad Panda 113]

3) Q.4 -Leaving the game because of letting people have some fun their way?. You can't have fun in a PvP server knowing other people are having fun in a PvE server? Are you kidding me?

Yea, it's a bit offensive that players who managed to get their gear on a PvP server, surviving firefights, sniper ambushes, satchel traps, and ofc backpack thieves, would be on the same gear level as someone who could just run at full tilt through NW airfield screaming HURR DURRRPPYYY DUURRRR at the top of their lungs while spraying the L85 AWS they found at a completely uncontested heli crash with no consequence whatsoever.

The only remotely acceptable way to have a PvE server would be to eliminate food spawns completely (must hunt for food), and have the God-tier weapons be the winchester and enfield. After all you'd only be fighting zombies, what more could you need?

[sausagekingofchicago 4711]

If they manage to make zombies something worth being afraid of then maybe PVE would have a purpose. As the game is right now, what's the point? The zombies are pretty weak and their numbers rarely pose a challenge. I'm excited to see what they pull off with the standalone.

[bankst3r 45]

Imo everone of the devs should concentrate on DayZ and not divide their resources on DayZ the PVP version and DayZ the PVE version. I am still quite new to DayZ and I have had my experience with Zeds, hackers and KOS players. And yeah, I lost everytime. DayZ is intended as a pure PVP game (not the same as the vanilla WoW PVP servers). The greatest threat isn't the Zeds, it's other survivors. The lesser danger of the Zeds will change with the stand alone release because they will have much more possibilities with direct access to the underlying engine. And I also think that the current only KOS playstyle will change with the stand alone. There might be options for the friendlies and the murderers.

Following the announcement of the stand alone Rocket gave an interview and said that he wants different kind of Zeds. Each one posing a uniqe danger to the player. I could imagine that he isn't happy with the "man-mode" (players running through the cities with a Zed herd behind them, entering buildings and offing them with the right hand and texting with the left) and will take measures to prevent that playstyle because this isn't really something a human would do in that scenario or at least survive without sweating blood and tears.

There will also be specialisation for the players thus making you more valueable alive than dead for other players. Of course this won't prevent KOS. If someone wants to KOS he will do it. If someone wants to snipe noobs he will do it.

Rocket has said, he will give us the world and we have to decide what we want to do with or in it. This doesn't mean that we can say how the world should behave around us. We have to adapt to our surroundings. It's our decision if we want to hide and hunt in the woods or if we want to sit on a hill all day long looking through the scope of a sniper rifle or if we want to go around and give medical help to other players as The Wasteland Medics are doing and so on.

I seriously hope DayZ won't take WoW's path. It was fun, nice and shiny at first but Blizzard killed PVP as it should be. First of all it's mostly PVE, even on PVP servers. You have to raid boss monsters to get better gear. Then they introduced PVP Warzones thus killing the PVP everywhere else. Besides, the game is definitely not friendly to casual players.

WoW's goal is to get better gear (through PvE). DayZ's goal is to survive (this means against Zeds, environment and other players).

So, definitely no to PVE. And definitely no to demands from the community to change the game mechanics etc. because I trust in rocket's vision. This is his world, we just have to survive in it.

Edited August 9, 2012 by bankst3r

[Klutzen 0]

Why not add PVE? I would sure love to blast some retards in the head that are fighting a rare boss or some shit.

[cfnz 15]

I torn on this. Personally I have no interest in PvP in Dayz, the survival element of the game is far more compelling. However I think the fact that people are/can be a threat very much adds to the experience and atmosphere in the game.

I do hope the the game and community matures to the point where both can co-exist but if not then I think the best option is to provide choice, cater to both and let the players choose how they want to play the game.

[CLewis 31]

Yea, it's a bit offensive that players who managed to get their gear on a PvP server, surviving firefights, sniper ambushes, satchel traps, and ofc backpack thieves, would be on the same gear level as someone who could just run at full tilt through NW airfield screaming HURR DURRRPPYYY DUURRRR at the top of their lungs while spraying the L85 AWS they found at a completely uncontested heli crash with no consequence whatsoever.

The only remotely acceptable way to have a PvE server would be to eliminate food spawns completely (must hunt for food), and have the God-tier weapons be the winchester and enfield. After all you'd only be fighting zombies, what more could you need?

My comment was writen with the assumtion that PvP and PvE servers was on different hives. I thought that was mentioned in the OP, but must have thought of a different post when writing this.

My bad...

[rocky46 16]

PvE servers and safe zones would destroy the game. In Rocket's own words:

This is a PvP game; stop trying to undermine that. You will not get PvE servers; there will be no compromise on this. Go and play something else.

when i first started playing this i raged and was like "this is so unfair, players are dicks" but how my outlook has changed, the fact that you have to look out for players is what gives dayz its edge so i have to agree with you, zombies n my opinion are more of a tedious annoyance than an actual threat, things i dont like... 2 well armed players shoot me in electro when im fresh off the coast with nothing not that i care much since i have nothing to lose, but hunting players just for fun is pointless and lame, and is typical of immature trolls who do it because they think youll cry and rage, if im well armed and i get killed then fair game, NO to PVE, DONT NERF PVP

[batflaps 20]

there is quite a lack of PvE in this game tbh so why is there even an argument about this? The PvE element of it is pretty much gearing up. Then it would be to kill zombies and I mean come on how long can you do that for? That would get really boring unless they add "boss zombies" but then it would be too "wowy"... PvP is the end game in this lets face it. :)

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

Well said Bankster, Im glad some people get it.

Barron, I expected nothing but idiocy from you well done lol , im not trying to trick anyone, if anything Id have though you would be pleased to see 30% of people feel like you do then you can start saying "look he has to add PVE servers for 30% more money".

CLewis - im sorry you feel the poll is biased , I tried to cover all the bases. What questions would you have added to make it unbiased.

[haviv[3rdid] 57]

No PvE. In ArmA2 you can do whatever you want, even spawn little ponies. But DayZ is supposed to be about a certain emotional experience that you can't get from other games.

[Zera_Grey 28]

I don't think there should be a pve sever. thats coming from someone who always plays pve servers in other games. it is just not dayz plus its not like there are level difference like other games. everyone is on a even playing its the gear that makes a difference. if there weren't hackers and tons of hacked gear in game the pvp would work better. oh and if people stop being a-holes those are the issues this game is not a pve type it just won't work as well.

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

It's my belief that the game needs all types of people playing in the same environment.

If they allow PVE servers those players will all go to them and the unsafe servers will only have people who are interested in killing each other.

We then lose the dynamic that makes dayz so great.

You can't have a social experiment with elements of society missing.

[Siberian (DayZ) 527]

It's my belief that the game needs all types of people playing in the same environment.

If they allow PVE servers those players will all go to them and the unsafe servers will only have people who are interested in killing each other.

We then lose the dynamic that makes dayz so great.

You can't have a social experiment with elements of society missing.

so you admit you want the non-PVP lambs to stick around, so your not surrounded by only players who actualy want to PVP ???

yea i thought so..

basicly that boils down to wanting easy targets to hunt.. why would you NOT want to be surrounded only by other players who wanted to PVP ??? oh right, cuz then there would actualy be a field of competition, instead of easy-mode...

[CLewis 31]

Well said Bankster, Im glad some people get it.

Barron, I expected nothing but idiocy from you well done lol , im not trying to trick anyone, if anything Id have though you would be pleased to see 30% of people feel like you do then you can start saying "look he has to add PVE servers for 30% more money".

CLewis - im sorry you feel the poll is biased , I tried to cover all the bases. What questions would you have added to make it unbiased.

I wouldn't add more questions. I would remove some of the answers, and make the one q two-part. I think the poll would give a more "fair" result that way.

One Q. should be PvE servers, yes or no. The other Q. should be would you leave if ....

It looks to me like the "yes to PvE" votes are divided in three different answers instead of one.

[Siberian (DayZ) 527]

I wouldn't add more questions. I would remove some of the answers, and make the one q two-part. I think the poll would give a more "fair" result that way.

One Q. should be PvE servers, yes or no. The other Q. should be would you leave if ....

It looks to me like the "yes to PvE" votes are divided in three different answers instead of one.

\

well said..

theres is plenty of grey area in the intial poll for sure..im a total PVE player and i almost couldnt find a answer that suited me right

[Myth`~ 46]

No to 'safe zones', yes to 'more options beside; A. KILL or B. GET KILLED or C. COLLECT BEANS AND MOUNTAIN DEW. THEN DIE 28 DAYS LATER.

[haviv[3rdid] 57]

so you admit you want the non-PVP lambs to stick around, so your not surrounded by only players who actualy want to PVP ???

They won't be so easy once they realize they will have to live with the fact there's no escape from pvp if they want to complete their objectives.