It would take calculus to show why satisfying both maxims here is theoretically possible but completely impractical. Not to mention, it doesn’t satisfy the underlying issue of the Level 50 still being able to pick fights he knows in advance he won’t lose.

“How many of us are present?”
“49, sir.”
“And what level is he?”
“50, sir.”
“…”
“We’re boned, aren’t we sir?”

But, to make a more practical contribution, I think the core conflict between PvP and PvE, from the side of the designer, is that the goals of each directly conflict. PvE is about intentionally creating an uneven playing field, full of weaker and stronger monsters, gear, abilities, etc., starting the player at one end of said field and giving them the privilege of marching through to the other. In PvP, an even playing field is necessary for the majority of people to feel comfortable playing.

Having PvE with an even playing field is a challenge as there’s no progression in the traditional, expected senses. Saying that everyone effectively starts at max level would be a hard sell to management (not impossible, though, given examples like Guild Wars).

I’m sure that eventually WoW and TF2 will converge somewhere, and there will be much rejoicing. But, for now, PvP is a secondary focus of the former type of game and the sole focus of the latter.

If the larger pve market rarely can make a good go of it, certainly a niche market game is going to have a harder time. At least in my world, execution is king and most indie studios seem to be swinging and missing there no matter what their target market is. Some exceptions must exist of course, but sadly none in the pvp market.

As for the advice given on the mmorpg article, it all seems quite solid. But it also seems to apply equally well even if your players will mostly be bouncing on gumdrops in rainbow land.

I agree, but I’d have to see how much it cost to make a game just ten years ago, in comparison to today. If you still could get away with making an isometric MMO in the style of UO (and I mean something a little more sophisticated than, say, what Haven & Hearth is doing, which in itself is quite fine but would be even better if it didn’t have such a crappy community full of 12-year-old griefers) and be financially successful at it, maybe you’d get more full-PvP games. If, however, you have to go with the latest in “Boob Dynamics” technology because that’s how you think you can get gamers, then you won’t ever get a full PvP game made by a major studio or that won’t take six years to be released.

The rabid PvP gamers who blindly seek such games are also to blame. Their UO nostalgia, or their endless praise for the borefest that is EVE, is seriously getting on my nerves, and they’re otherwise so predictable in their lemming-like movements. To wit: Those who rushed to pre-order Mortal Online, with no indication that the game would ever be ready by the time Star Vault said it would be, just so they could have access to the closed beta that came with the pre-order. Their Leetnesses would not tolerate being left out of beta while others would get an advantage by learning every trick, so in they rushed. Never mind that this is a repugnant selling technique, especially for a game like this where advance knowledge means everything (whatever happened to the time when beta actually was for testing?), those players should have retained something from Darkfall’s release. But no, Their Leetnesses must be first. Idiots.

PVP in MMOs is a niche market in the same way that MMOs as a whole were a niche market not so many years back – because none were made to a standard that was accessible, polished, user friendly, ect. until WoW came out and showed everyone how it could be. Stabs is absolutely right in that the problem with PVP in MMOs has been design and implementation, not a fundamental failure of concept. I think this is pretty well made self evident that player vs player is fundamental part of most gaming – be it chess or halo.

That said, you’re absolutely right that no one will invest a AAA budget into a PVP MMO – but that’s because it’s a risky avenue without proven successful design. Big budget games are always iterations, not pioneers – or they wouldn’t have the support to be big budget games.