Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The (hopefully) last word on PvP
Jimmy_Scythe
Member CommonPosts: 3,586
All right kids, I seem to be getting into the same damn arguement over and over again on these boards. It seems that there's this small minority of "hardcore" MMORPG players that think EVERY game should be FFA with full loot and permadeath. My stance is and will always be that the game design itself has to be built around this in order for it work. These things should actually flow from the game design, not just be laid on top of it. To make my point, I'll be comparing everybody's two favorite PvP MMORPGs: Eve and pre-Trammel UO.
When Eve Online was unveiled at E3 the developers stated that the goal of the game was for the player to make as much money as they could and become the richest person in the game. My first cynical reaction was that they were placing too much of their RL goals into the game they were making. With this context in mind however, they managed to produce a concept that actually worked for an open PvP game. With gameplay revolving around gathering resources, transporting, and trading goods, the stage was perfectly set for open PvP. This whole concept was far more suited to the deep space sci-fi setting than either a land bound sci-fi or medival fantasy setting. Designing the game around trying to make money as quickly as possible while trying to get a leg up on other players, by whatever means, is probably the best example of a game designed around PvP.
In contrast, the original UO was a mess. This was due to many more factors than just griefers. The biggest reason was due to player expectation. Typically, you walk into an RPG expecting to kill monsters and crawl dungeons. With UO, you walked in and had to make skull caps in order to purchase training in more combative skills and equipment so that you could go out and kill monsters and crawl dungeons. The people expected a cross between Diablo and Ultima 7. I think everyone on this board knows what they got. There were some serious attempts at balancing, and they all worked for the most part. That's not to say that there weren't some seriously broken items or skills. But the broken pieces were fixed rather quickly and rarely interfered with day to day gameplay. The designers wanted to give people a sandbox to play in and the people really wanted mission based dungeon hacking. Clear goals with clear rewards that they could jump right into. UO made you grind up to the level where you could even go on a quest. When EQ came around and ditched the whole sandbox idea, people migrated to it in droves.
So what does this tell us about PvP? I think it tells us to design from the ground up and meet or exceed player expectations. UO didn't meet player expectations even though it did quite a number of impressive things. Eve was totally original so could shape players expectations to the exact design of the game they had in mind. Eve was planned from the beginning to revolve around PvP. UO was planned to be a sandbox without pupose where the designers would just mix in everything theycould think of and hope that a playable game popped out. If you're thinking about starting a project for a deep space MMORPG, keep eve in mind. If you're thinking about starting a game in the same vien as EQ or AO, you're going to have to make the PvP very specific. Think medival Counter-Strike on a massive scale. Players will have to know who they're fighting, how they're supposed to be fighting them, and what they're fighting for. You can't just build a sandbox and wait for factions to rise and wars to break out. especially when death is made so meaningless by game mechanics.
Comments
It tells us that you omitted consideration of successful PvP design, aka Dark Ages of Camelot's Realm-vs-Realm design.
I think PvP needs to be a natural outgrowth of the environment of a gameworld, not something slapped on because the designer thinks it'll bring in more subscribers (aka the original "let's encourage the worst types of crude behavior" implementation in WoW). In a nod to reality, I think it also needs to be a toggle you choose when you create your character -- either "killable" or "off". What shouldn't change between the two is the overall game design -- the world should be the world. The only thing that should change is that, with the PvP toggle chosen as "on" or "killable", your behavior should affect a reputation rating that can range from "Honored" (based on actual, honorable behavior) to "notorious" (based on for instance wanton looting, killing without cause, etc.) and the reactions of things like city guards should be based on that reputation. Having things like a gladatorial-style Arena is simple and should be automatic "PvP-on" areas, regardless of toggle at creation.
The key is, the WORLD should be immersive and designed, as in the very quick-defined example above, to support both. I'm trying to craft a way of expressing "game design shouldn't be PvP or PvE; rather, it should design the world to be as immersive as possible, and include the ability at character creation to activate certain mechanisms in the game that 'support' PvP-type actions".
While I did playe DAoC, I only played through the 14 day trail and didn't get to see any of the RvR aspects of the game. By that same token, While I played Eve I encountered graphical glitches that kept me from being able to read certain things in the tutorial so I just had learn it on my own. Communication was also a problem because of those glitches.
I gladly would have included DAoC had I done any of the PvP stuff in it. As it was, the game simply played like another EQ clone.
The rest of your post is pretty much agreeing with me. The environment is the game and it needs to be designed for both styles of play. PvP being the PvE endgame activity. That still takes alot of forethought during the planning phase.
Interesting topic, although I fear the point will elude many of the non PVP oriented.
Eve I agree with you 100%, while it is not my style of game it was built around pvp and it shows.
UO I slightly disagree with you, but only slightly. Sometimes the sandbox feel is what made UO so great, for those that did not want a linear progression it was great for that. For the rest not so much. I really do not consider UO a grind, as outside a few skills it takes only a matter of Days to cap a character out. And outside a little stat building which I happen to consider reasonable, an intelligent player could defeat monsters/players with far higher skills if they were patient about it. But I do feel that in order to progress you are going to have to have differing tier's of monster's. Was UO perfect? no as a matter of fact you pointed out quite accuratly some of its biggest flaw's.
I do however agree that the average player wants to see tangible progress in the rewards of their avatar. EQ and games like it have proved it over and over, this is beyond argument at this point. However on the same token, as you stated they have also proven that unless the game is specifically built around PVP, it is a simple waste of time.
IR to the second post, I disagree with choosing to participate or not participate in PVP in that manner for a simple reason. If a choice is given that mean's the game simply was not designed around it. The game is either designed around PVP or its not, it really is that simple. I am all for games where PVP is not present or a side amusement like in WoW. I just simply hope that a Developer at some point makes at least one good niche game where we can get PVP that takes all the good things out of UO, eliminates all the crappy things and makes a great PVP game.
There are a couple of games that have promise..Roma victor I am finding in beta has promise, as well as Pirates looks promising as well..Who knows what the future holds at this point.
I had been arguing for hardcore PvP in every MMORPG up to this point but after getting back into WoW I have changed my mind.
I have finally decided that as long as a game is solid, unique, and its PvP is designed and influenced only by Devs from the ground up and not by poll results I will have no problem playing it. I still believe strongly that a game must have some element of PvP to keep my interest for more than a month or 2, but, like Jimmy said above, I realize I have no problem with PvP just being a branch of an MMORPG rather than the whole trunk.
I disagree that UO lacked balance Pre-Trammel however. I think it was perfect for its time, and would be perfect today. Just had to defend the King of all MMORPGs.
My point was that the game shouldn't be designed around either -- which would be a CHANGE in the thinking of all the developers out there. It should, however, by design incorporate BOTH -- and no, that isn't automatically prohibitive of a "good game" for either. The only things limiting a design that succesfully blends both are: the fact that developers are largely locked into the idiotic PvP-versus-PvE (do one well, or the other well) arguments; and that there are idiots (not slamming anyone who has posted here, so don't react as if that's a personal attack) who mindlessly drum the "it's my way or the high-way" attitude. Like all the moronic "hey, score on for PvP, AC2 died!" posts. Changing the philosophy and CREATIVE approach to developing MMORPGs is what's needed -- not mindless repetitive "one or the other" games, we've seen plenty of both of those (and WoW, which does PvP half-assed and without consequence, where it encourages only the worst of all behaviors). They will continue -- because it takes less creativity and involvement to do either than it would to actually break out of the mold and DESIGN a gameworld WITHOUT specific thought about "PvE vs. PvP" that does both and does both intrinsically within the context of the game and the environment.
1. It is true that PvP should be fun, and addicting, but also have a few great features.
2. Really, I don't think that PvP has come to what it can be in any game yet. PvP should be huge landscapes where if you find someone, you just start pwnting them. There should also be a variety of different PvP types. Such as CTF, most kills wins, seige, ect. And they should not consist of teams of 8 v. 8 or even teams of 16 v. 16. It should be 100 v. 100. Can you imagine how crazy that would be?!
3. As of now, EVE does have the best PvP in my mind, followed by guild wars
I predict it won't be the last word on PvP.
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy....
You are the one that seems to have this "my way or the highway" attitude when it comes to mmo games bro. I still don't know why you made a new thread continuing this discussion from the previous post... I guess to get more attention.
In the other thread in which you are attacking the OP for requesting a real quality PvP game, you were out of line imo... and you never answered my question to you there as to why you hate the idea so much of PvP lovers having ONE...just ONE new mmo that is of the quality of of EQ2, WoW, etc that has hardcore mmo features built into it. Mourning and Darkfall that might be released in like late 2007 if we are lucky just don't cut it man for us hardcore mmo/hardcore PvP lovers that loved old mmos like the old UO and the old AC1 on Darktide.
You, however, seem to love all this super overly-simplified, way over stream-lined, made for the masses crap of recent years. You already have like 17 big games like this. The kind of point-and-click games that are targeting everyone from 3 year old girls to 97 year old nursing home men. The kind of games where all you have to do is roll a simple pre-made class that looks "cool" and then follow a "serve you on a plate" type of pyramid skill system. The kind of mmos where there is great graphics, but low risk. The kind of game where if you die, you lose hardly nothing at all... and where the game even gives you a glamorous "golden ray of light" that leads you back to your corpse. (EQ2)
Hardcore mmo gamers and hardcore PvP lovers alike have nothing of recent years that even comes close to what they desire, while you have atleast 17 big, super mass produced games of your liking on store shelves everywhere! So why do you get so aggressive about one person mentioning that he wishes there was ONE, just ONE mmo of high quality and big budget made to "our" liking??
All it takes to see how many uhhhh "puss" mmo gamers exist compared to hardcore gamers is to log into any of the worlds of Ultima Online at anytime the past 5 years. Trammel is jam packed with like billions of people taking no risk against a rare red, even though they could get double spawn or loot on any harvest/mob in Felucia. And Felucia is almost always barren of players. However some of us LOVE the old pre-Trammel UO and hate how Trammel ruined UO. And some of us loved Darktide on AC and we also called every other server in AC a "carebear" world... because it was.
You keep saying a PvP game has to include griefing, 100% loot loss, and uhhh "perma-death". NOT AT ALL. But it should include enough of a death penalty to where it actually "stings" if you die. I mean really, how is all this no risk, super stream-lined crap even any fun without any risk what-so-ever if you die. I'm not in favor of perma-death at all. But I am in favor of considerable loss of loot and a penalty something to the effect where you gain no more experience until you kill some stuff to "work it off".
And again, you keep saying how much you only favor "consensual PvP' and to that I say well fine, make it fair for the poor little mobs you love to camp for hours on end and beat up too. You grief the living hell out of them when it's not fair at all and just for your lame exp and loot. If you want Consensual PvP in your games so much, then to be fair, I think "consensual PvE" should be in place too! The poor mob can refuse to let you fight it, and oh my, I know that you would hate to ever be killed by a higher level mob yourself! (Even if you happen to venture in a Dragons den at lvl 3 like a dope!... Oh no you shouldnt ever die, my my) So you getta tell a mob "No, I dont wish to fight you" if attacked by one and he can't touch you! I know this would be awesome in your 'no risk, all rewards" type of bore-fest mmo you love so much, right?
They can make a good balance of your game and my game. Come on Jimmy, you have to admit however that there are a helluva lot more mmo games of your liking then of true hardcore mmo lovers like myself the past 3 or 4 years. Why can't we have just ONE good one that we like too? ...Sheesh.
- Zaxx
Responding out of turn: actually, I'd argue, for myself, that no game has come out at all that actually realises all the potential out there. I guess I'd combine Asheron's Call's ideas of dynamic combat (like having to move in combat to keep your shield between you and your opponents in order to have it count); Horizon's crafting; DAoC's RvR; EQ1/AC1's vast, open gameworld design, and add more roleplaying structures that support both PvP and PvE in the game environment. Throw in AC1's world-altering "world events" and the quality of their storylines and quests. Introduce said roleplaying structures to support PvP, where actions have consequences and affect your reputation in both good and bad ways. I've always maintained that if you want PvP (and i do, actually), it should be designed (as should any PvE aspects) in support of and within the context of the ROLEPLAYING gameworld environment and have consequences (and I don't mean "ooh, I lost an item", or "ooh, I got hit with a resurrection penalty") that affect your interaction in the world. Don't like idiots who run around like they're in an FPS, mindlessly just annoying people? Wait until murder actually affects their reputation, which in turn makes them less attractive to merchants and city guard and such (and conversely, more attractive to others with similar attitudes and actions). Like looting? Lower reputation if you're caught with city guards, higher with thieves' guilds, etc.
Or, in other words, PvP and PvE should support and exist within the ROLEPLAYING aspects of the world and within the context of the game's environment.
As should go without saying, this is all IMO.
Eve is robust enough to be played many ways. But the main focus of the game is competition. It was designed intelligently enough to allow for several different types of compition.
zaxtor99 wrote:
I still don't know why you made a new thread continuing this discussion from the previous post... I guess to get more attention.
This thread had nothing to do with you. I've had this same arguement again and again and again. It's old and I wanted to present what I felt was the resonable assessment of PvP in MMORPGs. So far, everyone has agreed with it to one extent or another. So tell me, which one of us is looking for attention?
and you never answered my question to you there as to why you hate the idea so much of PvP lovers having ONE...just ONE new mmo that is of the quality of of EQ2, WoW, etc that has hardcore mmo features built into it.
THIS thread was not made to continue the "carebear" thread. This thread was made to look at PvP from a design perspective. No where have I EVER stated that I dislike PvP. I came to PC gaming as a wargamer and flight sim jock. When I'm not playing MMORPGs (or Nethack), I'm playing America's Army or WH40K: Dawn of War. And you already have that PvP game you're talking about. It's called Eve Online and you should go play it rather than begging for attention here.
if you want Consensual PvP in your games so much, then to be fair, I think "consensual PvE" should be in place too! The poor mob can refuse to let you fight it, and oh my, I know that you would hate to ever be killed by a higher level mob yourself! (Even if you happen to venture in a Dragons den at lvl 3 like a dope!... Oh no you shouldnt ever die, my my) So you getta tell a mob "No, I dont wish to fight you" if attacked by one and he can't touch you! I know this would be awesome in your 'no risk, all rewards" type of bore-fest mmo you love so much, right?
But I'm the one with the "my way or the highway" attitude, right? The only thing I truly believe is that games with PvP in them should be designed from the ground up with PvP in mind. PvP should not just be slapped on as an extra feature. I also think that all games should have FFA servers and "hardcore" servers that are FFA, full loot and permadeath. That's keeps everybody happy and seperated. You don't want to be seperated from the "carebears" you hate so much. you want to FORCE others to play just like you. Your words have made that sparkling crystal clear.
Hi, I'm Grevan. Pleasure to meet you all.
I'm a bit new here... and I wanted to jump in on the fun a little bit.
I thought this thread looked ripe and juicy... so it's as good a start as any.
So for example... I'm a new player... on whatever game... you go ahead and name one. I just started out... the bright sun is reflecting off of my shiny new sword or pistol that doesn't have a scratch or a ding in it because I haven't been off of my own front porch yet. I'm not interested in picking a fight with the biggest bruiser on the block just yet... so I stay in the safety of my own yard... killing mobs, raising skills, and minding my own business... Am I a CareBear? Or am I smart PvPer?
Dum Dum Dee Dum... I just got done smashing/shooting a goblin into a bloody oblivion when I hear something behind me. I turn and around and see a very large gentleman with a huge axe/bazooka in his hand. Ah... another player... I kindly say "Hi... how's it goin?" and then all of a sudden... I see blackness with the words "You got pwned n00b" accross my computer screen. Was he a PvPer?
CareBear VS. PvPer... after 2 hours of reading this forum all I see is this arguement...
So... where do CareBears come from? I see these individuals being defined as those people that wish to play a massively multiplayer online game in a fantasy world where they can meet actual people, make friends, socialize and complete tasks either together... or by themselves but not far out of touch with their buddies. They don't want to kill eachother... they don't want to steal eachothers stuff...
Am I right here? I think I am... considering the concensus I've been getting from these posts...
Someone here wrote: "What are the CareBears going to go after next?"
I'll tell you what they're going after... "FUN" ... Just like the PvPers... they have every right to play whatever game they have the money to buy, just like the PvPers... They aren't trying to spoil anyone's fun... but unfortunately... some of the PvPers are.
Oh yes... I said it... there are a particular breed of PvPers called Gankers... and these people just want to have open PvP so that they can go and kill the CareBears mercilessly without remorse or regret... it's like killing a 2 year old... pretty damn easy if you don't have to worry about the consequences.
So... here's my problem...
I also see on this forum... people going on about how "you get what you pay for" when it comes to MassMOGs... well... it just so happens that a lot of the people that pay for these games are indeed CAREBEARS.
If EA were to eliminate the CareBears from all of their games and make it "open PvP" (another phrase I see all the time), then they would have to sit around and wait for the PvPers to populate their servers... and the game would probably tank after a few months due to a few top PvPers with all of the gold, all of the armour, and nobody around to fight but eachother, sitting around waiting for someone else to log on so that they can "pwn" them and take their lunch money...
But... lo and behold... the other side of the fence was born... CareBear land... where lvl 2 CareBears don't have to worry about being ganked by a level (insert rediculously large number here) Necromancer. The CareBears stay in CareBear Land... and the PvPers stay in their endless circle jerk of loot masculinity. This is where the most important part is produced... The Game Company makes MONEY from everyone that's playing.
Sure you can go ahead and say "Well the CareBears get high levels and then come over and fight us, it's not fair."
Well... if you're a PvPer... then why does this matter? If you're a PvPer, you obviously not afraid to take the risk of getting PKed... and the CareBear that came over is taking the same risk of getting killed by you.
Anyway... as to not stray from the point I was trying to make... CareBears and PvPers... both pay the same amount of money to play a game... CareBears outnumber PvPers. Game Company's want the bigger slice of the pie. I'm sorry PvPers... you aren't the big slice. So who are the game company's going to cater to first?
...
The End
I am not going to respond to the rest of the post because I feel I have more then justified my stance at this point. The only thing I am going to insert is the major reason why most people do not enjoy PVP is because of Bad Game Design. If the game design is poor and does not support PVP fully then it is going to be a miserable experience for some. A few good examples are, any level based game where it is a grind to reach the top levels is simply not going to make a good pvp game. Why? Balance..It is impossible to Balance a Level/Class system, there will always be class balance issues, and Level gap will never be overcome. Another problem is games that make you spend rediculous amounts of time to equip your character using excessively rare drops, Obviously you cannot have full loot in this scenario because you chance setting people back months or even years of time. Also Gear Cannot make or Break the balance of a class, then you have the problem of he with the best gear wins. Simply put Level based games are a prime example of game's where PVP was added as a side thought and it shows, sorry but it is flatly undeniable.
From the definition you've stated about being a CareBear... I would have to agree that I am indeed the type of gamer you suggest. I'm not all that interested in PvP unless it's to kill the hell out of a Ganker for doing something incredibly stupid (such as being a Ganker). There are games I can PvP realy well at... and there are games that I would get my arse handed to me like a "newb" LOL
I liked your response... honestly. And I better understand the definition this community has put on "CareBears" because of that response.
But the more I think about it... I've noticed that the ongoing question seems to be more along the lines of "How can we make PvP fully functional"?
Frankly... I"m not sure how to do this... but I'm quite sure as to how "not" to do this. I don't even need to explain... because from the looks of things... I'm not the only expert on that subject here.
I tried to make it clear in my message... but I'm going to say it again... I do not catagorize PvPers and Gankers/Griefers together... I only suggested that Gankers/Griefers are often among PvPers and commonly blend in.
This is the clear example of PVP, it is PVP with utterly no risk whatsoever. Now before anyone jumps on the fanboy bandwagon, This type of pvp is fine, but don't go around acting like your all badass and crap when you have never experienced PVP that requires skill.
The paragraph that this statement came from I particularly like. I liked the whole paragraph... but didnt' see the need to extend the post anymore by pasting the whole thing... So I chose this exsert because it high-lighted the best point.
I too, am a UO player... Often I see a lot of "griefing" going on, and I also see a lot of people passing off certain move combinations and such as "skill"... I personally don't see that as skillful, only clever strategy. But, I guess it is dependant on your own definition of Skill. These people drive me up the wall... for the simple reason that you stated. "This type of PvP is fine, but don't go around acting like you're al badass and crap when you have never experienced PvP that requires skill."
One of the issues that comes to mind is the seperation of Vets and Newbs. At what point do they merge?
Another example... I am a player in a game where New Players are protected from Veteran players... The laws of the game say that I can remain protected until level 6... What happens then? At level 6 I am all of a sudden a naked mole rat in the middle of a pack of Haina's (hope I spelled that right but you get the point). I'm just as Newbified. (Please don't mind the "level" reference... it was just an example)
I'm fond of the idea of Seperate Realms... but it has it's flaws, as we've all surely seen with UO's Trammel VS Felucca.
Anyway... I'm gonna cut this one short... I gotta go for now...
Grevan