Oh how I love a nice crash before a post. So trying to be brief:
I think is harder actually to develop PVE content using PVP as a foundation, since skills and abilities need to be either nerfed or buffed on the pvp side of things in order to bring balance content, and the PVE aspect suffers for it. Atleast that has been my experience having played WOW/Swotor/Rift.
It's actually much easier--the problem is that developers DON'T DO IT. As we see in XIV, the PvE is the foundation and then they build the PvP. The thing is, you will always be creating brand new PvE content. The primary PvP content is class balance, which should remain relatively stable.
Basically, most developers create classes A, B, and C, then balance them against monsters X, Y, and Z. Then they go back and forth between balancing A with B, and B with C, while trying to maintain some balance with X and Y and Z. They finally settle on something that kind of works, but it's a messy way to design. A, B and C always need to be in balance in PvP, and preferably in PvE as well... so you start with balancing them, and THEN you create X, Y, and Z in a way that MAKES A, B, and C balanced for PvE. When you try to balance classes against monsters, you're balancing them against a variable that is constantly going to change and won't line up with class vs. class balance, as someone just noted regarding the defense statistics in PvP vs. PvE.
It's really just so much easier and such a shame that most developers haven't figured it out.
I see PvP as going one of two ways: 1) It will be awful and rushed out because the gameplay is still essentially boring, and a lack of class balance will make class vs. class more important than player vs. player. 2) They will, miraculously, use their testing process for PvP to inform class balance and create actually engaging combat.
When a good PvP game is genuinely created, it tells you a lot about balance and engagement. It forces you to balance classes because that's the cornerstone of any PvP experience: player skills against one another on equal footing. It also helps the testers to identify where the challenge is. Does the combat feel strategically challenging? So it's much easier to create good PvE experiences using PvP as a foundation. However, if the PvP is a rushed out product, it will probably just suck.
This was the problem with PVP in DC Universe. Every class had a "DD stance" and a "Role stance." DD stance gave no inherent advantage, but the Role stances were Tank >> Controller >> Healer >> Tank. Problem was, Ice tanks owned all for the longest time, and an Ice DD could effectively tank while outputting ridiculous damage. Controllers got nerf, after nerf, after nerf. One type of healer specialized in single target healing, with one spell that put a healing circle on the ground (terrible in parties, since the other team could just leave the circle.) The other healer did all AOE healing based on his/her position, giving an obvious advantage in party PVP. That healer could also increase ability damage.
This was my only experience with PVP and it left a sour taste in my mouth. I know they're not all this bad, but it makes me weary of PVP in my favorite franchise.
This sounds like a relatively simple problem of not individually balancing classes with appropriate buffs and nerfs, though was likely related to trying to balance PvE and PvP simultaneously. I don't know much about DC Universe. However, I think the idea of having a DD and support option for each class is very good in theory. It's too bad it sounds like the balance was so poor.
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...
Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.
Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.