Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
General: Casual Play Casual PvP Has Some Kinks
Stradden
Managing EditorMember CommonPosts: 6,696
Staff Writer Steve Wilson returns with his Casual Play column. This week, he looks at PvP for the casual player.
Player versus player combat isn't for everyone. Some casual players forego it altogether for a number of reasons. Some never attain the full range of skills to become effective at killing anything other than badly scripted monsters. Others find having to rely on guilds and secondary programs too onerous. And others embrace it wholeheartedly even with the knowledge that there are severe PvP drawbacks that apply only to the casual gamer.
In the older games PvP was dominated by gank squads. The worlds would generally have open PvP throughout their entire environment. Players could attack each other at any time and in any numbers. This typically led to gangs of thugs interested only in killing others, teaming up when needed to outnumber smaller groups. Guilds formed to fight these gankers and the arms race was on to see who could field a bigger group at any given moment. Players without guilds were often fodder that represented about as much resistance as a speed bump. In this environment the casual player suffers greatly. They often lacked the time required to immerse themselves in a guild capable of fielding enough members in order to win a race out-mobbing other players. Ultima Online was the first big commercial game to try this style of PvP and the majority of customers complained bitterly.
Read the rest of this column here.
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
Comments
are you serious? QQ more, casual players want to have the best without spending time and skill to get it?
So make a game that everyone is maxed skill, gear and see if it happens
gl
The topic was okay but was ruined by some things like " Let the hardcore players with their legendary items duke it out in their own battlegrounds while the rag tag casuals meet in a battleground with significantly lower standards, a slapfest of the feebs if you will".
This leads me to believe that casuals just stroll into battle without considering tactic in any form, i do believe some people might play it that way and consider themselfs casual i honostly don't understand why they play games or mmorpg in the first place(thats another topic
), but the kind of "casual" i know or meet are still into gaming because of the challenge. What i mostly get out of the topic is the lack of support from casuals on battlegrounds which for me has nothing to do with them being casual or not, it has to do if they are social or not, regardless how casual or hardcore someone is when entering a battleground all it takes is communication with your team members, cause in the case of the battlegrounds in WOW you become a team wether you like it or not, so what any social person would do is act like a team and communicate, yes that is a problem if you are not guilded or with a tight group you know, but this has nothing to do with a person being casual or hardcore, it's about being social.
I think Reklaw makes a very good point... this has much more to do with how Social a person is than how Casual. I don't care if you only play 3 hours a week... if you have been putting in 3 hours a week for the last year or two in a game like WoW and STILL cannot manage to find a guild that you enjoy... than that says much more about your lack of social skills (or social desire) than it does about the game design.
Battlegrounds are like Pick-up basketball court games in alot of ways. I don't think it would be that bad having them be gear based, I mean if you go out and have 3-4 courts to choose from most guys will automatically move themselves closest to the court that will be somewhat of a challenge but not completely out of their ability range. But, if you cannot make the effort to talk some strategy and goals with your fellow players and the other team can... well it is your social skills that are lacking then, not your basketball skills.
As a once hardcore player that has been moved into the casual realm, I have to say that there is very little to complain about anymore for the casual player. Even playing on FFA PvP servers it is easy to level, progress, and experience content on a solo or small-group basis. The important, and much more difficult part for some I guess, is finding that group.
I think WoW has a good template. Stratifying the levels is good. Always getting at least something for your efforts is good. Fact is, if you have the patience (and yes, the time) to keep running in (even if only to die a few times), you can still get enough out of it to get a nice piece of loot for your efforts. But it is still quite a bit of work for a casual player to go through. There still needs to be a better way.
I am now, and have always been, a big fan of the concept of the best loot comes from the players. Even a casual player could get the best stuff made for themselves, or even make it themselves. But that is, unfortunately, a pipe dream.
I was a bit surprised to see the description of the Guild Wars model, without giving the game name. Guild Wars has the option to create a character at max level with uber-gear just for duking it out with other players. It helps, though, to play through the PvE part of the game to unlock more skills and more options for those max level characters. I think that's a much better way to do it.
PvP can be fun for anyone. I just don't like games where it's an obligation. I don't like people who disdainfully look down on the players who don't "put in the effort," because even the casual gamer is putting in some effort - just not the same kind. The best solutions, in my opinion, is give the players who don't rush to end game content, and don't like PvP access the rewards that come from it. Some people may scream at how unfair that is - about how much effort they put in to get the gear, and that people who didn't follow the same track to get it are, in essence, cheating. But there has to be two paths to getting it. Or else, and maybe better still, is no gear from any variety of PvP. Not a very satisfactory choice for people who live and breathe PvP, but still an option.
Fury may yet be the way to go. Of course, it's a game with no PvE element, and nothing but PvP. Is it a good model? We'll find out.
"Perception is nine-tenths of Reality. Be careful what you perceive."
Many new game releases soon enough, maybe something will change the big pvp casual-hardcore gap. Some examples are Darkfall and Fury, which are both good titles that tend to bring new ideas in PvP.
WHAT?? With WoW as the template of future games . . . we can rest assured that the genre will continue to stagnate.
I find the statement ironic when the author later mentions the monster play idea of LoTRO which is something different. I hadn't really thought it was that great an idea, but it now interests me to see how THAT plays out, because it might contain in the detachment from character my long time advocacy of an MMO where there was full world open PvP but with no levels or uber loot or anything of the sort. I.E. no character attachment but simple interaction within the world which creates the entertainment, not consumable grind content that caps out in levels and gear and quests until they decide to add more (and charge you for it).
Now that could be interesting.
IronOre - Forging the Future
There are Thousands of PVE focus game, or casual pvp game! LOTS and there are still babies crying for more but not spending the time to actualy play the games that are out there.
So every forum i go i see lots of people looking for real pvp games and there are none!
So everyone that is currently creating, developing a new PVE game is just shaping the things so ppl can give them money to get what they want and move on.
I say stop making lots of games, and make a good one.
A nice article, and some valid points.
However casual players are always going to be at a loss in mmorpg's just by the nature of the genre.
The Author mentions playing the game as a "second life" it is a roleplaying game after all.
As for the comment that battlegrounds should be scaled by the items. in "WoW" Items does have "item levels" this could be used, but then this would place an even heavier burden on the developer. It would also seperate the players even more.
Perhaps games should stop trying to be a mix of two games, and take a hard stand a be one game (pve or pvp) or take a variation of LOTRO's route and allow players to fight with thier player characters on the same side. while other people can create characters on the other team but use a different style to obtain thier stats and items, ( Neo: "hmm upgrades" )
Vinterkrieg: I'd like to take this time to correct you as lotro does have your so called "end game", I think you need to research the game a little more and not judge a game by a beta.
I personally think LotRO will be the perfect PVP game for the casual player.... and I'm pretty sure it would be your worst nightmare Mugs...
I've got news for you.... just because you enjoy "hard-core" pvp doesn't actually make you any "better" than the casual player...though its obvious you like to think so.
I understand why you are bitter, there hasn't been a good, hard-core PVP game come out in a long time (well, other than EvE). Its a shame Darkfall hasn't seen the light of day..it might have been the game that would have made the FFA PVP player happy.
Have to see if AOC of some of the other new games coming out (like Fury) will fit the bill.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
There are no "real" PVP games because that is a niche market. There are not enough customers to make a profitiable game in this environment. The days are gone of old school UO or AC Darktide. The Masses have spoken and the gaming companies (the big ones with the big budgets) are listening. And those masses have said we don't want a lot of PVP, we want to be able to do it when we want, and we don't want to lose our Uber sword of pwning that we got from Super Mob #256.
So until a large company takes a chance and makes a game where Skill and not gear determines your ability to PVP, expect these type of PVP lite games.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
No player should whine when beaten by a better player. on equal terms. The other ways? All they do is drive casuals away. Casuals make up a large part of many games. Pushing them away doesn't aid anyone in the long run , so I think games should be made to allow casuals to enjoy themselves in prp.
There are no "real" PVP games because that is a niche market. There are not enough customers to make a profitiable game in this environment. The days are gone of old school UO or AC Darktide. The Masses have spoken and the gaming companies (the big ones with the big budgets) are listening. And those masses have said we don't want a lot of PVP, we want to be able to do it when we want, and we don't want to lose our Uber sword of pwning that we got from Super Mob #256.
So until a large company takes a chance and makes a game where Skill and not gear determines your ability to PVP, expect these type of PVP lite games.
Guildwars would be that skill-based PVP game. You can see for yourself how well that did, and didn't, do. I loved it, and hated it, but felt it was a great enough experience. But you can only move so far away from the traditional emphasis on "virtual skills" seen in MMORPGs before a game becomes FPS/Action game, where skill becomes the center-piece.
I miss the days of UO, where PVP was a large aspect of the game. People want MMO's to simulate a realistic experience, however fantastical the setting is, and I think removing the bloody banquet that is free-roam PVPing really detracts from this aspect. The boundaries of "battlegrounds" and "arenas" feel like a noose, even though they do bring a certain aspect of fun to a game. Here's an idea: have it all--free-roam PVP, Battlegrounds, Arenas, Factions, etc. You'd have something for everyone, and for those who dislike the dangers of being killed anywhere and everywhere possible, then offer them a server without free-roam PVP. Simple! Okay, maybe not so simple, but it's something to consider.
As for gear and player levels being so emphasized, let's just remove the level systems all-together. It worked for UO, and it's working for EVE Online. So, now you have no level restrictions on gear, and a new character could use the most powerful weapon in the game. Hmm, problematic, no? So don't make such overpowered weapons and armor then. Also, implement status restrictions. Got a character with 10 strength and 50 dex? Then when he picks up that large and heavy piece of steel, make him drag it around, and strain to move it. If you've played Fable, you know what I'm talking about. It's not like these things haven't been done before, it's just that they haven't all been done in the same (MMO)game before, or recently.
Anyways, about the article... I really dislike what was written, mainly because it seems like little research has really been done, and very little first-hand experience has been had. The first thing that really tugged my chain was the jump from UO/DAoC to WoW. What happened to the several games in between? There are plenty that offered alternatives in between those games, so why didn't they make the article? Did they not merit mention because they aren't as noteworthy, or is it because they just haven't been played? Whatever, the case, I think the article could use a revisit, this time with more games explored, critiqued, and used as examples.
Casual gaming... Casual is an FPS, an Action game, or an RPG. Casual has little place in an MMO today. Why? Because today, game devs want players to play for as long as they can get them to, that way they can get more money out of the game. So, if you want casual play, then don't put down that $50 for the software of the newest MMO, and don't pay the $15 monthly fee to play a game which will, undoubtedly, piss you off because you aren't recieving as much attention as you'd like. I myself am a casual gamer, and I refuse to pay for anything that I don't get a reasonable demo for, allowing me to really see what the game is about, and more importantly, how much time it'll take for me to get to a point where I can enjoy the full-benefit of my $50, and however much extra I've paid in monthly fees.
Here's an idea for an article: Game Devolution--the backwards evolution of games today; one step forward and two steps back; life--the price to pay to enjoy a game today.
What if i would say " The people that like pvp in a video game are the same type of people that never played sports in real life so they try to compesate that by pvp games" ? That would be very narrowminded if i would say that? Yes it would so sorry my friend but that is a very small minded view of a gamer you have there, i love'd pvp, but as years go by some seek other sorts of entertainment out of the game type we tend to like, mmorpg's can give so much more then pvp only, also over the years pvp did not evolve in skill based but evolved in gear-based which for me was a big let down. Sure it became easy for some people, just not my type of play. However i still prefure real sports competition over a pc game, for me they are far far apart from each other, sure both can be considered you need to have skills for it, but nothing beats real sports when it comes to compititon and surtenly not pvp. Atleast not for me i may add.
Pvp is just a game type that someone can like or dis-like. It has nothing to do what people do or not do in real life.
What if i would say " The people that like pvp in a video game are the same type of people that never played sports in real life so they try to compesate that by pvp games" ? That would be very narrowminded if i would say that? Yes it would so sorry my friend but that is a very small minded view of a gamer you have there, i love'd pvp, but as years go by some seek other sorts of entertainment out of the game type we tend to like, mmorpg's can give so much more then pvp only, also over the years pvp did not evolve in skill based but evolved in gear-based which for me was a big let down. Sure it became easy for some people, just not my type of play. However i still prefure real sports competition over a pc game, for me they are far far apart from each other, sure both can be considered you need to have skills for it, but nothing beats real sports when it comes to compititon and surtenly not pvp. Atleast not for me i may add.
Pvp is just a game type that someone can like or dis-like. It has nothing to do what people do or not do in real life.
The funny thing is what you said in red is actually more likely then what gpett said. They did a study a while back and they found the people that enjoy competitive video games are people who can't compete in real life, whether that is in the workplace or in sports. (Now this isn't absolute, but that is what they found)Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
I would prefer to talk about different ways to address specific issues Steve Wilson brought up, than to pursue yet another episode in the never-ending story of casual-vs-hardcore.
One notion I've had for high-end gear is to distinguish "hardcore" gear from "casual" gear by durability rather than functionality. As an example, make crafting of high-end gear relatively easy, so that all players can benefit from such gear as soon as they can achieve the character skills or levels to use it and the game wealth to afford it. To distinguish the rarest loot gear, make that much less susceptible to degradation by use, damage, and death than crafted gear. Crafted gear is fine for casual players who will not suffer much from the degradation at end-game. Loot gear will be preferable to crafted gear for those engaged in PvP and other high-intensity use, because it won't need to be replaced as much.
There are several ways to accomplish this, apart from the obvious hacks that have been used so far. Let me say first of all that I don't like the concept of either "soulbound" or "totally indestructible" items for this purpose, which have both been used before. One alternative way is for the rarest legendary items to have "souls" or "lives", and/or to be self-repairing to an extent, in addition to being less likely to suffer wear. Weapons with "souls", "intelligent weapons", and "living weapons" have been elements of literary fantasy and paper-and-pencil RPG for a long time. Variable durability is a newer notion, and has been used in games to some extent already, although not as thoroughly and completely as it could be. I don't know if self-regeneration has been used for gear in fantasy games, but a similar repair concept has been used in science-fiction games.
In terms of the original discussion, relatively disposable crafted gear could temporarily bring casual players up to par with hardcore players with highly durable gear. This would make PvP and heavy PvE with fairly-matched and effective gear possible for a time. Over time, the casual players' gear would degrade quicker, so they would have to lay off the hard stuff until they got the money (or whatever) for replacement or repair.
The notion of "soul" and "intelligence" in gear also open the way for interesting concepts of alignment affiliation of gear, especially weapons and jewelry. LOTRO is based on a story in which the evilness of an artifact, i.e., a piece of gear, was central to the story line. I've always been a tad surprised that the same theme is not more prevalent in fantasy MMOs. Imagine the factional and role-playing possibilities of a character in a quandary about whether or not to use some awesome item, because doing so effectively binds that character to a particular faction and constrains relationships with other characters in return for the power it bestows.
To completely close the loop on looted versus crafted items, it would be nice if there were a system where crafted gear could acquire some of the unique characteristics of looted gear, for example, to become legendary. This should not happen simply in the crafting of the item, but through the use of an item that is crafted or augmented so as to be capable of becoming legendary. One scenario I propose to make possible is that the impeccably player-crafted weapon of a renowned character becomes legendary through that character's experiences. No doubt this would lead to farmers grinding to create legendary gear for the cash-rich casual market without some game mechanic to prevent it. One remedy is to make such gear "soulbound" to the extent that the legendary qualities only apply to the owning character until that character permanently "dies", at which time the "soulbound" gear is "lost". Soulbound gear that is "lost" in this way is actually managed in the game data base, and can turn up as loot for another character.
I consider myself a "casual" worker and only like to actually work a couple hours a day or week. Problem is the others around me are always working,grinding so I get left behind in pay and advancement. It really seems to affect my RL at home since I can't afford to buy the uber gear like hourses,clothes and cars. It just sucks how the "hardcore" seem to win out and it's completely unfair. Why should society give them all the breaks when some of us like to stay at home and watch TV or roam around town.? Sorry about spelling errors just too tired from my nap to proof read.
Notice: The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the reviews of MMORPG.com or its management.
There are no "real" PVP games because that is a niche market. There are not enough customers to make a profitiable game in this environment. The days are gone of old school UO or AC Darktide. The Masses have spoken and the gaming companies (the big ones with the big budgets) are listening. And those masses have said we don't want a lot of PVP, we want to be able to do it when we want, and we don't want to lose our Uber sword of pwning that we got from Super Mob #256.
So until a large company takes a chance and makes a game where Skill and not gear determines your ability to PVP, expect these type of PVP lite games.
Your mostly right. This is the prevailing view of the Hard Core player on why PVP is not flourishing and/or being restricted to battle zones. In truth, large gaming companies had to end TEFs because of the East Asian Regulations on PVP. In essance, the reg states PVP must be chosen and not forced. The choice has to be clear so NO TEF. Why do companies bow to this reg? Look at the numbers. WOW has 8 mil subs, with 2-3 mil in the U.S.. The other 5-6 mil are in Asia. The gaming companies cant afford to alienate those markest as they pay the most. Why did these regs happen? Some Hard Core players could not handle thier toon being killed and took Real World action against their in game attacker. Real World Deaths accured. The East Asians are reeeally into MMO's.
If you track back to when these regs took effect, you will find many games changed thier TEF systems to comply at that time.
Reading Steve's comments about DAoC and WoW's battlegrounds really made me wonder if he actually knows what he is talking about. Did he even play those games? Surely didn't seem like it to me when he talked about their battlegrounds.
DAoC you were never "at the mercy" of larger numbers. The guards at the keep you portaled in at were unkillable and able to typically 1 shot even the toughest enemy player. It was very easy to determine if it was suicide or not to leave the safety of the portal keep. Simply see who is in the zone, if someone is there ask them if any action going on.
WoW's battlegrounds have too large a level range so the part about casuals never being outleveled is also incorrect. A 51 entering Alterac Valley, will be horribly weak vs the 60's running around. So a casual is essentially forced to level up to within a level or two of the battleground level cap if he hopes to be effective.
Steve also writes about casuals in battlegrounds as somehow not being team players. I also find this to be incorrect as typically the first few times they are in a battleground, of whichever game, they actually strive to be team players to learn the ropes as it were. They hardly ever are pvping in a battleground to "amuse themselves first and foremost".
In addition I took exception to his implying that the hardcore players are more "skilled" than the casuals. Just because you play a <classname> 40 hours a week doesn't make you a better player than the guy who plays 10 hours a week. Gear is very helpful in WoW or DAoC, but Skill almost always beats Gear. My non-epic, basic dungeon blue'd mage could frequently take down a certain tier 2 warrior in AV. Simply put he didn't play very well and seemed to just rely on the high armor, stats and bonuses of his shiny gear.
Kind of funny article. Typical of what we see a lot of today. Tried a topic that he really does not understand.
My first pvp was UO and I loved it. I never was a ganker, but did have fun hunting those that did.
Have not found the pvp to be that good in any of the present games. DAoC was not too bad until the Atlantis expansion.
Looking at some of the full pvp games coming out does not raise my hopes much.
--
Delanor
Well, as a 'casual player' who is useless at PvP - it's been a while since I read such a load of nonsense! It reads like the writer wants a stick-drawing world where every character is completely equal in stats and equipment, all players have their PCs and network connections downgraded to a standard level, everyone has their reaction and thinking speed altered downwards and all battles take place in a flat, terrainless arena so you can't use any tactics... which would equal a 'fair fight' and be utterly boring and pointless.
Alternately, if some people get together and work together in PvP, should a bunch of folks who met ten seconds ago be able to go in and beat the team players? Surely that's so stupid a concept that it doesn't need considering by anyone who has not got a writing deadline to meet and no sensible ideas to write about....
Can I as a 'casual player' compete with those who work on getting the equipment and skills (In-game and real life) to excel at PvP? Nope.
Does that matter? Not really... if I wanted to do serious PvP, I'd find the time to get good at it, or like in the real universe, settle for not being able to do something - or is the next step of this gibberish the idea that, since I'd quite like to be an olympic gold medal winner in swimming, the people I'd have to compete against should all have lead weights tied to them so I can have a 'fair' chance?
Please people... raise the writing and thinking standards bar a bit before such badly thought through and superficial 'articles' do more damage to the reputation of the site.