Woah there!... big fallacy in your logic there. I'm thinking 'Package deal fallacy'?
Who says that population imbalance and tedious death mechanics can only be solved by instanced gameplay?
I'm speaking mostly of ways which bring skill to the forefront of a game. (although realistically skill shares the same space as RPG progression mechanics in an MMORPG, so it's not purely about skill.)
You can have population bonuses (my faction has half the population, so I get a +300% damage bonus) but those inevitably make the game feel very arbitrary and unnecessarily gamey. It's a much better solution if population is forcibly balanced (because you'll always win/lose due to skill, instead of sometimes getting instagibbed by a bad player just because your side outnumbered them.)
...
Fallacy.
Your argument seems to come down to:
IF this THEN that (always!)
THERFORE this is the only solution
Like you say (correctly) PotBS was not well designed and so is hardly a good example of what Instanced PvP can be. Likewise WAR.
Well, I suggest to you that non instanced games where open world PvP has failed often share the same problem = bad design.
Again, you are still assuming that the only solution is Instanced PvP?
This does not follow.
There may be other solutions. Just because you don't believe that does not make it false.
Again, not always true. Read my earlier posts. There are ways to design games where players have the choice of spawning in and knowing that they are likely to be outnumbered or going somewhere else. WWIIoL (as an example) operates an EWS (Early Warning System) which gives players a pretty good idea where heavy concentrations of enemy players are. No instancing there.
Zerging is still a pretty big problem in games like that. Or at least it was in Planetside, which shared many similar mechanics.
And I admittedly loved the crap out of Planetside, so your argument cuts deep But it was guiltier than most games of the situation where sometimes I'd log on and my presence simply would not matter due to population imbalances.
Perhaps this is because they didn't listen to my (and other players') pleas for improving low population bonuses, but largely it's the result of the game basically being pure world PVP.
Again, there was a problem with the design, that does not mean that the whole idea is flawed.
The big problem with PvP / RvR games to date is that they all seem to share is that the balancing mechanism was a design afterthought.
A game will fall somewhere between the two extremes of pure skill, and no skill. In a game decided purely by skill, you can improve your lot in life...and your decisions matter. In a game devoid of skill, you don't matter - no amount of clever decisionmaking will change the fact that you'll always win exactly 50% of the time.
Here I think you need to define what you consider 'skill'? Are you talking twitch based gaming? Or are you talking character build choices? (Character 'skills') Or equipment choices?
Again... WTF? I specifically asked if RvR was involved and you said "No." Now you are changing the terms of reference to suit your argument? You are now discribing an RvR scenario.
...
But if "persistant faction warring" is how you define it, then yes...a game can be instanced and still have persistant faction wars. As long as teams are balanced.
POTBS allows population-imbalanced instances (such as late-night fights where only one team is present,) so again it's a terrible example of instanced PVP. It's an extreme rarity for WOW to allow instanced PVP with imbalanced teams (although it can happen if one team simply doesn't accept its queue.)
But it can and does happen - and I already covered the very real possibility that players may be 'locked out' of PvP and therefore RvR.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but instanced games dominate the marketplace.
So? That does not mean that they are better or that the design is good. Instancing was introduced to meet a specific need and because of technology limitations. That does not mean that it is the only solution, the best solution, or even an appropriate solution in all cases.
This argument is roughly equivalent to "Nails dominate the market therefore screws and glue don't work and should not be used."
Yes, but the point is PVP by nature is useless without some form of population policing. And of the population policing methods, instancing typically results in the best gameplay; the least disadvantages, and the strongest advantages.
The fallacy here is that you immediately go for 'population policing' and therefore instancing.
There needs to be some kind of balancing mechanism - but there are other solutions possible than just focus on population. Read back to find some suggestions.
Originally posted by Gyrus Fallacy. Your argument seems to come down to: IF this THEN that (always!) THERFORE this is the only solution
My argument is more that
Skill + Gear + Population = Power
is a worse system than
Skill + Gear = Power
because the player has control over skill and gear, but not population. There are different methods for factoring skill out of the equation, and of those methods instanced PVP has the least disadvantages.
Here I think you need to define what you consider 'skill'? Are you talking twitch based gaming? Or are you talking character build choices? (Character 'skills') Or equipment choices?
Skill is how well you make all those choices. From twitch to build/gear chioces to what ability you decide to use in any given moment.
But it can and does happen - and I already covered the very real possibility that players may be 'locked out' of PvP and therefore RvR.
Can we agree bad things happening 'almost never' is superior to bad things happening frequently?
A non-100% success rate isn't sufficient reason to reject an idea.
The fallacy here is that you immediately go for 'population policing' and therefore instancing. There needs to be some kind of balancing mechanism - but there are other solutions possible than just focus on population. Read back to find some suggestions.
Population policing includes low population bonuses -- that's still policing the population, rather than giving it free reign to be as uneven as it wants.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
First off, the answer depends entirely on what you want out of PvP and how you define it.
If you are primarily what I would call a "duelist" then you want "balanced" PvP which leads pretty quickly to number regulated instancing.
If you prefer the open RvR or "sandbox" style of PvP then a) the game should be one where numbers are not the sole (or even primary) determinant of victory but b) numbers should confer some advantages. If you prefer realism, it's not like the Wehrmact could whinge on the forums about the Red Army "zerging" them out of Poland now could it?
Personally, while I do enjoy the occasional "balanced" arena fight, I find it gets boring fast; thus I greatly prefer the sandbox approach...and if you have to beat the zerg either get more friends or find a way to fight smarter.
EVE is the best example of this out there presently. When my corp went up against the IRON Alliance, we could hardly go whimpering about "population imbalances" and looking for bonuses. So we lost, regrouped and moved on with life...
My argument is more that Skill + Gear + Population = Power is a worse system than Skill + Gear = Power because the player has control over skill and gear, but not population. There are different methods for factoring skill out of the equation, and of those methods instanced PVP has the least disadvantages. As several people have said - depending on game design players sometimes can control population. Localized population if nothing else. Back to the subject of the thread - if this is possible players can defeat the zerg.
Global population is beyond player control (this definitely should be a part of game design).
But if the game world is big enough, and well designed, players can control local population balance themselves.
By doing this they can avoid the zerg. This gives the zergers a problem. If they stay together they get avoided so do they split into smaller groups? If so, doesn't that defeat the zerg?
Here I think you need to define what you consider 'skill'? Are you talking twitch based gaming? Or are you talking character build choices? (Character 'skills') Or equipment choices?
Skill is how well you make all those choices. From twitch to build/gear chioces to what ability you decide to use in any given moment.
Thanks.
But it can and does happen - and I already covered the very real possibility that players may be 'locked out' of PvP and therefore RvR.
Can we agree bad things happening 'almost never' is superior to bad things happening frequently?
A non-100% success rate isn't sufficient reason to reject an idea.
Agreed. Pretty much my point too. ;-)
The fallacy here is that you immediately go for 'population policing' and therefore instancing.
There needs to be some kind of balancing mechanism - but there are other solutions possible than just focus on population. Read back to find some suggestions.
Population policing includes low population bonuses -- that's still policing the population, rather than giving it free reign to be as uneven as it wants.
Okay, so you are including low pop bonuses now. Low pop bonuses do not require instancing.
.... Personally, while I do enjoy the occasional "balanced" arena fight, I find it gets boring fast; thus I greatly prefer the sandbox approach...and if you have to beat the zerg either get more friends or find a way to fight smarter. ...
This is where game design is very important. Some games make not only make the zerg possible - but make it the only way to play.
This is where game design is very important. Some games make not only make the zerg possible - but make it the only way to play.
I agree completely, the game does have to be designed such that numbers aren't the only way to victory. However they do have to walk a fairly tight balance, because numbers *should* confer an advantage. I'm an old table top wargamer at heart, if I bring the bigger battalions it had better be worth something, else why did I bring them?
The "answer" is multi-layered; at the heart you need a combat system that is about more than numbers and mindless button-mashing; but you need to back it up with a battlefield/universe which allows elements like maneuver, terrain, positioning, deception and tricks/treachery to play a part as well.
I should add that do also wish many more games would support and provide mechanisms for proper "arena" or "duelling" matches. I know lots of people enjoy the small scale "balanced" fights - heck even I do occasionallys - and a well developed arena system would keep that sort from trying to turn "open RvR" into "balanced" fights.
This is where game design is very important. Some games make not only make the zerg possible - but make it the only way to play.
I agree completely, the game does have to be designed such that numbers aren't the only way to victory. However they do have to walk a fairly tight balance, because numbers *should* confer an advantage. I'm an old table top wargamer at heart, if I bring the bigger battalions it had better be worth something, else why did I bring them?
....
This is my point on open world PvP combined with RvR.
You should be able to gain a local advantage. That's what strategy is all about.
To give an example from a game I have already mentioned: Pirates of the Burning Sea.
The way the game is designed the total travel time to cross the whole game world is 40 minutes.
You can make port anywhere - even 'enemy' ports.
The only places there is unrestricted PvP is in the Red Circles (Simplified for sake of discussion)
The RvR is by invite to a Port Battle instance. (Again Simplified for discussion)
You may have several ships stored at various ports around the map and may 'teleport' to them as you like.
In the RvR Port Battles you can 'warp in' from wherever you are on the world map when the battle starts.
No logistics or ship maintenance expense.
End result is a very small world with very short travel times.
PvP zones are compressed.
Very little strategic planning is required. There is a Port Battle in Bridgetown, your First Rate is in New Orleans while you are in Cartagena? No problem - teleport to your First Rate - get the invite and warp to the battle!
The game has always had trouble with ganking, zerging and unbalanced instanced Port Battles.
Players can log in for an hour, group up with their zerging buddies and go anywhere in the world for a bit of zerging then dock and log off. Rinse and repeat.
The solution could have been in the overall game design.
Make the map 'bigger'. At a guess 10 hours to cross the map (minimium).
No docking at 'enemy' ports.
No teleporting between ships (have a 'cool down' timer)
No 'warping' ships to Port Battles - you fight in whatever ship is there (closest).
Logistical supply lines of some sort.
End result? Zerg squads cannot run riot over the whole world at will. They can still form (and will still form) but now other players can avoid them by playing elsewhere on the map. What's more, zerg squads lose the ability to cover all their bases properly. Any nation not distributing it's forces properly faces very real threats of even a comparitively weak force operating behind the lines and 'softcapping'. (Capturing ports against no real opposition)
This in turn presents the possibility of even a strong team having its supply lines cut (and associated penalties).
So far, none of this is reliant on instancing at all. It's all part of the overall game design.
At this point - if you really must - put instancing in as a form of localised population balance.
But if you get that far - you may find other solutions are just as effective?
This is where game design is very important. Some games make not only make the zerg possible - but make it the only way to play.
...
The "answer" is multi-layered; at the heart you need a combat system that is about more than numbers and mindless button-mashing; but you need to back it up with a battlefield/universe which allows elements like maneuver, terrain, positioning, deception and tricks/treachery to play a part as well.
...
I agree with you, but unluckliy MMO designers tend to make a combat system as simple and non-risky as possible (I would if my goal was to earn money with my MMO). As every MMO designer knows, a high percentage of the player base does not have enough "skill" to play in an environment with hundreds of combat moves, especially when speed and intelligence is needed. Most players just want to have a relaxed and risk free gaming experience without hassles - even in PvP engagements. They do not want to learn how to fight skillfully or how to survive under bad odds. After all: its just a game and not work...
The consequence are games with high hp chars, lots of healing, slow movement, no hit and run options or good aoe spells (like a chain lightning trap that increases in dmg with every new target). The chars are easy to play and nearly everyone plays them well automatically. It becomes impossible to win a 1v2 fight and numbers become the deciding factor.
Actually anti zerg options are quite easy to design and implement. The ideas are out there. The hard part is to convince both the designers and the player base to see zergs as a bad thing (and most dont because zerg = low risk with the occasional kill = fun).
--- Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Comments
I'm speaking mostly of ways which bring skill to the forefront of a game. (although realistically skill shares the same space as RPG progression mechanics in an MMORPG, so it's not purely about skill.)
You can have population bonuses (my faction has half the population, so I get a +300% damage bonus) but those inevitably make the game feel very arbitrary and unnecessarily gamey. It's a much better solution if population is forcibly balanced (because you'll always win/lose due to skill, instead of sometimes getting instagibbed by a bad player just because your side outnumbered them.)
...
Fallacy.
Your argument seems to come down to:
IF this THEN that (always!)
THERFORE this is the only solution
Like you say (correctly) PotBS was not well designed and so is hardly a good example of what Instanced PvP can be. Likewise WAR.
Well, I suggest to you that non instanced games where open world PvP has failed often share the same problem = bad design.
Again, you are still assuming that the only solution is Instanced PvP?
This does not follow.
There may be other solutions. Just because you don't believe that does not make it false.
Zerging is still a pretty big problem in games like that. Or at least it was in Planetside, which shared many similar mechanics.
And I admittedly loved the crap out of Planetside, so your argument cuts deep
But it was guiltier than most games of the situation where sometimes I'd log on and my presence simply would not matter due to population imbalances.
Perhaps this is because they didn't listen to my (and other players') pleas for improving low population bonuses, but largely it's the result of the game basically being pure world PVP.
Again, there was a problem with the design, that does not mean that the whole idea is flawed.
The big problem with PvP / RvR games to date is that they all seem to share is that the balancing mechanism was a design afterthought.
A game will fall somewhere between the two extremes of pure skill, and no skill. In a game decided purely by skill, you can improve your lot in life...and your decisions matter. In a game devoid of skill, you don't matter - no amount of clever decisionmaking will change the fact that you'll always win exactly 50% of the time.
Here I think you need to define what you consider 'skill'? Are you talking twitch based gaming? Or are you talking character build choices? (Character 'skills') Or equipment choices?
...
But if "persistant faction warring" is how you define it, then yes...a game can be instanced and still have persistant faction wars. As long as teams are balanced.
POTBS allows population-imbalanced instances (such as late-night fights where only one team is present,) so again it's a terrible example of instanced PVP. It's an extreme rarity for WOW to allow instanced PVP with imbalanced teams (although it can happen if one team simply doesn't accept its queue.)
But it can and does happen - and I already covered the very real possibility that players may be 'locked out' of PvP and therefore RvR.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but instanced games dominate the marketplace.
So? That does not mean that they are better or that the design is good. Instancing was introduced to meet a specific need and because of technology limitations. That does not mean that it is the only solution, the best solution, or even an appropriate solution in all cases.
This argument is roughly equivalent to "Nails dominate the market therefore screws and glue don't work and should not be used."
Yes, but the point is PVP by nature is useless without some form of population policing. And of the population policing methods, instancing typically results in the best gameplay; the least disadvantages, and the strongest advantages.
The fallacy here is that you immediately go for 'population policing' and therefore instancing.
There needs to be some kind of balancing mechanism - but there are other solutions possible than just focus on population. Read back to find some suggestions.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
My argument is more that
Skill + Gear + Population = Power
is a worse system than
Skill + Gear = Power
because the player has control over skill and gear, but not population. There are different methods for factoring skill out of the equation, and of those methods instanced PVP has the least disadvantages.
Skill is how well you make all those choices. From twitch to build/gear chioces to what ability you decide to use in any given moment.
Can we agree bad things happening 'almost never' is superior to bad things happening frequently?
A non-100% success rate isn't sufficient reason to reject an idea.
Population policing includes low population bonuses -- that's still policing the population, rather than giving it free reign to be as uneven as it wants.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
First off, the answer depends entirely on what you want out of PvP and how you define it.
If you are primarily what I would call a "duelist" then you want "balanced" PvP which leads pretty quickly to number regulated instancing.
If you prefer the open RvR or "sandbox" style of PvP then a) the game should be one where numbers are not the sole (or even primary) determinant of victory but b) numbers should confer some advantages. If you prefer realism, it's not like the Wehrmact could whinge on the forums about the Red Army "zerging" them out of Poland now could it?
Personally, while I do enjoy the occasional "balanced" arena fight, I find it gets boring fast; thus I greatly prefer the sandbox approach...and if you have to beat the zerg either get more friends or find a way to fight smarter.
EVE is the best example of this out there presently. When my corp went up against the IRON Alliance, we could hardly go whimpering about "population imbalances" and looking for bonuses. So we lost, regrouped and moved on with life...
Skill is how well you make all those choices. From twitch to build/gear chioces to what ability you decide to use in any given moment.
Thanks.
Can we agree bad things happening 'almost never' is superior to bad things happening frequently?
A non-100% success rate isn't sufficient reason to reject an idea.
Agreed. Pretty much my point too. ;-)
Population policing includes low population bonuses -- that's still policing the population, rather than giving it free reign to be as uneven as it wants.
Okay, so you are including low pop bonuses now. Low pop bonuses do not require instancing.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
This is where game design is very important. Some games make not only make the zerg possible - but make it the only way to play.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
I agree completely, the game does have to be designed such that numbers aren't the only way to victory. However they do have to walk a fairly tight balance, because numbers *should* confer an advantage. I'm an old table top wargamer at heart, if I bring the bigger battalions it had better be worth something, else why did I bring them?
The "answer" is multi-layered; at the heart you need a combat system that is about more than numbers and mindless button-mashing; but you need to back it up with a battlefield/universe which allows elements like maneuver, terrain, positioning, deception and tricks/treachery to play a part as well.
I should add that do also wish many more games would support and provide mechanisms for proper "arena" or "duelling" matches. I know lots of people enjoy the small scale "balanced" fights - heck even I do occasionallys - and a well developed arena system would keep that sort from trying to turn "open RvR" into "balanced" fights.
I agree completely, the game does have to be designed such that numbers aren't the only way to victory. However they do have to walk a fairly tight balance, because numbers *should* confer an advantage. I'm an old table top wargamer at heart, if I bring the bigger battalions it had better be worth something, else why did I bring them?
....This is my point on open world PvP combined with RvR.
You should be able to gain a local advantage. That's what strategy is all about.
To give an example from a game I have already mentioned: Pirates of the Burning Sea.
Here's the map for reference
The way the game is designed the total travel time to cross the whole game world is 40 minutes.
You can make port anywhere - even 'enemy' ports.
The only places there is unrestricted PvP is in the Red Circles (Simplified for sake of discussion)
The RvR is by invite to a Port Battle instance. (Again Simplified for discussion)
You may have several ships stored at various ports around the map and may 'teleport' to them as you like.
In the RvR Port Battles you can 'warp in' from wherever you are on the world map when the battle starts.
No logistics or ship maintenance expense.
End result is a very small world with very short travel times.
PvP zones are compressed.
Very little strategic planning is required. There is a Port Battle in Bridgetown, your First Rate is in New Orleans while you are in Cartagena? No problem - teleport to your First Rate - get the invite and warp to the battle!
The game has always had trouble with ganking, zerging and unbalanced instanced Port Battles.
Players can log in for an hour, group up with their zerging buddies and go anywhere in the world for a bit of zerging then dock and log off. Rinse and repeat.
The solution could have been in the overall game design.
Make the map 'bigger'. At a guess 10 hours to cross the map (minimium).
No docking at 'enemy' ports.
No teleporting between ships (have a 'cool down' timer)
No 'warping' ships to Port Battles - you fight in whatever ship is there (closest).
Logistical supply lines of some sort.
End result? Zerg squads cannot run riot over the whole world at will. They can still form (and will still form) but now other players can avoid them by playing elsewhere on the map. What's more, zerg squads lose the ability to cover all their bases properly. Any nation not distributing it's forces properly faces very real threats of even a comparitively weak force operating behind the lines and 'softcapping'. (Capturing ports against no real opposition)
This in turn presents the possibility of even a strong team having its supply lines cut (and associated penalties).
So far, none of this is reliant on instancing at all. It's all part of the overall game design.
At this point - if you really must - put instancing in as a form of localised population balance.
But if you get that far - you may find other solutions are just as effective?
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
The "answer" is multi-layered; at the heart you need a combat system that is about more than numbers and mindless button-mashing; but you need to back it up with a battlefield/universe which allows elements like maneuver, terrain, positioning, deception and tricks/treachery to play a part as well.
...
I agree with you, but unluckliy MMO designers tend to make a combat system as simple and non-risky as possible (I would if my goal was to earn money with my MMO). As every MMO designer knows, a high percentage of the player base does not have enough "skill" to play in an environment with hundreds of combat moves, especially when speed and intelligence is needed. Most players just want to have a relaxed and risk free gaming experience without hassles - even in PvP engagements. They do not want to learn how to fight skillfully or how to survive under bad odds. After all: its just a game and not work...
The consequence are games with high hp chars, lots of healing, slow movement, no hit and run options or good aoe spells (like a chain lightning trap that increases in dmg with every new target). The chars are easy to play and nearly everyone plays them well automatically. It becomes impossible to win a 1v2 fight and numbers become the deciding factor.
Actually anti zerg options are quite easy to design and implement. The ideas are out there. The hard part is to convince both the designers and the player base to see zergs as a bad thing (and most dont because zerg = low risk with the occasional kill = fun).
---
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.