Economy, PvP, and Potential

[Dawnblade]

Okay, I've read this thread back and forth, and I have a few things to say.

Firstly, I used to be in the "anti-PvP" crowd, simply because I wouldn't and don't participate in PvP. However, when you view this issue through an OBJECTIVE lens, not so selfishly focused, but rather focused on what is best for Turbine and for the game as a whole, I think you may find that Joe here is right.

Tons of people LOVE PvP, some of my best friends from the game do, and some have moved on because DDO doesn't offer a quality PvP service in this product. I do believe that dedicating some development effort to this will help to gather, and retain, NEW subscriptions. That is what we are looking for here. If you people want to see any serious increase in game growth or development effort, we have to have more subscribers.

Try looking at it from the business person's perspective, and not your own as a gamer with tastes. PvP as currently implemented has no effect on the game. PvP as Joe asked it be implemented would, again, ONLY have a positive effect on the subscriber base.

I am amazed that so many people can't see this.

We, the "anti-pvp" crow, are amazed that "you people" can't see the fact that redesigning and redirecting the focus of this game at this point would alienate a lot (possible most) of the current player base. They would most likely lose a chunk of their loyal, long time subscribers for a chance of grabbing some of the pvp crowd from other games. This would not be a all win situation. One would be foolish to think that some current players would not leave if pvp suddenly became a big part of this game. I'm not so certain that people would leave their current pvp games to try a brand new pvp system which will still be years behind it's competition.

Anyone who has ever played a MMO that has pvp high on the priority list will tell you that pvp affects the entire game; even those who don't engage in it. Classes and skills will be changed and "rebalanced" because of pvp. Let's take an extreme example here: Guild Wars. PVP is the main focus of that game. If you check most of the nerfs or rebalancing issues that have been fixed on that game were purely from a pvp perspective. Many skills were made useless in pve because they were nerfed to rebalance pvp; classes were made useless on pve because of nerfs to balance them in pve.

Like Dr.Who and I have been trying to tell you: working on pvp would create a vicious cycle where you give pvpers one thing and they will want more and more subsequently reducing their time spent in pve and changing the current core of this game. There is a chance that they might attract some subscribers because of pvp. But it's possible that they would lose even more. This game should attract DDO fans, not FPS fans. Contrary to what some here might believe, D&D is not about pvp. Sure the DM might allow it, but then again, the DM might allow anything he wants. It is his group and it only affects his group. Most people I know did not do pvp in PnP. I know I would be ****ed if the rogue in my PnP group backstabbed and killed my character because he was in the mood for some PVP action.

But you guys are pretty persistent on using fear to call for changes. Maybe you should run for president

[Aspenor]

But you guys are pretty persistent on using fear to call for changes. Maybe you should run for president

Re-read your post. Pot -> Kettle.

[Uska]

Yup, like I said, something is lacking in DDO compared to the other, more popular games...PvP is one glaring difference.



*sigh* Another person that feels the less players we have the better.

NO maybe just someone else like me that would leave over such changes and we would lose more long term players then we would gain

[Uska]

OP, I believe you have some interesting points, and have stated them very clearly for the most part. However, you are also, sir, somewhat hostile in your responses to those with differing opinions. That hostility, sir, makes it more difficult not to filter your logical points through the EMOTION centers of my brain.

The opinion(s) that need to be changed belong to Turbine. I don't think it is necessary for those of us on these forums, peers be we all, to make each other look/feel small. Play nice with each other. Just a suggestion.

The following is purely my own opinion: I think that for the most part debate on these forums for proposed future changes/improvements to this game are a waste of time. In my time with this game I have not seen significant willingness from the developers to implement consumer feedback. Case in point, who here wanted monks added before druids?

On the monk vs druid point I kind of wanted monks first because I knew they would be eaiser and wanted them to take plenty of time to do druids right.

[Uska]

Thank you for your kind words about my clericing. However you have made it so I will post again.

PvP doesn't benefit me. It will never benefit me. Then again, though I realize this is my opinion, however, I remember Struggling in the Crossroads foreve rhoping I wouldn't die by the hands of Alliance over and over cuz had no money to repair my items or worse, the quest giver is killed and now I have to wait 10 minurtes for him to respawn then it starts again. I understand private instances, too, so things like this wouldn't happen.

Here is what I really hate about PvP. You all going to deny this, but I see it happening. We get the PvP. The masses rejoice!! However, because you do not get anything for it (or it is junk) all you get is bragging rights. Sad, really, after all the devs spent alot of time and money into it. All the new players are mad cuz its nothing like PvP over at XYZ game and start complaining on the forums.

So a reward system is revamped and now it is more viable to play PvP. The masses again, rejoice!! More people join the game and Turbine has more money now from his red-headed bastard child than from LotRO. Revenge is so sweet. So I log in, not interested at all with PvP. Bunch of players in the harbor talking smack over general. They are waiting to go into whatever Pvp area they want. LFMs a tonne of PvP, wit ha few questers in between. Now it takes forever to get a party for TS together, meanwhile, I being goaded by random players into going into a PvP with them. I answer no, their tone gets nasty. I report them, well, we know how that really works.

Meanwhile, Plat farmers everywhere, with general spam going up every 5 minutes in the high traffic PvP loading areas. LAG, ensues. Money can be made from guys who don't want to take the time and effort to "grind." Even if XP isn't awarded for PvP, the fast level service that many of the farmers offer will be popular.

Oh. wait!! It's another SERVER. your server stays exactly like it is. Well, according to this thread, there would be a tonne of people in a mass exodus to the PvP server. Now the normal old severs will yet again shrink.

And the money aspect. It all comes down to how much Turbine is banking. If everyone goes to PvP, either servers or within the current servers, and it attracts more people, thus making more money, they are going to spend more time and money on PvP. Oh, I'm sure the original plan to use slayer quests as PvP areas was a good start, now the majority masses want more. I'm not talking about the old players who want PvP. We are talking about all new players who, rightly, came from AoC WOW and others to DDO. Now the Devs spend more time and money on the PvP aspects of DDO. That;s where the money is, right? Gotta get more customers. Nothing wrong about expanding the game, right? Grinding is so dull, PvP is the wave that all MMOs are riding on, so it's gotta work, right?

Now the original game is in all aspects, dead. Oh, might put a quest or two in for items, but refining the PvP areas are far more important. The few of us left on the original server, or worse on the same server with our friends only to find out all the do is PvP. They already had the characters capped, so they are ahead of the game. SOme of Permadeath people will be around, and the Rpers, and the ones who liked playing the game for what it was, a game. Finally, you'll start to see them go away, one by one. THe abuse from the PvP players both on servers and/or in the forums got to a point that they could not handle. this was not the game they joined up for. Hey, that's progress. Gotta kill a few trees.

Will it happen? I bet my car on it. Why? Cuz we are humans.

Well, that's not going to happen, you are just a doomsayer. PvP will help DDO. You forget the crowd that you will be attracting. Not NEW people, like new to MMO people, but people from EQ, AoC, WoW, etc. who have certain expectations about PvP, and for Turbine to keep them here, they cannot afford to do it half done. Going all the way will not make it optional. PvP in WoW is "optional" but I am still effected by it. The Economy is effected by it. New content will be affected by it. The forums will be effected by it. Why? Because you change the mechanics of what is DDO. You would have to, in order for PvP to work effectivaly in DDO. THe reasons we stayed or kept coming back.

If PvP is put on any larger scale than what it is now, it will kill the spirit of the game. Which was party questing. Which is the spirit of D&D. when Gary created it, it wsn't for all his friends to beat up on each other, but work as a team and beat up on the enemy.

Old fashioned? Maybe. But, according to the OP's vast opinion of me, I know nothing about economics, so my opinion doesn't matter. So I guess it won't matter when you all win and get your day as PvPers, me and my husband's 60 dollars amonth will not be there to fund further ego stroking of the young and foolish. And all of you who wanted it that are in the game right now, and probably would have been honest and fair and non abusive of the system (meaning Bet, and the others) are stuck with all riff raff from other games who don't even know who Arlos is: have fun. YOu were right, it help Turbine make more money and in return put more money into the game.

In the wrong place.

Then again, I know nothing about economics and I should read a book before even bothering to read this thread. After all, I'm a stupid troll who can't read.

So, go ahead and complain about Shroud grinders, or Reaver grinders. I do. GO ahead and complain about me, I find it amusing 5 pages in, I am still being quoted. Mock my vocabulary if you want. Only one person has actually clarified his post with me in a PM, and that I thank you. Will I change your mind about it? No, don't think so. Nor will you change mine. But the OP asked for opinions, and here's mine. Again. However, it may have not enough large words or elaborate meaning for the OP.

I love you Doc My kind of player and even though I know you dont like 4E would happy if our crowds could play pnp together.

[DoctorWhofan]

We, the "anti-pvp" crow, are amazed that "you people" can't see the fact that redesigning and redirecting the focus of this game at this point would alienate a lot (possible most) of the current player base. They would most likely lose a chunk of their loyal, long time subscribers for a chance of grabbing some of the pvp crowd from other games. This would not be a all win situation. One would be foolish to think that some current players would not leave if pvp suddenly became a big part of this game. I'm not so certain that people would leave their current pvp games to try a brand new pvp system which will still be years behind it's competition.

Anyone who has ever played a MMO that has pvp high on the priority list will tell you that pvp affects the entire game; even those who don't engage in it. Classes and skills will be changed and "rebalanced" because of pvp. Let's take an extreme example here: Guild Wars. PVP is the main focus of that game. If you check most of the nerfs or rebalancing issues that have been fixed on that game were purely from a pvp perspective. Many skills were made useless in pve because they were nerfed to rebalance pvp; classes were made useless on pve because of nerfs to balance them in pve.

Like Dr.Who and I have been trying to tell you: working on pvp would create a vicious cycle where you give pvpers one thing and they will want more and more subsequently reducing their time spent in pve and changing the current core of this game. There is a chance that they might attract some subscribers because of pvp. But it's possible that they would lose even more. This game should attract DDO fans, not FPS fans. Contrary to what some here might believe, D&D is not about pvp. Sure the DM might allow it, but then again, the DM might allow anything he wants. It is his group and it only affects his group. Most people I know did not do pvp in PnP. I know I would be ****ed if the rogue in my PnP group backstabbed and killed my character because he was in the mood for some PVP action.

But you guys are pretty persistent on using fear to call for changes. Maybe you should run for president

The only thing i would say you are wrong about is the player numbers. I know Turbine would do a good job to make an unique PvP experince and there is alot of players on many games that are bored. The OP was right on this, the numbers would skyrocket. I also remember logging into WoW and noticing that the PvP, PVE PVP servers FAR outnumberedd the RP servers and were far more crowded. Yeah. the crowds will come andto make the hordes happy, Turbine would have to change aspects of the game univerersal. Changes in PvP will effect the normal questing game.

To resay what you said: PvP, not concept itself but the crowd it will actract, will destroy the "spirit" of this game. Not the posters who are so into having PvP onthe forums. Most of them have played the game. It's the new people, seeing a new shiny PvP monster that will turn it into a situation that we have been saying. For they will be the majority voice then.

I love you Doc My kind of player and even though I know you dont like 4E would happy if our crowds could play pnp together.

4E is horrid. Never said I would agree on everything everybody said. However, there are alot of people who I would love to play PnP or even DDO with because I think it would be fun.

[Raithe]

Contrary to what some here might believe, D&D is not about pvp.

Very few statements can be so entirely false and poorly termed at the same time. PvP is a term reserved for online gaming, to distinguish player-inspired gameplay from computerized environments. Also, since both interplayer and player-DM competition is fully supported by every D&D game before DDO came along, D&D is about PvP, as it is completely supported.

A similar statement would be "D&D is not about lockpicking," which would result in the 2-sided reply, "Yes, it is, and what are you smoking that made you say that?"

Sure the DM might allow it,...

And by DM you should include Strategic Simulations, Inc., the creators of the original Pool of Radiance computer game and it's sequals. You should include Bioware and Black Isle Studios, the creators of the Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Neverwinter Nights series of games. You should include TSR, the former owners of the D&D label, and the people who probably told those development companies how the games should work.

Most people I know did not do pvp in PnP. I know I would be ****ed if the rogue in my PnP group backstabbed and killed my character because he was in the mood for some PVP action.

You are in the minority. Many a PnP group has had a rogue who has attempted to conceal his alignment and motives and later reek havoc on the group. If you actually would get angry as a player at another player roleplaying a character in an entirely congruent manner to the character's statistics and class... well, your opinion about D&D topics is probably not going to be held in much esteem.

[DoctorWhofan]

Very few statements can be so entirely false and poorly termed at the same time. PvP is a term reserved for online gaming, to distinguish player-inspired gameplay from computerized environments. Also, since both interplayer and player-DM competition is fully supported by every D&D game before DDO came along, D&D is about PvP, as it is completely supported.



And by DM you should include Strategic Simulations, Inc., the creators of the original Pool of Radiance computer game and it's sequals. You should include Bioware and Black Isle Studios, the creators of the Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Neverwinter Nights series of games. You should include TSR, the former owners of the D&D label, and the people who probably told those development companies how the games should work.



You are in the minority. Many a PnP group has had a rogue who has attempted to conceal his alignment and motives and later reek havoc on the group. If you actually would get angry as a player at another player roleplaying a character in an entirely congruent manner to the character's statistics and class... well, your opinion about D&D topics is probably not going to be held in much esteem.

I don't remember PvP in Icewind Dale. I remember Friendly fire, which is adifferent subject, but not PvP. Likewise for Dark Alliances games.

The meaning I get isn't the rogue stealing from the party, I mean standing around a town and suddenly the Rogue picks a fight with the fighter for no reason, just becuase he's bored. If it isn't part the character's build, why should the rogue do that? Andwill the DM award XP or a prize because he stabbed the fighter in the face and killed him? Evil characters and plot points aside, If I did that, people would yell at me. Now the cleric has to raise them, and all the pain you go through with that proccess. UNLESS IT IS A PLOT POINT, this wiould slow the party down. And the friend who fighter just died from a particular good sneak attack would be angry. The friend who played the rogue would be bragging, but then find out they kicked him off the team. Then he would be angry.

And the whole PnP went to hell in a hand basket. DDO isn't PnP, I know, but it does capture one of most important parts of PnP: group partying. Working together as a team. Team ethics. PvP doesn't have that to a degree that DDO has at thistime.

And, no, she isn't a minority. And she has alot of good things to say and is respected for them.

[Andora]

Very few statements can be so entirely false and poorly termed at the same time. PvP is a term reserved for online gaming, to distinguish player-inspired gameplay from computerized environments. Also, since both interplayer and player-DM competition is fully supported by every D&D game before DDO came along, D&D is about PvP, as it is completely supported.

A similar statement would be "D&D is not about lockpicking," which would result in the 2-sided reply, "Yes, it is, and what are you smoking that made you say that?"



And by DM you should include Strategic Simulations, Inc., the creators of the original Pool of Radiance computer game and it's sequals. You should include Bioware and Black Isle Studios, the creators of the Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Neverwinter Nights series of games. You should include TSR, the former owners of the D&D label, and the people who probably told those development companies how the games should work.



You are in the minority. Many a PnP group has had a rogue who has attempted to conceal his alignment and motives and later reek havoc on the group. If you actually would get angry as a player at another player roleplaying a character in an entirely congruent manner to the character's statistics and class... well, your opinion about D&D topics is probably not going to be held in much esteem.

You sir are talking age difference. We ( my husbad and I ) started playing in 1979 and group players did not do such things. Our characters may not have been all sunshine and roses but we knew that we needed to deal with each others in a manner that kept the spirit of team play. It was not until about 1984 or 85 that the trend for throw away characters and do what you want as an individual hit the tables. For me it was a turning point and with work and kids it was easy to walk away from something that had filled my life so much.

It would be the same here. I pay to play for my entertainment not anyone else's. I am not an npc. On one hand I do not oppose PVP if it means it stays the hell away from me. On the other, open PVP would be the end of the road for me.

[Raithe]

You sir are talking age difference. We ( my husbad and I ) started playing in 1979 and group players did not do such things.

I am unsure of what qualifications would allow you to make such a generalization. My older brother was playing D&D in 1979 and even I don't know how his groups played out. It only takes a few exceptions to your statement here to make it not only false, but also misleading.

Our characters may not have been all sunshine and roses but we knew that we needed to deal with each others in a manner that kept the spirit of team play.

Gameplay in a PvP zone is as much about choosing to behave in a cooperative way as any other. Gameplay in a PvP-free zone does not guarantee that you will choose to deal with others in a manner that kept the spirit of team play. For all I know, you'll try to kill steal everything and hide behind the caster after you draw archer aggro (examples taken from actual gameplay).

On the other, open PVP would be the end of the road for me.

As a lack of options has already been the end of the road for me. And about 60,000 others. I'm just here to help those who have lost their way understand what D&D is about.

[Dawnblade]

The only thing i would say you are wrong about is the player numbers. I know Turbine would do a good job to make an unique PvP experince and there is alot of players on many games that are bored. The OP was right on this, the numbers would skyrocket. I also remember logging into WoW and noticing that the PvP, PVE PVP servers FAR outnumberedd the RP servers and were far more crowded. Yeah. the crowds will come andto make the hordes happy, Turbine would have to change aspects of the game univerersal. Changes in PvP will effect the normal questing game.

PVPers will always be more present then RPers in MMOs that's an unfortunate reality. Although were there really RP servers in WoW? i can't remember, it's been a while. Furthermore, warcraft was not a rpg, so it's not surprising that the numbers of rpers were so small. Whether numbers would increase or not if pvp was redesigned or improved no one can say for sure until it's been implemented. I could see it going both ways.

Very few statements can be so entirely false and poorly termed at the same time. PvP is a term reserved for online gaming, to distinguish player-inspired gameplay from computerized environments. Also, since both interplayer and player-DM competition is fully supported by every D&D game before DDO came along, D&D is about PvP, as it is completely supported.

And by DM you should include Strategic Simulations, Inc., the creators of the original Pool of Radiance computer game and it's sequals. You should include Bioware and Black Isle Studios, the creators of the Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Neverwinter Nights series of games. You should include TSR, the former owners of the D&D label, and the people who probably told those development companies how the games should work.

You are in the minority. Many a PnP group has had a rogue who has attempted to conceal his alignment and motives and later reek havoc on the group. If you actually would get angry as a player at another player roleplaying a character in an entirely congruent manner to the character's statistics and class... well, your opinion about D&D topics is probably not going to be held in much esteem.

I'm not about to discuss who the minority is in this case because there's no way to prove it. Internet message boards showing pvp in pnp don't prove anything. You really think everyone who plays pnp go on those boards? There are people all over the world who play pnp d&d and lots of them don't go to visit forums.

Those games you mentioned might have allowed players to confront each other, but they didn't necessarily encourage it. Sure you could kill your group during a quest (or whatever you want to call it) but then good luck finishing it.

I don't remember TSR giving emphazis to player conflict in their books. Most DMs I've seen were hesitant to allow evil aligned PCs in their campaigns. I played D&D to develop my characters and RP with them creating an epic hero. I would not play with someone who continually attacked and killed my characters. Like I said, DMs might create a session based on it for fun, but you can keep a campaign going with players killing each other.

Re-read your post. Pot -> Kettle.

I'm not the one crying doom to get what I want. I'm saying that things a fine the way they are and that changing them will most likely not be beneficial and will upset the current player base. People are saying DDO will die without pvp. That's just silly. I'm saying if pvp became a bigger part of the game some of the non-pvper would leave and be replaced with some pvpers which would promote further changing of the game.

[DoctorWhofan]

I

As a lack of options has already been the end of the road for me. And about 60,000 others. I'm just here to help those who have lost their way understand what D&D is about.

Funny, we were thinking the same thing. I have been playing PnP for 25+ years and Andora has been playing a long time too, you only mentioned your older brother. Seriously, I have never heard of PvP style game in PnP. Never read about it in Dragon magazine, heard my friends talk about it, or seen one played at a convention. So from MY view, you are wrong in that aspect. You may have a different expirance than I but I see what I see and have seen D&D along time.

[Dawnblade]

Funny, we were thinking the same thing. I have been playing PnP for 25+ years and Andora has been playing a long time too, you only mentioned your older brother. Seriously, I have never heard of PvP style game in PnP. Never read about it in Dragon magazine, heard my friends talk about it, or seen one played at a convention. So from MY view, you are wrong in that aspect. You may have a different expirance than I but I see what I see and have seen D&D along time.

And he alone is the majority

[Raithe]

Funny, we were thinking the same thing. I have been playing PnP for 25+ years and Andora has been playing a long time too, you only mentioned your older brother. Seriously, I have never heard of PvP style game in PnP. Never read about it in Dragon magazine, heard my friends talk about it, or seen one played at a convention. So from MY view, you are wrong in that aspect. You may have a different expirance than I but I see what I see and have seen D&D along time.

I started my 2 years of PnP in 1982, so I had to refer to my brother to make any sort of statement about 1979.

And he alone is the majority

I feel quite comfortable in my statement of minority. In Baldur's Gate, if you pick up a certain rogue into your group and your reputation gets too good, that character will stop being under your control and will turn on the party. I doubt that the behavior would have been included in a commercial game if such behavior was ostracized by the PnP community.

As it seems to have high relevance for the current discussion, I'll make the somewhat politically incorrect and entirely hypothetical observation that D&D campaigns with female players may have an entirely different statistical profile than D&D campaigns consisting only of males.

[Dawnblade]

I started my 2 years of PnP in 1982, so I had to refer to my brother to make any sort of statement about 1979.

You played for two years and you have seen the majority of the players?

I feel quite comfortable in my statement of minority. In Baldur's Gate, if you pick up a certain rogue into your group and your reputation gets too good, that character will stop being under your control and will turn on the party. I doubt that the behavior would have been included in a commercial game if such behavior was ostracized by the PnP community.

Was this rogue a player? Nothing wrong with npcs turning on the party.

As it seems to have high relevance for the current discussion, I'll make the somewhat politically incorrect and entirely hypothetical observation that D&D campaigns with female players may have an entirely different statistical profile than D&D campaigns consisting only of males.

Sorry. I'm a man and I've mostly played with man so the comment is unfounded.

[Raithe]

You played for two years and you have seen the majority of the players?

There is no way to compute mathematically whether a majority or minority of players have ever experienced intergroup conflict in a PnP campaign as the numbers are not known, but along with the reason I already gave there are several clues that allow a degree of certainty on par with just about any statement of fact you can make:

1) Intragroup conflict occurs in the computerized D&D games.
2) It only takes one occurence of intragroup conflict to forever tag a player as a "witness of the behavior."
3) Humans are... human. Conflict is bound to occur in any long-lasting campaign, and DMs are more than likely to allow responsible roleplay when it occurs.

Was this rogue a player? Nothing wrong with npcs turning on the party.

A player can be playing the rogue up until the point that the DM determines the player isn't roleplaying well enough, and takes control. This can and has happened in PnP sessions as well.

Sorry. I'm a man and I've mostly played with man so the comment is unfounded.

My last comment was directed at the entire discussion, not your quote.

[Dawnblade]

There is no way to compute mathematically whether a majority or minority of players have ever experienced intergroup conflict in a PnP campaign as the numbers are not known, but along with the reason I already gave there are several clues that allow a degree of certainty on par with just about any statement of fact you can make:

1) Intergroup conflict occurs in the computerized D&D games.
2) It only takes one occurence of intergroup conflict to forever tag a player as a "witness of the behavior."
3) Humans are... human. Conflict is bound to occur in any long-lasting campaign, and DMs are more than likely to allow responsible roleplay when it occurs.

Said humans in a D&D campaign would be working towards a same goal and having one less party member would go agaisnt that. That's like saying it's ok for the running back to sack the quarterback in a football game. That wouldn't even be pvp as far as MMOs go either.

A player can be playing the rogue up until the point that the DM determines the player isn't roleplaying well enough, and takes control. This can and has happened in PnP sessions as well.

From my experience the DM is more likely do "take control" over someone trying to negatively affect the party members, unless it's extremely necessary for plot purposes. Even then it would not be the DMs intention cause any of the other characters to die.

My last comment was directed at the entire discussion, not your quote.

And I'm saying that my perception as a guy who has played with several different people (for longer than 2 years) is that player conflicts are very limited and very rarely culminate on fatal combat.

[Ardanroth]

Agreed! I personally think WoW and LotRO are worthless and not fun at all. DDO is its own game and the people that are here are here because they like the concepts.

Would it be nice if money wasn't thrown around like it grew on trees, yeah, but things are the way they are and I'd rather get new/improved content instead of PvP. PvP is, in my opinion, a waste of time and I"ve done it once and that was to kill time before a raid.

Just my two cp

i read the OP's post and got to this one. Its more than likely anything i have to say is covered by any responses to this post.

but just in case

It sounds as though you want a completely different game.... one that satisfies you, go find it, DDO is doing quite well, yet you want to change it. Youve tried quite a lot of different games, why havent you stuck to one of those that gives you PvP. By your own admission there are some others that are more "popular". In a market flooded by MMO's why shouldnt DDO stick to its roots ?

Also DDO manages to keep its fanbase close together in terms of how long it takes to cap and this is one of its main benefits i believe, as it keeps a community together.

Plat sellers destroy the economy only if your desperate to have the latest "uber" items, yet the suggestions you make would drive this "need" further.

[Pellegro]

Seems like the one thing we all agree on is that we want what is best for DDO in terms of growing the playerbase.

I think that makes a lot of sense, because for *most* players, you're not out there PUGing toooo much, and what others do will not affect you.

So it seems like maybe its down to the empirical issue, so defined:

If $10,000 spent on PvP improvements means $20,000 in revenue, then go for it.

I've seen lots of folks making speculations on the whether increasing PvP would, or would not, increase rev. But none of us have actually studied it.

I think if Turbine does its homework, decides that it could substantially increase its playerbase by increasing PvP, then we can all agree that they should. Why? Becuase that means more money over the long haul (while those PvPers hang around paying their monthly dues) that can be used to increase content, make more quests, etc. etc.

Its not much different than any other investment decision in that regard ....

So I guess we'll see what turbine does. If they don't spend the cash on PvP, then I guess their research and studies have concluded that its not a money maker.

ps I do think DDO's unique combat system gives it the potential to be a top-end PvP game. Do I think they should make the mistake of doing an entire mod cycle with no new non-PvP stuff to try and get PvP in shape? Heck no. Do I think that if they increase their budget and can afford to put some of the extra new cash into PvP htey should? See above post ...

[Raithe]

In a market flooded by MMO's why shouldnt DDO stick to its roots ?

The real roots of DDO is D&D. This means:

1) Friendly fire. DDO is the first D&D game ever where a fireball cast does not harm friendlies. I think most people wouldn't even care about organized, matchup-type PvP if friendly fire worked like it should. Friendly fire, however, means everything is PvP. On other boards discussing DDO, I can't count the number of times I've heard the phrase "DDO should have been open, FFA PvP." Those people are right - and the naysaying roleperformer/powerpve-ers should have never been extended an invitation to the party. But it's too late to worry about that.

2) Stories and Continuity. This means no repeating quests you've already done. No farming for loot. No difficulty levels for quests that don't make sense anyway (lets make a level 7 quest harder by turning it into a level 12 quest?... that's not how D&D works).

3) Roleplaying. This means being able to advance your character without being forced to kill chaotic good outsiders, if your character would find that entirely unacceptable. It also means NPCs actually respond to who your character is, rather than always using the same canned dialogue for rogues and paladins alike.

Of course DDO has its own history. Let's see if we can summarize:

* Launch with 1 raid, Tempest's Spine, that was closed for several days. No auction house, no mail system, no favor. You can have 4 enhancements and can reach level 10. No monks, no drow. No outdoor adventure areas. Several 6-man quests.

Fast forward a couple of years...

* Enhancements are entirely different, the real-time combat was completely reworked in Mod 3, end game is entirely about raids, there is an auction house, PvP, mail system, outdoor adventure areas with slayer quests. Quests have become even more linear and grinding for some sort of loot token has taken over. Favor has been implemented as another type of gameplay grind. Monster stats and trap/save DCs are significantly more inflated, especially in "Elite" quests that are now 5 levels higher than the base quest level, instead of the assumed 2 levels that always had shown up in the XP window.

I don't know about you, but I would have a hard time defining what the roots of DDO, alone, comprise.