Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Meaningful pvp = bragging rights?
Tavaritj
Member Posts: 16
Ahoyhoy,
Feel free to correct me if my assumptions are incorrect. Lets start with some quotes, shall we. This is from an interview with John Scott Tynes (refered to as John), by Massive Online Gamer (MOG, www.beckettmog.com).
"MOG: What are some of the things that set PBS apart from WoW and other MMOs?"
"JOHN: ... We're also building a PvP system that allows one nation to actually win a global victory. We don't attempt to preserve an artificial status quo, because we believe people play to win, not to endlessly grind against an opponent who will never die. By taking advantage of the historical reality of European wars in the region, we can periodically declare a victor, and revert control of ports back to their original owners as part of a treaty settlement. The victors gain bragging rights and in-game benefits, and the war begins anew. The biggest diffrence, I think, is that we don't like the idea that you have to 'grind' through boring content to get to the 'good stuff.' We believe that if there's fun available, it should be available on the very first day of play. We're fans of player empowerment, and we're creating and tuning systems that ensure that even a total newbie can contribute meaningfully to the game world."
"MOG: After researching your audience for this MMO, what were the top two or three things they wanted to see in the game?"
"JOHN: Our fans seem to want two things: meaningful PvP, and the pirate genre. Everyone seems to be tired of grind-PvP, where there's no point to fighting except the fight itself. ..."
Alright, I've underlined a few of the more crucial statements, as you might have noticed. I find these together are very.. odd. On one hand, they want a nation to be able to win, and as stated, for it to be a meaningful victory. On the other hand, this victory lasts for about 2 seconds until the ports are reset and everything is undone, and all you have gained from all this is the bragging rights and some "in-game benefits"?
Whatever happened to a persistant world? What happened to meaningful PvP? How can anyone be satisfied with this? Even freaking roleplayers should be outraged from this abuse! "Arr mateys, after many a month we have finally captured this port from the treacherous spaniards. It could never have been done without your fierce determination, and your unrelenting willingness to sacrifice your time, your money and aye, even your very lives for the cause. You deserve every bit of recognition, and I salute you all. Unfortunatly, due to a recent treaty it seems they got it back. Lets get it again, shall we!"
Isn't this the very essence of what they are trying to avoid? This is to "endlessly grind against an opponent who will never die". You can't win! For land, for power, FOREVER!
I guess I just had hoped that I could join a guild, claim a small island or a single port for ourselves, and defend it from others who would seek to take it. You know, some kind of persistance that lasts longer than a round of CS, something that Planetside, WoW, or many other MMO's lack within the PvP realm of things. But I'm not a developer, I'm not really knowledgeable in game design, I'm nothing but a player, so I wont have the audacity to assume that my opinions are anything but rantings, or that I could offer any "solution" to these problems, that might just as well be figments of my limited imagination. I will, however, say that its deeply regrettable that what seems like a very talented bunch of people would take such an artificial and simple way out.
They say they dont want to "preserve an artificial status quo", and yet in the long run, nothing changes but the player.
Hoy.
http://www.flyinglab.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2927&d=1160514425
Feel free to correct me if my assumptions are incorrect. Lets start with some quotes, shall we. This is from an interview with John Scott Tynes (refered to as John), by Massive Online Gamer (MOG, www.beckettmog.com).
"MOG: What are some of the things that set PBS apart from WoW and other MMOs?"
"JOHN: ... We're also building a PvP system that allows one nation to actually win a global victory. We don't attempt to preserve an artificial status quo, because we believe people play to win, not to endlessly grind against an opponent who will never die. By taking advantage of the historical reality of European wars in the region, we can periodically declare a victor, and revert control of ports back to their original owners as part of a treaty settlement. The victors gain bragging rights and in-game benefits, and the war begins anew. The biggest diffrence, I think, is that we don't like the idea that you have to 'grind' through boring content to get to the 'good stuff.' We believe that if there's fun available, it should be available on the very first day of play. We're fans of player empowerment, and we're creating and tuning systems that ensure that even a total newbie can contribute meaningfully to the game world."
"MOG: After researching your audience for this MMO, what were the top two or three things they wanted to see in the game?"
"JOHN: Our fans seem to want two things: meaningful PvP, and the pirate genre. Everyone seems to be tired of grind-PvP, where there's no point to fighting except the fight itself. ..."
Alright, I've underlined a few of the more crucial statements, as you might have noticed. I find these together are very.. odd. On one hand, they want a nation to be able to win, and as stated, for it to be a meaningful victory. On the other hand, this victory lasts for about 2 seconds until the ports are reset and everything is undone, and all you have gained from all this is the bragging rights and some "in-game benefits"?
Whatever happened to a persistant world? What happened to meaningful PvP? How can anyone be satisfied with this? Even freaking roleplayers should be outraged from this abuse! "Arr mateys, after many a month we have finally captured this port from the treacherous spaniards. It could never have been done without your fierce determination, and your unrelenting willingness to sacrifice your time, your money and aye, even your very lives for the cause. You deserve every bit of recognition, and I salute you all. Unfortunatly, due to a recent treaty it seems they got it back. Lets get it again, shall we!"
Isn't this the very essence of what they are trying to avoid? This is to "endlessly grind against an opponent who will never die". You can't win! For land, for power, FOREVER!
I guess I just had hoped that I could join a guild, claim a small island or a single port for ourselves, and defend it from others who would seek to take it. You know, some kind of persistance that lasts longer than a round of CS, something that Planetside, WoW, or many other MMO's lack within the PvP realm of things. But I'm not a developer, I'm not really knowledgeable in game design, I'm nothing but a player, so I wont have the audacity to assume that my opinions are anything but rantings, or that I could offer any "solution" to these problems, that might just as well be figments of my limited imagination. I will, however, say that its deeply regrettable that what seems like a very talented bunch of people would take such an artificial and simple way out.
They say they dont want to "preserve an artificial status quo", and yet in the long run, nothing changes but the player.
Hoy.
http://www.flyinglab.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2927&d=1160514425
Comments
The problem here is that you seem to be equating "periodically" which John actually said, with "about 2 seconds" which you made up. This falls in the category of "gives us a little credit for not being stupid." The reset time will not be so short as to give you no chance to enjoy your victory and the benefits that come from taking over ports and their resources. On the other hand, it won't be so long as to degenerate into the kind of situation that Star Wars Galaxy devolved into, where things were completely lopsided and stayed that way pretty much forever. Nobody wants to play the losing side all the time, but judicious use of a reset can level the playing field so that all sides can have more fun. We're not talking about a 3 hour counterstrike session, but a potentially months long campaign. And it will of course vary by server. Some servers may take much longer to reach the point of needing a reset, as their player base may be sufficiently balanced to keep the game interesting. But once a given side has reached the point of dominance that they've clearly won, there's no point in making all the other nations permanently unattractive. For that matter, if most of the contestable ports have changed hands, a reset gives the previous victor something to fight over again (plus any cool rewards for winning).
Rick Saada (Fls Dev)
Rick Saada - FLS Dev & EPFBM
First of all, with two seconds I of course meant a time shorter than would have been appreciated by the winning side, not two actual seconds, as I thought was obvious*. The problem isnt really the timeframe in which the whole thing is reset. It certainly can be most annoying the more often it occurs, but the same thing can be said for when it happens at all. Infact, picture yourself playing the game for half a year, getting that beautiful SoL you have always wanted, just to sacrifice its' last durability point in a desperate attempt to protect a port for king and country, or whatever floats your boat, and then having it all being in vain. Because you are fighting for more than just the fight itself, right?*
You say that no one wants to lose all the time, and you expect this to be hindered with starting a new round? Whats diffrent this time around? If the factions lose with such a large marginal for there to be a need for a reset, what tells you they will have a chance the next time?
I'm sorry, I really am*, but it just seems like an excuse for not being able (physically, mentally, time-wise, financially, or just anything) to implement a system that works without having big brother coming in and flipping a switch. As I seem to be making things up, this might also be grasped from thin air, but I thought the players themselves were supposed to control the economical, political and social enviroment. Having someone that might not even play the game coming in and decide what is to be of your last 6* months work is just so unoriginal.
This is just a personal issue, I'm not even sure anyone but me feels the same way. But I do know one thing for certain*, and that is that players want as few as possible boundraries.
Isnt it better to make it fun being completely lopsided and letting it stay that way forever if so be, than to close your eyes and hope the problem goes away with time?
Hoy.
* = This may or may not be fabricated, as no inquiry has been made to find out the truth.
PORT A citizens are rising up against the current monarch Y. It is estimated that in N weeks they will be victorious, unless Y does something about it.
now citizens of Y, could quash the rebellion, citizens of X, Z, A, could be against Y in liberating it. with Port A going back to whoever previously owned it, or Whoever provided the most help in taking it back. X keeps on increasing, so much, that it gets harder for Y to control it. If Y is successful, then rebellion is quashed for N weeks.
If all the islands rebel at the same time or close to, Y's would choose to defend only some, and let the others revert. (after M weeks)
This lets those countries Y had, revert to original owner, and still have some defending of other ports.
Alternatively.
Y could lose all of its not prev owned ports, X,Z,A attack Y's ports that they originally own. Then just trade port for port.
i think that this would keep the competitiveness there, and make countries still likeable.
(im saying that rebellions could occur right away, but most likely in month+ time)
feel free to comment/flame.
Wow a flying labs dev and now an MMORPG staffwriter posting on 1 thread! Time to upp the post counts! (hehee)
Im going to enjoy playing this game, and already have enjoyed the time I played. PvP has a purpouse. And your actually killing the person because you want to kill them, not because killing them 1000000 more times while carrying around a flag will get you a purple dagger.
-Hasani-
Also, it makes perfect sense in the actual history of the period. There is a 'big brother'. That big brother is Europe. Wars over territory in the Caribbean were proxies for the 'real' wars back in Europe; when the nations in Europe came to the treaty table, they generally reverted the control of Caribbean ports and islands to their original owners (e.g., the Treaty of Breda, 1667).
It's also important to note that there are significant rewards for winning control of the Caribbean, beyond just 'bragging rights'.
So let me get this straight... instead of fighting server imbalance with ingame mechanics or in some other game design way, the idea is to reward the overpopulated side with 'significant rewards' and hope they do a worse job at winning the next time, now that they have won one time already. It doesnt make sense! What am I missing?
Hoy.
Question: Did you research the port battle mechanics?
Probaly not for the balance there is a Max of players in the final port battle 25 vs 25 which means even the weakest nation can munster at any time. Oh wait the stronger force has SoL bigger then the defenders... Fine, the fort (which defends also) will blast with the defensive force against the invaders. Also only 12 ports can be in contest at any given time. I think that is doable for any nation.
Players can have a certain big ship depending on the profession/nation. Don't think everyone will have ANY SoL at all during the endbattle. Those SoL will be rare. So you credited with honour and a showoff item when you have won. Also know you could Tax the defeated Port during the occuptation (until it reverse to the orginal owner) And after R1 when the higher politics is introduced you could play the governeur of that port. (But that is much later)
I would be glad is the things they have now is playable and bugfree. We see that in June...
People did feel cheated when there control of a island was finally arrested from them. This is what kept them fighting.
Oh and Tava, the other are correct. Even if you had a larger navy then the other in most cases people were so engaged on
so many fronts that you could only expect a few ships to show up at a battle at one time. Sure one side mite win over and over
but your side will always control something. Anywho Im reaaaaaly pleased with how the games shaping up!
Well, I think you are referring to the idea of giving bonuses to the losing side (a la planetside, where the lower populated factions get XP and health boosts). I think PotBS is trying to be more realistic and logical by giving the winning side the bonuses. Its hard to say if itll work out, but we'll see. It takes a while to capture ports in PotBS so I suppose even if it is unbalanced it will take some time for the world to come under the control of one nation.
I'm sure the devs are willing to implement a system where bonuses are given to the losing sides if it becomes clear that it is necessary when the game comes out.
They are gonna do whatever is best for the game, and I am very pleased that they are trying something new with the idea of wars actually ending and a victor being declared. I reckon its a risk, but it might turn out very much worth it.
Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.
Please excuse me not using the quotation system, as I am unsure on how it works. I did however highlight the quotes, so they easier to spot.
Rogier: "Probaly not for the balance there is a Max of players in the final port battle 25 vs 25 which means even the weakest nation can munster at any time. ... Also only 12 ports can be in contest at any given time. I think that is doable for any nation."
Apparently it is because of population balance, as Isildur stated earlier in this very thread: "The reason for the control resets is simple: population imbalance tends to get worse over time as one side dominates the game world." So that would seem to contradict your statement, Rogier, I believe. More people, running more missions, to more ports than their adversaries equals more ports in contention for the overpopulated side. Logical statement, is it not?
Techleo: "Even if you had a larger navy then the other in most cases people were so engaged on so many fronts that you could only expect a few ships to show up at a battle at one time."
Apparently, only 25 need to show up, if Rogier's statement is true. 25 from the overpopulated faction consisting of... how many? I am unsure about what kind of server sizes FLS are designing the game for, so I will not speculate, but I dare say 25 people can be spared to attack/defend one of the contested ports.
Wormywyrm: "Well, I think you are referring to the idea of giving bonuses to the losing side (a la planetside, where the lower populated factions get XP and health boosts). ... I am very pleased that they are trying something new with the idea of wars actually ending and a victor being declared."
I loved Planetside, even for its obvious flaws, such as having no real incentive to capture anything, other than for shits and giggles. It was fun, for a while. After a while, you began to see how futile it was taking an island, since it would be overrun by the other factions in a matter of minutes relatively soon. They atleast got their catchphrase right on the mark. "For land, for power, forever!" It says so on the box. I should have considered it a warning. But when you say that the war will end and a victor declared, it seems like declaring someone a victor after being in lead after one lap on a racing course, with 39 laps to go. This end will be nothing more than a pitstop. And giving the fastest runner a head start hardly seems the best way of aiding the slower ones.
Hoy.
We see it as a choice between two options:
1) Nobody ever wins, because we've tuned all the systems to make a final victory impossible; all sides are forced into balance by game mechanics at all times. The world reaches a kind of equilibrium.
2) A side can win, dominating the game world and capturing most, or all, of the available ports.
We decided option #1 wasn't interesting; it was no different from just turning off the ability to capture ports entirely. So we looked further into option #2. The pros and cons broke down like this:
Pros: You can make meaningful advances in world ownership. You can seize resources. You can see your side's performance by looking at a world map and seeing your color spread around the Caribbean. You can feel like your participation made a difference in other peoples' gameplay, for good or ill.
Cons: Eventually, the world can reach a state where one side has 'won'. This leads to an unstoppable 'victory spiral' where people on the losing side quit, or switch servers; this makes it even easier for the winners to win again. Eventually, the world becomes static as in option #1, above, except that nobody gets to do any PvP, because there's no-one left to fight.
We proposed and discarded several solutions for the problems with option #2. What we eventually decided was that it's fun to win, but eventually you want the other side to bounce back, or else the PvP becomes dull. We're not super-worried about basic population imbalances; as a previous poster mentioned, our important battles are capped (right now, at 25v25, but that number may grow before release), and any side that can field a team of 25 competent PvPers will have a shot at victory. We're therefore somewhat insulated from the Albion-zerg from DAoC. We are worried about port control leading to power imbalances, though. So we specifically address port control with a port-control-reset.
It's convenient that this reset works within the fiction of our setting, but even if it didn't we'd still be looking for ways to make it happen, because we've learned the lessons from DAoC and SB: if one side 'wins', everyone quits, because the PvP becomes dull for both the winners and the losers. If no-one can 'win', ever, everyone quits, because the PvP becomes meaningless bored ganking.
It may well be that the rewards we offer for a world victory aren't interesting enough to motivate people to strive for it -- but that's something we're willing to tune in a narrow, focused way. We're pretty confident in our overall strategy, though.
Ahoyhoy,
So let me get this straight.. Option #1 leads to no one being able to make any long lasting effects on the playing field, and option #2 leads to no one being able to PvP at all? Isnt this like picking between the plague and kolera? If the system only gives you losing options, then something is wrong with the system, its not that hard to figure out.
"Pros: You can make meaningful advances in world ownership. You can seize resources. You can see your side's performance by looking at a world map and seeing your color spread around the Caribbean. You can feel like your participation made a difference in other people's gameplay, for good or ill."
Nice. I can do the same in Planetside. And unless you havent heard before, that game did not have very meaningful PvP. I know, its silly to compare two completely diffrent games on one single thing, but the issue is still there. And the problem isnt having just two options to choose from, its thinking those are the only two options there are! Youre making the game, how can you be limited in options?
Im not stupid enough to never admit Im wrong, and perhaps I do see problems where there are none. But when the lead designer openly states that the solution they chose, for something that many would consider pivotal, might quite possibly ruin the whole game experience it makes me want to ask why. (I make this assumption based on that PotBS seems to tie much of the PvE to the PvP side of things, with port contention and so on.)
This is all very confusing to me. Im no expert, infact Im very far from being one, but these are all logical queries, arent they?
Hoy.
The economic/resource struggle makes the port capturing meaningful for both options,
thats why either would be fine for me. So I reckon those Pros could be applied to option 1 too as well, like you said.
Option 2 does seem like the struggle would be more meaningful though, because you wouldnt feel like you are just winning because your side has a health bonus for being weaker or something like that. Also since the game would be played out in these session type things, option 2 would mean we might get trophies, like you see in guildwars for world championship winners, or decorative prizes and such.
I think that would be fun and add something more that option 1's capture system wouldnt be able to achieve. I reckon people like closure sometimes anyways, we are used to the change of seasons, the cycles of our lives, and I think these new ideas will play nicely into that. If nothing else, the end of a war session will act as stable events that we can hold by, sort of like the way we seperate our history into eras, it is comfortable and natural to have some breaks to which we can set time by 
I've played planetside in the past, and I've gone back to it every now and then too! Like most mmorpgs, when I go back to planetside the whole game seems a bit foriegn to me and I feel that same sense of loss that I feel when I go back to SWG and the Realm Online... I dont really know what I'm getting at here, I am just curious, do you suppose that sense of loss would be worsened by the option 2 because you are presented with yet another change in the world you once loved so much? Or do you think they'll be relieved because the game would have changed, but in a more natural sense, not because some new weapons and classes were added or because all your friends are gone?
Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.
In general, this brings up a problem as I see it with today's MMORPG game development. While it is good that developers keep an open dialog with and grab ideas from those interested (potential customers), too much of this can lead to what we are seeing now, the same gameplay mechanics in numerous games.
I feel that at some point, the game makers have to go their own way on major gameplay issues. This is how we get originality. Obviously the choices they make will always lose some customers, but no one game will always be perfect for everyone.
I see great originality looming in this game. This is why i can see myself paying a monthly fee for a game for the first time in quite a while.
And thats my 2 cents
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
You have very selective reading Tavaritj. You continually take statements in their general form and leave out the details ("Option #1 leads to no one being able to make any long lasting effects on the playing field, and option #2 leads to no one being able to PvP at all?"). Try reading all of what was written.
You're also very insulting--implying that by not admitting that they are wrong (to a problem that you alone have defined)--that the devs are then stupid ("Im not stupid enough to never admit Im wrong").
Or this one: "If the system only gives you losing options, then something is wrong with the system, its not that hard to figure out." Yes, designing an MMO is so easy, it's very easy to figure out--apparently you have, so let's hear your solution instead of just your trolling. There are not always better realistic solutions, no matter how much you might wish there were. Things are virtually always more complicated than they seem at first glance--most especially to someone who's "no expert."
I've played games that lasted for roughly six months (Planetarion, for one) and that are then reset in whole. And I've played games in which nothing ever changes (pretty much any MMO) and games in which victory is fleeting (most of the MMOs that have any PvP at all). There are issues to both, especially for a game based on character development over long periods of time instead of just a strategy game like Planetarion. It is not real life--if someone doesn't want to struggle on the weaker side, many will pick the easier option of simply changing servers (I've seen that happen in WoW, SWG, and other games). They don't HAVE to fight if they don't want to, in the end. This could be an interesting mix--allowing for changes, but not so much that one side becomes so powerful that there's no chance to beat them unless they get bored and quit.
You may want a situation more akin to EVE Online--but remember that would be an entire galaxy versus the Caribbean. One has a lot more real estate than the other. So much, in fact, that the claim could be made that there's room for everyone to stake a claim. As well, EVE is a fictional universe--it can be shaped as appropriate for gameplay. Whereas in the Caribbean there are only so many useable islands in useful locations; there are only so many islands, period.
Apply lemon juice and candle flame here to reveal secret message.
As i said it's to prevent server inbalances and my statement of 25vs 25 is true each port in contention, you should know if you have read the fls forums. It seems a player can create lottery points by killing NPC near that port, killing PC when it goes in contention or doing missions in the target harbour. How all works i leave to the Devs.
Yea, but what happens when someone reaches the ultimate One side victory? I mean, itsa like the Southpark saying. How do you kill one who... Has no life?
I mean if a captain who plays this game that has a huge guild of PvPers that are as pumped up as him on conquering the world. If he managed too, wouldn't people join him out of lust for power and actually boost his numbers, therefore making him have an entire navy as his command, so that he could protect his turf and then defend it from anyone else?
So what could one do if one side reaches all out victory over the Carribean?
I agree with this alot, the fact that it will be meaningful pvp is vital. I hate WoW pvp, i felt no sense of anything when I did it, sure it was nice to win a fight but there was no lasting appeal. In this game it will feel so good to walk through a town after a hard bloody battle for it had been won, and you will have that extra little bit of excitement when defending.