Worlds Adrift says PvE servers didn’t ‘split a tiny playerbase’ but instead ‘added to it’

    
25
How does this need to be said.

When was the last time you heard an MMO studio outright admit it was wrong? It’s pretty rare, for sure. Bossa Studios says as much in referring to Worlds Adrift’s original PvP-only setup: “We realised how WRONG we were to hold back PVE and PVP for so long!” the studio’s latest podcast says.

MMO players will recall that even hardcore PvP sandbox fans were concerned about the game’s early access release, during which unchecked PvP appeared to crush the morale of the newbie playerbase. At the time, Bossa shrugged it off, told players to “git gud,” and even told us that a PvE server would be technically infeasible as well as a “betrayal of its core pillars.”

Nevertheless, last week the studio did indeed launch PvE servers, and it sounds as if they’re doing quite well, with populations between PvE and PvP servers being roughly 50-50 last week without seeing the existing community itself split.

“We haven’t suddenly split a tiny playerbase,” Bossa’s podcasters say. “We’ve added to it.”

As for the constant player refrain that the game is too hard? Bossa jokes that “you’re all weaklings,” but chiefly falls back on the idea that the game’s biggest endeavors and best resources and major fights require a lot of player coordination as designed. So, you know, git gud. :P

newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
Bullet Teeth

“PvE servers didn’t ‘split a tiny playerbase’ but instead ‘added to it”

…I didn’t see that coming.

Reader
Nim

I’m a PVPer, and I have no problem with this. If people who wouldn’t otherwise buy the game buy the game and play on a carebear server, I don’t really see how that negatively affects me so why should I care?

PlasmaJohn
Reader
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
PlasmaJohn

It comes down to what the PvP and PvE offerings are. If there are group instances it could negatively impact the PvP server. Very few people are exclusively one or the other so they’ll go where they can scratch both itches.

Mewmew
Reader
Mewmew

Sorry but if you’re calling the PvE server the derogatory “carebear” name – you *do* care. That term is used as an insult and bait to try and get people to play on the PvP servers, to make people feel guilty and lowly about playing on the PvE servers. If you’re using that term, you do care, even if you’re professing not to.

It’s like if you were getting football teams together, you were playing tackle and your friend wanted to play flag and you said: “Hey I don’t care if you want to play on the little girls’ team.” It’s a term used to try and manipulate tease or insult people for playing a different way that you wouldn’t use if you actually didn’t care.

PvP gamers aren’t big tough guys who have the rights to call co-op players “carebears”. Unless you’re like an MMA fighter that fights constantly in real life or an active combatant in real war you’re just as much of a carebear as the rest of us.

Anyway, if you really don’t care – prove it and drop the derogatory term.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
NecroFox4

I decided to jump into this game with some family members the day the PvE server went live. It’s definitely not an “easy” game to master, but it is a LOT of fun trying to figure things out. Even without the threat of players massacring you immediately, there is a constant sense of danger thanks to the physics engine, and how you get around. I really don’t think they need to make any further changes to make this game “easier” – you’ll get the hang of things eventually, and you’ll have a blast along the way!

CapnLan
Reader
CapnLan

I’m going to save this article for when Amazon’s New World releases and people start throwing this argument around against PVE servers. Thanks, Worlds Adrift devs.

Reader
silverlock

New World is like LiF in that their are no enemies except other players and you can’t get much done without a group of players. PVE works in Conan Exiles because the world it’s self is dangerous and a solo player can get more done.

CapnLan
Reader
CapnLan

There’s leaked video of players fighting NPC wolves and bears so of course there’s enemies that aren’t players.

Reader
Nim

In fairness, LiF has bears and wolves as well, but the ai is so basic that they hardly qualify as content. That being said, I was under the impression that New World’s npcs would be more in line with your standard mmo fare?

CapnLan
Reader
CapnLan

Yeah I thought it was supposed to be standard as far as NPCs just with the open world pvp. Maybe they were thinking of Fallout 76 which supposedly won’t have any NPCs at all.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
NecroFox4

I’m under NDA with Amazon here, but I think I can say that you’re not far off base with your idea, CapnLan.

Reader
jamie torch

Already given up on New World because of its pvp bias .

Reader
jamie torch

There is a lesson to be learned here by other game developers .

I doubt many of them will learn it .

Reader
Robert Mann

Derp, you mean people who don’t want to get ganked tend not to play games that encourage ganking? How ever did anyone realize that?!?

Reader
Grave Knight

Really? Imagine that? There are players hungry for a PVE game about exploration.

Reader
John Kiser

You won’t split a player base by adding PVE servers ever ultimately it is almost always going to bring in a crowd of people that you may not realize are there when you have your head up your own butt. Frankly the hardcore PVPers (legit PVPers and not just idiots looking for a gank box on newbies) are a niche player base and almost always will be when we get down to some of the BS that has happened in the gaming community after gaming became a more mainstream thing.

Back in the day when open world PVP was a more acceptable thing and players didn’t mind it as much it was because the player bases largely pushed it to be about real pvp. If you ran around ganking you were probably going to be hunted down by groups of people that specifically targeted player killers. The people that did that have largely phased out of the genre, stopped giving a shit, or have hopped to PVE gameplay when it became available.

There is no direct need to even split the servers and instead these game companies could learn from the flagging system that Star Wars Galaxies put in place, but these companies refuse to let PVE and PVP exist in the same world where only people wanting to PVP actually have to partake in the shenanigans so they end up becoming gankboxes.

PlasmaJohn
Reader
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
PlasmaJohn

The [anti-gankers] have largely phased out of the genre, stopped giving a shit, or have hopped to PVE gameplay when it became available.

Games without real consequences for bad actors makes it utterly unfun for most folks doing either institutionalized or de facto law enforcement. I saw so many people burn out because the game operators refused to implement real penalties.

CCP just figured this out despite people telling them this for the past 10+ years.

Reader
John Kiser

Real consequences aren’t really needed if you make a proper flagging system so that only those that want to PVP and are flagged are PVPing. That said very few games have actually done real consequences properly (I can really only think of less than 5 off the top of my head). If there were real consequences that one couldn’t easily get around then maybe just maybe it’d work, but yeah…

Even Archage which threw people in jail if they died after pk’ing enough and had a debuff still if they escaped jail had NPCs in place to get rid of all of that and a system that could be abused by bots to teleport straight to that NPC. You need to make those systems be reliable as all hell and not something people can skip over easily if you are going to do it, but again these companies need to realize that consensual PVP is far far better.

Reader
Robert Mann

^. That. You are fighting against an unending respawn that doesn’t care if they are killed. It’s a zero sum game. Thus why so many left that behind.

I’ll agree that consent to PvP is best, and always am amazed at the number of people who will defend ganking in various places. Yes, sure, ganking would be a war tactic in the real world… but these are video games with people out for fun, not a flippin war!

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

Back in the day when open world PVP was a more acceptable thing and players didn’t mind it as much it was because the player bases largely pushed it to be about real pvp.

It wasn’t that it was “more acceptable”, but rather that there were no alternatives. To the point UO had about 70% of the new paying players, people who had paid for the base game and the first month of subscription, leave before their already paid for game time was over, the vast majority of them citing PK/griefing as the reason; those were players that, despite there not being non-PvP alternatives, never found the arrangement “acceptable”.

Reader
John Kiser

It was in a sense. You became known to the community for doing it and if you targeted newer players were often hunted. At least when the community started rolling some. UO had far less of a problem of turning into a gankbox purely because of its community more than anything not anything to do with baser game design.

Again though my suggestion is that we properly adopt SWG’s flagging system (potentially advance it) to where only people that want consensual PVP will be flagged for it and then we have no need to split servers in the first place.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

It was in a sense. You became known to the community for doing it and if you targeted newer players were often hunted. At least when the community started rolling some.

This didn’t prevent griefers from griefing and driving other players away, though. UO added Trammel because not even stat loss for the “reds” managed to put a dent on the griefing, and the player churn caused by it, to the point EA thought the game unsustainable and wanted to close it down.

Which is why I don’t consider that players “accepted” open world PvP back then any more than they do now. A huge number of players that really wanted to play MMOs chose to not play instead as a way to escape from open world PvP. Thus, it only looked like open PvP was “accepted” because after it drove away most players only those that accepted it remained.

Reader
John Kiser

*shrugs* I was around in those days and I was always protected early on by people that were a bit higher until I got to a point that I could fight for myself. The whole gankbox thing got far far worse after UO and the people that would of at one point protected people went off to the PVE games or the like. Yes it wasn’t ideal for pure PVEers, BUT it was a slant bit better than gankboxes that exist now largely because it wasn’t just designed to be a “hardcore PVP” game and had a lot of other stuff going on and a community that actually gave a shit and tried.

While it didn’t prevent all griefing it did more to fight it than communities do in these games do now and that was my overall point. It was more accepted because players were often protected until they could get footing and would be able to do something about it. It was still a problem and I don’t disagree with that. Trammel did indeed show that peeople preferred consensual PVP and largely preferred PVM/PVE.

My overall point is that open world PVP now is in a far far far worse state than it was back in the day as even consequences from the player community are largely gone.

Reader
Jack Kerras

0/` when I’m talking shit in your alpha, you should listen to me 0/~

Reader
TheDonDude

Man I hope other developers are watching.