Strategy and skill are hard to quantify. For example I play street fighter competitively to put myself through college. I'm very good. But even in street fighter the basics are all that matter at high level play. Rote memorization is all I need to properly counter moves and respond with the maximum available damage, sure it takes reflexes but I finish almost every fight with the same exact combo.
Now to Aion. I've fought some of the best players in Aion 1v1. There is quite a bit of strategy in how you stack your buffs, when to dispell, when to unroot, when to chain stun, etc. It's very interesting and dynamic and quite skill based. The problem is when there is more than two people than the game loses all that organization and becomes far too confusing and a zerg fest or whoever has the highest level wins.
Guild Wars. Aka, Build Wars. There are a handful of builds that work amazingly in pvp. We're assuming I play to win and picked one of these, I usually don't but for the example I did. I know have the best available build for the pvp I'm participating in. One again the order you stack your buffs are important, who is bursting who, when you trigger what to counter what, it's all very fun even for the whole group. The problem here is the group dynamic, a group all rockin' the proper builds will trash any other group that isn't by spamming their synergies.
Street Fighter's tactics and strategy boils down to knowing when to use what, and there is only one option available to you once you know what to do. Skill is basically knowing what counters what and the reflexes to implement that counter. Sure knowing the frame data on all the moves is tedious and most players won't even know what an i-frame is but once you know it the game loses that entry level depth to become a flowchart of sorts.
Back to Aion. Skill is still knowing when to use what, and in group play situational awareness and listening to target calls. Not very hard once you know what you are doing and you are permitted very little choice. Still, very exciting in 1v1 duels.
Guild Wars had the most viable options for how to counter or minimize your opponents strategy. It is still knowing when to use what but sometimes you could choose between a few different things. At high level play those options disappeared because everyone is using the same builds and the same counters are by far the most effective.
Even a turn based rpg would suffer from this dynamic and so does Starcraft, a real time strategy game.
This is because we are playing video games with set values and easily quantifiable worlds. With enough time I will always know the most affective and efficient way to play. I know the damage modifiers for flanking damage, the chance of a rear attack crit, and I know you know them too. And when I know you know the best way to play then we always know what the other is going to do. Then you have two choices, use a less affective strategy in the hope you catch your opponent with their pants down (very unlikely) or you could simply try to implement the same strategy fast or better (being higher level, better gear, more resources, being faster, quicker reflexes, etc).
It all boils down into numbers, statistics. I find the fun in games like Dragon Age and WAR to take those numbers, organize them, and then make the most broken and masterful sonata of mathmatics I can to decimate my enemies. Strategy is only a concept. It doesn't really exist. In real life the phenomenon of strategy exists because both sides aren't equal and lack knowledge of the other side. This unknown factor, the number I can't perceive, allows for real choices to exist. In an mmo the numbers are all there, I know everything about you and what you are capable of, we are all equal in what we have available, and in time I can account for everything.
In order for real strategy to exist in a game (much less an mmo) there must be an unknown factor. And the only way to fairly implement an unknown factor into a game is for the core game to be simple enough to permit the factor to exist.
Let's take Halo Reach as an example. The unknown factor is the players decisions on the way and into combat. Will they run if they start losing? Will they stay and fight anyways? Go in for the last ditch melee move? Toss a plasma and hope for the best? Go in prepared for them to run, expect them to rush you, and never let them get close enough for a melee. Do that and a plasma will never hit you. Thus the only random factor is where the players are at any given time. The same factor persists in CoD. Your ability to aim means nearly nothing in the eyes of your total score. Where you are when a fight breaks out if the only real factor of strategy. And this is because of the defined factors for damage and speed. When you melee it always does the same damage, the same bullet does the same damage, etc.
In real life the numbers are far too complex and the interactions far to many to measure. In a game, human made, I can account for everything.
TLDR Games are far too simple as they stand to have any real strategy at their highest echelons of play. With defined metrics available one choice of many will always be the best.
TLDR Games are far too simple as they stand to have any real strategy at their highest echelons of play. With defined metrics available one choice of many will always be the best.
Mmm... but it's easy to create something with really simple, defined metrics, and have it be impossibly strategic, to the point where a computer cannot calculate a winning strategy.
Look at Go. It fares a lot better than Chess, which has a much more complex set of rules.
Either extreme works well for having a lot of room for strategy. Either incredibly simple and balanced (Ie... Go, or Chess (Which still hasn't been solved as a game, despite having Grandmaster level computers), or incredibly complex and imbalanced (Like real life combat).
Toss in enough random factors (Large scale battles with players taking the role of each and every combatant) and it's no longer cut-and-dried what will happen. You can't rely on your opponents to do any one particular thing, so you have to create an overarching strategy that works well in a variety of scenarios, with enough flexibility to change it as necessary.
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?
I don't really consider Street Fighter to be strategic. The game is very much execution and tactics oriented. Any stategy is mostly meta-based.
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.
When people talk about strategy in MMORPGs I pretty much consider EVE to be the only real example. When you are controlling territory in nullspace it is very much about troop movements, resource management and politics.
Most other PvP MMORPGs are very tactical where you are given a basic objective and try to attack and take it.
When people talk about strategy in MMORPGs I pretty much consider EVE to be the only real example. When you are controlling territory in nullspace it is very much about troop movements, resource management and politics.
Most other PvP MMORPGs are very tactical where you are given a basic objective and try to attack and take it.
Well, nobody has seen GW2's PvP yet, but I think a three-sided thousand+ person battle that takes a week to resolve, with multiple castles, outposts and resource points could easily have enough room to actually have a lot of strategy.
Whether or not they will actually have it is another question, but there's certainly the opportunity for such to exist.
MMORPG PVP is strongly rooted in progression, which means it's a pretty lousy place to find large amounts of strategy, because fights can be decided before they begin.
If you want PVP where your decisions matter a lot, you play genres where that's the case:
Fighting
Turn-based strategy
RTS
FPS
To nitpick, "who struck first" is rarely the deciding factor in MMORPG PVP -- at least compared to the much stronger influences of progression or population. Only in poorly designed FPSes is "who struck first" a substantial factor, to be honest. Ideally you want player skill to the be the deciding factor of PVP the majority of the time (and that's the case in the genres I listed)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
TLDR Games are far too simple as they stand to have any real strategy at their highest echelons of play. With defined metrics available one choice of many will always be the best.
I would agree with this in general. Even competitive Magic the Gathering comes down to cookie cutter decks full of power cards that don't require much skill to play. Even in the best of times its more of a paper/scissors/rock type of interaction.
There are the obvious counter-examples of Chess or Go, but those games are so dry and one sided. It gets much harder to find thematic competitive games with a high level of strategy. But still, create some interesting interactions, some RNGs, and a dash of chaos and it can be great fun trying to bend the odds in your favor.
MMORPG PVP is strongly rooted in progression, which means it's a pretty lousy place to find large amounts of strategy, because fights can be decided before they begin.
If you want PVP where your decisions matter a lot, you play genres where that's the case:
Fighting
Turn-based strategy
RTS
FPS
To nitpick, "who struck first" is rarely the deciding factor in MMORPG PVP -- at least compared to the much stronger influences of progression or population. Only in poorly designed FPSes is "who struck first" a substantial factor, to be honest. Ideally you want player skill to the be the deciding factor of PVP the majority of the time (and that's the case in the genres I listed)
aside from the famous quote from Sun Tzu 'the good wars are the wars that are won before the begin'. Its important to note that RTS is about building (growing) your army and resources. The fate of an RTS game is often decided before the battles begin is it not?
Why would that not translate into the exact same version for MMORPG? you are playing the little solider and you are getting stronger and increasing in your ranks just as the RTS player is gathering resources to get more scouts and more buildings.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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.
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
The statement isn't ironic at all. Players in Turn Based Strategy games do the same thing. It's easier to spot the flaws in the system because it unrolls slower, but that doesn't mean the same flaws aren't there.
Besides, the relative merits of games as RTS or TBS is a subjective opinion. Some people like TBS, some people like RTS. The relative quality of each system isn't a universal property though...it depends on each individual who's participating in the system.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
TBS gives me to much time to think personally. RTS I find favorable as a result because it forces me to enact strategies and improvise more. Otherwise I tend to have the match canned half way through and start to lose interest once I know what the outcome will be.
I do get annoyed at how frequently strategy is dropped from PvP though. Part of why I harp on Planetside. There was real strategy in that game, Also part of why I gravitate towards Clancy games and the likes of Mount&Blade with crpg mod. They require more from the player, and it's as close to a balance I've seen in titles between sheer action and deeper movement and choice in equipment.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
The statement isn't ironic at all. Players in Turn Based Strategy games do the same thing. It's easier to spot the flaws in the system because it unrolls slower, but that doesn't mean the same flaws aren't there.
Besides, the relative merits of games as RTS or TBS is a subjective opinion. Some people like TBS, some people like RTS. The relative quality of each system isn't a universal property though...it depends on each individual who's participating in the system.
The basic point you are making is that the large majority of top down stradegy games are in real time because its better way to play it otherwise it would not be the majority. I am saying that in my view top down turn based stradegy games are considerable better than a real time approach because I have played them both and the differences in experience are radical.
I am also saying that people often miss the supply side of an equation when talking about supply and demand. We dont know if people would like turn based because nobody ever makes them outside of the grade B gaming world
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Yes, because the Civ series has never been a major title...
Oh, and Heroes of Might and Magic? nah
Total War? Psha.
Age of Wonders? Nope.
None of those could have possibly been made by major developers or as full titles.
Given that everyone and their mothers brothers dog knows what the phrase RTS means and that its an entire gaming category and there isnt a gaming category called TBS games that I am aware of I stick by my statement.
Slient Storm is the only game I personally have played the represents what i am talking about.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
aside from the famous quote from Sun Tzu 'the good wars are the wars that are won before the begin'. Its important to note that RTS is about building (growing) your army and resources. The fate of an RTS game is often decided before the battles begin is it not?
Why would that not translate into the exact same version for MMORPG? you are playing the little solider and you are getting stronger and increasing in your ranks just as the RTS player is gathering resources to get more scouts and more buildings.
RTS games are fun because in a 50 min game you're making a large variety of important decisions which all feed into whether you win or lose.
A single soldier in a single RTS battle has no fun and makes almost zero interesting decisions during the course of that battle. So we can't really pretend it would be fun or interesting to play that soldier's role in a particular battle. It's not fun for that soldier. That soldier doesn't get a complete game.
The way to "translate" RTS goodness into MMORPG PVP is to think of your MMORPG class as your RTS race. It's your playstyle and your distinct set of advantages and disadvantages.
At the start of every 30-min RTS game things are even. So they should also be in a 30-min MMORPG PVP battle.
Within the context of that 30-min session, you will make a series of varied decisions. In RTSes these are building/training stuff, moving stuff, and utilizing unit abilities. In MMORPGs these are moving and using abilities.
Again, the issue is really the "RPG" side of things. As soon as you involve permanent progression (which RPGs all have), you start to diminish the importance of any decision made within that 30-minute encounter. The more progression matters, the less your decisions in each session do. This includes all types of progression (character, gear, territory control, etc). So that's why MMORPGs work themselves into a corner and tend to have bad PVP -- because individual sessions can very easily become completely pre-determined, and now your decisions are meaningless and you may as well not even play.
Historically players have shown preference for each of their 30-min PVP sessions being isolated from the other sessions, to maintain the purity of PVP. The big pull of games which aren't designed this way is that skill is a much lighter requirement: if you play long enough, have enough friends, or get the right gear, it becomes much easier to achieve victory than in pure PVP games where skill (and only skill) determines victory.
If you didn't include progression (and therefore didn't quite make a MMORPG but a Third Person tactical MMO) I think that could potentially be pretty damn fun. Basically take TF2 or Enemy Territory-style PVP maps and let players create their characters out of a lot of little fun pieces (imagine you were playing Guild Wars except you had access to all skills and armors right at the start.) I suppose progression could even exist, as long as it isn't veritcal progression (as that's the type of progression which harms PVP.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
TBS games tend to be lumped into 'other strategy games' and are the example of that category as the most common alternative to RTS alongside the simulation games. At this point though RTS has taken over the digital world.
Most games used to be turn based. I played the crap out of the original Might&Magic titles. That's changed though. Computers have gotten more powerful, play styles have shifted, and the result is a push for realtime media in the mainstream.
I may be biased since I'm in favor of real time, but the excuse that turn based has deeper strategy or options than real time does is an entirely subjective comment based on what's presented within the context of the individual game.
Take D&D for example.
There's plenty of games that have emulated D&D in many ways, and some that try to push that concept of freeform play. One might try to contrast the difference in turn baed versus real time by comparing it's spawn, however you'll quickly find that it's not due to the fact that one is turn based or real time. It's a matter of accounting for choices. And in some regards it's still town to the technical capability of machines as to what the extent of options and tactical choice is.
I still play pnp D&D(and sometimes GURPS and a few others) because in spite of some peoples claims about games, it is still the best option for getting the widest choice in strategy and choice.
However, that alone doesn't cut it for me. Like I said prior I have a problem with turn based games in that they give me too long to think. The result is similar to my issue with ganking in that I can discern the outcome usually long before the full conflict or resolution. I'm not fond of metagaming, number crunching, or otherwise. I prefer visual and physical where I can co-ordinate and play out things on the fly, adapt to a given condition immediately, and generally operate on a toe-to-toe basis.
Strategy is very important to me, but I also need the satisfaction of both experiencing ant implementing it myself. Probably why I'm not as savvy on the rts side of gaming either. I play well enough at it, but I just don't get as much fun from watching some other unit do what I want to be doing.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
This thread sounds like the media as if games are murder simulations. People who have played violent games their whole life are scared to death of real guns and would never hurt a fly.
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".
I want to know if you like it. The goal is to actually bring forth a more strategic aspect to PvP, as well as small group battles instead of zerging, and combat which FEELS fast but is actually lengthy (because players slowly die based on "Wound Levels" from Healthy, to Hurt, Wounded, Severely Wounded, and finally Crippled which takes them out of combat but still alive to be saved before death. Each wound level having 100% of the player's hit points, so a player must inevitably be defeated 5 times before death. The kicker though is that upon being Wounded (lowering a wound level) a player CANNOT be healed except by completely leaving the area and going to a safe haven. There is healing in the game, but it is more like regen, and players cannot be healed up a Wound Level, except going from 100% HP @ Crippled to 1% HP @ Severely Wounded, so that they may walk away (Crippled players can't move, but they can be helped up to rise to walk away, although not being able to go past 1% Severely Wounded)
Death has a small chance to be permanent (or skill loss) which makes tactical choice more important for players to play smart and use teamwork. The game mechanics are designed for team work (although some roles are solo-friendly, but they are mainly about disturbing and annoying the enemy or stealing objectives, than actually harming them directly) so all major damage is done via teamwork and group dynamics.
The Battlefield is Strategic, the Skirmishes are Tactical, but the Combat is Exciting. And victory and defeat are slow, but steady.
You didn't know sulthar? Guild Wars 2 is everything you want in a game and them some!
There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that the features of Guild Wars 2 are going to be lackluster and nothing like people imagine. I mean, it's not like every other MMO that has ever mentioned new features didn't completely fail in delivering the hype.
Oh wait... you mean Guild Wars 2 isn't a magical genie invulnerable to empty promises and what is going to be very obviously failed hype ending up as a feature nothing like what people imagine?
Phew, but at least that won't be realized until AFTER everyone preorders for the low low cost of only $59.99!
aside from the famous quote from Sun Tzu 'the good wars are the wars that are won before the begin'. Its important to note that RTS is about building (growing) your army and resources. The fate of an RTS game is often decided before the battles begin is it not?
Why would that not translate into the exact same version for MMORPG? you are playing the little solider and you are getting stronger and increasing in your ranks just as the RTS player is gathering resources to get more scouts and more buildings.
RTS games are fun because in a 50 min game you're making a large variety of important decisions which all feed into whether you win or lose.
A single soldier in a single RTS battle has no fun and makes almost zero interesting decisions during the course of that battle. So we can't really pretend it would be fun or interesting to play that soldier's role in a particular battle. It's not fun for that soldier. That soldier doesn't get a complete game.
You've obviously never heard of SAVAGE or SAVAGE 2.
The game where players ARE the RTS single soldiers, while another player is the RTS commander.
Strategy plays a part in a lot of games, if you watch some fantasy movies lets say LOTR you can see sometimes they rush into battle and just CHARGE and other times theres more strategy involved.
aside from the famous quote from Sun Tzu 'the good wars are the wars that are won before the begin'. Its important to note that RTS is about building (growing) your army and resources. The fate of an RTS game is often decided before the battles begin is it not?
Why would that not translate into the exact same version for MMORPG? you are playing the little solider and you are getting stronger and increasing in your ranks just as the RTS player is gathering resources to get more scouts and more buildings.
Sun Tzu also wrote that ideal wars are those which are won without bloodshed. That would work in an economy simulator but it would not make very interesting PvP in a typical MMORPG setting
Like Axehilt hinted, when the battle is predetermined why even bother?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Comments
Strategy and skill are hard to quantify. For example I play street fighter competitively to put myself through college. I'm very good. But even in street fighter the basics are all that matter at high level play. Rote memorization is all I need to properly counter moves and respond with the maximum available damage, sure it takes reflexes but I finish almost every fight with the same exact combo.
Now to Aion. I've fought some of the best players in Aion 1v1. There is quite a bit of strategy in how you stack your buffs, when to dispell, when to unroot, when to chain stun, etc. It's very interesting and dynamic and quite skill based. The problem is when there is more than two people than the game loses all that organization and becomes far too confusing and a zerg fest or whoever has the highest level wins.
Guild Wars. Aka, Build Wars. There are a handful of builds that work amazingly in pvp. We're assuming I play to win and picked one of these, I usually don't but for the example I did. I know have the best available build for the pvp I'm participating in. One again the order you stack your buffs are important, who is bursting who, when you trigger what to counter what, it's all very fun even for the whole group. The problem here is the group dynamic, a group all rockin' the proper builds will trash any other group that isn't by spamming their synergies.
Street Fighter's tactics and strategy boils down to knowing when to use what, and there is only one option available to you once you know what to do. Skill is basically knowing what counters what and the reflexes to implement that counter. Sure knowing the frame data on all the moves is tedious and most players won't even know what an i-frame is but once you know it the game loses that entry level depth to become a flowchart of sorts.
Back to Aion. Skill is still knowing when to use what, and in group play situational awareness and listening to target calls. Not very hard once you know what you are doing and you are permitted very little choice. Still, very exciting in 1v1 duels.
Guild Wars had the most viable options for how to counter or minimize your opponents strategy. It is still knowing when to use what but sometimes you could choose between a few different things. At high level play those options disappeared because everyone is using the same builds and the same counters are by far the most effective.
Even a turn based rpg would suffer from this dynamic and so does Starcraft, a real time strategy game.
This is because we are playing video games with set values and easily quantifiable worlds. With enough time I will always know the most affective and efficient way to play. I know the damage modifiers for flanking damage, the chance of a rear attack crit, and I know you know them too. And when I know you know the best way to play then we always know what the other is going to do. Then you have two choices, use a less affective strategy in the hope you catch your opponent with their pants down (very unlikely) or you could simply try to implement the same strategy fast or better (being higher level, better gear, more resources, being faster, quicker reflexes, etc).
It all boils down into numbers, statistics. I find the fun in games like Dragon Age and WAR to take those numbers, organize them, and then make the most broken and masterful sonata of mathmatics I can to decimate my enemies. Strategy is only a concept. It doesn't really exist. In real life the phenomenon of strategy exists because both sides aren't equal and lack knowledge of the other side. This unknown factor, the number I can't perceive, allows for real choices to exist. In an mmo the numbers are all there, I know everything about you and what you are capable of, we are all equal in what we have available, and in time I can account for everything.
In order for real strategy to exist in a game (much less an mmo) there must be an unknown factor. And the only way to fairly implement an unknown factor into a game is for the core game to be simple enough to permit the factor to exist.
Let's take Halo Reach as an example. The unknown factor is the players decisions on the way and into combat. Will they run if they start losing? Will they stay and fight anyways? Go in for the last ditch melee move? Toss a plasma and hope for the best? Go in prepared for them to run, expect them to rush you, and never let them get close enough for a melee. Do that and a plasma will never hit you. Thus the only random factor is where the players are at any given time. The same factor persists in CoD. Your ability to aim means nearly nothing in the eyes of your total score. Where you are when a fight breaks out if the only real factor of strategy. And this is because of the defined factors for damage and speed. When you melee it always does the same damage, the same bullet does the same damage, etc.
In real life the numbers are far too complex and the interactions far to many to measure. In a game, human made, I can account for everything.
TLDR Games are far too simple as they stand to have any real strategy at their highest echelons of play. With defined metrics available one choice of many will always be the best.
Mmm... but it's easy to create something with really simple, defined metrics, and have it be impossibly strategic, to the point where a computer cannot calculate a winning strategy.
Look at Go. It fares a lot better than Chess, which has a much more complex set of rules.
Either extreme works well for having a lot of room for strategy. Either incredibly simple and balanced (Ie... Go, or Chess (Which still hasn't been solved as a game, despite having Grandmaster level computers), or incredibly complex and imbalanced (Like real life combat).
Toss in enough random factors (Large scale battles with players taking the role of each and every combatant) and it's no longer cut-and-dried what will happen. You can't rely on your opponents to do any one particular thing, so you have to create an overarching strategy that works well in a variety of scenarios, with enough flexibility to change it as necessary.
I don't really consider Street Fighter to be strategic. The game is very much execution and tactics oriented. Any stategy is mostly meta-based.
When people talk about strategy in MMORPGs I pretty much consider EVE to be the only real example. When you are controlling territory in nullspace it is very much about troop movements, resource management and politics.
Most other PvP MMORPGs are very tactical where you are given a basic objective and try to attack and take it.
Well, nobody has seen GW2's PvP yet, but I think a three-sided thousand+ person battle that takes a week to resolve, with multiple castles, outposts and resource points could easily have enough room to actually have a lot of strategy.
Whether or not they will actually have it is another question, but there's certainly the opportunity for such to exist.
strategies can be challenging so its no good.
it must be relaxing.
like afk in battle and then get reward,its pro.
try do that in boxing match.
Generation P
MMORPG PVP is strongly rooted in progression, which means it's a pretty lousy place to find large amounts of strategy, because fights can be decided before they begin.
If you want PVP where your decisions matter a lot, you play genres where that's the case:
Fighting
Turn-based strategy
RTS
FPS
To nitpick, "who struck first" is rarely the deciding factor in MMORPG PVP -- at least compared to the much stronger influences of progression or population. Only in poorly designed FPSes is "who struck first" a substantial factor, to be honest. Ideally you want player skill to the be the deciding factor of PVP the majority of the time (and that's the case in the genres I listed)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I would agree with this in general. Even competitive Magic the Gathering comes down to cookie cutter decks full of power cards that don't require much skill to play. Even in the best of times its more of a paper/scissors/rock type of interaction.
There are the obvious counter-examples of Chess or Go, but those games are so dry and one sided. It gets much harder to find thematic competitive games with a high level of strategy. But still, create some interesting interactions, some RNGs, and a dash of chaos and it can be great fun trying to bend the odds in your favor.
aside from the famous quote from Sun Tzu 'the good wars are the wars that are won before the begin'. Its important to note that RTS is about building (growing) your army and resources. The fate of an RTS game is often decided before the battles begin is it not?
Why would that not translate into the exact same version for MMORPG? you are playing the little solider and you are getting stronger and increasing in your ranks just as the RTS player is gathering resources to get more scouts and more buildings.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The statement isn't ironic at all. Players in Turn Based Strategy games do the same thing. It's easier to spot the flaws in the system because it unrolls slower, but that doesn't mean the same flaws aren't there.
Besides, the relative merits of games as RTS or TBS is a subjective opinion. Some people like TBS, some people like RTS. The relative quality of each system isn't a universal property though...it depends on each individual who's participating in the system.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
TBS gives me to much time to think personally. RTS I find favorable as a result because it forces me to enact strategies and improvise more. Otherwise I tend to have the match canned half way through and start to lose interest once I know what the outcome will be.
I do get annoyed at how frequently strategy is dropped from PvP though. Part of why I harp on Planetside. There was real strategy in that game, Also part of why I gravitate towards Clancy games and the likes of Mount&Blade with crpg mod. They require more from the player, and it's as close to a balance I've seen in titles between sheer action and deeper movement and choice in equipment.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
The basic point you are making is that the large majority of top down stradegy games are in real time because its better way to play it otherwise it would not be the majority. I am saying that in my view top down turn based stradegy games are considerable better than a real time approach because I have played them both and the differences in experience are radical.
I am also saying that people often miss the supply side of an equation when talking about supply and demand. We dont know if people would like turn based because nobody ever makes them outside of the grade B gaming world
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Yes, because the Civ series has never been a major title...
Oh, and Heroes of Might and Magic? nah
Total War? Psha.
Age of Wonders? Nope.
None of those could have possibly been made by major developers or as full titles.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Given that everyone and their mothers brothers dog knows what the phrase RTS means and that its an entire gaming category and there isnt a gaming category called TBS games that I am aware of I stick by my statement.
Slient Storm is the only game I personally have played the represents what i am talking about.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
RTS games are fun because in a 50 min game you're making a large variety of important decisions which all feed into whether you win or lose.
A single soldier in a single RTS battle has no fun and makes almost zero interesting decisions during the course of that battle. So we can't really pretend it would be fun or interesting to play that soldier's role in a particular battle. It's not fun for that soldier. That soldier doesn't get a complete game.
The way to "translate" RTS goodness into MMORPG PVP is to think of your MMORPG class as your RTS race. It's your playstyle and your distinct set of advantages and disadvantages.
At the start of every 30-min RTS game things are even. So they should also be in a 30-min MMORPG PVP battle.
Within the context of that 30-min session, you will make a series of varied decisions. In RTSes these are building/training stuff, moving stuff, and utilizing unit abilities. In MMORPGs these are moving and using abilities.
Again, the issue is really the "RPG" side of things. As soon as you involve permanent progression (which RPGs all have), you start to diminish the importance of any decision made within that 30-minute encounter. The more progression matters, the less your decisions in each session do. This includes all types of progression (character, gear, territory control, etc). So that's why MMORPGs work themselves into a corner and tend to have bad PVP -- because individual sessions can very easily become completely pre-determined, and now your decisions are meaningless and you may as well not even play.
Historically players have shown preference for each of their 30-min PVP sessions being isolated from the other sessions, to maintain the purity of PVP. The big pull of games which aren't designed this way is that skill is a much lighter requirement: if you play long enough, have enough friends, or get the right gear, it becomes much easier to achieve victory than in pure PVP games where skill (and only skill) determines victory.
If you didn't include progression (and therefore didn't quite make a MMORPG but a Third Person tactical MMO) I think that could potentially be pretty damn fun. Basically take TF2 or Enemy Territory-style PVP maps and let players create their characters out of a lot of little fun pieces (imagine you were playing Guild Wars except you had access to all skills and armors right at the start.) I suppose progression could even exist, as long as it isn't veritcal progression (as that's the type of progression which harms PVP.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That's kinda goes back to popularity of genre.
TBS games tend to be lumped into 'other strategy games' and are the example of that category as the most common alternative to RTS alongside the simulation games. At this point though RTS has taken over the digital world.
Most games used to be turn based. I played the crap out of the original Might&Magic titles. That's changed though. Computers have gotten more powerful, play styles have shifted, and the result is a push for realtime media in the mainstream.
I may be biased since I'm in favor of real time, but the excuse that turn based has deeper strategy or options than real time does is an entirely subjective comment based on what's presented within the context of the individual game.
Take D&D for example.
There's plenty of games that have emulated D&D in many ways, and some that try to push that concept of freeform play. One might try to contrast the difference in turn baed versus real time by comparing it's spawn, however you'll quickly find that it's not due to the fact that one is turn based or real time. It's a matter of accounting for choices. And in some regards it's still town to the technical capability of machines as to what the extent of options and tactical choice is.
I still play pnp D&D(and sometimes GURPS and a few others) because in spite of some peoples claims about games, it is still the best option for getting the widest choice in strategy and choice.
However, that alone doesn't cut it for me. Like I said prior I have a problem with turn based games in that they give me too long to think. The result is similar to my issue with ganking in that I can discern the outcome usually long before the full conflict or resolution. I'm not fond of metagaming, number crunching, or otherwise. I prefer visual and physical where I can co-ordinate and play out things on the fly, adapt to a given condition immediately, and generally operate on a toe-to-toe basis.
Strategy is very important to me, but I also need the satisfaction of both experiencing ant implementing it myself. Probably why I'm not as savvy on the rts side of gaming either. I play well enough at it, but I just don't get as much fun from watching some other unit do what I want to be doing.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
no one has mentioned about DAOC.
it was damn good strategic game that i ever known.
This thread sounds like the media as if games are murder simulations. People who have played violent games their whole life are scared to death of real guns and would never hurt a fly.
Can you please check out my idea?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/305258/Tactical-Real-Time-Battle-System-for-MMORPGs.html
I want to know if you like it. The goal is to actually bring forth a more strategic aspect to PvP, as well as small group battles instead of zerging, and combat which FEELS fast but is actually lengthy (because players slowly die based on "Wound Levels" from Healthy, to Hurt, Wounded, Severely Wounded, and finally Crippled which takes them out of combat but still alive to be saved before death. Each wound level having 100% of the player's hit points, so a player must inevitably be defeated 5 times before death. The kicker though is that upon being Wounded (lowering a wound level) a player CANNOT be healed except by completely leaving the area and going to a safe haven. There is healing in the game, but it is more like regen, and players cannot be healed up a Wound Level, except going from 100% HP @ Crippled to 1% HP @ Severely Wounded, so that they may walk away (Crippled players can't move, but they can be helped up to rise to walk away, although not being able to go past 1% Severely Wounded)
Death has a small chance to be permanent (or skill loss) which makes tactical choice more important for players to play smart and use teamwork. The game mechanics are designed for team work (although some roles are solo-friendly, but they are mainly about disturbing and annoying the enemy or stealing objectives, than actually harming them directly) so all major damage is done via teamwork and group dynamics.
The Battlefield is Strategic, the Skirmishes are Tactical, but the Combat is Exciting. And victory and defeat are slow, but steady.
My bad! You already checked it out... lol...
GW 2 is not even out .. how can it be so innovative? For all we know is that it could crash on launch.
You didn't know sulthar? Guild Wars 2 is everything you want in a game and them some!
There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that the features of Guild Wars 2 are going to be lackluster and nothing like people imagine. I mean, it's not like every other MMO that has ever mentioned new features didn't completely fail in delivering the hype.
Oh wait... you mean Guild Wars 2 isn't a magical genie invulnerable to empty promises and what is going to be very obviously failed hype ending up as a feature nothing like what people imagine?
Phew, but at least that won't be realized until AFTER everyone preorders for the low low cost of only $59.99!
You've obviously never heard of SAVAGE or SAVAGE 2.
The game where players ARE the RTS single soldiers, while another player is the RTS commander.
Strategy plays a part in a lot of games, if you watch some fantasy movies lets say LOTR you can see sometimes they rush into battle and just CHARGE and other times theres more strategy involved.
Sun Tzu also wrote that ideal wars are those which are won without bloodshed. That would work in an economy simulator but it would not make very interesting PvP in a typical MMORPG setting
Like Axehilt hinted, when the battle is predetermined why even bother?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky