Yes, because PvP ruins games unless the game is specifically geared towards PvP. Very few games have successfully managed to balance their games around both... and when they do, its generally because they completely separate the two in some fashion: Guild Wars did it by having abilities work completely different in arenas compared to the PvE world; Eve Online does it by basically having 2 styles of tanking damage: active tanking used normally for PvE vs. passive tanking which is used in PvP. Multi-player games generally do better when their companies focus on one aspect over the other. Even Blizzard (who came pretty close to balancing PvE vs. PvP) has given up on the e-sports of their 3v3 arenas in WoW. City of Heroes had over 100K subscribers (people were paying $15 a month) when they shut down their servers; they hadn't added new content in over a year. Their methodology towards PvP: PvP was added to the game; but, they did no balancing towards PvP... if something was balanced in PvE and in PvP was either ungodly good or bad, they didn't touch it. Catering to PvPers would have destroyed their game. Hell, only about 10% of the activity on Destiny 2 is actually Crucible being played... and that includes all the people who only enter crucible for their powerful gear every week... Note: there's nothing wrong to catering to PvP, if that's where you want to focus your game. Just be aware that many players will not touch your game based on that emphasis. Consider that many people think that Destiny's biggest problem is that they cater to streamers. And what do streamers do most of the time? From what I've seen, its Crucible. Frankly, EA is being smart. They are producing a cooperative multi-player game that focuses on PvE. Players who don't like PvP are likely to flock to it, especially when you have Bioware writing the story... and I also believe Anthem is being produced by the same team that developed the first 2 Mass Effects. They will have a very good story and a game balanced around PvE. If the content is good, people will stick around.

I've always detested games that "balanced" PVE and PVP by making gear behave differently between both modes. This led to inconsistency in how gear and abilities behaved, leading to more confusion than anything else. While D2 has many flaws, at least you know that weapon and ability behaviors will remain more or less consistent regardless of playing mode.

I didn't say it was a good solution, just the one used by Guild Wars... which was one of the game most successful at it. And I hate to tell you, Destiny 2 changes how weapons work in Crucible. Just look at the newest update from Tuesday. Telesto's damage was decreased 'overall' and then given a 'buff' in PvE areas. In short, the Telesto does different damage based on if you are PvEing or PvPing. I agree its a small difference, but let's not act like Destiny 2 doesn't do it. Also, Rampage has different increases in damage in Crucible vs. PvE... as does the fix on Sun Warrior. Personally, I think Eve Online handled it best. You can equip your ship with different tanks based on what you are doing. If you are doing PvE, you normally do active tanking which allows you to recharge your shields or fix your armor depending on the style of ship... which allows for the long DPS fights of PvE. When you are spoiling for a PvP fight, you generally go with a passive tank (some ships can active tank in PvP... but they are generally expensive... which is bad when you can lose them) where you just give yourself a huge amount of hit points... thus to absorb the large alpha striking of PvP. But that's me.

All you are doing is setting up a false dichotomy. The options aren't all pvp or all pve = success and any combination thereof = failure. People on the anthem boards won't even let people talk about pvp. At least have a discussion of different ideas. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean everyone else doesn't. I've talked about getting anthem with 4 different friends and for all of them their biggest concern is lack of "multiplayer" since they mostly play CoD now.

Anthem does not need PvP because it really would ruin the game. People on the Anthem forums need to stop trying honestly. Also you talked to 4 friends? I've talks to at least 55 people on my friends list alone about Anthem and none of them had a problem with anthem's absence of PvP.

[quote]@SymBionik Anthem does not need PvP because it really would ruin the game. People on the Anthem forums need to stop trying honestly. Also you talked to 4 friends? I've talks to at least 55 people on my friends list alone about Anthem and none of them had a problem with anthem's absence of PvP.[/quote] Having no-PVP only ruins a game's replayability. It creates a stagnant environment where there is no incentive to compete with your peers because the only opponents are dumb, predictable bullet sponges. The most dangerous opponents are always the human variety because they can always adapt, while AI isn't quite there yet.

[quote]The options aren't all pvp or all pve = success and any combination thereof = failure.[/quote] That's not what I said. I specifically listed off 2 examples of games that found ways to deal with the imbalance issues of PvE vs. PvP. You can do both; but, if you really want your game to be a success: you need to pick a crowd and cater to them. Or you end up with a lot of toxic poison in your community as both sides argue the other side is ruining the game. And since the company is trying to balance the game to cater to both crowds, both sides are right. Or wrong as they should be blaming the company for not picking a side... [quote]People on the anthem boards won't even let people talk about pvp. At least have a discussion of different ideas. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean everyone else doesn't.[/quote] How many people on the CoD forums talk about the storyline or improving the PvE experience of CoD? Not many. Why? Because CoD caters to the PvP crowd. There is nothing wrong with that, but players who like PvE know that going in and thus generally avoid CoD. And coming back to the Destiny forums, can you really blame those people for not wanting PvP in Anthem? Anthem has been advertised as a cooperative PvE game. EA has been clear since the announcement of the game it was going to be a PvE game. Looking at the drama on these forums (shit, look at the arguments over The Last Word), maybe the Anthem crowd (who are PvE players as that was who EA had targetted) don't want to deal with the bullshit drama that adding PvP will bring with it? Many people have described Anthem's loot system to be similar to Borderlands (only without the crazy ridiculous stuff that is the Borderlands theme) or Diablo. One of those games (Borderlands) doesn't even have PvP and is one of the most wildly popular FPS games out there. Diablo has some PvP, but go to their forums and tell me how often someone brings up PvP balance. Extremely rare, if ever. And how successful is the Diablo franchise? And I'll specifically address your last comment in this quote: Just because I like pineapple on my pizza doesn't mean you are required to buy pineapple on your pizza. AKA: if you don't like the fact Anthem is catering to PvE players:[b] don't buy it.[/b] [quote]I've talked about getting anthem with 4 different friends and for all of them their biggest concern is lack of "multiplayer" since they mostly play CoD now.[/quote] This quote alone shows that my supposed false dichotomy isn't a false dichotomy. CoD is a game whose multiplayer is specifically designed around PvP and thus caters to the PvP crowd. I don't know of anyone who buy CoD for the 'story'. CoD sells well because they picked their target audience (PvPers) and they make design decisions based on that target audience.

Your first line was: [quote]PvP ruins games unless the game is specifically geared towards PvP[/quote] That is a false dichotomy. This is simply not true. It may hold true for some games but for others it is not. Most gamers don't pigeon hole themselves into one single game type. I play Destiny, Diablo, CoD, spiderman now. When I was a PC gamer I was into Diablo 2 (which had a major pvp component btw), Global Agenda, Firefall, Tabula Rasa, and other mmo style sci fi shooters. I like PvE and PvP. I am not the only one. PvP is not inherently a bad thing in a primarily PvE game.

Global Agenda failed. I played it. Novel concept, but it died pretty quickly. As a matter of fact, they added more PvE stuff to that game in hopes of attracting more players. It didn't stop its death really. GA catered to PvPers... and instead of fixing the PvP problems they had, they tried to throw PvE to save the game. It didn't work. Tabula Rasa? Talk about a game that got screwed over by its company. They did a complete rework of that in the last year of development... the game's launch was a mess and it really didn't get better until just before they shut down the servers. It was a damn shame too, because I felt the game had potential. It also had huge issues. Why carry a minigun when I can put 5 ranks into Firearms and my shotgun does better damage... Firefall? It last... what? 3 or 4 years? Great graphics... mediocre storytelling. The sad fact is I'm a huge mecha/power armor fan (which is one of many reasons I'm excited about Anthem) and Firefall didn't attract my attention. That's not a good sign. And now, I'm going to point out the most foolish thing you said: Diablo 2 had a HUGE PvP component? That's a lie. PvP was a part of the game, but you didn't have to PvP to get anything (like you do here on Destiny). While PvP was part of the Diablo 2 experience (for those who wanted it), the game was [b]never[/b] adjusted/balanced because of concerns about PvP. Again, Diablo 2 catered to PvE players, but allowed for PvP. Compared to WoW, Diablo 2 had [b]no[/b] PvP component. Compared to SWG, Diablo 2 had [b]no[/b] PvP component to it. Sorry, that statement right there show how little you actually understand the concept of catering towards your fan-base. Good try though to attempt to use Diablo 2 to justify the need for PvP in Anthem. Good try, but a failed try none the less. Again, if you don't like Anthem's PvE emphasis and catering, [b]do not buy it[/b].

[quote]Global Agenda failed. I played it. Novel concept, but it died pretty quickly. As a matter of fact, they added more PvE stuff to that game in hopes of attracting more players. It didn't stop its death really. GA catered to PvPers... and instead of fixing the PvP problems they had, they tried to throw PvE to save the game. It didn't work. Tabula Rasa? Talk about a game that got screwed over by its company. They did a complete rework of that in the last year of development... the game's launch was a mess and it really didn't get better until just before they shut down the servers. It was a damn shame too, because I felt the game had potential. It also had huge issues. Why carry a minigun when I can put 5 ranks into Firearms and my shotgun does better damage... Firefall? It last... what? 3 or 4 years? Great graphics... mediocre storytelling. The sad fact is I'm a huge mecha/power armor fan (which is one of many reasons I'm excited about Anthem) and Firefall didn't attract my attention. That's not a good sign. And now, I'm going to point out the most foolish thing you said: Diablo 2 had a HUGE PvP component? That's a lie. PvP was a part of the game, but you didn't have to PvP to get anything (like you do here on Destiny). While PvP was part of the Diablo 2 experience (for those who wanted it), the game was [b]never[/b] adjusted/balanced because of concerns about PvP. Again, Diablo 2 catered to PvE players, but allowed for PvP. Compared to WoW, Diablo 2 had [b]no[/b] PvP component. Compared to SWG, Diablo 2 had [b]no[/b] PvP component to it. Sorry, that statement right there show how little you actually understand the concept of catering towards your fan-base. Good try though to attempt to use Diablo 2 to justify the need for PvP in Anthem. Good try, but a failed try none the less. Again, if you don't like Anthem's PvE emphasis and catering, [b]do not buy it[/b].[/quote] Get f.u.c.k.i.n. REKT

Global agenda failed because the dev team gave up on it to work on Smite. TR - yeah there were many issues with that game but pvp was the least of it's concerns. I loved it regardless. Firefall - buggy launch and the constant revamping of entire systems killed the game. Again, pvp was not part of that failure. Surprised you didn't play it though. It was really fun. D2 has always had a fairly large pvp community. So much so that people created their own "good mannered rules" for dueling and even self made leagues for duel competitions. All PvP does to any game is add a competitive aspect and a reason for some people to grind content that would otherwise be boring. Just admit you hate pvp. If that's your stance then fine by me, but to pretend that any pve game that implements some form of pvp will ultimately fail is just false.

[quote]Just admit you hate pvp. If that's your stance then fine by me, but to pretend that any pve game that implements some form of pvp will ultimately fail is just false.[/quote] LOL. No, I don't hate PvP. I hate PvP players who think all games should cater to them. To tell you how much I 'hate' PvP, I managed a 75% success rate on Star Wars Galaxies as a Jedi bounty hunter. To explain how hard that is, Jedi could get an ability called saber block that allowed them to block 65% of all ranged attacks made against them... and it was the first skill every Jedi grinded because they knew they would be hunted by Bounty Hunters. And the Bounty Hunter was designed as a ranged class... In Warhammer Online, I was part of one of the best PvP guilds on my server. We regularly led RvR attacks that got us into Altdorf. We also grinded the scenarios (their term for Battlegrounds) to push the control meter forward so we can pillage Order's capital. And considering what I know about Global Agenda, you'd know that I had played it... and again, it was strictly a PvP game at launch. Again, great concept... just not well thought out. I used to play Eve Online regularly... and I wasn't hanging out in hi-sec. If you aren't in hi-sec, people can attack you. And to be clear: Eve Online is brutal. If your ship gets blown up, you don't get a replacement for free, you have to buy your ship... again. Well, that's not true. If you have no ship where you are, it will give you a starter ship... and those are complete jokes. I could list more PvP games, but to say I hate PvP is wrong. I just understand that if you want a game to be successful, you have to pick a side. Or you have to do some remarkable coding to make it work. [quote]D2 has always had a fairly large pvp community. So much so that people created their own "good mannered rules" for dueling and even self made leagues for duel competitions.[/quote] I want you to read what you just posted again. Who created these 'good mannered rules'? Who created these[b] 'self made' [/b]leagues? The players. The developers had nothing to do with it, but your own admission. Which means the developers didn't create it, which means the game was still designed to cater to PvE players. Again, nice try to attempt to use Diablo 2 as part of your argument... but still a failure. You [b]admit [/b]that the developers did nothing to create this PvP community... other than have the game mode. Again, Diablo 2 did nothing to advance or create PvP other than having it there. Which means: it was a PvE game with PvP as a side. [quote]All PvP does to any game is add a competitive aspect and a reason for some people to grind content that would otherwise be boring.[/quote] Content that would be boring to those who just like to PvP. I actually like to do both. I don't PvP here on Destiny due to a lot of the issues with balance. Connection based match-making is an utter disaster. I'll admit I'm not very good at the Crucible, but matching me against people who are at a much higher skill level than I am with the Crucible pinnacle weapons is no way to encourage my interest. If Destiny actually gets skill-based matchmaking installed, I'll likely Crucible a lot more. In its current form, its not even worth doing for the Powerful Gear... much less the weapons hidden behind Crucible locks. Also, you're incorrect. That's not [b]all [/b]PvP does. PvP causes a lot of balancing issues and gated content. Look at these forums and tell me PvP doesn't create a toxic community on a PvE game. Look at the number of complaints on Blizzard's forums from when they used to 'balance' abilities around their 3v3 arenas... and then had to rebalance some of the raids because the PvP balance messed up the PvE aspect of the game. Hell, even WoW realized gated content was stupid and did LFR Raids which were stupid easy. You got less powerful versions of the raid gear, but at least you got to see the storyline and you could get the same style of gear if you liked the shape... just a different shade. I don't have a problem with PvPers. In some cases I enjoy PvP. Destiny has so many issues in their PvP, I don't enjoy it, mostly related to the CBMM and being P2P. Anthem is just catering to PvE players... and I think the results will be good for them. Again, if the lack of PvP bothers you: [b]don't buy it.[/b]

Aside from GA, all the other games I listed did not cater to PvP players but it at least had some pvp component to the game. If you actually read what I wrote, I said players in anthem [b]won't even let you talk about pvp.[/b] If your view is "if you don't like it don't buy it" then the game will never be as good as it could be. I love sci fi shooters of all kinds and very few good ones ever hit the market.

[quote]If your view is "if you don't like it don't buy it" then the game will never be as good as it could be. I love sci fi shooters of all kinds and very few good ones ever hit the market.[/quote] [i]Looks over at the popularity of the very PvP-oriented CoD and the non-existent PvP on Borderlands[/i] [i]points at CoD and Borderlands[/i] You were saying that the game will never be as good as it could be unless they cater to both PvE and PvP players? Give it up. One of Destiny's biggest weaknesses is their attempt to balance and cater to both sides.