Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
MMORPG.COM News: Outside the Box: Open PvP
Dana
Member Posts: 2,415
It's Monday. That means a new column from Nathan Knaack. In this week's "Outside the Box", Nathan looks at the concept of open player vs. player combat in MMORPGs.
| From Chutes and Ladders to the latest MMORPGs, games are based on rules, quite often strict guidelines of behavior what qualify participation as acceptable or not. Abstract games tend to have rules just as off-the-wall, but any game that at least attempts a vague mimicry of real life usually includes rules to that end. Aside from a few notable exceptions (like Puzzle Pirates or There), most MMORPGs try to incorporate real world physics and social interactions whenever possible; some have even tried to get as close to real life as possible, like in World War II Online, where 99% of all shots are one-hit kills. Most modern MMORPGs fall somewhere in between though, with a mix a bit more weighted towards real life. You fall when you step off a cliff, just as shopkeepers wont trade with you while youre attacking them. While these basic rules make for an interesting environment, they cannot hope to accommodate (perhaps baby-sit would be a more accurate term) every possible player or playing style. For every honest role-player out to enjoy the game, there are two or three sleazy power-grinders out to exploit bugs for any advantage they can get. |
You can read Nathan's latest here.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Comments
The only thing I could think of is... Well there's 2 things I thought of... Because games are trying to simulate the freedom of reality, I don't see how they can go too far from that...
1) PERMA-DEATH... didn't some games have like life coins... Maybe you only have a few life coins like 7 and you gain +1 coin once per week... Each character creation costs a coin, and when u die, your character dies permanently ( either after all coins are used up, or u just die and have to make a new character... )... So the whole idea behind this is assuming the majority is "righteous" ( punishers/avengers/etc.) and karma will take care of gankers/killers... And time is the punishment, because players lose coins when they die or want to make a new character...
2) Perma-Death, Religious system type... You all know about hell and heaven... Using a weird combination of Buddhist reincarnation and that catholic/christian/whatever about heaven and hell... Maybe victims are able to reincarnate or become a ghost or beable to return or simply just able to communicate to a friend before they're gone forever... When gankers die they would immediately vanish... Yes, this is perma-death also... And this system would require probably 1 server and a tracking system that keeps tally on gankers...
What I wonder is... if there's any other way besides the use of Perma-Death or downtime as a form of punishment... ( And I'm strongly against a system that would require admins to watch/enforce manually... except for those like harrassment and stuff that's already out there... )
The EVE Online PvP system seems to work well for the most part. You can attack anyone anywhere, but not always without consquences.
I think alot can be learned from Eve. I played the game very little, but there's certain characteristics to it that make it stand out from all other MMORPG's.
First, there are no levels. The Time-based skills seems more of a means to pace one's progress than a means of actual game advancement. This solves some of the ganking problems. Though if the same rules were applied to games like WoW, you end up with equipment being the deciding factor (which is noticeable at lvl 60 in WoW and other games). This opens up a whole new problem where players can pimp their characters by buying with real money or farming, regardless of whether they're supposed to or not.
Second, there's only one server. It is pretty obvious in any game with multiple servers (realms, etc) that different conditions occur on different servers, even outside of ones specified as RP or PvP. By dividing the problems among many servers you end up different mixes of gankers and abusive players that may be entirely ignored by other players and the game producers. Or better yet, isolate those problems to a certain server so those that are most preturbed don't even see it happen. I like to think of it in terms of certain countries where crime and deviate behavior isn't check like it is in others, such as Afghanistan compared to the US or UK. When everyone shares one server, that small population of deviants becomes everyone's problem, not that of a single server.
Third, your reputation is affect by your behavior. This I know least about in Eve, and also seems to be the solution this article suggests.
My solution: politics. I think the end-all solution to most PvP and other abusive problems is allowing the players to police themselves and in many respects create their own rules. Again, you'll see this in Eve, as well as other games like A Tale in the Desert. The tricky part for the game producer is to create a system that allows for players to take on the responisibilites of mediating certain complaints and being able to take certain actions if the complaints are valid, as well as making sure this person uses these powers fairly and without abuse.
A small example: Currently I'm playing WoW. In my guild we have a significant number of lvl 60 players who have several alts, sometimes as many as 3 or 4. It is nearly impossible to keep track of 20 different players with that many alts each (100 different characters). The solution, mark each player's alt with their main in the player note, and list each alternate character in the main's player note. Sounds simple, but to do this the authority to change player notes must be given to any player of a certain rank within the guild, and for those players to change the notes to anything they want, appropriate or not. How to fix this? simple, if you abuse your power that power will be taken from you (can't change player notes).
Back to my original concept, how do you decide who gets the power and how do you check this power? Off the top of my head, why not a democratic system. Lets say any player of a certain lvl (or registered to vote or something, with one vote per player) can literally vote for a representative to fulfill this role. Lets not even give this representative the power to make rules, just enforce them. So, if a player is ganking people in a town that person would have the authority to kick them out of town. That person could be checked my several means, a petition to a GM against being kicked out or a system of impeachment where the players again can vote to remove the person. I'm big on a more republican aproach, where the player-elected representatives would vote for a head-representative who can aleviate these complaints.
In the end you have a basic political system, similar to many guilds, that creates and/or enforces the rules set forth. This system only gets better the more control you give to players. What if players can create cities, then even the gankers can have their own town. But that creates problems with the territory between towns. What if players can control territory (guilds rather), then you have factions similar to what most games implement in storyline (alliance v horde, hibs v mids v albs). Then if you don't like the rules, you can move. Having one server for all players just makes this more appealling to me. Certain amounts of anarchy are innevitable since power isn't concrete and players come and go. The cool thing is the game will reflect real life in more ways than any other.
I'm also a big supporter of a real economy in mmorpgs. I think you should be able to buy and sell in game items with US dollars. EQ2 did this only in part. ...Think about it, you spend a year playing the game, decide to move on to another game, sell your character, and make back all of your monthly bills to some sucka with too much cash and not enough time. A free system can be a very good thing.
Once again, deeper research will yield a few good examples for you. In the dawn of MMOs MERIDIAN 59 addressed this issue square on. There was a permissible lvl differential of PvP between players. If a player attacked and killed someone outside that range (killing player had to attack first!), then the game generated a Vengeful Spirit of the deceased player. That spirit would follow the offending player throught the game haunting and attacking them (spirit was like a banshee, quite powerful) until either the player or the spirit were destroyed. Logging off did not help or running inside a building, the banshee was waiting for them when they reappeared or logged back in. This was a very innovative way to tackle this age old problem.
As to your question about a system to nurture and cherish noobies, it is a shame you have apparently not spent any time in A TALE IN THE DESERT created by Andrew Tepper and personally run by him. This award winning, totally innovative MMO has zero combat but is a creative dynamo. One of the main areas what a player can strive for attainment is Politcal. The lowest level task for that area is taking noobies under your wing and assisting them to learn the ropes of the game and achieve Citizen status. It takes about 3-5 hours for each new player to earn Citizenship under a Mentor. The Mentor gains 1 point for each person that he aids. It takes 10 completed mentorships (as I recall) to gain the older player his Political point. What has this insightful gamesmanship done? It has quareented a steady flow of VERY personal guides to new players from the instant they are born into the world of Ancient Eqypt. No other system I have ever seen can match that claim.
"Consequences" That i believe is the answer and the only way any pvp will ever work as is said.
The way you implement it is whatever works and they have to be scaled so that for every action there is a equal reaction. it work in real live and it wil work in the game world if people are just willing to say "no" to those that don't want it.
I believe that that is going to be the one big weakness of the mmorpg scene as it is now and i believe it will be the biggest problem for WOW in the future.
There total lack of consequences.
I kill a npc, no biggy he or she is back in under 2 minutes.
I kill a pc, no biggy all he or she has to do is walk to the corps as a ghost.
I conquer a battleground and win a great victory for my side, no biggy in 10 sec the enemy can try again.
See no real consequences
"Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense"
- The Buddha, from Dhammapada
I always seem to be starting my posts these days with the words "In my project..." and usually I'm being vey coy about precise details. However, in this case, this is what I've done:
- Levelled the playing field. Okay there's a slight camber in favour of the veterans but only the most dedicated players will have characters that they are sure can take on a newbie and win 95% of the time. I'm also thinking of implementing the Chinese Rules towards XP.
- Permadeath and death's threshold. Defeat does not automatically mean death, however death when it does happen is permanent (but not the end). In PvE only the boss mobs are liable to finish off downed player characters. I'm yet to decide if I'm going to give the power of Coup de Grace to the players in PvP. There is one way to cheat death which requires an epic quest that needs both the living and the dead to co-operate, however...
- Player Killing has concequences. Lets be honest the biggest problem with PvP isn't the fighting its the defeat. Kill somone in a fight you started and you'll be Marked; there's less of a chance that someone will come along and perform first aid on you if you're ever defeated and eventually the authorities are going to catch up with you and put you away for a long stretch. Imprisioned characters cannot be deleted from an account until their sentence is over and all charaters on the same account share the same Karma meaning they get simular assistance problems as their marked alts (ain't reincarnation a bitch?). ...That one way to cheat death will not function for Marked charcters.
- "Strike me down with all your anger..." Those who initiate PvP outside of an arena or tournament will put themselves at an automatic disadvantage while their target gets the initiative. The precise details are my little secret.
- "...and I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." Okay I'm mixing my SW quotes but the implication is the same. Remember I said that death was not the end? Kill someone in cold blood and you may well have literally just made yourself a powerful enemy
Finally, while combat is an element of the gameplay we're looking into alternatives to challange and entertain. Perhaps you can tackle that in your next column Nathan."Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
-- The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost
I have played EVE for a good long time now. PvP in EVE is FAR from an excellent Open PvP system to be truthful, although it is far better than a lot. Empire space is NOT open PvP in the slightest, as explained in the next paragraph, but 0.0 space does have some good open pvp qualities if not ultimately restricted by inherent game mechanics.
The vast majority of people who play EVE live in secure empire space > 0.4, and it is considered an exploit by CCP if you manage to kill someone there i.e. they can just petition and get their ship and gear back. This is in essence a moot point anyway, since the CONCORD troops defending high sec space will destroy even the toughest faction equipped battleship in seconds, meaning in reality 99% of high sec kills are suicide ganks with disposable frigates against haulers. Empire wars can be fun....but targets usually stay docked (safe zone) unless they have a strong advantage.
In low sec empire space, there are sentry guns at every gate and station, meaning you have to tank their damage if you engage in combat within their long 150km range. This is not feasible in anything other than a well tanked heavy assault cruiser or most commonly a tanked battleship. You can snipe from outside sentry range too if you like. PvP in these areas usually involves waiting a long period of time at a gate to get a series of cheap ganks or catching noobs or miners in the asteroid belts.
In lawless 0.0 space, the world is your oyster. No sentry guns to kill you at gates and in some situations you can now use warp disruption bubbles to catch the abundance of shuttles, alts in noobships, warp core stabiliser equipped disposable frigates, haulers and occasionally a decent target without instajumps.
As briefly mentioned above, instajumps are a method by which a player can traverse across the EVE galaxy and save themselves a lot of time by negating the 15km travel distance between when your ship leaves warp and when you can jump into the next system. They are however a curse and a blessing since this 15km distance is also where most PvP actually takes place, so most players in a potentially hostile situation just zip right on past and safely jump through unless they have every advantage. If they have any sense, and check scan for warp disruptor bubbles, it is common to see people warp to a safe spot and logoff. Warp core stabilisers also allow a player to avoid combat and are understandably used by defenceless haulers, however they are also widely employed by "PvP'ers" who prefer to run than fight unless they have a strong advantage.
Combining warp core stabs, gate & aligned station instajumps, plus the factor that CCP put NPC Stations (safe zones) in the majority of habitated 0.0 space heavily tilts the odds towards a target escaping in many situations unless a.) they are not paying attention or b.) they get ganked by vastly superior force.
I have had a lot of good times in EVE. I am part of one of the most successful merc corps in EVE and have regularly experienced many facets of PvP ranging from fantastic 100+ vs 100+ fleet battles to small gang pirate squads. There are a great many postive aspects to the game that keep me playing, however it does not quench my bloodthirst for OPEN COMBAT PvP in any shape or form. What this all boils down to, is that EVE has a very weak OPEN PvP system or a very good consensual PvP system which ever way you want to perceive it.
I long for a PvP based game that relies far more on real player skill to overcome unfavourable situations rather than devs putting in these "invisible walls" that the OP talks about. There is nothing wrong with players who do not want to PvP, but watering down an entire combat system is certainly not a valid compromise. A persistent OPEN PvP world with no babysitting or safe zones, where players with different playstyles coexist is obviously a extremely hard thing to make work in comparison to balancing NPC's and character classes. In many games, I am sure this is the reason why PvP is so restricted and often tacked on as an afterthought. Hopefully with games like Darkfall and maybe WAR in the works we may see the legacy of Shadowbane and old school Ultima Online open combat PvP taken to the next level.
Apologies the post wasn't more succinct...Sometimes my brain just overflows.
I like realism in my games. I don't like artificial seeming restrictions. But I also have seen how players will abuse systems if they can.
For PvP, I'm in favor of a more realistic approach. Allow anything, but also include justice that works. Not only in a realistic feeling way for game play, but also in a game system way to vastly reduce the likelyhood of players from thinking "crime pays".
Rampant PKing will occure unless there's some way to restrict it. That's bad for a game. It can be restricted by unrealistic, artificial "switches" or zones. Or it can be restricted by a justice system that mimics RL, which, of course, feels more realistic and cohesive in a game world like an MMORPG.
Once upon a time....
A major issue in the unfair playing field in an open pvp setting is the differences in level, and the character's power it translates to. Why do we have leveling? It seems like a carry over from the MMO's ancient ancestor, the tabletop game. It's like a creature that never lost its tail down the evolutionary ladder, and for some reason retains it's useless appendage as a reminder of a time when it had purpose.
Think of leveling this way: In the classic Mario Brother's game (Original NES), Mario did not go up in level as he progressed. Instead, the places he went to got more challenging. In more modern games that include leveling, no matter how much you level up, you move on to areas where the challenge equals your character's ability. So despite how much you level, the grind remains the same.
Now throw PvP in the mix. If Mario Bros were a MMO, and had an open PvP policy, everyone would be on an equal playing field as far as character power, from newbs to vets. But with a level grind system, there is a variance in power that leaves a new player more vulnerable to the gank (and mere inexperience is vulnerability enough.) In the fictional Mario MMO, there remains a game of increasing challenge and development, just as in the leveling based MMO. Leveling is simply not necessary as a means to represent character development.
Take a real world example from the article: Eve Online. There are skill progressions, but no level grinding. Progressing in one skill area means that you neglect other areas of skill. A newby who focuses on one area of skill might overcome a long time player who has been sloppy in skill choice. A newby can gank a vet if set up smartly. A newby can be an effective and useful member of a team made up of vets.
This is why you have the variation between Ultima attitudes and Eve attitudes mentioned in the article: One of these games has removed the concept of level grinding, and has as a result, leveled the playing field a little better.
http://erickveil.com/
Very true. But players still want to have advancement, generally speaking. But you can have advancement without making gods out of characters like most of the MMOs do.
Tie a more level playing field in with a punishment for murder (as opposed to wars, etc.) along with a punishment system that actually hurts the murderer character, something like heavy skill loss (or even perma-death) or long jail times, and a system can work to do several things.
1) Makes the game feel more realistic
2) Allows PvP to be conducted realistically, in places you'd expect it, not just in predetermined zones.
3) Allows for territorial games, between guilds and player built cities, etc.
4) Allows for the rare criminal activity, ultimately at a cost to the player doing so. Usually a roleplayer here?
Once upon a time....
Once again Nathan seems to be rather clueless about a simple fact of PvP...
**There are people that simply do not enjoy doing it**
It isn't because of gankers, griefing, or anything like that. There are some people that the PvE aspect of the game is what they enjoy and want to do. Would not matter to these people what kind of pvp system you put in place, they would not partake of it.
There are some people that have played Unreal, Quake, etc but never in multiplayer. The single player game is what they liked and enjoyed to do.
**Ganking is probably a good reason they don't pvp**
Penalties wouldn't matter at all to some people. Those that gank enjoy ganking for the sole reason that they are causing someone else grief. Even in WoW where killing civilian npc's gives you a "dishonorable kill" and a pvp rank penalty there are those that still do NOT care and continue to do what they want. Simple fact is that there are some people that get a perverse enjoyment from causing misery, no amount of pvp penalities will deter those kinds of people.
**Statistical evidence also doesn't show that majority of mmog gamers want pvp**
When EverQuest started pvp servers, they had 3 at peak times. The first servers to be consolidated from declining subscribers? The pvp servers.
Despite the fact that Dark Age of Camelot is very pvp oriented (RvR as they call it), there were still some that wanted a full all out pvp server. So, Mythic made two pvp servers, but only one is left now and that one left is usually the LOWEST populated.
Despite the fact that there are many pvp servers in WoW, battlegrounds were added with a restricted level range on all servers. If everyone wanted pvp, why aren't all of the five million plus subscribers only playing on blizzards pvp servers? Why isn't everyone playing in the battlegrounds daily if they wanted pvp so badly?
**No system will satisfy everyone**
Most companies realize that the majority of subscribers are the casual players with school, jobs etc. These people will pvp occasionally but do not wan to do it all the time at the exclusion of all else. They do not want to have weeks of work be blown in 2mins because of some griefer coming along and splattering them all over the virutal landscape. These "pvp lite" crowd are the majority so that is what companies should worry about keeping happy.
The non-pvp players usually won't mind a pvp system that they can ignore. World of Warcraft does not require you pvp to advance, so these "carebears" (as the hardcore pvp players call em) would still play.
The hard pvp players want the free for all, pk anywhere, permadeath pvp. Since this type of system pretty much excludes the "pvp lite" and "carebears", those types of people would not play. This is why games that have a more hardcore pvp system have much smaller subscriber bases, but those same subscribers are very loyal and passionate about their game.
Nathan needs to realize making some idealistic Perfect PvP System will not make people suddenly enjoy pvping, they either do or they don't.
Would you agree that there's a whole spectrum here, ranging between all out open PvP to absolutely none, and all shades of variations in between?
I think it's true that no game will be for everyone, but surely there's a middle ground that most players would accept, one that would allow other apsects in the game so that people aren't so bored?
Once upon a time....
hard to reply to some of these threads, because they wandered all over the place. Just stick to the subject matter, open pvp or restricted pvp. Open pvp needs:
Veteran gamers - pvp is, by definition, nonconsensual combat by one party. You are consciously limiting your player population to peeps who can tolerate stepping outside their activity for nonconsensual combat. And I'm going to guess that only 1/7th of players are PvPers, just a guess.
Dispersed resouces - Open PvP is not full on, you need time to level/gather resources, time to fight. You need a BIG world. DAOC imho was too small, you had certain paths and trails you had to go on for quests, for example. You can make the world "bigger" than it seems by hard restrictions, by level (meridian, full disclosure didn't play) by area (WoW). But these shackles are just means to expand the world. AC1 was a well proportioned world.
Asymetrical skills - or PvP becomes simply a ranking of characters & levels. Skills can be differentied by speed/roots, DOT or DD, etc....
Limited Damage. I can envision a permadeath world, just maybe, the other poster who thought of a karma system for continuity was on to it. But you have to limit the damage, and my off-the-cuff limit is 2 hours of playing time per death. Don't want to go down the "realism" argument, that bs, its a game, its got to be fun for the loser as well as the winner.
You're on to the right idsea, but bounties that pay like that are always abused by players. Who's to stop a friend of this ganker from joining the faction that he ganked, and then collect the money?
No, there has to be a direct penalty to the ganker, something that's severe enough to cause players to not want to do it in the first place, except for the few who want the challenge of trying to avoid the penalties. There's only 2 other alternatives. Either not allowing ganking at all, or watching players find loopholes and abuse them.
My stance is that I want some extra thrill to the game I play, but I don't want to have to experiance ganking all the time. I want it to be there as a threat, but not usually practiced. That adds a touch of excitement, and feels more realistic to me.
Once upon a time....
Actions have to have consequences and there should be a "real life" feel. Such will make character based PvP better.
* The main difference in new and veteran characters should be in skills (character and player), not items and hp. Such items should not impart "god-like" abilities - should a "new" sword be that much inferior to a "veteran" sword? Should a 100th "level" character have massive health? No, no "dueling of calculators" that The Chronicle is against. This seems to be a vital feature in Eve Online - a good thing.
* No one-hit kills and an unconscious system - it will take time to impair and kill a character. Enough time for town NPC guards to attack a character breaking the peace. Possibly enough time to flee the encounter.
* Guard patrols outside of towns and multiple entrances/exits would minimize any "gate ganking." Enter/leave the town when the guards shift position or patrols enter/leave town.
* Bounty hunter system - something ToA is working on.
* Jail system - true risk to reward. Prevent the player from logging in that character.
* Item tracking - where mules are "tainted" by accepting illicit ("hot") items, which marks them as accomplices. NPC merchants would respond in kind (well the "good" ones anyway).
* Permanent death - at some point a character's life will end. Become too hunted and life could pass by rather quickly. Features of TC and ToA.
Give character based PvP a meaning, a purpose - territorial control and a broad spectrum of actions. Certainly more than Shadowbane's "whack and loot." That is the key.
Still, though, need a reporting system for those players whose only purpose is to find exploits for their toons.
I wish there was a way to report that one annoying moron or that AFK person in a doorway. Anyway,if there is a way to make open PvP with no flaws then I would love to see it.
"The one who begins with nothing, gains everything slowly."
If you are interested in some really good ideas on most of the topics that have come up here, everyone should take a look at http://mu.ranter.net/theory/. It's quite long, but after reading the sections you're interested in, I would not be surprised if you decided to read the rest (I did, and in fact printed the whole thing). It is pretty oriented towards a medieval game, but the concepts all work across the board to some extent, and the PVP and perma death stuff is truly universal.
why people SHOULD enjoy PvP
MMORP perspective: It does not make sense for a person to play an MMORPG if they do not enjoy playing with others. Playing with others is at the very core of almost every online game.
the Game perspective: It is highly unusual, and highly desired by players, to compete against an opponent that provides a dynamic and competitive game. If a player knows exactly what the other will do almost every time, and the player rarely loses (as in when i play backgamon on my phone, or in just about every video game that involves a computer player), then the player is likely to lose interest.
The idea is that games are a social thing, and a fun game should reflect or be a game involving 2+ human opponents.
For this reason, it is understandable to expect most players to enjoy mmorpgs, and specifically PvP play. The problem is that i layed out 2 aspects for good gameplay: socialism, and competition. Each player is likely to enjoy differing levels of each, and differing levels at different times.
A game like WW2OL reflects this nature in some respects in that it allows people to work together to complete a goal, but mostly because you compete against a human opponent (IPO, why most people enjoy any FPS). It also has many of the aspects that i had pointed at in my first post here (player driven political-system) in that players choose where to attack, and thus what missions are available.
Tale in the Desert shares many of the social aspects of my point. Since there is no fighting in this game, for the most part, players must be driven to play the game for other reasons. I could spend a long time agruing why, but basically people play this MMOG for the social aspects of it.
Thus, if you would like to understand WHY PvP is so important to Online Gaming and would like 2 MMORPGs to exemplify this, WW2OL and Tales in the Desert are some of the best examples.
If you would like a more solid example, how about the Xbox360. Almost every aspect of this system is driven to provide for social gameplay, and every game that allows online play is driven by some type of PvP game.
With that out of the way, how does one make this work better in and mmorpg. That is the question. For those who play MMOs and solo, honestly, you're in the wrong place.
I think people look at the pvp situation and MMorpg's in weird ways.
The MMORPG of today is totally based on progression , attributes, and gameplay.
becuase of this, people play it like any other conventional game. There is content to beat, and people will be confortable soloing, and grouping the same, people will tradeskill to make the best items, people will play to aquire the best items, and get the highest lvl, pvp, or gain reputation and renown within the communities that they play. Todays MMORPG is not played for the roleplaying, it's played for the content. That is a general statement but I guarantee that applies to at least 80% of the people who play MMORPG's today.
There are other alternatives. What if... you played the MMORPG to experience the world, and not just build up attributes, what if ALL of the fun of the game was acually being a part of the world. This may sound kind of weird, but what if getting killed in a MMORPG was acually a fun experience yet somehow terrifying and exhilirating at the same time. TO acually get a thrill out of being ganked, becuase it's a part of the world that you're experiencing.
Modern MMORPG's aren't set up this way, they're designed to keep you playing becuase you want to advance in a set system that's game made, or you want to kill. Not acually live or experience the game itself. I think open pvp in a game environment like what I described would just be natural.
I honestly can't see a game like this coming out for a long while, due to technology restraints.
Roleplaying is about becomeing a person you are not, a personality, and playing the roll of someone you are not in reality. In another MMORPG.com article, a really recent featured article about Twitch based play. They were complaining that twitch based play was taking the RPG out of MMORPG's and that they'd like to see more lvling and attribute building added in. Is that what most players think RPG's are all about? Building attributes, numbers and lvling? Is that really what you want to do?
Or do you want to acually live as someone else? play that role? get away from your life and become someone/something else.
heh, when I first heard of the concept of a mmorpg back when the ruins of kunark/ ultima online renneisance first came out, the first thing I though of was something more like morrowind I suppose. I say there daydreaming abotu what it'd be like. I told my brother, "In that game I'm going to kill my father and mother and run into the woods and be an outcast. " That's really all I wanted, I was 13 at the time and pretty immature, but that was exactly what I wanted, a universe where consequences existed but they weren't built in an intrusive way.
When I first dreamed of my first mmorpg, I was going to buy a playstation and play Final fantasy 7. the night before I had a dream of what it'd be like. I saw myself on a guys porch with a band of people, it was all lifelike, and we were in the middle of nowhere , ina house at a dusty 3 way stop, we were all traveling somewhere and we were just stopping there becuse our journey was hard. We would talk, and itneract like real people. I was so excited, When I acually experienced the game, the mechanical nature of the gameplay sort of turned me off and dissapointed me in a way, even though it is one of my favorite games in existance.
This is getting a little longwinded, and definitely isn't polished, but I think i'll end with my argument.
"Ganking in todays MMORPG isn't fun for anyone, being killed my other players is always a dissapointment, there's no real fun in it. And so people just don't want to be killed. One of the reasons perma death or pvp scare people in MMORPG's is becuase nobody wants to die or lose what they worked or grinded so hard for. Take the grind and advancement out of an MMORPG and you'll have a game where open pvp works.
I think a MMORPG that instead of set number systems, "twitch skills" or just smarts in general shoudl be rewarded.
THe Matrix really has influenced a lot of my thouhts on games like this now. It is my favorite movie.
The first time I saw it, and realized that the whole thing was a "Game" I was in awe, It was the perfect MMORPG, they thought it was real life. What would you give to experience say... the Mad Max world as yourself, in rags, seeing out of the eyes and manipulating the hands of someone living ni that universe. What woudl you give for something like that?
Does anyone Remember that game called .. Dawn? Where you all started at the beginning of civilization and you all had nothing but sticks off of trees at first, and the playerbase would have to build of civilization using what they knew from sticks, to lumber, to stone work, to metal working, in a totally free world. Kill your fellow neighbor, take what they own, but they may have freinds who will take vengeance.
Yes, I'd love to get away from the level progression grind. I'd much rather have a world to play in, where exploration can be rewarded with discovery, and the world changes due to what player communities do, what NPCs do, and even natural changes like disasters.
I'd like a world where everyone isn't winning big things all the time, where the little victories mean something, where things are challenging every day, and success isn't guaranteed.
Once upon a time....
For a moment I though you were going to say just what I had in mind 3 days ago. But you went more specifically on roleplay.
Well, I agree about that : death could made bee fun and a part of the game. That's why people who don't like pvp don't like it : because when their character dies, there are several disadvantages, like the loss of experience and the loss of time needed to get back to your body, etc.
So, how could those disadvantage could be suppressed ? I though of something. What about a world where life and death were two parallel universes, two level of existence ? Life would be just like we're used to. In death, you could interract in a very, very limited way with livings and there would be spirits to fight, here and there. In this state, your feelings would be very different, the world would have another shape, you would have no map no north and south compass, you'd just know in what direction is your body and maybe some other things, like your murderer, or some deads speaker.
The more time you pass in death, the more powerfull your soul gets. It would be like having two characters in one.
Better, and for this Open PVP topic : what about curses. When someone or something kills you, your soul build up anger against him or it. With anger and soul power, you're able to put curses on your assassins. Thus, killing someone could have some direct counter effect. You could see gosths of your victims follow and haunt you, decreasing your abilities until their anger have vanish.
Well, a whole gameplay could be built upon death and its interractions with livings. That could certainly make pvp and open-pvp acceptable, and even enjoyable, by people who don't like it at the moment