Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Why PvP is not going Strategic?
werewood
Member Posts: 76
Lately all PvP can offer is a quick fight that mostly determined on who started. I know I oversimplifying things but hey why didn't the industry go the strategic PvP path? It would definitely be more epic and would allow us to think and cooperate much better with our team.
GW2 has some cool ability combinations between players but still combat is planned to be quick. So why did the industry seem to be so non-innovative? What could make PvP combat last longer and more interesting?
Comments
I belive that major issue is how current generation of players care about just killing, nothing else... So in reality no one would follow the plan, and most effective might be pure zerg rush...
If it were more strategic I'd probably get into it more than I do. The only kind of PvP I like anymore are boardgames, which is the only place to find PvP turn based strategy.
I would guess that the ADD junkies may not like stategy because its "slow and boring".
Because of attention deficit disorder and the industry targeting the young because younger players are more vuriable to suggestions around 'product identity'.
intresting to note, the average age of a television watcher is 50 but the target age is somewhere around 18. Why? because if they can get them buying coke early they will buy coke forever.
A little secret there about audience targeting.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Exactly my point ... there may be a huge market for a PvP system which is slower and more strategic.
Do you have ideas how to make it as such? I am trying to come up with a post on my blog about it and am curious if you have some coo ideas which I can use ...
http://werewood.wordpress.com
op mentions gw2 pvp , i hope said pvp will be alot better than what i have played for nearly 5 years in gw1, the lack of consequence makes it meaningless after a while .. there needs to be a penalty of some sort for losing.
The current majority of the market appears to prefer quick slaughter (and they are even clamoring for quicker slaughter in games such as WoW - thinking that the current BGs distract too much from that simple slaughter in asking for TDM BGs).
It is tough not to call names, etc - being as there are so many derogatory terms that could be applied to them, but in the end that is not fair.
It is just a case they are the market majority.
I would have preferred more strategic, larger battles myself...but oh well.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Wizard 101 has turn based combat and I believe Atlantica Online does as well.
I think one of the things working against turn based combat is the fact that you have to be in an arena type setting for it to work. That doesn't mean an actual arena, but once you enter combat, you're separate from the world and the world doesn't interupt your combat. With action based combat, the world can interfere. Other players can enter combat, random mobs can walk in and attack, etc. The design of the game has to make turn based combat work in the context of the game.
I think strategic action combat just has some balance issues. Once a strategy works, it just keeps working until the developers change something. You have a whole bunch of tools in the toolbox, but you only use 3 of them in a certain order and win. It doesn't have to be like that, but players are really good at finding the best combination of available things to win in the shortest period of time. So maybe the developer had the intention of creating a strategic combat session, but the players turned it into a burn them down quick session.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
These are points in the context of MMOs but using single player games as a baseline example there are very very few turned based single player games but there are a TON of real time games.
Turn based adds a whole new dimision to game play that is simply not possible with real time. The gaming industry however had not embraced it more so then the gamers dont want it. By that I mean, I dont think most gamers have even played enough turn based games to know if they like it or not. Its a supply issue more than a demand issue.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I used to love playing Magic the Gathering Online when it was in beta. Then they released it with ridiculously expensive virtual cards. MtGO was probably what influenced EQ2's collectible card game, but I never wanted to go back to EQ2 to try it.
I wish a game would launch with a good collectible strategy game that was well integrated into the game world. Maybe put play tables in taverns. Collectible drops from MOB's. A market for the collectibles. Kind of like the minigames in Fallout New Vegas and Knights of the Old Republic, but with better thought out game mechanics.
EVE Incarna is supposed to launch with a TBS game that plays on a hex grid. I'm just afraid it will be like everything else in EVE with encouraged griefing mechanics built in from the start.
I know the OP is probably thinking more along the lines of traditional character vs character PvP, but I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents on other strategic options.
You have a game with 5 players.
Player 1 - takes their turn. Players 2-5 have to wait during that time.
Player 2 - takes their turn. Players 1, 3-5 have to wait.
Player 3, Player 4, etc.
Depending on how quickly the person takes their turn, you spend quite a bit of time waiting. Say you put in a time limit on the person's turn?
5 minutes could mean waiting 20 minutes until it was your turn again.
2 minutes would cut that down to 8 minutes, but it would still be up to 8 minutes for each and every turn.
Sure, if it were two players with 1-3 minutes, it would be one thing.
If you have 10 people and they each get a minute, you are still looking at up to 9 minutes. Give them two and you are at up to 18 minutes.
Turn-based is not a great system once you go beyond 2-4 players.
Developers discovered that and we ended up with the horde of RTS games instead of the turn based games.
Heck, it was a draw of video games in general compared to PnP games - which generally involved initiative rolls and turn based combat. Real time...oh la la.
Do wish that PvP in games was more like a RTS than a FPS though.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
This has been addressed in both MMOG's and boardgaming.
In Wizard 101 there is a timer on the decision making stage. Each player chooses the card they will play simultaneously. If you don't make your decision during the time period then you lose your turn. After everyone decides the it cycles through the players showing the animations for whatever they chose. It works out well and even allows for player to enter into each other's games at any time.
In boardgaming there have been a number of simultaneous turn taking mechanics. 7 Wonders is a newer game that takes the same amount of time with 7 players as it does with 3 players. Race for the Galaxy uses a popular role selection mechanic that is completely simultaneous. A nice side effect of games like this is that they tend to go faster.
You just gotta think outside the box and use modern innovative TBS mechanics. There has been a real revolution in boardgaming over the last 15 years and they have left PC TBS games in the dust.
Turn based adds a whole new dimision to game play that is simply not possible with real time. The gaming industry however had not embraced it more so then the gamers dont want it. By that I mean, I dont think most gamers have even played enough turn based games to know if they like it or not. Its a supply issue more than a demand issue.
My first experience with action combat was Doom. Prior to that with the D&D games, it was all turn based combat. Other adventure games just didn't have actual combat. Developers aren't ignoring the possibility of turn based combat, they've just seen the difference in sales between games with turn based combat and games without it. The perception is that turn based combat is 'old', while action based combat is 'modern'.
There is a market for it, I'm sure. I still think it would have to fit in with your game though. You can't just throw any type of combat into any type of game. It wouldn't work in Doom anymore than it would work in WoW.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Might want to reconsider that last statement.
Doom RPG
Doom Roguelike
I have played Doom as a turn based game more than I have played it in realtime.
EDIT: Forgot one... Doom the Boardgame
Because most people are terrible at PvP games. GW1 had a lot of strategy involved in all its PvP, from build creation to a simple death match. You probably didn't play GW1 which is why you are saying GW2 won't have the same thing. Trust me, it will.
But I think what you are complaining about has more to do with the nature of Battle Ground PvP than anything else. Its
Games:
Currently playing:Nothing
Will play: Darkfall: Unholy Wars
Past games:
Guild Wars 2 - Xpiher Duminous
Xpiher's GW2
GW 1 - Xpiher Duminous
Darkfall - Xpiher Duminous (NA) retired
AoC - Xpiher (Tyranny) retired
Warhammer - Xpiher
Most MMO players prefer a match/duel scenario to war scenario - two very different ways to approach PvP.
In a match, the reward is often points, rank or other world-spearate reward. The battle is often even, with both sides being within a certain range of levels and a matching number of team members. Battles are restricted to a specific fighting arena, again, separated from the main game world. The battle starts and stops according to a preset the timer, flag, buzzer, etc.
In war, the conflict is for control over territory or resources.Like RISK, Axis and Allies, Chess or any other strategic war game, there are many more elements involved. Many of these elements reduce the fun factor for a lot of players. Numerical advantage, conspiracy, territory loss, politics and reduced number of safe areas are some of those factors.
The industry is actually rather innovative, as there have been many changes made to make PvP more of a sport, which is far more fun for most MMO gamers than conquest gameplay or war-based mechanics. The fairness of the matches and rewards for participation are two of the areas where there's been noticeable evolution over the years.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You can have instanced territory control or WARFARE mechanics. The problem with the industry is that most MMOs use the same crappy type of matches: CTF and Deathmatch which don't requires much strat to complete. GW was the execption because terrain mattered more than most games, HA had more than 1 type of match, and GvG had other elements that requires well balanced builds and less focus on just killing the other side.
Games:
Currently playing:Nothing
Will play: Darkfall: Unholy Wars
Past games:
Guild Wars 2 - Xpiher Duminous
Xpiher's GW2
GW 1 - Xpiher Duminous
Darkfall - Xpiher Duminous (NA) retired
AoC - Xpiher (Tyranny) retired
Warhammer - Xpiher
Maybe the whole buildup of abilities is one of the core reasons for non strategic combat nowadays.
I think that I will focus on my blog on this aspect! I mean even in RIFT you at most have one active spell that can affect other abilities that you shoot on the target afterwards. But what about a complex stack of abilities ... I will think how to add to this idea and add a good example too.
Bottom line there is a ton of innovation that studios can bring to PvE and PvP to make it strategic and longer ... and still not turn based.
http://werewood.wordpress.com
I never said anything about instances or that you couldn't have warfare-style gameplay in an MMO or that match-style gameplay cannot or does not have strategic gameplay.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Drawn out tactical warfare is only satisfying for those who are always playing. Personally, I have no interest in playing a game where my actions won't have any impact in the time I'm actually playing it. If you're fighting but the war wages on for days or weeks and I'm not there for the final outcome, seems like I wasted my time. With no PAYOFF, theres little incentive to play. I need a winning/losing scenario within an hour or 2 at most. It has nothing to do with attention span either. Theres this thing called having a life and family and unless you SUCK at being a dad, you can't play a MMO very consistently for long hours every day=) I know people do, but theres this thing called sleep & work, hehe.
I wouldn't want to take this from people though. There are those that do play every night, all night and would find a battle that lasts weeks VERY satisfying. But those days are long gone for me=(
PvP should be going strategic. I want to see a battle system with the depth of games like Street Fighter, not just some laggy twitch based RPG where the winner is decided based on whoever manages to land a spell first. I have yet to find an MMO which did not feature laughably simplistic (in the case of games like Runescape) or painfully primitive (WoW, Darkfall, etc) PvP combat. It doesn't seem like there really is an answer for developers, either because they're entirely focused on PvE or because the server technology they have access to does not allow a great deal of interaction between players.
An online DOTA-like gamme with unlimited amounts of players would probably the type of strategic MMO we're looking for. Why has nobody made this yet?
... and this is one big reason I'm looking forward to Guild Wars 2.
It's planned to have both tactical oriented and strategy oriented PvP.
For those who want fair, balanced, tactical PvP, there will be 5v5 matches with maxed characters who have access to all skills and special PvP max armor.
For those who want long term, strategic fights, where it's not just about your skill, but also about your long term character development and how well you work with others, there's the WvWvW fights, which are week long battles between three servers.
Either kind of fight I want, I can get. Along with other PvP types like the minigames, which allows fun things like bar brawls. Yay free for all fights.
These are points in the context of MMOs but using single player games as a baseline example there are very very few turned based single player games but there are a TON of real time games.
Turn based adds a whole new dimision to game play that is simply not possible with real time. The gaming industry however had not embraced it more so then the gamers dont want it. By that I mean, I dont think most gamers have even played enough turn based games to know if they like it or not. Its a supply issue more than a demand issue.
My first experience with action combat was Doom. Prior to that with the D&D games, it was all turn based combat. Other adventure games just didn't have actual combat. Developers aren't ignoring the possibility of turn based combat, they've just seen the difference in sales between games with turn based combat and games without it. The perception is that turn based combat is 'old', while action based combat is 'modern'.
There is a market for it, I'm sure. I still think it would have to fit in with your game though. You can't just throw any type of combat into any type of game. It wouldn't work in Doom anymore than it would work in WoW.
Might want to reconsider that last statement.
Doom RPG
Doom Roguelike
I have played Doom as a turn based game more than I have played it in realtime.
EDIT: Forgot one... Doom the Boardgame
That illustrates my point perfectly. The original Doom FPS game had nothing in it that would lend itself to a turn based combat system. However, if you rework the game mechanics so that it's not a fps but instead a turn based rpg or a turn based game like Rogue, then turn based combat makes sense. It fits the context of the game and brings the player more into the game.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with turn based combat at all. I just think it needs to fit the game you want to put it in.
I think active combat has the problem of balance and players finding the best way to burn through other players. Players are really good at turning a slow, strategic combat system into a fast, tricky way to win in a very short period of time.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Meowhead - I doubt that there can be much strategy in any form of combat - GW2 included - which is taking place within a few seconds. That is the vision their devs have talked about - fast / quick combat for PvP as well. So even with all the collaborative abilities I can't see them being the solution I am looking for.
http://werewood.wordpress.com
First, I'm not sure where you're getting the quote about the devs talking about seconds-long PvP battles? Reference please. Not that I'm saying you're lying, but I can't really argue about something that I've literally never heard about.
Secondly, even with shorter combat, that's where the 'MMO' part comes in. Believe it or not, a fight between two people with guns is pretty much just very briefly tactical in general. You shoot at each other a bit, somebody gets shot someplace bad, person dies. Yet, the same people, with the same guns, in a larger scale battle, allows it to become strategic.
There are some elements of strategy in any game with a lot of character customization (GW1 was pretty customizable), just inherent in setting up for future battles. More importantly though, MMOs allow mass movement of troops, and collision on various fronts, and sacrificing in one area to claim another goal... hence, strategic. The more people involved, the longer the battles, the more strategy is allowed. Thousands of people over a period of a week is more than enough room for plenty of strategy.
If you're talking on a smaller scale, one on one battles, or two on two or whatever, most encounters are generally more tactical in nature.
Maybe you're confusing strategy with tactics? I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, when you're saying you want strategy. That's generally much more long term, applying to very large scale battles. The duration of an individual fight has little to do with that.
What is ironic about this statment is that turned based stradgey war games are so amazingly better than the 'RTS' multitastking nightmare that they are today that its not even funny. In short, they are actually making real time into games that actually better not as real time. I left RTS a long time ago because of this fact actually
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me