Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Would Non-PvP PvE players enjoy this unique take on PvP? Would PvPers hate it?
LeegOfChldrn
Member Posts: 364
I understand there are many players like me who love both, a lot of players who are hardcore PvP maniacs, and I assume a lot who don't like PvP at all and want a great PvE experience. I actually want to ask the players around here who aren't big fans of PvP, if this system is any different than other games with optional PvP (WoW, SWTOR, Rift, Everquest2). I'd also like to ask the big PvP fans here if this system would turn them off because it isn't full PvP, it isn't DAoC, it isn't Battlegrounds.
The Setting- a heavy PvE game like Everquest, Vanguard, WoW, UO, whatever have you. Whatever type you like; the important part is that it's mainly a PvE game. The dungeons, dangerous zones, etc. are a very big focus of the game.
The PvP- Instead of Battlegrounds, Frontier, FFA, or Flagging PvP....there is no actual Player vs Player combat. Instead, every dungeon, dangerous zone/area, has an option where players can play as the Monsters. Any dungeon in the game, players can spawn as a NPC horde member or NPC hero. Even the bosses are playable.
The Players, PvE, are not forced into this PvP. The players actually choose to go into a PvE dungeon or a PvP version. If the game is instanced, then there would be two instances for every dungeon- a PvE version and a PvP version. If the game is seamless, then some dungeons are PvP and some aren't.
Whatever the option, the system takes a heavy portion from LOTRO's Monster Play, but with a heavy mini-game with collectible monsters, monster points, equipable upgrades, and even Boss Tokens to play as epic dragons, etc.
The Restrictions-- Depending on the dungeon, the Monster Players may have restrictions. This can be anywhere from movement, population limitation (no more than 5 Monster Players in one area, or NPC's are "possessed" so if there are none available then you cant play). If the player idles, the NPC automatically takes an action to prevent idling for easy kills, or perhaps instead Monster Players are in additon to NPC's and killing them doesnt provide bonuses (so no exploitation) just increased difficulty for the dungeon adventurers (and with PvP option enabled, better rewards or PvP specific rewards).
Monster Heroes suffer permadeath and are collectibles, upgradable, equipable, etc. You collect them like Pokemon and they come and go very often. They are purchased with Monster Points, upgraded with these points, etc. During normal PvE, in addition to treasure, players may be rewarded with Monster Hero collectibles or Boss Tokens. This is to encourage PvE players to try out PvP without any real loss (as they probably wouldnt care if they lost their Monster Heroes if they had 10 from adventuring and rarely did PvP.
This feature would be expanded upon to not only include player dungeons (where players make their own dungeons and collect monsters and treasure to fill the dungeon), player collectibles and monster points, dungeons, and free-roam monster zones, but the ability for players to participate in Monster Invasions of towns. A GM event or NPC event occurs where monsters invade a city, and players can pick either Monster or Player side (and they are locked out of the other side for the rest of the battle or for time restriction).
What do you PvPers think?
What do you PvErs think?
What do you PvE PvP players think?
Player acknowledge what type of player you are primarily (Mostly PvP, Mostly PvE, or a good amount of both)
Comments
It's an interesting idea, thanks for writing it up.
Would I play such a game? Yes, I would give it a try if if I liked the game otherwise.
Would I ever play as mob? No. It's a very "gamey" mechanic, one that doesn't gel with a living, breathing virtual world and that's what I expect from the MMORPGs I play. I suspect that's also the reason why (at least on the server I was on) monsterplay in LotRO never really took off. Just doesn't sound right to me - you flip a switch and now you're the mob that you killed 5 minutes ago.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
Hm, i would say, im a PvP-PvE-fan as you.
I guess, i would like such a feature as a little feature in a game, but i would hate to play always as a monster, if i want to make pvp. I have my own character with my own skills and want to test it against other players.
So: I would like such a feature in a "normal" game, but wouldnt like it, if it would be the only way of "pvp".
Greets Niffi
Not sure you could just tack it on... the two main problems I see for this system tacked on to a typical MMO (WoW, Lotro, EQ2, etc.) are:
1. Your average mob is a lot weaker than your average player, so who is going to want to play as a mob when they are basically guaranteed to lose?
2. You couldn't have the trinity system (which I think should be ditched anyway, but that's another topic). I mean take WoW for example, anyone that's not a tank vs. elite mobs (and especially bosses) is going to get 1-2 shotted and tanks aren't going to last much longer without a healer... what stops mob players ignoring the tank?
Even assuming all issues (and exploits) can be resolved I don't really see it working, like Larsa said, it's very "gamey", it doesn't really fit into the world... and that's my main problem with most PVP, since vanilla WoW at least, it's separated out into it's own 'thing', with it's own progression, and in some cases even it's own skill trees, etc. PvP really needs to be part of the world, like it was in the early days of WoW... unfortunately those days are gone, as player attitudes have changed / been changed by the reward mechanics in 'modern' MMOs (i.e. if I don't get a fancy hat it's not worth playing). GW2 WvW is pretty much my main hope for any sort of enjoyable PvP in an MMO, as while it is still separated from the PvE game, it's at least big enough on it's own to be a world in and of itself.
I'm mostly a PvE player btw, but don't mind a bit of PvP as long as it's for fun; i.e. I don't PvP for fancy hats.
Interesting idea, although I think it's primary function would be to troll other players, by seeing how miserable you could make their dungeon experience before they finally killed you
Shout? What shout? Zerg the healer!
And you really couldn't make it worth anything special, because there's an obvious avenue for exploit when humans are controlling both sides of the conflict. Neat idea, nonetheless.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs:
That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
EQ1 actually did this in certain zones for a certain period of time. not sure if it ever made it off the test server or not. never experienced it, but i can foresee all kinds of problems, without programming alot of extra systems to ameliorate those problems.
i don't like to write off any idea as unworkable, but they usually require alot of extra supporting features to be workable.
one quick example..... a bunch of people take over all, or many of the mobs in a dungeon, especially the bosses (since you thought even that would work)....
so as soon as a player enters the dungeon, there's a whole party of bosses, plus other of the hardest mobs, right there on the welcome mat of the dungeon, pouncing you as soon (or before) as you finish loading the dungeon.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
Or the opposite:
Half a guild logs in and takes over all the mobs in a raid, gather into a nice, tight AoEable bunch and do nothing.
The other half then comes along and nukes them into the floor, essentially un-opposed.
Easy xp and loot.
As a PvP player, I cannot stand any instanced or designated area for pvp.
EverQuest II did a great job. It's a PvE game, yet their PvP server was worldly. I could attack the opposing faction anywhere - even in their main city (if I was able to sneak past the Epic Guards), which was extremely hard to do.
The game felt real. I had that epic feeling of infiltration. I had that epic feeling of having to take the outside paths to avoid being killed. I had to play smart to survive. Everything was unpredictable. I don't experience any of this via instanced pvp etc.
In all honestly, instanced pvp fans are mostly (not all) poor players in general.
It could be interesting, but the game would really have to be designed around it. If you try to take WoW as it is and then apply this, it completely fails for a lot of reasons. A lot of the reasons are fixable, but you'd have to ignore some common MMORPG conventions.
You'd definitely have to borrow the pulling system that Uncharted Waters Online has: as soon as you pull one mob in a dungeon, everything on the entire floor comes and attacks you all at once. For that, of course, you have many small floors in a dungeon, not the long, sprawling caverns of most games. Just don't borrow anything else from UWO's land combat or else the game will be terrible.
Actually, I have been thinking is somewhat similar terms to that myself.
My idea was that each guild also own a dungeon where people besides their regular hero chars also have monsters (not to mention traps), That dungeon could be on another server or the same....
And the guild locks up stuff for their regular guildhouse and adventurers in the monster play and stuff for the dungeon (monsters, traps andsimilar things) in the regular guild. if another guild or herogroup plunders the dungeon the guild loses some money an status.
And of course soloplayers could play either monster or hero....
The idea that LOTRO have of monster play is not bad, but I think you could make it more fun. The idea is interesting OP and I think with a little polish it could work.
I don't just dislike PvP, I detest it with every bone in my body. I refuse to play PvP at all, ever. However, with some modifications, this might be an interesting idea, although it has a lot of potential problems. I'd much rather make the mobs anonymous, there would be absolutely no way of knowing if the mob was AI or player. At the very least, it would stop all of the mobs from acting exactly the same and throw an element of surprise into the battle. I do agree with others that it poses a ton of problems if you allow a number of player-run mobs in the same area, they can go after the healers, etc.
At the very least, it has some potential for fun.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Can we get a bit more creative with our gaming experience then it be all about fighting?
Why can't PvP be about something other than combat? If it was then PvP is good as its part of the game, but when its defined as fighting/taking out the other person's game and what they've been building for the last month, then not so fun. What a waster of time?
I guess I like games that actually help develop my thinking, planning, creative skills a bit? Which is why simulations are great. Why not create a game that combines a simulation with adventure and strategy?
Are there some good games that do that?
Sounds like a more in depth version of LOtros Monster play which was only good because it was essentially RVR. Which is the only pvp i like.
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships
Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
A Tale in the Desert demonstrates that crafting can be hardcore PVP. Because your free for all full loot combat PVP is carebear by comparison, as it doesn't get anyone permabanned.
Uncharted Waters Online isn't primarily about combat. I wouldn't really consider the non-combat stuff to be PVP, though.
A lot of these "problems" aren't real problems for any real game designer. Without going further into the 'problems' I'll just address the "bigger problem" with what IMO is an obvious solution, showing that most of the "problems" stated in this thread aren't real problems at all.
For example, players possessing a large amount of monsters (larger than the party, or the entire dungeon) and all of them running to the front to roflstomp the players the moment they load in. This is the silliest problem, as the solution is simple: Don't let them do that. I honestly don't understand why so many people create problems with an idea and 'warn' designers but dont go and think abou the extremely simple solutions (such as "Just dont let them do that.")
It can be as simple as movement restrictions or the players can only possess monsters within a radius of the players,spawn monsters at certain checkpoints, or as simple as making a timer for spawning.
This idea gets a lot of originality from the innovative design of Left 4 Dead's VS mode. To me, saying there are these "problems" and stating it would be like telling the Left 4 Dead developers that VS mode is a problem because players will possess the strongest zombies or horde and focus-fire the best players first, kill the players the moment they leave the building, etc. Silly stuff for me to hear.
As in Left4Dead, the monsters are SUPPOSE to be significantly weaker than the players. The point is that they do damage over time, widdling down the player to prevent them from completing their objective. This eventually ends in a huge boss fight (the Tank) followed by a last desperate attempt to stop them.
Once again, this game mechanic might have problems but none of what was spoken here is a problem that can't easily by handled. Another simple fix to the majority of "problems" stated here would be to make the game VERY similar to Left4Dead, where a full group of players VS a full group of Monster Players, and they go through the dungeon.
Finally, I'd like to say that in MY system, besides some of the above simple solutions, there are other things I'd like to address. People would say the Monsters would just focus fire the Healer. Well...that is just a part of PvP... you can do whatever you want. That's kindof the point, and exactly what happened in DAoC. However, in MY games, I don't believe in healing.
My RPG designs tend to be far more lethal, with support characters providing alternatives to healing, healing spells being rare and extremely powerful (not often used), and player's wounds suffered in a dungeon would put them at a disadvantage, to the point that they might have their objective change from capturing treasure or completing a quest-- to escaping with their lives. Other alternatives of mine for healing would be tiers of health in which a healer cannot exceed once damaged past said tier. So a healer may heal 1000 HP out of 4000 HP, up until the player reaches 3000 HP and their health drops a tier, and so they no longer can be healed above 3000HP due to suffering a severe wound.
Such a system (limited healing) is perfect for Monster Play in Dungeons. The Monster's goal is to make the players either run away or to kill them, by slowly widdling them down until they unleash a devastating monster, sub boss, boss, or trap. To deny their dungeon experience, with a bonus for killing any hero before they escape. Each dungeon would have its own objective of course, making it clear to both PvP sides what needs to be accomplished for victory/defeat. This could become very interesting if the Monster's goals suddenly changed from killing the player to participating in the same dungeon against NPC monsters to reach teh same goal. A player band sets out in a dungeon of giant spiders to capture a powerful artifact. At the same time, a band of Orcs have entered at another entrance to get the same artifact.
PvP (as opposed to MvP) could be introduced as well, or even PvPvM, such as multiple player groups go into a dungeon to achieve an artifact, with the Monsters being played by players as well.
Whether or not ALL monsters would be playable, Monster Players would play as Monster Heroes (like in Left4Dead) and use weaker NPC monsters to assist them by patience, or a mix of both, I don't know. It's just an idea with a multitude of paths that one could take, with most of the "problems" being fixed by simply not allowing players to abuse or exploit the system. Small restrictions on movement or special ways of handling monster player spawns or limited population would resolve most of these problems.
As long as they don't design it like in EQ, but even if they don't its highly abusable
in EQ the the reason is that it failed is because pve gameplay relies on Mobs not being intelligent. SOE stupidly turned this feature on for a little bit on the PvP servers in EQ and the pve players began to grief the pve players began to grief the pvp players by playing intelligently as mobs (ie camping respawn areas over and over exp loss) plus the load it put on the server caused massive lag & they eventually got a clue and disabled that feature.
But even if it were specialized areas. You would have players who keep going till they become a hard boss, then lay down and die without fighting back for their opponent to give them faster progression (especially if the players give the persons main character something in return like cash or items)
Thats also not to say it wouldn't work if designed right but if you give the players that are playing the monsters no penalties for dieing when their opponent (the regular player) does have penalties for dieing. Thats just a trainwreck waiting to happen.
once again you post a big wall of (no doubt fail) text.
you presented this as a totally simple-minded feature. you did not flesh it out at all.
ITS YOUR IDEA, its YOUR responsibility to flesh it out.
its YOUR problem of having no imagination from the beginning, and acting like all these things you thought up after the fact were things that you had in mind all along.
numerous people here were open minded enough to say that it could work WITH ENOUGH EXTRA SUPPORTING FEATURES. none of which you actually thought up until it came time be...... yourself.... in the forum in response to other people who put more thought in it than YOU had up to that point.
your reply was total simple minded condescending crap in the first few paragraphs, defending your UNORIGINAL, SIMPLEMINDED UNFLESHED-OUT idea. i've seen enough of your incoherent posts to ignore the rest of it.
you obviously have alot to learn about game design being so hand wavey about the subject. "don't let them do that!". ROFL
i suppose thats a simple matter of:
if (badGameplayIsDesired) { doThat(); }
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
its not unique either. as was mentioned several times, EQ1 did this. somewhere around 2004.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
You'd think that before someone went on this long rant attacking someone personally, making irrational assumptions, and filling their post with loads of needless aggression and insults, they would at least read what they were trying to provide a rebuttal for.
It's very strange when people both admit that they didn't read what you had to say, while also making rash assumptions that would typically (if rational in thought) require reading the person's post in full.
For example, I read your entire post, despite how it was needlessly aggressive and irrational in thought. For whatever reason you are angry towards me as a person, I am sorry. You might be better off toning down your assumptions, as I think you may have assumed I am attempting to hurt your feelings or attack your ego (ex. being condescending) but that was never my intent.
If anything, at least do everyone a favor and tone down the insults, if not the needless aggression. Do yourself a favor and read in full what you are replying to. It will not only make you seem far more credible, but it will show others that you are intelligent, because it's quite silly to provide an incredibly aggressive insulting wall of text without even having read what you are supposedly yelling at.
I can't speak for everyone, of course, but the reason I prefer PvE over PvP has nothing to do with the way PvP is currently done. It's because I dont typically feel the need to compete with other people.
I will PvP on occasion, just for a change of pace, but I'm not even super competitive when I PvP. I see it as more of a friendly competition rather than a "I HAVE to win and the other team can rot in hell and anyone on my team who doesnt do everything with robotic accuracy can rot in hell too" sort of thing. The people who PvP with this mindset, really, are another reason I largely avoid PvP. I just find it less fun when people are so focused on winning that it drives them to rage when the tiniest thing doesn't go their way.
I'm a hardcore pvper....i'd have to see it. Here's my thing, I'm a sandbox hardcore pvper. I want the ability to do whatever I want, so when i'm restricted...it takes that away. I guess I like to play games, "sim". For me, it's something I'd considor...but in the end, I'd still want to kill other people near me if I wanted to.
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
Not sure what you did to set him off, but on topic:
I PvP a lot in DAoC, the feeling of being able to change my gameplay on the fly while roaming is a big for me. I do think it would be a very cool idea implemented into a game as well, maybe make a few faction realms, and have the imposing forces in those dungeons the basic mobs of that enemy faction, with a couple elite bosses in the back? One that comes to mind is WAR, having orcs in an elf area would be pretty cool IMO. And as far as what other people have said regarding insta killing at the entrance of the zone/dungeon, i agree with what you said, don't let them do it, simple. Make them tethered to a certain room in the dungeon, or put an invisible wall out of reach of the entrance, it isn't hard to do, atleast i don't think it would. Could do something like WARs war camps, where you have the elite of the elite gaurds watching the entrance, so anything that comes close gets insta killed.
It would be a great addition to a game if implemented properly, but i wouldn't play the game if that's the only form of PvP. I love open world feel to PvP, not instanced. It is nice from tiem to time, but nothing like not knowing what is around that next bend, is it a small man of 3-4? or a zerg of 150+?
Also i think if it were instanced, it should be easy to control population. Say you have a small man of 5 people trying to do the dungeon, allow only so many mobs that the opposing force has at their dissposal, or even go a step further, and let those 5 people attacking the dungeon, pick the difficulty, Hard mode means opposing force gets new abilities, more health, less of a tether? Many things that can be used to control/balance it out, it's a good idea. Just because a game company tried it back in 04 doesnt make it an old idea, obviously they didn't implement it well enough for it to work, so while it isn't a new idea, it is fresh, and would be a pretty cool addition to MMOs if done properly.
The "Youtube Pro": Someone who watches video's on said subject, and obviously has a full understanding of what is being said about such subject.
the reason i'm talking directly to LeegOfChldrn still is because in a previous thread he got angry at me and said he put me on ignore,
so i'm pretty sure this is the same deal. he obviously didn't ignore me the first time, and probably still isn't.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
As a traditional mmorpg where you control one character, I don't see the concept of possesing a monster making much sense. The obvious problem is that a monster is designed to be defeated, and therefore it has little attraction to play one, except maybe for griefers. Also there is the problem of switching "personality" is a bit strange in a rpg, but maybe with a different approach to "possesing" that would make sense as a character.. like a lord defending a castle who can give orders on how to defend a dungeon.
If you look at it like a traditional game master role, where players design adventure for other players and beeing able to control these adventures (in this case dungeons) in real time as monsters or other control features; then it makes a bit more sense but I am sure that was not your idea.
For another type of game such as a rts with rpg elements (like warcraft3 as an example), your idea would make more sense to me.
It is good to see ideas for different kind of pvp, because as a pve player I hate how pvp affects the entire game when it comes to standard mmorpg games. Pvp in a mmorpg has so far always made pve worse (some games suffered more than others), so any improvement on that is welcome.
In mmorpg games I generally dont like to pvp, except wow battlegrounds where I found some degree of fun for awhile. Other types of games such as rts, fps or simpler board style games, I like pvp much more... Everyone is different, these are just my prefs.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
i agree it COULD be cool if done properly. but everything needs to be weighted against everything else. some cool concepts you could spend years on trying to make work, before deciding that it would be too much more ADDITIONAL work to be worth it. if you read game dev postmortems they are all the time mentioning ideas that had to be scrapped after much time and effort was put into them. sure, maybe eventually almost every cool concept COULD be workable.....
but if the cost FAR outweighs the benefit..................
and its REALLY not that simple. even the simplest games can be incredibly complex behind the scenes. you'd have to have a few years experience trying to make your own games to have any perspective on it. nevermind *MMO* games.
his after-the-fact "solutions" (and yours) just restrict things to the point where nobody would want to play the part of a monster. they'd try it a few times just cuz it was something different, and then it'd be virtually unused. the whole point is making a feature that a significant slice of your players would find fun. not just a rare handful of people. and not just to have a different feature.
i personally feel it could be done well, and i may be one of the people to do it (eventually). cuz its something i thought of in 1999 when playing my first MMO, and being disappointed in how it didn't utilize its multiplayer aspect very well. it was just massively singleplayer/co-op, and player to player interactions are much more interesting to me.
but these things take alot of actual research, actual real source code, lots and lots of playtesting, many iterations and much revision. not some simplistic handwavey "here's a cool concept" by people who are probably not actually working on anything and likely never will.
MMOs were fundamentally designed and tuned for monsters to be stupid. like several had mentioned, much of the existing tactics (like hate list management, etc.) would be mostly invalidated by real people playing monsters. this is not a feature that can be tacked onto existing MMOs. its something that needs to be designed from the inception of a game. it needs to be considered at the foundational level.
i'm sure TONS of people have thought of this idea (on the simplistic level that it was presented in this thread) over the years.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------