Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
MMORPG.COM News: Debate: Types of PvP
Dana
Member Posts: 2,415
Frank and Garrett return to debate again. This week, they look at the different types of PvP that appeal to them and why. As always, we hope you read the article and then join the argument on our boards!
| Garrett Fuller: I think PvP is an essential part of every MMORPG out there. Games that have no PvP really surprise me. I know people like doing quests and running dungeons but playing against others is a tradition as old as the two-player option in the arcade. Developers should look for different ways to enhance games and contests that players can compete in. Not just fighting each other, but doing opposing quests which can impact the game world. I have to admit despite the appeal to kids, Toontown online had some cool ways to compete against other players (the racing comes to mind). With everything being instanced now-a-day anyways why not add some other elements to PvP. Don't get me wrong I still think there should be battle fields and random fights all the time. That is what makes games fun. Most of all I want to play a game where I am not waiting thirty minutes to enter a fight. Even if I have an hour to play at night, I should still be bale to get the most out of that hour. I think many game designers miss that fact in their end game. |
You can read the full debate here.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Comments
I have found that for me, PvPing is a lot more fun when you out in the open, and not restricted to some arena environment. Having an open environment allows you to use things like the element of surprise, or if your out numbered you can run away. Rather then being bounded to a box where you enemies know you are comming, and are prepared for your attack.
I also dont like the idea of "safe zones" or other areas where you cannot be attacked. I think people should be able to fight anyone anywhere. It might not be a good idea to attack someone while your in a city, but if you do thats your choice.
There's 2 types of main pvp combat categories...
1) World PVP and 2) Gladiator/Coliseum(Consensual) PVP
I think #2 should always be in just about any game for "true" competitive purposes... Developers need to think more outside the box for this too, I think... There's several ways to make a Coliseum type PVP fun... I don't think something like Capture the flag is fun <--- it's just not the type that I think people would enjoy competing in over and over... There needs to be something with strategy(but not too much strategy... Battlegrounds in WOW is what I consider too much strategy <--- I've never actually played it though... It needs to focus on the groups at combat, not something like a stronghold or whatever) and chance... My example would be, ( has anyone ever watched the anime Naruto during the chuunin exam in that forest?), a bunch of groups would be put in a huge map to fight, there's a few rest points that could only be used once per round but it takes time to rest, (so now, it would focus on the group fights, allows some tactics like ambush, waiting game, etc...)... And there should probably be only 1 type of Coliseum PVP and have a ranking system and maybe even prizes, so it would feel more like the Olympics... COH/COV has way too much variation of pvp without focusing on one type, that's why people spread out too much and it becomes dead!...
As for #1, if the story revolves around something like that, then have it... World PVP needs alot of different elements and strategy though... The different stuff like protecting/killing miners/caravans like in battlegrounds of WOW should possibly be in World PVP... Note - I always believe NPCs will almost always be necessary, because they play the role of fillers and it increases the action spots by having the npcs engage/clash or whatnot...
ok, i have never posted before, i prefer to read the forums, but this debate has drawn my attention. (please excuse any spelling errors :P )
I think that Lineage 2 provides a solution to most of the points both Garret and Frank put forward.
There is open pvp, you can kill anyone anywhere except in towns and cities.
There are consequences of "PKing" people: if you kill a certain ammount of people you loose/gain (not sure which way) karma and eventually turn red. when you become a sin eater (turn red) Guards at the entrances to towns and cities fight you off.
none of the pvp is instanced.
there are areanas to fight players within, and a tournament system within that to add depth to the areana battles.
Clans can fight each other in official clan wars, clans can capture player owned castles with help of alliances , players attack and defend the castles.
There is also the monster race track allowing players to race their pets in compotition with each other as a competative alternative to pvp.
I have also heard that Guild Wars Factions intends to implement a pvp system of territory control and area conquest, i think it would be interesting to see how well that works via Guild Wars' use of instancing.
yes so in my opinion Lineage 2 satisfies most of the points raised in the Debate, however i do not wish to turn this thread in to a lineage 2 rant. Also please remain open minded as i have not played WoW or DAOC. :P
Not a debate like previous ones tbh. Both argue that PvP has a place in mmos. Both want pvp and like pvp in one form or the other.
Thats a one sided debate.
Plus in the opening sentences the fact that it is stated the he enjoys making other people mad cause hes killed them, just show the level of maturity if not the actual age of the *debater*.
If anyone has read my posts they know i am for all out free for all PvP. I think that Asheron's Call Darktide server was the most intense and funnest game experience i have ever had. The players created the entire politcal system. They also created the consequences for acting dishonorably. There was no benefit to killing another player other than the satisfying feeling of victory and some short lived bragging rights. I can't figure out why game designers spend so much resource trying to implement PvP rules. All they have to do is create the stage and let the players do what we do best, PLAY.
Which FF Character Are You?
Games in general should be more open-ended. PvP should be open-any time, anywhere.
Safe zones should be player built and player managed. They are called settlements.
In development and worth your time:
www.trialsofascension.com
Permadeath and environmental challenges are the next great step in the evolution of MMORPGs. Only through true adversity will one feel accomplished. Only in truly knowing you can die will true adversity present itself.
OMG play ShadowBane Best PvP / GvG /RvR game ever
PvP is this game
So far out of the games that I've played the PVP has been basically annoying or unfulfilling to say the least.
That's because the winner is determined more by level that anything else and if the other is greatly above your level then that's the only thing that will count. Once in Lineage II a nice person gave me a weapon that was of superior quality and so I was able to kill an enemy of a higher level. Wonderful.
However, that didn't stop people that were ten levels higher than me from pointlessly chasing me around trying to kill me. More times than not I would get away, but that was not adventure in my opinion, so I quit that game. It was all grind and lots of the previously mentioned silliness.
Anyway, the good thing about PVE is that you are fighting much the same fight as a PVP battle, due to limitations of moves, however, the PVE beings won't run up and kill you unless you get in their zone, and that means that the waste of time spent getting killed can be avoided.
Here's how to make PVP better, and it can be done easily. All characters need to have a fairly close number of HP on their bodies, and perhaps that could vary by race. This would make all players "human" in their bodily weakness. Now, level would bring things like increased combat/magic skill and variety. Also, one would be able to purchase armor (whatever) that provided protection, however the armor would have weaknesses with a percentage of potential failure.
So, everyone gets to have a face that can be equally smashed in, but it can be protected.
If there is a game like that (I heard about WWII) then please tell me about it.
BY the way, I've been reading here for about two years, and it's nice to do my first post.
Thanks.
Eve has shown the way as to how to do meaningful PvP. A group of frigates can take down a Battleship, territory can be won or lost.
Eve is brilliant because the new player, the experienced player can all participate, unlike so many mmos where twinking and experience are all that count. For PvP to be good then there must be an outcome to the fight. If you don't severely inconvenience your opponent or win territory, or force opponents to withdraw or surrender, then what's the point?
I remember in SWG fighting, within minutes, an opponent that we'd just killed, that drove me nuts, there has to be a hefty death penalty. Plus it was really annoying not to be able to destry houses and settlements; rebs could set up right next to an Imp stronghold and there was nothing we could do. Of course I stopped playing SWG 6 mths after release and I don't know if they ever fixed those major PvP shortcomings.
Honestly, Eve has got PvP sussed out and I hope that the other mmo devs have taken note.
i just never figure it out why in the world,
Queue time in WoW is much much LONGER than GW ??
i mean! i can get into 4v4 real quick in GW in under 30 sec..
they need to adopt arena or battle net pvp matching system!
make it all servers matching, not only your realms~
its ONLINE game.. not REGIONAL game WoW!
MyBrute = addicting mini online game!
Having played in Shadowbane, DAOC, and WoW on both PvP and PvE servers, I have seen pretty much every possible variation of PvP.
Of all of them, I think DAOC had the best PvP concept, where the different factions fought for control of castles and zones, but had substantial PvE areas for leveling undisturbed. The WoW battlegrounds are a reasonably close second.
Shadowbane and WoW's PvP servers could best be described as jackass magnets.
There is only one reason somebody wants to go to a wide-open PvP server. They want to kill somebody who isnt expecting it. Now, by being on a PvP server, you are agreeing to being killed by anybody who can kill you, so theres not exactly a lot of room for complaint. But the only two 'fun' parts of being on a PvP server are 1)killing people who are not a threat to you and really arent interested in fighting you and 2) successfully fending off people like this.
Thats it.
If you didnt want uneven fights, you'd be in a game where people PvPed when they chose to. Having spent almost my entire play time (since launch) in WoW on a PvP server, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times somebody picked a fight with me when I wasnt fighting something else, or otherwise at a disadvantage. My absolute favorites are people who would have five or ten levels on me, and STILL waited until I was fighting something else. This was the embodiment of the PvP server experience for me.
While the arguments for why we need more unfettered PvP are many, and often amusing, it really boils down to "I want to be able to gank". Structured PvP (ie, where fairness is built into the mechanics) holds no interest. "If I cant choose only people who arent a challenge, I wont be happy with the PvP experience." Try to force these people to play on a level field, and you will hear a symphony of whining that belies the true crybabies that lie beneath their macho posturing.
In the end, it comes down to a matter of taste. I agree that DAoC looks like they have the best concept going so far. While WoW and GW PvP is fast paced, well balanced and fun, it is in instanced zones that have absolutely NO impact on the persistent gameworld whatso ever. In WoW its basically all about grinding out honor so you can get new gear. Thats about as uncompelling as you can get IMHO (outside of FFA) GW has even less reason to really PvP, you just move up a later system. Like I said, both are fun but really, what is the point?
DAoC there was a point, you fight (or choose not to fight, there was stuff to do otherwise) for your realm. Out in the frontiers there are castles and relics that have a definite impact on everyone in the gameworld. Even a game like RFO (I haven't played it yet) looks like its PvP has a point. Get control of the mines for your "realm". WoW and GW are simple "shooter" formulas. While there is nothing wrong with this approach, it adds ZERO to the RPG element of the name MMORPG. Capture the flag is about as non-RPG as you can get. The market appears to really like this base simplistic approach.....go figure.
FFA will never work out simply because for each person having "fun" there will need to be a "victim". It would be an unstructured mess that would probably drive people away (as it has) The market has proven FFA PvP is NOT what the players want in a MMORPG. Proof - look at any of the FFA games out right now, all are dead and dieing games, with the exception of L2 which holds on strong in Asia with about 2 to 4 million subscribers. L2 is a difference case though as it does have a mix of both. The compelling reason is the control of the castles at higher levels. There is a sort of FFA aspect BUT it does have consequences. North Americans appear not to like this mix as L2 only holds about 70K subscribers here.
Structured WORLD impacting PvP looks like the way to go. There needs to be a compelling reason (aside from getting mathematically enhanced equipment) to PvP if its to be really engaging. I see many post post about how FFA is what the players want but the market demographic clearly shows people are not interested in this type of PvP. If that was the case games like AC - Darktide would be overflowing with people despite the age of the game.
Never say never, games like EVE and UO have demonstrated time and again that Open PvP is possible and can be a very meaningful part of the game if implmented correctly.
I'm somewhat torn between PvP in MMOs. On one hand I think if you have good and evil or opposing races, then PvP seems logical. But on the otherhand with human nature, PvP brings out the worst in people.
I play games to have fun, and it's been my experience that on open pvp server most folks were more interested in just random killing than any sort of 'Epic Struggle', which to me isn't fun.
I'm sure this has nothing to do with the debate, which as one poster put it is one sided....but that's my 2 cents.
..hax..
There was no debate, just two guys talking past each other.
One guy says "Games need PvP." The other guy says "Games need PvP, but not just combat PvP."
First guy says "Minigames are cool, but they can't be the only option." Other guy says "Minigames are cool, and need to be an additional option."
If you want a debate, you need two people with opposing views; not two people with tangential views.
Okay let's debate.
Who here is against PvP and why?
Who here is for PvP and why?
I'm for PvP since my project features it. Of course it's my intent to have a number of safeguards, checks and balances in place, including a more level playing field, a "deaths door" system that means defeat isn't automatically death, serious repercussions for cold blooded murder, and PermaDeath. But that's just me.
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
-- The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost
Never say never, games like EVE and UO have demonstrated time and again that Open PvP is possible and can be a very meaningful part of the game if implmented correctly.
OK so I stand corrected
. I never tried EVE and I did a trial of UO recently but the 2d and interface really just gave me a headache. (I don't mean that as a comment about the game itself, it literally gave me a headache, everything is so freakin tiny) I was thinking more along the lines of WoW, GW, DAoC and L2.
wow open pvp,where have i heard that before,oh yeah ULTIMA online.oh its DEAD. why cause people got tired of making a lvl 1 char,walking outside and getting ganked. why doesnt open pvp work??cause the VAST majority of pvp'ers are cowards and chickenshits. they attack low levels for fun, they attack people in a monster fight,they camp out corpses.why do people like pvp ,cause they can kill low levels and feel good about themselves. frankly people like pvp cause tehy cant play pve worth crap.
i played on a text mud, we had this kingdom battle.one kingdom attracted the pvp'ers.the other the pvp'ers.
the non pvp kingdom kicked the pvp kingdom ass in every battle.why cause they were more discplined,they were used to following orders,they were used to fightening fair fights.they showed up at the battles.
Lvl 1 char in UO? Did you even play the game?
Well I would not play a game either one of them had anything to do with. I will play a game with pvp in it, as long as I do not have to be a part of it. If the game is geared to PVP, no thank you.
If any of the laws get passes that prevent the under 18 from playing PVP games, it might help them.
PVP should be gearless in a game. A pvp zone that you enter, your given the same weapons and equipment, and made to be the same level. Then let people kill all they want.
ruat caelum
Personaly, I dislike games that were not designed for PvP that just sort of tack it on as an after-thought. WoW, EQ, CoH, and others, IMO, were not designed for PvP, and trying to play them that way is a dissapointing experience that just highlights things like class inballance and who's farmed the best equipment. If I want PvP, I go to a game that was specificaly made for it.
In the article, the desire for a castle to defend with just a handfull of NPCs to help in the defense sounds exactly like Guild Wars. Now there is a game made for PvP right from its foundation. Its ballanced in both classes and equipment for PvP. You dont have to wait to get action. You don't have to suffer ganking someone and have them be all astonished about it. You don't loose hours of work from defeat. You don't have to be a vet in order to compete. It's brilliant.
So the point isn't what type of PvP is best-- arena, or open season, or whatever. They're all fun approaches to PvP. The point is that if you want PvP, play a PvP game, not a PvE game. There's a fundamental seperation in the basic design of each type of game that makes all the difference in the experience. MMO designers need to focus on a specific target audience, and stop trying to please every type of gamer, because it's not going to happen.
http://erickveil.com/
Agree it was a one sided "debate"
FFA PVP appeals mostly to the types that like to kill folk much lower than they are - tried darktide many years ago, got chain ganked like 25 times in levels 1-4 (this before the tutorials came into being) not been back since. Tried pvp world on DAOC - chain ganked again. No problem, i now play normal worlds - AC pvp is now available in 2 forms, go pk at any time and you are able to kill other pks only or pklite which is a temporary no concesquence form of the same - theyve even added arenas now for pkl so if ya feel aggressive juss pop in and have at it. WoW pvp worlds seem very similar to the non pvp ones except for the free licence to gank folk as they xp in contested areas, where they have to go to gain xp past lvl 20 - ooh the fun?? Why not lvl to max on normal worlds then go pvp without the silly gankage? The wow bg instances are just silly - they should look at DAOC battle grounds if they want to see how it should be done.
DAOC is the best pvp game on the market - lvl to the maximum allowed in each bg - every 5 levels theres a new one, and upto the lvl 50 cap and you can go into pvp knowing you will meet players with similar stats and abilities so its a case of player ability more than chain killing folk 20 levels below you. Yes the balance is sometimes suspect, WoW where u can xp to 60 in a horde/alliance even joint area and then go to a contested area complete with towns/keeps etc would be i suspect even better as the classes seem more balanced - will we ever see it?
Roll on Warhammer
In my opinion, SWG pvp was the best. It wasnt't organized like in WoW BG's. There were bases, there was always pvp in the major cities. Ofcourse they ruined all this was the CU and NGE. But Pre-CU PVP was the best pvp in a game i have ever seen.