Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What PvP is good for in MMORPGs
Ihmotepp
Member Posts: 14,495
I don't think you can improve on FPS combat by putting in more players, or putting in more character progression.
Unlocking weapons and ranks in FPS games is all well and good, and kinda fun, but if you to far you defeat the purpose of a FPS game, which is to use your mouse and keyboard to shoot people with your l33t, or not so l33t skillz.
I'm referring to games like Battlefield 2142. You can go up in rank, and get some cooler weapons to use, but they dont' change the balance of the game. If you suck at FPS you will still suck, and if you are l33t, you will still be l33t, just with some cooler weapons.
The other thing about advancement in an FPS, is it doesnt' make any sense. The peopel that would advance are the ones that are already good FPS players. They already kill everyone, giving them better gear or abilities would just make the game even MORE lopsided, which does not equal fun.
As far as more players, look at Call of Duty or Battlefield 2142. I think there's 48 or 64 players that can join a game, maybe more. That is more than enough people to kill me dozens and dozens of times in an average game, and more than enough people for me to shoot and kill, especially in games where they respawn. Who need a thousand people shooting at you, or to shoot at? You can't shoot at a thousand people, so more players doesn't make the game better.
What then is RPG PvP good for? RPG PvP is good for group objectives. Things like taking over territory, capturing castles, protecting a player made city, and stuff like that.
These sorts of objectives work with guild organization, persistant world, and real character advancement. FPS combat doesn't.
Comments
I don't think character advancement and PvP work to well to together either.
Actually I would like to see a game that either didn't have statistical advancement or equalizes people's stats when in PvP, like WAR but more so. Gaining perks from PvP is good but they can't make you auto-win. The rock paper scissors type fighting also makes encounters inbalanced.
Territory battles and such are a great direction to take PvP in in a MMO, you might as well make full use of all the people playing and the open persistant world.
Though a little more engauging combat would be good too.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
I disagree. I like having both PvP and PvE in a game. It gives you more to do, and when you are tired of one, you can do the other.
I know when people first log on, they want to immediately jump into PvP, and levels or skills are an impediment to this.
However, if you equalize everyone it makes the community less important, and in the long run takes away something from teh PvP, IMO.
Although I complained at the time about DAoC RvR design, and how it sucked that you had to level up before you could RvR, I now think they go it right.
That's because after playing WAR I see how shallow the game becomes if you take out the leveling before you get to the PvP. Leveling builds community, and then you are more invested in the game and the battles when you finally get to them.
I go in the frontier to get XP as a mid level character, and then some high levels come along and gank me. I call on high levels from my faction to take them out. Then, later I am the high level that will do the same. You take this out, and you shrink the community feel of the game for a quick fix.
I like PvE and PvP too I didn't mean to give the impression that I wanted to remove PvE.
But I have never known leveling to build community actually, just the opposite, it usually splits people up, and makes the lower level players usless to the high levels, so they do not waste their time trying to help the low levels. Levels work ok for PvE though, because Mobs will not go out of their way to repeatedly kill people.
Actually I would think more equality in PvP would make the community more important, since people can't terrorize others because of what level they are, so it makes groups more important and reduces ganking. Low levels could also contribute too, meaning more battles more often, of course low levels would have the disadvantage of not having as many abilities as the higher levels but at least they could join in and experience all the game features without automatically losing because of something out of their control.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
I can see how you might come to that conclusion, but I think the opposite actually happens.
I wrote a really long post on why you are wrong but then mispressed some fucking button.
anyhow in writing it I realised the OP doesn't even make sense. its all irrelevant statements which don't back up claims.
My blog:
What would I need to back up? I said I don't need to shoot more than 64 players at a time, and I can't shoot 3 to 5 thousand players at a time.
Do you think I need more people to shoot at, or to shoot at me?
Of course it's possible to improve on FPS combat by adding more players, and a persistent world.
If you think of the entire game from top to bottom as one giant FPS, with no heirarchial organization, or complexity above the immediate tactical squad/player level, then it doesn't work.
If you add layers like multi-squad organization, multi-"class" combined arms, logistics, resource control, territorial holdings, government, on top of the basic "I kill you" level, you give your FPS combat meaning and depth, and the ability to really change the world. That's something you lack in a standard FPS.
And you also can't ignore the reverse benefit: FPS combat would improve on archaic MMO gameplay concepts like "targetting" and dice-roll combat.
FPS is not better than dice roll combat, or vice a versa. They are different. It's like saying green is better than blue, or Real Time Strategy games are better than Roleplaying Games, or Chess is better than Poker.
You might like one better than the other, and that's fine, but neither is inherently superior to the other.
As for the rest, I get your point. You want armies, and of course you want to be the General.
I can see how you might find that fun, but for me, FPS is FPS. I'ts shoot or be shot till my fingers hurt, then time to log off.
I like RPGs for a different reason.
I'll give you that game genres are not superior to other game genres. FPS games are not superior to RTS games, or vice versa, or whatever.
What I meant was real time combat is a superior mechanic to "abstracted" combat, in most types of games. The "dice roll" mechanic works in non-real time games, like any turn based game, Japanese or storybook style RPGs, etc.
In more active games, the dice-roll originiated as a compromise; hardware wasn't capable of simulating combat realistically in real time. I suppose it still remains a problem today. A dice-roll mechanic works the more abstract setting of an RTS, but Supreme Commander upped the bar with fully modeled shots. And it required a quad-core to really run well. Sadly, true realistic real time mechanics are still a problem in the large scale (RTS, MMO) today.
Fortunately, Supcom showed us the concept is possible in an RTS, and a handful of upcoming MMOs (Darkfall, Mortal, Earthrise, Fallen Earth, others) are trying to make it happen as well.
False; I'm not sure if that was meant to be an appeal to motive, but I'll let it slide.
Anyways, hells no. Being a general is far too much work. I'm perfectly fine with being a killy grunt (at most, LT); I just want my killy to have a little more context and meaning and depth. Oh noes, the T's planted the bomb. Yay, I disarmed it. Here we go again! Oh noes, the Russians are advancing on the village. Yay, airstrike! Here we go again!
Sure, I like FPS's too. And RPGs, and RTS. But I'd also like to play an FPS with persistence, and a bigger picture behind the killy-shooty. And I want to play a persistant world with real time, non-abstracted combat.
I think the problem is we all think MMOs can only be MMORPGs, with a very narrow definition of "RPG", on top of that.
My favorite PvP systems that I have played were....
L2 normal servers
and
EQ1 team servers (good, neut, evil)
I thought L2 was the most innovative and sorta realistic.
Grymm
MMO addict in recovery!
EQ,SWG preCU,L2,EQ2,GW,CoH/CoV,V:SOH,
Aion,AoC,TR,WAR,EVE,BP,RIFT,WoW and others... no more!
MMO has become synonymous with RPG. But that can be changed if games are advertised as "MMOFPS" or "MMORTS". The problem is every MMO is lumped into the RPG category by default. This in turn causes the RPG genre to become some strange conglomerate that appeals to nobody.
If people want a MMOFPS that resembles a never ending Unreal Tournament death match that's great. But it shouldn't labeled a RPG because they threw in an auction house and the ability to create clans.
PvP works great in a lot of MMORPG's, my favorite being Lineage 2. As long as PvP is planned as part of the game and not bolted on in an expansion to attract the FPS crowd.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
What PvP in MMOs can do it to give meaning to the world the MMO takes place in and it can give meaning to the player vs. player combat so it means more than just the fight itself.
Most MMOs are actually pointless. You progress for the sake of progressing. When you think about it, its actually stupid what you are doing because everything you do has no purpose apart from just doing it. PvP can give it purpose. You progress to give you an edge in your fight against other players.
The other way around, placing players vs. other players within the context of a living gameworld that contains more than just the PvP fight itself can give meaning to the PvP. If the PvP is well made then you begin to fight the other player for a reason. You might fight for the town or tower your fellows/family/friends have worked so hard to create. You might fight for the revenge of earlier wrongs done against you and so on.
What worries me is that lately you see a trend in the games where the developers have been thinking "whats cool" instead of "whats the purpose of it all". WaR is a very good example of that. It creates games that initially has a lot of "whoa!" effects and instant fun but they quickly become stale and boring because they lack the underlying sense of meaning behind it all.
"You are the hero our legends have foretold will save our tribe, therefore please go kill 10 pigs."
PvP in an MMO shouldn't be limited to specific zones or in specific instances (duels). PvP should be potentially everywhere, but have a certain degree of subtelty to it in order to make it interesting and tactically meaningful (ie, no indescriminate FFA ganking).
To me, PvP in an MMO is best done when it is a game of 'cat and mouse,' or 'cloak and dagger.' You should have operatives on two or more sides, representing two or more factions, who have an incentive to pursue faction business, and prevent the other factions from accomplishing their business. The rewards could be ranks or missions.
NPCs and MOBs should be potential allies and potential enemies, as well as players who are part of factions. You would be 'undercover' most times and able to carry out your daily routine, but you'd be limited in what you could do in public that would blow your cover (ie, shooting MOBs or players of the opposing factions).
You should also have the opportunity to take a more visible role in the faction by donning a uniform, or something of that nature. There would be reasons you'd want to do this (like providing security, or going on parades), but also reasons that you'd want to avoid doing this, because you'd be a target. However, it should be the only way you could do the 'serious stuff,' like major offesives.
I had this type of system once in a game, and I think it worked beautifully for all parties: PvPer and carebear alike.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE