Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Let's Talk: THEMEPARK PvP- what are the "Most Interesting" and "Least Interesting" forms of THEMEPAR
MMOExposed
Member RarePosts: 7,400
Let's Talk: THEMEPARK PvP- what are the "Most Interesting" and "Least Interesting" forms of THEMEPARK PvP?
Lets discuss both extremes. The best and worst forms of THEMEPARK MMO PvP.
Remember let's stick to the subject of THEMEPARK MMOs,
( and for this thread, THEMEPARK MMO is however YOU define it in your head. So if you classify the MMO game as THEMEPARK and not SANDBOX, then feel free to discuss that game's PvP here)
and let's stick to the subject of PvP as well plz.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Comments
There is no "themepark PVP" nor "sandbox PVP", nonsense terms.
I'm going to second the above comment. PvP modes are their own creature. There is no "themepark PvP" or "sandbox PvP" - only a PvP mode integrated into a larger game.
Now, I'm going to have to seperate Arena PvP from Open PvP and Realm vs. Realm. All of these can be interesting and all of these have more interesting and less interesting forms.
Arena PvP
Because Arena PvP is more structured and occurs on a smaller scale, it is more balanced and more "legitimate." At the same time, however, it lacks much of the dynamism of open PvP and RvR, and I think that's where a lot of the FFA PvP supremacy opinions come from.
In order to make up for its shortcomings, Arena PvP has to be DEEP to really shine. This is a vague concept, but it certainly applies itself to a certain hierarchy in practice - and it even does so across genres.
The lowest tier of Arena PvP - the "least interesting" form - is, of course, the team deathmatch. It lacks the complexity to stand as an esport, and its application on a small scale makes it a rather underwhelming form.
While control point modes are a popular form of "deeper" PvP, I would actually place them low in the hierarchy. Control point modes very rarely have the depth or popularity of more complex forms in the same game, and they rarely shine brightly enough to hold up a game by themselves. We see this readily in MOBA games, where control point maps are almost always treated as a side-venture and tend to draw a much smaller, less dedicated crowd. I also think this is the primary reason why Guild Wars 2 arena PvP doesn't work well - control point simply isn't compelling unless done REALLY well. I do mean that last part, however, as it can be done really well. Something like Star Wars: Battlefronts stands as an exception to the rule.
Capture the Flag would actually be higher up on the scale. Why? Because it's a team objective that demands multiple, varied roles. The flag runner, the chaser(s), the defender(s) being the most vague of these.
Modified Capture the Flag is a rare concept that really shines when it is brought to the fray. By modified CTF, I am referring to CTF with side-objectives (usually point control or base/lord destruction). The Tribes series would be a prime example of this.
Let's just skip to the end. I consider base destruction / lord destruction to be the best Arena PvP mode out there. It's deep. It's exciting. A well designed base-destruction map with alternate objectives creates an unprecedented variety of team roles. We see this in MOBAs, Guild Wars 1's GvG, and in other similar forms.
Realm vs. Realm
Realm vs. Realm carries certain expectations. I've only really seen it carried out in base destruction or capture and in relic/flag capture formats. Both are compelling and both can work on a relatively equivalent level. Ideally, you want both.
So for RvR, I'm not going to discuss what MODES are compelling, but rather what aspects can make RvR truly shine.
For RvR to work, you need to incorporate a large enough pool of split objectives that simultaneously demand player attention. Fail to do so (either through too few objectives or too little importance in certain objectives) and you get zerg-dominated play. Smaller strike teams need to be encouraged - not penalized.
Story has never really been a present concept in the RvR scene - and that's unfortunate, because there is a lot of potential for it. NPC commanders (with their own objectives), integrated dialogue (not through cutscenes), and NPC political and social relations would be fascinating to see in this format.
Speaking of politics - politics are an important aspect of any good RvR form. Evolving alliances can really add the feeling of a living world to RvR.
FFA PvP
I'll just say it right now. I'm not a fan of FFA PvP. I don't consider it to be a legitimate competitive experience and I don't advocate it as a universal game mechanic. It belongs in games that are explicitly designed for it - and nowhere else.
Now, what defines an "interesting" FFA PvP form. In my opinion, the defining quality of a good form is variety. FFA PvP is characterized by its high potential for dynamism and it benefits from having as many social layers as possible. Let's compare two games. Both have FFA PvP. Game 1 only allows for traditional open world ganking. Game 2 layers onto this by adding in the potential for spying, assassination, bounty hunting, supply caravans, guarding, and player politics. The second game clearly has more complexity in its FFA PvP form, and is thus the game with the higher potential for dynamism and variety.
What makes interesting pvp for me? Here are the features I like.
Environment: I like collision detection, choke points, walls, and pillars. I like capture points objectives as well as simply kill the enemy team off.
Character: I like collision detection, blocking, reflects, and lock out abilities.
Size: I prefer an Alterac Valley sized map. This is my playstyle preference.
Style: I hate zergs. Defenders need to have a chance to actually hold something. This is, IMO, the biggest issue holding back pvp today. Finding ways to correct this, without making the minority a god is a tough thing to do.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
^This...and as usual MMOExposed is on par with the most irrelevant threads...
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
RvR and Arena are the best. Straight battle grounds are the worst.
edit- to add worst.
Whatever the terms you used ...
RF Online : 3 Race FFA.
It was set to have the control over the core mine and take profit from some ressource. It was kinda simple, each race had a "mechanism" to defend. And any other race that destroyed any mechanism of other race had the control of the mine.
Guild Wars 1 : GvG & HoH.
Guild Wars is simply the best arena type pvp i have played. Simply loved it.
The Secret World : El Dorado
I know, we must not be much to like the pvp in this game or even the game itself ... but the pvp is actually good and fun, it's a capture and hold relic type Pvp. There are other type of pvp mode in TSW which i don't like as much as ED.
Well.. we could argue that Arena or Battleground PvP is Themepark pvp in opposition to RvR(although there are more themeparkish variations, like GW2 in comparsion to DAoC) and Open World PvP and withit political territorial control pvp.
Now to get that out first. Themepark PvP or Battleground PvP just sucks in MMORPGs. Basicly only GW1 stands out there, and GW1 is not really a MMORPG to begin with. With other words this kind of PvP is a lot better done in MOBAs or games like GW1.
And well.. just to say it once.. all that is my opinion as a long time pvp player through more or less all MMORPGs(starting with UO, through DAoC, Shadowbane and so on).
Open World PvP without anything else, just the pvp flag and to be able to kil others is for most parts not really worth mentioning. PvEers get pissed and for PvPers is also not a lot to do. However in games like UO with full loot, with economical aspects, with roleplaying(which is nowadays dead anyway, and it was never really strong in MMORPGs, and in my mind because of the higher population, it worked a lot better in MUDs or some freeshards(mostly UO) with a lot smaller communities) it was fun on its own.. however with additional aspects, political and economy deepness the pvp gets better and better, but then it becomes what i will call territoral control pvp, which is the purest and if well implemented the best form of pvp in a persistent world.. however all implementations as of now are nowhere near perfect. But if you talk about PvP in MMOs those will always named first, with games like Shadowbane, EvE Online, and Darkfall to name the 3 most important in that category. All of them are more or less FFA with maybe some limitations or regulations, and all of them have some kind of player loot, which is because of the economical implications important for that kind of pvp.
I guess a lot of pvper could discuss and argue days how such a system should look like, what features it should have, how you implement economy and politics, which are all tied together with pvp. But that would be a thread on their own.
And finally we do have Faction PvP. That comes in a lot of flavours, be it Guild vs Guild PvP, be it RvR(like GW2, DAoC and ESO), be it Faction PvP of some kind(like UO Chaos vs Order and other variations), it can be in the open world, it can be in seperated territories or whatever. This is a very good compromise between the very heavy territorial control with heavy political and economical influence and the very light battleground/arena or just open world slaughtering. You can have very interesting open world tactics and combat, you can have some meaning(although never that deep as in a territorial game), and you can separate pvp from pve to some degree.
With other words.. if you think about a themepark game, and if you think about pvp, and not only a small afterthough, you will most likely implement some kind of Faction PvP. And now a few tiny lessons we learned from the past to make it better
- more factions is usually better than less. 3 Factions are popular, but i would argue that 5 factions could be as much interesting, maybe even more.. however with to many factions you have the risk of higher fragmentation of your playerbase. Therefore the 3 faction variant is a good pick.
- Give those factions, give those pvp meaning. Just to flip some castles or a leaderboard is just not good enough. Darkness Falls from DAoC was actually one of the better solutions. Other advantages for owning and holding land or keeps in such a game would be preferable.
- Try to keep your pve requirements out of pvp. To level up to max level may be ok, if there is a hard levell cap, and that level cap is not that far away. But it is a very bad idea to have gear grind or other means of pve advancement which will be a prerequest for pvp. Mostly pvp players do just pvp and only at spare time some pve for distraction. Again, DAoC(with Shrouded Island before ToA) was most probably the best equilibrium.
Another up to now untried way would be to separate pvp and pve advancement completely. However.. then it would be basicly two games in one.. and i have to think, if it would not be better to develop two games on their own instead... like Camelot Unchained for pvp or any other game for pve.
- Class Balance, Faction balance is key. This may be a problem for pve, but it absolutely neccessary for pvp. It was a day for day battle in DAoC, and the battle was never won. However in a lot of other games it was even worst.
- Give your factions some differences. (This may collide with Class/FAction balance, however it is worth it) Different classes, different races(with actually different pros and cons) and/or other differences makes it long term interesting. Makes it interesting to test out another faction(on another server), and gives identity to every faction.
That just as a small summary.
Themepark or sandbox PvP?
My favourite PvP was playing Team DeathMatch 4v4 games in a Quake 2 league. Loved that type of PvP.
I wouldn't worry about fragmentation too much with a 5 faction system. I played Aika online (before its first game-ruining expansion), which used a five faction cross-server Capture-the-Flag (relic) PvP system, and the community divide - even with the game's fairly average or below average community size - was entirely reasonable. Five factions makes for a very dynamic RvR scene and the addition of a (2-faction) alliance system and a ruling guild system to this creates interesting, ever-changing political scenarios.
Actually, I approve very much of the way Aika did its PvP. It had complex guild battles (break the walls, and capture and hold the center) to overthrow the ruling guild, even if I would argue that this mode favored the defenders far too much. It gave players the ability to freely swap between PvE and PvP servers for their nation - the difference being that PvP servers gave better mob rewards but also allowed players from other nations/servers to come in and gank you. And it's RvR capture the relic system, which took place on the PvP servers with a single point in the center of the map that allowed you to cross over to an enemy/ally server, was among the most compelling PvP modes I've played. It's just a shame that the game's business model and PvE grind requirements (with a really lackluster PvE experience) were just terrible.
interesting is subjective.
"most interesting" .. to me - instanced pvp with different game modes (like capture the flag, siege, .....)
"least interesting" .. to me - any open world pvp (more so if forced)
Chip war was a blast, wether on offence or defense. And man could those midget's get pissed if your faction ninja'd the win. I was rather sad when the NA server's went down.
GW1 I just did the random arena's, but was still alot of fun.
From wow I really like the battleground system and wintergrasp was alot of fun also.
Lotro had a good idea with their player vs monster player, but imo failed to make it meaningful, feel's more like an afterthought of development.
For me the pvp has to be fun, that is my only criteria.
Yep, would agree with that. As to "whatever themepark means to you", it means nothing to me. If it means anything, it's a badly chosen word.
Personally:
- structured PvP is strangely more interesting than RvR.
RvR is basically 'he who has the most players will win' (and/or who exploits X the most). I'd love this to be untrue, but in every game that I've played RvR the outcome is 'winner=most players'. RvR also tends to have insane amounts of "sitting on your ass watching the clouds go by" [or not, cheap skyboxes
].
- open PvP = ganking.
It's nice to imagine some 'pistols at dawn' dueling, but in reality a character will cloak, wait for someone to engage in PvE, then stab them in the back. There's a reason "open pvp" servers are filled with certain types of players.
- arena (aka team-deathmatch) PvP is great fun, that completely screws the game up.
Team-deathmatch, in a game with classes? On one hand - it's fun. On the other hand - it absolutely breaks any attempt at balancing classes within your game. If you need to balance around a 1v1 warrior vs wizard - good luck!
The other problem is that TDM is the easiest to understand (and fastest to play) game-mode. If you implement a range of options, people will pick TDM.
Slightly outside the realm of the topic:
- queues are problematic/flawed.
You end up in a structured PvP match with 5 warriors on your team, against a balanced squad o_O. Or you end up with 5 PuGs against a hardcore PvP guild's team A.
- if you let players choose a map, then be prepared for 20,000 rounds of map A and 5 rounds of map B.
There's a statistical reason, but it makes more sense to let players vote on the forums that 'map B needs work'.
Personally, I'd say that SWTOR and WAR had structured PvP that was great fun (in the case of swtor "pre-50").