After reading some of the posts of yaysayers, I've become slightly convinced that there's actually room for PVP in the already crowded package of BG:EE. But don't even think about a BG:MMO.
You use the word "irrational" Not sure you know what means or how to apply it. Having a particular gaming preference is not irrational, it is a personal taste. I don't like Broccoli, do I have an irrational distaste for broccoli? or perhaps I just don't like the taste? As for being a lemming and following the crowd just because something is popular....that can be considered irrational.
PVP is just the most obvious multiplayer mode, I'm not following the crowd here. In fact PVP existed way before 2012 : it's the first game mode ever.
I don't think you can compare PVP to Broccoli, because broccoli have all the same taste : if you don't like a broccoli, you are not going to like the others. While PVP has all kind of different way to be handle : all kind of different taste if you want.
I'm not sure why there's arguing. I'm not interested in pvp, but I don't see any reason why other people shouldn't be able to try it if they want to. I guess I should have voted that option instead of a straight "no".
I don't know whether it would really be that awesome, though, not at high level. It would just be a matter of who could click the controls the fastest. Any mage would cast a chain contingency of defenses, time stop, imprisonment (no save, no MR). Battle over for any opponent who didn't somehow have a spell immunity.
@Roller12@GueulEclator The two of you definitely seem to be cut from the same cloth. I disagree with both of your points-of-view, but I would not state that your reasons for wanting PvP in the game are not "valid" as Roller12 has done, or that you have an "irrational" need for PvP as GueulEclator has done.
Just because PvP has become common in many genres of video games does not mean it's appropriate for every game. I can think of many games in my collection where PvP would come across as mis-matched and an obvious gimmick.
I will say my rationale for picking No over wouldnt mind..its because I want them to focus on the game as is and not get distracted with side issues. PvP was NOT part of the original game and I want that to be Job #1, then BG2:EE and then other EE projects...PvP is not necessary nor vital leave it to modders while the programmers work on my other desires that I can throw money at instead of the stuff I will not. Not saying anyone with a different view point isn't allowed to ask for what they want...just do not expect me to support it or be in favor of it.
The only mmo i really enjoyed was Ultima Online where it was always pvp. Not that people ran around killing each other, but you had the option. And people who went around killing others got bounties put on their heads.
I remember being out hunting once for some deer (i was a tailor skill warrior with slight mage), and a char that was built around pk came up and tried to attack me. He got off 3 hits in a row and i was down to about 10% hp, and didn't stand a chance, and i was carrying too much gear to outrun him. Was far from town and would never get off the recall spell in time. I hid in shadows. I had a decent hide score and could move in shadows but not well, so i carefully moved away slowly while he hunted for me. I popped down the camp fire as far away from me as i could (required to log out, otherwise my char would be defenseless). He got mad when he saw the camp fire, and started raging trying to find me. It takes 30 second to camp (logout and save). Was the most tense 30 seconds of my life, and right at the end, he found me, revealed me. His sword swung back and i was d/c'd.
I didn't log in for 2 hours. When i did, wasn't sure if i was dead, but my char had made it out safe. PvP is awesome when implmented properly.
In a games MADE for it, yea I have no argument against it. BG is not one of those games. In my opinion.
And it seems a fairly large majority would prefer no PvP to actually having it. Leave PvP to the games designed for it. Make it part of BG3 if you like, it doen't need to be added to BG:EE, BG2:EE or PST:EE.
Of course I voted no. This story is about saving the world, not escaping from Irenicus for the sole purpose of saying "Hey, screw the world, I'm going to murder my own party regardless of my alignment or class."
I'm not sure why there's arguing. I'm not interested in pvp, but I don't see any reason why other people shouldn't be able to try it if they want to.
I definitely agree w/ you that people should be able to try it if they want to. However, the question to ask yourself is "do I want the devs sinking time and money into PvP, or more content?" The BGEE team works from a very limited pool of resources, so the game will never have everything everyone wants. This is where the argument comes in, different priorities for different folks, just like every other argument on the planet . The above is just food for thought, but keep in mind that developing a well-oiled, balanced PvP mechanic is not a weekend project, it's a serious undertaking that would suck up a lot of resources.
@immagikman I concur, if the BGEE team is stretched too thin w/ resources, PvP becomes an excellent candidate for the talented modding community.
I lot of you seems to assume that PVP would take a lot of time to develop. How can you be so sure? I don't think any of you ever tried to implement it.
As far as I know, the only ones that should be allowed to say that are beamdog. And I never saw them commenting on the matter.
@GueulEclator, so you have the right to ask for PvP, but no one besides Beamdog has the right of reject the idea? Tell me more about this healthy discussion made in a pool where people should vote for what they want.
I lot of you seems to assume that PVP would take a lot of time to develop. How can you be so sure?
I draw my conclusion from historical precedent. Unless a game is built specifically around organized PvP, or has time devoted to its implementation during the game's normal devlopment cycle, PvP typically ends up being something the developers take a significant amount of time to implement after the fact. This leads me to believe that it requires a great deal of the programming team's time, and by extension, money. To be fair, many games end up incorporating excellent PvP after the initial release. But I think it's wishful thinking to imagine that incorporating PvP into BG will be quick and cheap. Unless of course all you're looking for is a bland map that just allows two teams to plink away at each other, but that doesn't seem very satisfying to me.
Unless of course all you're looking for is a bland map that just allows two teams to plink away at each other, but that doesn't seem very satisfying to me.
I think that's exactly what some people want. Better to have some PVP than no PVP at all. It doesn't matter if PVP is fair or balanced, as long as they can blow off some steam by killing each other. Perhaps due to a failed multiplayer session, in which not everyone agreed on the actions taken in the game. So the way settle this little dispute is to enter PVP.
*shrugs* Fine by me, though you won't be seeing me in that kind of PVP.
Unless of course all you're looking for is a bland map that just allows two teams to plink away at each other, but that doesn't seem very satisfying to me.
I think that's exactly what some people want. Better to have some PVP than no PVP at all. It doesn't matter if PVP is fair or balanced, as long as they can blow off some steam by killing each other. Perhaps due to a failed multiplayer session, in which not everyone agreed on the actions taken in the game. So the way settle this little dispute is to enter PVP.
*shrugs* Fine by me, though you won't be seeing me in that kind of PVP.
According to the Poll numbers most people dont really want any PvP only a minority voted for it.
Here's one that would make a good Poll......Who has seen a game gone horribly horribly wrong because Devs tried to tack on a PvP mode to a game that wasnt really suited to it? I have MANY times in the last 30 to 35 years or so...before that there werent any PC games.
And another one...How often does a Great PvP game get ruined by adding a single player game....Im not qualified to answer this one....since I don't like PvP games to start with.
It was already mentioned. If you want PvP start a multi-player session and hack away.
The biggest issues are going to be the rules of engagement. Which gear will be allowed? What will be teams of equal power? Etc. I can imagine how some melee players might get fed up on ranged builds or wizards that plaster the battlefield with webs and use dimension door to get to safety. Or caster getting fed up on archers with a high number of ranged attacks (-> interupts for spells).
There won't be much of a balance anyways. If you start balancing the D&D rules then you end up changing the rules (e.g. changin spells, butchering CC, will certain classes/builds require counters?, etc.). If you have played an MMO then you might get an impression of how much an issue 1vs1 balance and small team balance is going to have for some PvPers. If you start changing D&D to cater for PvPers you might end up without D&D.
I don't think you can compare PVP to Broccoli, because broccoli have all the same taste : if you don't like a broccoli, you are not going to like the others. While PVP has all kind of different way to be handle : all kind of different taste if you want.
Sure I can...didn't you see me actually do it? You even quoted me comparing PvP to Broccoli...and to me, if the game is not a strategy game Im not going to like PvP and even in the strategy games the RTS's all boil down to the same stale game mechanic, figure out which unit you can spam rush to win with....wooHoo.... (not) No Im not going to like PvP...if anything I prefer CoOperative Multiplayer which I believe BG does quite well thank you very much. (P.S. Im sure RTS's are fine games for those who like them, I gave them a fair chance and didn't like them)
@GueulEclator I'm not against PvP, I just don't think it would work as well with BG. I mean most of us are used to playing the game slowly and with strategy, and when i comes to fighting, PAUSING often. If you lose the ability to pause you are going to need a shit ton of hot-keys for spells. I'm fine with having PvP as an option in BG3 if it is ever made. I feel like it would work better with a brand new BG rather than changing an already existing one more than they already have.
@GueulEclator I mean if you want PvP that badly just go play WoW, along with all of the other 12 year olds who just want to kill each other, I like WoW, but I feel that with every single patch/expansion the game becomes more dumbed down. There are some of us "nay-sayers" who just want a game as close to the old one as possible. Like I said, PvP would be a great edition to BG3. I'm pretty sure that if BGEE and BG2EE are successful enough, a BG3 will at least be a big thought.
Comments
Oh the horrors...
PVP is just the most obvious multiplayer mode, I'm not following the crowd here. In fact PVP existed way before 2012 : it's the first game mode ever.
I don't think you can compare PVP to Broccoli, because broccoli have all the same taste : if you don't like a broccoli, you are not going to like the others. While PVP has all kind of different way to be handle : all kind of different taste if you want.
I don't know whether it would really be that awesome, though, not at high level. It would just be a matter of who could click the controls the fastest. Any mage would cast a chain contingency of defenses, time stop, imprisonment (no save, no MR). Battle over for any opponent who didn't somehow have a spell immunity.
Just because PvP has become common in many genres of video games does not mean it's appropriate for every game. I can think of many games in my collection where PvP would come across as mis-matched and an obvious gimmick.
Let the mod community have at it, by all means, but the efforts of the BGEE team are much better focused elsewhere, IMO.
@immagikman I concur, if the BGEE team is stretched too thin w/ resources, PvP becomes an excellent candidate for the talented modding community.
As far as I know, the only ones that should be allowed to say that are beamdog. And I never saw them commenting on the matter.
*shrugs* Fine by me, though you won't be seeing me in that kind of PVP.
The biggest issues are going to be the rules of engagement. Which gear will be allowed? What will be teams of equal power? Etc. I can imagine how some melee players might get fed up on ranged builds or wizards that plaster the battlefield with webs and use dimension door to get to safety. Or caster getting fed up on archers with a high number of ranged attacks (-> interupts for spells).
There won't be much of a balance anyways. If you start balancing the D&D rules then you end up changing the rules (e.g. changin spells, butchering CC, will certain classes/builds require counters?, etc.). If you have played an MMO then you might get an impression of how much an issue 1vs1 balance and small team balance is going to have for some PvPers. If you start changing D&D to cater for PvPers you might end up without D&D.